Microlight weight issues

[grosvenor]

All you clever guys out there, please help me out here. I have just received the following in an email from Phillip Ferreira at CAA regarding the way NTCA are registered.

The a/c are categorised as per the following:

260kg empty weight
450kg mtow and
slow level flying at 65km/h

If it meets this it can be flown with a MPL. if not......

with PPL or higher

So please tell me how the following aircraft air registered as microlights and are being flown with an MPL...Sting, Sting RG, Cheetah 912, Bushbaby 912 or VW, Zenair sky Jeep, Samba, Samba XL, etc, etc. None of these aircraft weight less than 260kg empty. Am I missing something???

Dave Grosvenor
DreamWings cc

(also sent to SAMicro list)

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Is the 65 kmh right? Seems slow (even for a trike?)

When I asked similar question (some time ago) was told only about the 450 MAUW...

260 empty and the speed are new to me?

[grosvenor]

The 260kg and 65kph have always been in the NTCA draft regs. The CATS-NTCA say...

E. MICROLIGHT AEROPLANES
24.01.2.E.2 Classification perimeters
(1) For an aeroplane to be classified as a microlight aeroplane, the following perimeters need to be met:
(a) Minimum flying speed at maximum take-off mass to be less than 65 km/h;
(b) Maximum take-off mass of –
(i) 300 kg for a single-seater landplane;
(ii) 330 kg for a single-seater amphibian or seaplane;
(iii) 450 kg for a two-seater landplane; or
(iv) 495 kg for a two-seater amphibian or seaplane.
(2) For the purposes of establishing conformity with sub-paragraph (1)(b), the following payloads are to be included:
(a) Per seat: 84 kg.
(b) The lesser of full fuel load or --
(i) 15 kg in the case of a single-seater; or
(ii) 22 kg in the case of a two-seater.

So you can see that 450-84-84-22=260kg. I was looking for clarity from CAA on how NTCA aircraft were registered. From a meeting with their engineers, I understood that they were no longer classified as microlight or light aircraft. Simply NTCA 3-axis or weight-shift. Then if you held an MPL, you were not allowed to fly the aircraft heavier than 450kg. With a PPL you could fly it up to its MTOW. The reply I got today from Phillip Ferreira indicates that this is not the case, so again I ask, how are all these aircraft that weigh more than 260kg empty being registered and flown as microlights Helium perhaps

Dave

[Smiley]

I'm not sure if I'm with you on this one, but I'll try to explain what I think is being asked.....

NTCA aircraft are defined under two banners.

1) An aircraft weighing less than 450kg all up weight.
2) Experimental aircraft. Those are homebuilds, Cheetah, Cubby, old military aircraft... etc. Weight does not matter here, what matters is these aircraft are non-certified and therefore fall under microlights.

Hope this will help??

[grosvenor]

Smiley

An aircraft weighing less than 450kg does not necessarily clasify as a microlight. It ALSO has to weigh less than 260kg empty. Most modern 3-axis aircraft being operated as microlights do not. How do they still qualify??

Dave

[Fairy Flycatcher]

The weight issue is a big problem, and at a meeting between CAA and MISASA some options to solve the problem were discussed.

The law has to be changed at CARCOM though. As it is, microlights must have a MAXIMUM all up weight of 450kg or less. It must also be able to fly at less than 65km/hr ( 40mph).

(My trikes have an average stall speed of about 34mph, and the Dragonfly 18mph, so they are both clearly in. Trikes have empty weight of about 190kg, and Dragofly 215kg. Skyranger is sort of borderline as its adeverstised stalls is 40mph full flaps - yet we had no problem getting it into microlight category at CAA)

Almost none of the 3-axis aircraft advertised as microlights fall into these paramaters.

The new law does not allow all NTCA to be flown on an MPL. You will still need a PPL for aircraft which do not fall in the microlight/gyroplane/hang glider/paraglider category.

[Morph]

Is there any talk of increasing the minimum weight limit to 540Kg like they have done in Australia and the States I believe? Most 3-axis microlights, especially the modern ones are rated to this weight and it would be great to be able to fly 2-up with full fuel and luggage and still be within the MTOW.

This is an issue for me since I regularly fly with a 100kg pax. With my weight of 85kg and with a Bushbaby type plane of 280kg I am already overweight without any fuel.

Does this mean that those 3-axis boys out there with 912/4 motors are typically over the Microlight limit and thus illegal when flying with a PAX

[IFLYHI]

grosvenor wrote:

(a) Per seat: 84 kg.

So does that mean my 90 kg is illegal

[RudiGreyling]

Morpheus,

I replied onto samicro something similar.

A lot of the new planes out there cater for the 'new' usa 'sport pilot' catergory up to a max takeoff weight of 599KG. To compete I suspect certain 'Microlight' planes are actually sport pilot planes...

Manufacturers world wide are scrambling to fit airplanes into that catergory, becuase it brings a lot of benefits for pilots like lower medical requirements etc etc.

Go here for more info: www.sportpilot.org

I would like to know when we will align ourselves in SA with similiar rules, otherwise we will miss out on some fantastic new planes that will treated as PPL category?

Regards
Rudi

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Changing the law is neither too easy, nor too difficult. It takes an application to CARCOM, substantiated by some reasons. Publication in the government gazette, CARCOM hearing etc. Paperwork and following up - thats about it. In 6-9 months everything can be through.

BUT, it won't happen just talking about it on the forum. MISASA, being a voluntary committee can't put too much time into this either, although they have bridged the gap by discussing it properly with CAA first. It could be costly, as some-one needs to spend hours preparing the proposal and months following it up.

Why feel so strongly about keeping it microlight category though? Why not do your PPL? Our medical requirement is for all practical purposes exactly the same (one only valid for longer), and training costs are pretty much the same. (Although training on the PPL Jabiru at FAVG seems a bit cheaper than on the MPL Jabi at some MPL schools I know of).

Many MPL candidates only get their licence after 45-60hours! Same as PPL. If you can pass your flight test, and you have 15 hours solo, you get your licence. Its the same for both MPL and PPL. And if you are a current MPL-pilot, you receive a full 25 hours credit, which then allows you to just do straight conversions onto 4-seaters and 6-seaters, and opens up oportunity to fly many other types. For anyone who flies for transport, this becomes a good option!

Flying for the love of flying is something a bit different, but then there are plenty of microlights which you can legally fly on your MPL, they might just be a bit more open and a bit slower - exactly whats great about them!!

So the question remains. Is it worth tackling the law on this issue? Where must time and resources be spent? What will the real benifit be?

[Junkie]

Now considering this simply because so many aircaft are bordering on the weight and could be flown with some sacrifices (or even dodgy building) to make them fit, but are really beyond ML in most other respects

I want to build & fly a Hatz Bantam or similar, so its gonna have to be a SP or PPL (1200 - 1400lbs MAUW).

Most 3-axis "ML" stuff nowadays are over the limit anyway - im wondering how long were going to keep getting away with it.

[RudiGreyling]

Changing the law is neither too easy, nor too difficult. <Snip>

Yeah and bending it seems in order then?

<SNIP> What will the real benifit be?

One benefit of aligning with the "sport pilot" rules and license is that you will not have to do a another license 'like PPL' then to enjoy these "Sport Pilot" planes.

A new rookie can do his Sport pilot license and fly on one license any plane he has a conversion on below 599KG AUW. Simple and effective.

A sport pilot airplane will be imported from overseas and fall into the same category into SA without trying to get it approved as both MPL and PPL category as is currently. Less confusion.

The sport pilot rules is a good progression, the EAA put a lot of effort into it. We should try and follow the same.


I'd still like to know from the people in the know (Mike - Misasa) if there are any plans or talk of this.

Just my 2c and wishfull thinking.

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Its no more easy or difficult to get a PPL vs MPL.
There is basically no price difference between getting PPL on a Jabi and MPL on a Jabi (or Sting or Bushbaby or Cheetah or whatever)
What of the aircraft which has been designed to or is being designed to fall just outside of 599kg? Say 650kg? Are we going to push the limit up again in a few years?
EAA aircraft are flown with a PPL

I would put my Skyranger more in PPL category than MPL. And the Dragonfly more in MPL than PPL. The one has all the instruments, flaps, trim, closed (or semi-closed) cockpit etc. The other does not even have an airspeed-indicator and the ailerons are so big that there aren't space for flaps.

Maybe create a class between the two? But why not just get a PPL?

Keep microlighting simple

[RV4ker (RIP)]

There is basically no price difference between getting PPL on a Jabi and MPL on a Jabi (or Sting or Bushbaby or Cheetah or whatever)

Costs. MPL 25hrs min x rate/hr, PPL 40hrs Min x rate/hr. So it costs 15hrs x rate/hrmore. Don't follow you here.

Also I am told the PPL medical is different to MPL? Don't know, but SPL is very simple medical in comparison.

In USA SPL goes about getting more pilot's in the air. If you take the progressive view then the 3 axis MPL is effectively SA's version of SPL with some minor tweaking way ahead of USA. . I think there is a huge difference between flying a light aircraft and a big blik aerie and think there is a place for SPL. Guy who want's to fly around in his Bantam, Jabi, Bush Baby, Sky ranger for fun etc. should be accomodated and his needs are very different to a pilot who wants to go from Durbs to Jhb weekly in his twin or big six or even a Turbine carting more than 1 pax. I see it as fun flyer vs commuter/user etc. Can be both, but then needs higher rating. Less complicated, not that PPL is complicated, just feel that more guys would fly if it were more accessable and more user friendly.

Provision should be made for natural progresion from MPL (<450) to SPL (<600) to PPL to IF and/or CPL to ALTP etc...

See in diff topic they talking about 45hr ppl with 5 hrs allowed in sim.


Diving for cover, flamer on...

[Fairy Flycatcher]

There is basically no price difference between getting PPL on a Jabi and MPL on a Jabi (or Sting or Bushbaby or Cheetah or whatever)

Costs. MPL 25hrs min x rate/hr, PPL 40hrs Min x rate/hr. So it costs 15hrs x rate/hrmore. Don't follow you here.

How many people do you know who finished their MPL in 25 hours? I don't know a single one. On the skyranger, which is relatively easy and forgiving to learn to fly, our minimum has been 32 hours (he had some air experience), with some taking over 40. Many other 3-axis MPL pilots we know have taken well over 50 hours to get their licences. The solo requirements on both are the same...

Also I am told the PPL medical is different to MPL? Don't know, but SPL is very simple medical in comparison.

The MPL medical is a Class 4, and the PPL is a Class 2. Historically the class 4 was only a medical declaration, but now the requirements for the 2 medicals are identical, although the class 4 is valid for longer. (5years and 3years vs 2years and 1year)

Provision should be made for natural progresion from MPL (<450) to SPL (<600) to PPL to IF and/or CPL to ALTP etc...

This is probably an excellent solution. But why limit yourself? In America night-rating and IF-time are compulsory for PPL, so the SPL makes sense. Here we don't have that additional requirement, most PPL's don't get much past a 182, so no twin turbine transport time for the average PPL oke. So what is the real difference?

Why limit yourself? A Jabi is a lot more slipery than a P28, and if you can fly a Jabi, you are quite capable of doing a 1hr convex onto a C152 or a Piper 140, or even a C182 or a 2-3 hour convex onto a C210RT or P200.

Making an additional "lower" licence, when its not too difficult to do your PPL does not make enough sense for me to support it.

Also, a lot of people I know keep the Jabi's and Bush baby's etc on their schools and buy them for "hour building" towards a com licence. Many purist think this is a bad idea ('cause its not a blik), but its air experience!!!. Flying anything regularly and putting more hours make you a better pilot. You just have to learn more procedures the bigger the aircraft, but being able to fly stays the same. What if you fly your Jabi for 2 years, do 300 hours on it, and then think about doing your comm. Do you really think only 25 of those hours should count? Give me a break! You probably fly 200% better than the 17 year old who got a full time comm at 43rd from his daddy for his birthday.

So don't you think we see a decrease in Cheetah sales if they can't use it for "hour building" any-more? I certainly think we will.

Do a PPL for those faster, heavier than MPL aircraft and stop limiting yourself, and stop limiting the industry.