1 Jan 2008 - the new laws

[skybound®]

It looks to me that CAA need assistance from our industry in implemention and or modification of this impending law be it through directives delaying implementation from the Commissioner or otherwise.

I think you are bang on there. Had asked CAA in August already in the form of a suggested roadshow. There are too many issues to engage on a 'text' basis.

Have bumped my request twice already since August. See on the CAA forum at AvCom:

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24267

[John Young]

The new Parts 24, 62, 64 – as they affect (me) the amateur trike pilot.

This is a model that I perceive being applicable. Other owners / pilots will have variations.

1. Maintenance

Will continue owner-pilot maintenance under supervision (except as listed) to include, but not limited to the following;

• Change plugs (every 25 hours).
• Flush fuel tank, replace fuel filters and clean / replace air cleaner (every 6 months).
• Drain and flush cooling system, drain and refill gearbox oil, drain and refill rotary valve oil, clean oil injection filter, renew fuel lines (every 12 months)
• Perform limited modifications such as fitting of power supplies for radio and intercom, installation of facet fuel pump provided that the AP approves the modification with a suitable endorsement in the log book prior to next flight.
• Annual inspection - replace any parts with new as necessary - outsource to AP.
• Engine strip, check / measure parts, reassemble with new parts as necessary – every 300 hours – outsource to AP.
• Replace flying wires – every 300 hours – outsource to AP.
• Weight and balance check – every 5 years – outsource to AP.

Use only genuine factory supplied parts, conduct proper pre-flights and continue to give the trike a complete once over every month.

AP consideration for owner-pilot being able to work under supervision can be financial, big steak on the braai, lekker bottle or other mutually agreed arrangement.

2. Log books

Effective 1 January 2008, purchase additional 2 log books and maintain 3 being for;

• Engine
• Propeller
• Undercarriage and wing

3. Flying licence renewal – March 2008

• Standard medical
• Flight test
• Language proficiency test

4. General

Avoid natural heritage sites – no longer attractive at 4 500 feet agl (nor possible over the Drakensberg). Otherwise comply fully with the conditions as listed on the ATF.

==

Now that this subject is at last being discussed in terms that we can all understand, any other input will be welcome.

Regards
John ZU-CIB

[skybound®]

AP consideration for owner-pilot being able to work under supervision can be financial, big steak on the braai, lekker bottle or other mutually agreed arrangement.

.......

Now that this subject is at last being discussed in terms that we can all understand, any other input will be welcome.

Yup, need more input - you got me hungry AND thirsty now

Pretty much agree with you John.

Important for anyone reading that John does state 'to include, but not limited to the following; ' as there are a heck more items on a Rotax maintenance schedule.

Also the regulation states maintenance is under direct supervison of an AP/AME/AMO, so other than the steak and beer, the person supervising is probably going to have to trust your skills, as at end of the day direct supervision = AP ultimately responsible for your work.

Language proficiency I believe is on hold - not by SACAA but by ICAO. So at least one thing to drop off the list.

[Massimo]

I think changing the flying wires at 300 hours is a bit soon but as for the rest i agree with John's points.

Good proper regular maintenance saves lives. Just let us do most of the work.

[Massimo]

Oh and i dont think you need a seperate log book for the propellar, can be combined with engine or something.

[Slider]

Ok so to get around this, i think ALL microlight pilots should become AMO's , and then AP their own aircraft, or am i missing something ??

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Hi Slider. The law prohibits the owner of the aircraft to also be the AP or do the inspections. If your wife is the owner though....

[skybound®]

Hi Slider. The law prohibits the owner of the aircraft to also be the AP or do the inspections. If your wife is the owner though....

Hi FF.

From my last debate on that, I think you are only precluded from doing the inspection for the proving flight authority. Thereafter you can AP your own aircraft for the normal ATFs. I will go check the reg - just in case and correct this post if I messed up

To answer if the wife was the owner - that is too risky - imagine she divorces you when she finds out the real value of the aircraft

[Rocketman]

Hi Dave and All,
I think all should be given some history on the subject of the law Re: part 24, 62, 96 etc.
If you have read Rob matthews post on SAMicro you will see that there was a meeting with Rob, Geoff Dyer , Martin walker and Cor Beek ( a legal man contracted by CAA to redo the Aviation act) part 24 was sorted out and most was happy, but about a year later this was changed again here I speek under correction but the new changers where done by a Misasa committee member, Aero club person and a CAA employee I dont think this was correctly aurthorised as they wernt legal people but this was kept very quite for a long time, I think that if you dig a bit you could have part 24 put on hold forever.
We will Rock-et them.

[Tumbleweed]

I probably sound like an African Grey and I know no one's accountable to me, but,

I also cannot attend meetings and so don't feel s%it about it,

My lack of input is not a reflection of apathy,

I feel using this forum (or other) to defend but not explain progress or encourage input (from out- of - towners) is an oppertunity missed,

The message from Aeroclub " Moenie worrie, somme k@k" is going to backfire if it's treated like that,

I'd rather side with the distressed / paranoid / vested interest than the "wait and see how how it pans out, but we're collectively responsible for not doing anything anyway'













Thanks to Dave and Skybound for keeping the issues in the spotlight. I'd rather side with the

[Rocketman]

Well David Levy has been sharfted by aeroclub read his post on SAMicro
Dave the guy that took over from you is he a Microlighter?????????
( look for the hidden agendas)please let us know this will be very interesting.
As far as I can remember the only time the Aero club took any interest in Misasa was when Misasa wanted to break away from the Aero club AND ACT INDERPENDENTLY ( the only country in the world that the microlight organisation plays second fiddle to there Aero club this got them in a panic as they would stand to loose some of there Gov. and CAA grants and all the Misasa membership fees at the time there was 2200 misasa members, the biggest downfall for Microlighting in this country was that this move did not take place and we all know who is to blame for this???? if the move took place I AM SURE WE WOULD NOT BE SITTING IN THIS POSITION TODAY.
David and Anette I take my hat off to you you should not be doing this work OUR organisations should be correcting this or should I say they should never alowed this to happen. Makes You Think Hey????
Fly a Rocket theres no laws governing you

[skybound®]

Hi Slider. The law prohibits the owner of the aircraft to also be the AP or do the inspections. If your wife is the owner though....

Hi FF.

From my last debate on that, I think you are only precluded from doing the inspection for the proving flight authority. Thereafter you can AP your own aircraft for the normal ATFs. I will go check the reg - just in case and correct this post if I messed up

To answer if the wife was the owner - that is too risky - imagine she divorces you when she finds out the real value of the aircraft

Damn now even confused myself The paragraph that I last debated close to this issue was whether you could maintain your own aerie if you were an AP/AME. Which is yes. But FF you are quite correct - you cannot do the inspection for ATF or proving.

5) The inspection, prior to the issue of a Proving Flight Authority
and the inspection prior to the issue of an Authority to Fly of an
amateur-built or production-built aircraft, referred to in regulation
24.02.2(5)(d), shall be carried out by an appropriately rated Approved
Person who may not be the owner of the aircraft, even if the owner is
also an appropriately rated Approved Person.

Look after your wives guys

[Fairy Flycatcher]

I have kind of a proposal for all the legislation thingies.

Can we ask Demon / Morph to create a section, like 'World Champs', for legislative matters.

In this forum, every new post is a law which we need to address, quoted from the CARS, what it will mean to the layman, and what the problem is.

People who feel they have a solution, i.e. suggested word change to the legislation which we can present to CARCOM, can make a suggestion, and if there are more than one serious option, we can add a vote on solution / application.

I spoke to Mike Blyth yesterday, he is really, really worn down. Same as Rob Hill before him, Brian Young before him, Ronnie Jack.... the MISASA system for legislative matters is clearly not working, but in the very short term, we cannot go and create new bodies, but we can all help a little bit to have our finger in the solution pie.

If this section gets the go-ahead, go out and find some-one this weekend who is not signed up, to sign up. Find two each. And if they can't do it themselves, give a hand. I do not think that right now we have any better base from which to tackle our problems than this.

We can get legal assistance, we can get DOT's help (They have offered), but we need absolute clarity on 1. The problem, 2. The solution. And we need it soon. With industry participation. Without petty politics.

[allcylinders]

1, Thank you Annie and David, The effort and stress you guys are going through on behalf of the sport is REALLY apretiated.

2, Well said Annie, lets get the legal section going and all try and participate and come up with suggestions. Brainstorm, regardless of how silly a suggestion put it in, it might spark off someone elses brilliant idea.

3, I have not been a MISASA member for a few years now, number of reasons, but I will gladly join or pay fees to whateverorginisation successfully represents us trikers in these matters and Dave I support you 100%. Will give my first set of fees to you and Anne, just let me know when you need it.

4,my business is is in communications and we have been opperating in a section of law that the Governments governing body has not been sure how to handle. We (our company and others) have successfully formed an organization that "self governs" this off spring within the communications industry, reporting to the bigger governing body (like CAA) but making sure that members are adhering to regulations on behalf of (CAA) but also fighting for the needs and rights of its members. It looks as though this is going to be a success. Is this not the same route that should be happening with Microlighting (excuse my ignorance if this is already the case)

[emil]

I have a question

I fly a sting quite often that has been taken out of MPL and moved to PPL category

Does this still count ..it is still a ZU plane
The second question.
how do you know this law will apply to the plane you fly…lets say I fly into wonder boom with this sting.
how would I know if I am going to be in the 12#$@#$@ or not