Part 24 : First issue to debate.

[lamercyfly]

According to Part 24.01.2, an owner of a microlight may not do his own maintenance, without direct supervision.

Reference is made to Part 43, which deals with General Maintenance Rules. In Part 43.02.2 (3) it states that any person may do microlight maintenance if that person is authorised by the commisioner or does the maintenance under direct supervision of someone authorized by the Commissioner or by an approved ARO. (In othe words, an AP can be your direct supervisor.)

Hang gliders, powered hanggliders, paragliders, powered paragliders and paratrikes are exempt from this. These owners may do all their own maintenance, even on their 582 / 912 engines.


What do you feel about these laws, would you like to change it and if so, what do you think it should change to?

[RudiGreyling]

<SNIP>
What do you feel about these laws, would you like to change it and if so, what do you think it should change to?

No keep it the same for all NTCA types, owner maintenance for Non Type Certified, no distinction.

[RudiGreyling]

Maybe we should find out what the INTENTION was behind this rule? Maybe, maybe it had merits....

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Hi Rudi

Ex-military aircraft (including jets) and many advanced aircraft like Stings, are all under NTCA. All EAA aircraft are under NTCA.

You cannot expect owner maintenance from a guy flying a Strikemaster...

[Henni]

Because:

1. We are not allowed to fly over built up areas
2. We do not & never have posed any serious threat to the lives of the innocent minding their own business on the ground

we should be allowed to carry out our own services & maintenance without any supervision and to our own discretion.

If we have to comply with the new legislation, then we should receive the right & the benefit to fly over built up areas & operate from there like other aircraft are allowed to do.

Henni

[lamercyfly]

Hi Rudi.......

I think you misread my mail...........

As the law stands now, you may not do your own maintenance on your microlight unless you have personally been approved by the commissioner or by a commissioner approved ARO. I just added the other types eg powered hang gliders, to show you that they are allowed to do their own maintenance.

So what do you mean by your answer? Do you feel

1) that we (microlight) pilots should also be allowed, like our fellow pilots flying powered hang gliders and powered paratrikes, to do our own maintenance and repairs, or do you
2) feel that the hang glider guys should be put under the same limits as us?

Regards.

David

[skybound®]

Aimed specifically at 24.03.1

I would sugges that we have the red bits removed from the regulations.

24.03.1 (1) A non-type certificated aircraft, specified in subregulation
24.01.1 (1) and classified in the paragraphs (a) to (g) of subregulation
24.01.1(2), shall be maintained in accordance with its
Approved Maintenance Schedule in such a manner that it is airworthy at
the commencement of any flight.
(2) The Approved Maintenance Schedule, referred to in sub-regulation
(1), shall-
(a) prescribe which Approved Person(s) with the appropriate repair
rating, which licensed AMEs and which approved AMOs may carry out
maintenance on the aircraft;(b) specify the conditions under which maintenance shall be carried
out, including environmental conditions and equipment and tools
to be used; and
(c) be in the format as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-NTCA.
(3) Any non-type certificated aircraft, other than those referred to
in sub-regulation (1) above, shall be maintained by or on behalf of its
owner in such a manner that it is airworthy at the commencement of any
flight. Where the aircraft manufacturer or any approved organisation has
issued maintenance instructions or guidelines, such instructions or
guidelines shall be adhered to.

OR simpler still add the bit in green, as that may have well been the very spirit of this regulation anyhow.

24.03.1 (1) A non-type certificated aircraft, specified in subregulation
24.01.1 (1), classified in the paragraphs (a) to (g) of subregulation
24.01.1(2) and to be used in a Part 96 operation, shall be maintained in accordance with its
Approved Maintenance Schedule in such a manner that it is airworthy at
the commencement of any flight.
(2) The Approved Maintenance Schedule, referred to in sub-regulation
(1), shall-
(a) prescribe which Approved Person(s) with the appropriate repair
rating, which licensed AMEs and which approved AMOs may carry out
maintenance on the aircraft;(b) specify the conditions under which maintenance shall be carried
out, including environmental conditions and equipment and tools
to be used; and
(c) be in the format as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-NTCA.
(3) Any non-type certificated aircraft, other than those referred to
in sub-regulation (1) above, shall be maintained by or on behalf of its
owner in such a manner that it is airworthy at the commencement of any
flight. Where the aircraft manufacturer or any approved organisation has
issued maintenance instructions or guidelines, such instructions or
guidelines shall be adhered to.

[lamercyfly]

Nice comments guys.......

Thanks. Now we are getting somewhere.

I will post some of my ideas later, just proof-reading

[Morph]

Flame suit on

I don't think every microlighter is qualified to do all or even some of the maintenance that is required on a microlight. There are guys who generally accept this and take their aircraft to suitably qualified AP's and or AMO's to get their maintenance done in any case. However that said I don't believe that the more technically proficient microlighters who are capable of performing their own maintenance should be legislated do have to do the same thing.

Me personally, having built my own plane am very comfortable to perform all the structural repairs to the aircraft, first line maintenance on the engine, i.e. plugs, oil etc. As I did with my 503 and as I definately intend to do with my 912, is when I need to delve deeper into the engine I want to do so under the supervision or assistance of an AP. This is purely because I am facinated by the workings of the engine, but I understand my limitations as well.

Now this decision is all personal choice and every microlighter has to have the responsibility of ensuring that their aircraft is maintained to an airworthy condition.

I would hazzard a guess and say that of the regular bunch I fly with at Morning Star, over 30% are enthusiasts who will do all their own maintenance excluding engine rebuilds and a further 20% will do everything. The others choose to have their aircraft maintained by our resident AP's

If they enforce this step, what will be next, what about the home builder? would building of kits be limited to factories and qualified AP's.

What data is CAA using as the basis to motivate these changes?

There are no other transport industries who use legislation to restrict individuals from building and maintaining their own vehicles. What next are they going to force me to have my car serviced by the manufacturer or are they going to ban the selling of AC Cobra kit cars?

I cannot see the logic of their actions

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Bottom line is there should be a choice. I chose to have my aeries maintained by AMO/AP as I do not have the time at the moment. (I have a young family, but this will not always be the case and I would like to be able to maintain them in the future).

I still believe the problem is that NTCA is far too wide a category.

By way of EG take the following 3 NTCA aircraft I fly. I would happily maintain the first, the second is debatable but def not the third.
Cubby (simple)
RV4 (VP, Fuel injection, but still manageable)
Albat (Large heavy twin with hugely complex systems)

Problem is that these are all grouped together in 1 category. Your 503 and an L39 are covered by exactly the same rules which is absurd IMHO. Surely there should be some guide by which these can be further split. maintaining a simple 2 stroke machine is different to 4 stroke and different again to a turbine/jet etc. Am I the only one that thinks the def of NTCA is at the root of the problem?

[Sonex711]

Guys and Fairy Flycatcher,

What about the way LSA is handled in the US (especially since half of the developed world seems to be adopting the same regs now).

There are 2 categories - SLSA (Special LSA) and ELSA (Experimental LSA). My understanding is that ELSA (basically any "home built" LSA where you did more than 51% of the construction) you can do all the maintenance, the thinking being that you are the most qualified since you built the aircraft.

However, if you bought your LSA (whether built by a factory or by another home builder), then it is a you may not do any maintenance. To do basic line maintenance (Plugs Oil etc) you need to go on a 16 hour course. You then get your certificate and off you go. This also qualifies you to remove the engine and send it to a service centre for example, but not to do a full overhaul yourself (That's heavy maintenance).

I have been on the Line Maintenance course offered by Rattex SA, and it is well worth it. I feel much more comfortable doing the basics now. I believe this sort of process would work well here, and would also cater for the sort of thing George is talking about.

[LarryMcG]

Most guys know thier limitations, and will repair / service, as far as they are comfortable, and should be allowed to, on NTCA.
We all put our lives in our aircraft, and knowing this, service and repair according to personal experience, ability, recomendations, etc.
We dont have an AP here, and have to get one from 140 km away, which would become very costly, to change plugs!
All that will happen, is they will force us to be illegal.

LM

[RudiGreyling]

Hi Rudi.......

I think you misread my mail...........

As the law stands now, you may not do your own maintenance on your microlight unless you have personally been approved by the commissioner or by a commissioner approved ARO. I just added the other types eg powered hang gliders, to show you that they are allowed to do their own maintenance.

So what do you mean by your answer? Do you feel

1) that we (microlight) pilots should also be allowed, like our fellow pilots flying powered hang gliders and powered paratrikes, to do our own maintenance and repairs, or do you
2) feel that the hang glider guys should be put under the same limits as us?

Regards.

David

Hi David,

I did not misread your mail, and I am saying 1) We should be able to do our own maintenance!

Rudi

[RudiGreyling]

Aimed specifically at 24.03.1

I would sugges that we have the red bits removed from the regulations.

24.03.1 (1) A non-type certificated aircraft, specified in subregulation
24.01.1 (1) and classified in the paragraphs (a) to (g) of subregulation
24.01.1(2), shall be maintained in accordance with its
Approved Maintenance Schedule in such a manner that it is airworthy at
the commencement of any flight.
(2) The Approved Maintenance Schedule, referred to in sub-regulation
(1), shall-
(a) prescribe which Approved Person(s) with the appropriate repair
rating, which licensed AMEs and which approved AMOs may carry out
maintenance on the aircraft;(b) specify the conditions under which maintenance shall be carried
out, including environmental conditions and equipment and tools
to be used; and
(c) be in the format as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-NTCA.
(3) Any non-type certificated aircraft, other than those referred to
in sub-regulation (1) above, shall be maintained by or on behalf of its
owner in such a manner that it is airworthy at the commencement of any
flight. Where the aircraft manufacturer or any approved organisation has
issued maintenance instructions or guidelines, such instructions or
guidelines shall be adhered to.

OR simpler still add the bit in green, as that may have well been the very spirit of this regulation anyhow.

24.03.1 (1) A non-type certificated aircraft, specified in subregulation
24.01.1 (1), classified in the paragraphs (a) to (g) of subregulation
24.01.1(2) and to be used in a Part 96 operation, shall be maintained in accordance with its
Approved Maintenance Schedule in such a manner that it is airworthy at
the commencement of any flight.
(2) The Approved Maintenance Schedule, referred to in sub-regulation
(1), shall-
(a) prescribe which Approved Person(s) with the appropriate repair
rating, which licensed AMEs and which approved AMOs may carry out
maintenance on the aircraft;(b) specify the conditions under which maintenance shall be carried
out, including environmental conditions and equipment and tools
to be used; and
(c) be in the format as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-NTCA.
(3) Any non-type certificated aircraft, other than those referred to
in sub-regulation (1) above, shall be maintained by or on behalf of its
owner in such a manner that it is airworthy at the commencement of any
flight. Where the aircraft manufacturer or any approved organisation has
issued maintenance instructions or guidelines, such instructions or
guidelines shall be adhered to.

Skybound I think you've got it:

Part 96 – which deals with. Commercial Operation of Non-. Type Certificated Aircraft.

YES Maintenance should be done only by AP and AMO's for these types to protect the general public that go fly with NTCA that charge money!

We that fly for pleasure non profit should be exempt!

Regards
Rudi

[RudiGreyling]

Because:

1. We are not allowed to fly over built up areas
2. We do not & never have posed any serious threat to the lives of the innocent minding their own business on the ground

we should be allowed to carry out our own services & maintenance without any supervision and to our own discretion.

If we have to comply with the new legislation, then we should receive the right & the benefit to fly over built up areas & operate from their like other aircraft are allowed to do.

Henni

Ditto Henni