260kg empty weight

[skybound®]

There is an oxymoron here:

recognise technology and changing times etc and push them up ... Just 10 - 15% will suit most comfortably

Surely with technology changing - that should equal less weight?

[Biggles]

micro=small
light=light

The rules are 260kg empty 450 kg MAW for an MPL. These are quite clear.

Why are you blaming CAA? Rather blame the dude that sold the aircraft to you as a microlight!!!

I might be wrong but I though the idea behind the weight restrictions are to keep aeries slow, small and limit range. So why ask for increase in minimum weight? Go do a PPL if you want to go far fast. (or buy a GT450 )

Hat coat door.

[John Boucher]

I did my PPL for this very reason. I fly a Cheetah, did all the drills, even did spins in a 172! I log my hours on CXO as type X254.... Have just as much fun but have the scope to upgrade to a faster blik aerie! Only equation is the cost. You will be surprised about how many aviators are oblivious to this fact. There are chaps that think they can fly a J400 with an MPL license! The yanks seem to be sorting out the sport class with a speed restriction.... therefore RV12's& Rans S19's make their appearance! Just had to say something....

[skybound®]

micro=small
light=light

The rules are 260kg empty 450 kg MAW for an MPL. These are quite clear.

Why are you blaming CAA? Rather blame the dude that sold the aircraft to you as a microlight!!!

I might be wrong but I though the idea behind the weight restrictions are to keep aeries slow, small and limit range. So why ask for increase in minimum weight? Go do a PPL if you want to go far fast. (or buy a GT450 )

Hat coat door.

I wish I had said that !

[Biggles]

This thread has become surprisingly quiet...

[John Boucher]

What is a light sport aircraft?

A light sport aircraft is defined as:

1,320 pounds maximum takeoff weight for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
1,430 pounds maximum takeoff weight for aircraft intended for operation on water.
A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
A single, reciprocating engine.
A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
Maximum airspeed of 120 knots.
Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
Fixed or repositionable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.

For thos who are not familiar with the rule..... sorry Jab 4 seater owners.... What will they do with the cargo type Jab in this case?

[Weg]

Why do the CAA give microlight type designators to aircraft weighing more than 260kg, if they do not intend them to be flown on a MPL? This implies that they are approved for flight as a microlight. A few years ago, CAA said that they were not concerned about empty weight but only with all up weight. Now they have changed their minds, but in the meantime have set a precedent for the flying of Jabs, Stings etc. so difficult to reverse this now, I suppose.

Also, we need to remember that this "law" that everybody is quoting is not yet finalised and the old laws have been cancelled. So we actually sit with NO LAWS for microlights.

[flykr]

Why not just have a type rating system whereby the aircraft type is endorsed on your licence be it MPL or PPL.
- I have a KR2 - empty weight 295kg and MAW 450kg (PPL required)
- Currently building a new KR2 with a jab engine - empty weight +-250kg and MAW 450kg (MPL required???? )
Both aircraft have the same VNE, possibly the same cruise and stall speeds, why do I need two different licences?

Also have a KR1 - 200kg empty and 350MAW (MPL required) this aircraft is more difficult to fly than a KR2 because it has very short wings should be for PPL's only .
The VP1 I have has a 278kg empty weight and 420MAW so need PPL to fly this one . All different aircraft with different flying skills required. I have both a PPL and MPL but neither licence makes me fly better than the other. My 2c worth

[Ian]

Nice debate !

I guess the LSA category would resolve all.

Anyway I'll let you all know what happens in my case.

Cheers ian

[Biggles]

Weg wrote:

Why do the CAA give microlight type designators to aircraft weighing more than 260kg, if they do not intend them to be flown on a MPL?

CAA does not register an aerie as a microlight. It will get a ZU registration as its a NTSA (not type certified). I see Samba's are ZU as well as the Hueys. The catagory includes microlights, ex-military types and types that the manufactorers/ imports don't want the shlep of having to get type certified.

As for CAA ignoring thier own rules... well... no comment. But I find that hard to believe.

And I do believe that until the new legistlation comes out then we are still governed by the old legistlation... otherwise there's no need to get a plane registered.

The US definition of a Sport light aircraft, that looks like a reasonable class. And I fully support the idea of a sports aircraft catagory as it will certainly attract more people to aviation... (mainly the type that is allegic to microlights but cannot afford a PPL)

[grosvenor]

Weg wrote:

Why do the CAA give microlight type designators to aircraft weighing more than 260kg, if they do not intend them to be flown on a MPL?

CAA does not register an aerie as a microlight. It will get a ZU registration as its a NTSA (not type certified).

Correct. However CAA issue type designators to light NTCA's that usually only have the ICAO designator of ULAC. An aircraft flown on an MPL is given a Z- designator, and if flown on a PPL a X- designator, eg Bushbaby is a Z166 if flown on an MPL and a X269 if on a PPL. I won't use the Bushbaby as an example because there are microlight legal Bushbabys, but lets look at something like the Sting. CAA knows what the empty weight is, they know it is more than 260kg and that it will never be less than 260kg. It's a factory built aircraft and CAA have the documentation for it. BUT, they still issue it with a Z- type designator, which implies that it can be flown with a MPL. This is what Weg was getting at.

There would currently be no problem if CAA had stuck to the rules they created from the start. But when the first "heavy" composite modern microlights arrived in SA, somehow they were allowed to be flown on an MPL even though they were too heavy. Once they did that, they set a precedent and others followed suite. If CAA had stuck to the law, aircraft like Bantams, Thunderbirds, etc would be flown by MPL's and Stings, Cheetahs, etc would be flown by PPL's, as per the law.

Now that there are so many MPL's flying "illegally", in essence with CAA's consent (at least they seem to turn a blind eye), there is no going back. The only way is moving forward with the rest of the world and adopting a Light Sport Aircraft category.
Dave

[Biggles]

Ok, but then CAA has given concent for the aircraft to be piloted by an MPL. So no loop-hole for insurance as they would then have to hold the CAA liable and the pilot is operating legally...

The way I see it CAA has actually opened themselves up for big problems... If I pilot an X designated String into the ground with an MPL my estate can hold CAA liable?

[grosvenor]

From the Misasa website:

Proposed Light Sport Aeroplane NTCA category
The suggested SA solution

Taking the lead from what the Americans have done and what is starting to happen in other parts of the world we have come up with a solution which could work, the fine details of which still have to be ironed out. So far, those at the CAA who have worked with us on it, like it and think it will work.

A summary follows

(The Conventional Microlight and Weight-Shift Controlled Microlight Licences remain unchanged.)

A new category of NTCA and licence is added: LIGHT SPORT AEROPLANES

Definition:

• This category of aeroplane will have a maximum take-off weight of 600 kg for land planes or 650 kg for sea planes.
  
  To calculate the empty weight use 85 kg per seat,
  full fuel or 40 kg whichever is heavier,
  luggage as allowed or 15 kg whichever is heavier,
  Safety rescue system if one is fitted,
  all standard and additional equipment and systems as fitted
  
  Maximum of 2 seats
  
  Maximum stall speed (Vs1) at MAUW of 45 Knots (no flaps)
  
  Maximum speed in level flight with full power (Vh) 150 Knots
  
  Single engine
  
  Un-pressurised cabin

The NTCA recreation Light Sport Aeroplane licence requirements: a minimum of 30 hours of total flight instruction time including 3 cross country flights and 15 hours of solo.

Credit towards a higher grade of licence (PPL) 35 hours.

Instructor requirements are similar to Microlight instructor ratings but must be done on an LSA.

[John Boucher]

Dave

May sound like a stupid question but what limitations are to be imposed on types of airspace?

Bad Nav

[grosvenor]

what limitations are to be imposed on types of airspace?

It's all in www.misisa.co.za/Articles/28/

Here's a bit that I found...

Privileges and limitations of the type rating for light sport aeroplanes
62.16.9 (1) The holder of a type rating by name for light sport aeroplanes shall be entitled to act as pilot-in-command of the light sport aeroplane for which he or she is rated by name, or of any conventional microlight aeroplane for which he or she holds the appropriate class or type rating by name, provided it is not operated for the provision of an air service,

(a) within Class F and Class G airspace;
(b) within controlled airspace if -
(i) prior permission has been obtained from the responsible air traffic service unit to enter such airspace;
(ii) such two-way radio communication as the said unit may require, is established;
(iii) continuous radio watch is maintained; and
(iv) while within an aerodrome traffic zone, the appropriate radio position reporting procedure is complied with while such light sport aeroplane is within such aerodrome traffic zone.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-regulation (1)
(a) the holder of a type rating by name for light sport aeroplanes may exercise the privileges of his or her rating for remuneration in an aircraft operated in terms of Part 96, provided he or she is the holder of a valid Part 96 authorisation issued in terms of Subpart 14 of this Part.