Microlighters

At the moment, under CATS-NTCA, a factory built gyro, imported, must comply with BCAR Section T or FAR27. I have no idea who slipped this part into the regs or who sat down with the relevant reg makers and allowed it to happen.
As none of the regulations are cast in stone, and with the idea that we will (hopefully eventually) be able to regulate ourselves through RAASA, it might be the time now to approach the SACAA with an elected committee to see if this regulation cannot be changed to something more suitable without compromising safety.
Here I suggest that importers, gyro builders etc get together and try and negotiate a better settlement with the SACAA.
Section T is pretty stringent and possibly over the top and I think if it is used as a guide for us but "softened" a compromise situation may be arrived at, again safety first.
I do not wish to fight or be drawn into an argument with the SACAA or anyone else about the matter. I simply want to assist in creating a better playing field for all concerned.
PM me if you have any suggestions about the matter, but please guys, let us keep the sentimental arguments out of it.
Eric

Jip BCAR-T is so bietjie "over the top" en amper onmoontlik om te behaal.
As ons onsself will "regulate" sonder om ENIGSINS veiligheid in te boed dink ek moet ons by die austalianers gaan kers opsteek. Hulle het dieselfde sisteem met CAA heel bo as PAPA BEER en dan CASA as MAMA BEER en dan ASRA die gepeupel. Hulle(ASRA) kyk al jare na hulle self en doen dit met groot verantwoordelkheid, gaan kyk maar na al hulle regulasies en documentasies dan besef mens hoe lang pad ons nog moet stap voor ons kan droom om dit self te behartig. Hulle voorsitter is regtig 'n nice ou en het altyd tyd om mens te antwoord of te verwys na 'n kundigge persoon, hulle weet wat binne hulle industrie aangaan.

Die relevante dokumentasie is te groot om aaan te heg maar gaan kyk maar daarna op die net, mens besef gou dat die britte se slegte weer hulle tog op meer as een manier beinvloed .
Verder will ek graag he dat enige persone wat sulke goed interesant find gaan kyk na http://www.asra.org.au.
Laaste will ek voorstel dat ons as gyro industrie dan sal druk op CAA sal uitoefen om ASRA standaarde aanteneem, nie net n paar nie maar as 'n geheel. dit sal die maklikste manier wees wat ons(ekskuus julle) SAGPA as 'n omvangryke beheerligaam vir onsself op 'n veilige verantwoordelike manier inwerking kan bring.
Ek sien al die slagspreuk "SAGPA deur ons, vir ons"

Kou maar so bietjie daaraan, cheers Coen.

Have always wondered what the requirements are for Section T. I often tell people the MT-03 is BCAR Section T approved, without really knowing what this entails or means.

For those interested, here's a link to the British CAA Publication CAP 643 where you can download the requirements for Section T: http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... ail&id=169

Hi Glenn
Spoke to a few of the interested parties today about this section T requirement and they also agree that we should start standing together on the matter, without compromising safety. It appears that the SACAA simply included it as it was one of the standards that they could lay their hands on, and yet when you look at the standard requirements for other types of aircraft, there seems to be very little to no requirements on them. It does therefore appear to be rather one sided, i think.
The industry must therefore dictate what they feel is fair and safe.

I am very disappointed by the CAA/RAASA by blindly applying a certification that would clearly hurt the industry.

What was SAGPA involvement if any in these approvals ??

The certification process are done in the UK and are very expensive.
This will clearly limit us to only Gyro’s that are aimed to the European market and we will lose out on all the other great developments worldwide.
The CAA need to be taken to task about applying unnecessary regulations to the industry that I also think is in breach with the competition commission.

As for the Safety issue
Most of these items have been tested by the manufactures
Rotor blades and rotor heads have been tested by the manufactures. Why test at a UK entity ?? We have the CSIR, Simera Aviation and Wagtail all capable of doing these test.
How many accidents was due to Rotor and Rotor head failure world wide ?

Structural analysis of the airframe can be done locally why the UK ?
How many structural failures of airframes occurred world wide ?

Stability
The ELA, Magni , MT-03 , Sycmore , Xenon are all stable. Why do you need a piece of paper to confirm it ?
If you really want proof contact the Aviation department at one of our university’s and asked them to do the tests.
The Raf is BCAR T certified thus stable.

Engines
If Rotax 914 is certified by BCAR T then all the Gyros with a 914 should be certified.
The Subaru on the RAF is BCAR T

Propellers
Why do you need to load test a Duc or Arplast prop ? There are thousands of them flying around.

As for the placards
This is a cover your ass mentality , typically of the US and UK –“ be careful this gun could kill you” ,” don’t use this firearm while intoxicated “ , “ This coffee could burn you”
Why a placard prohibiting Aerobatic maneuvers ??
The sportcopter in the US can loop and barrel roll. http://sportcopter.com/Photos/tabid/125/Default.aspx
The pilots needs to know what the MAUW for his plane. He needs to know the VNE. This is done by training not by placing stickers on your aircraft.

The bottom line is that Gyro manufactures needs to manage reputational risk. Nobody will buy a Gyro that have structural failure issues ,they spend millions to make sure the product is up to scratch before selling it.


Gyro accidents happen due to pilot error defiantly not due to the gyro.


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP643.PDF


Here are a few things that I have picked up
T2 a (3) only day VFR – restricting Gyros for commercial operations
T2 c (1) Only 2 rotor blades – no cloud dancer for us – or any new gyro developments with more than two blades
T2 c (3) Only ground adjustable fixed pitch props – No constant speed allowed
T 25 90 KG per seat – We need to lose some weight
T 1557 A Placard visible to the pilot prohibiting Aerobatic maneuvers.
T 1557 A Placard on each baggage compartment stating the load limitations.
SECTION F Shoulder harness
AMCT 1917 Load testing of propeller. Why would you need to load test an Arplast or DUC prop.