Part 24 is active. Is you Authority to fly still valid?

[skybound®]

Hi David

I did take this past my representative body - SAPFA, to ask them how this part 24 got as far as the DoT for translation (last step before promulgation) without the normal out for comment procedure.

The word I got back is that part 24 is active and was done via some special procedure in part 11 back in Trevor Abrahams' days owing to the outdated LS1 document that was past it's sell by date and some regulation was required. That was quite a few years ago.

I dont think many SAPFA members would be affected by this issue, so MISASA or even EAA may be the best bodies to tackle this issue.

[lamercyfly]

Hi.

All parts written in by exemption under part 11 were done incorrectly, and are not valid.

The current legal ruling document is still the LS-1

Yup, you can quote me on that. I was present in the meeting with numerous senior representatives of CAA when the legal representative informed the meeting......... Nothing has changed since then, and like I said, if there is some-one out there who would like to sort this mess out, they are wellcome to PM me and I will tell them how to stop this part24 in its tracks, and fix it up.

That is the primary reason, no doubt, that no prosecutions are taking place for non-compliance. Because part24, and all the others written in by exemption, appear to be better operational systems, CAA have pretended it is in force, and have requested the industry to comply. But if you do not, there will be no prosecution, because the LS-1 document is still the ruling document.

Hows that for 'rondf@k'.

Regards,

[Boet]

Just this question. Whose side is MISASA on? If I get in the kak, is MISASA going to help ME, or will they side with , and push me deeper, under ?? Remember, I work my hands stompies to earn my slice of bread......

[lamercyfly]

Hi Boet.

You ask the question as if MISASA is somebody. This is the problem. MISASA is nobody. It is a bunch of guys like you and me who actually do not have the time or resources to tackle huge issues like the formation, debating and promulgation of new laws.

Just look at how many replies there have been to this very, very important issue/HUGE PROBLEM

Then just look at how many new mails that are quite silly compared to this, but fun mails nevertheless, have been started since this subject was raised

And that is the crux of this whole MISASA thing. It is for fun and a little bit of assistance here and there. MISASA CANNOT fight huge legal issues.
And the pilots actually do not give a s#@t until it is too late, then they just moan and pay-up and moan and gripe and fly a little less

So, unless some-one actually does come forward and volunteer to stop part 24 in its tracks, and then make sure it is done properly, with industry consultation and input, then I am afraid, you are going to bo sold down the stream. But it will be a 'moerse' stream, that every microlight pilot can take the blame for - NOT MISASA!!

To give you an idea, I would tackle this problem of part 24 for no less than R3 - 400 000. This is a realistic quote for legal fees, travelling, attending seminars and meetings, interviews, and compiling the final document, then educating the industry.

MISASA does NOT have this kind of money, nor the expertise nor the time to perform this task.
Aero Club are equally clue-less to the needs of microlight pilots, especially trike pilots. If they were, they would identify the need and subcontract a professional to perform the task.

The joke is when my wife and I proposed to form a professional body to look after NTCA, called 'WINGS', last year, which would be run along the lines of a profit seeking company, we received equal amounts of ridicule as we did support. Unfortunately, the business would require FULL support to make it financially viable. Needless to say, we wrote the operations manual, paid CAA for the audit, and then decided to put it on hold.

Now it appears we will be leaving the country for good by the end of 2007......so what happens here in the NTCA industry is no longer a pressing concern for us But is saddens me for my friends, and for the stupidity of it all..............

[Tumbleweed]

So, other than complying financially with some French International body to authenicate competative flying,pleading for no landing fees at controlled airports, relaxing arbitory restrictions on blik motor maintenance and having lekker year -end functions, is Aeroclub looking after our interests?

[Duck Rogers]

Sorry, slightly off topic, but still contained in this thread. I just couldn't resist :D

At the same time I've met a guy who has had 3 engine outs in the last 12 years, cause - Oil on air filter caused blockage..

Wow! How about that! Now doesn't that sound familiar?
Those that "shot me down" some time back regarding the oil on the airfilters debate will know what I'm talking about

[skybound®]

David, some real home truths there.

Have looked at the no consultation route of stopping part 24, but think since MISASA (one of the recognised industry's representative) had received a copy of Part 24, it may prove difficult to work this angle.

The apathy and the non response of the general pilot can only remind me of the time when the mandatory transponder issue came up and pilots had to be begged to assist with letters of objection.

I almost get the sense that most believe that this issue is not real. We have already had one pilot who is now grounded owing to this regulation until all maintenance up to date. Our local AP also addressed our club last week as to the reality of the situation.

So how do we get fires lit under peoples bums to wake them up to the reality and get excited about this issue?

[ICEMAN]

So how do we get fires lit under peoples bums to wake them up to the reality and get excited about this issue?

The idea of paying to get an "approved" mechanic out to change my plugs and clean my airfilters every 12hours sure burns my bum

[Aerosan]

Problem is that all the small RRR`s here and there tallies up to a rather LARGE amount, fees for this org, fees for that org, it all goes somewhere and it ends up where I`m paying R600 to R800 a month (ok that includes hanger fees) before Ive flown one single minute!! I dont have that kind of cash for recreation

I know some will say" then you shouldnt be flying" that gets me the moer in, as I realise that we need a body there to represent us but does it all have to be so complicated? Cant we restructure the whole thing under say, the EAA, as we all fly "homebuilds" anyway and just be done with it This is going to end where we will have flyers out there not belonging to ANY org and doing just what they wanted to in the beginning... FLY. Lets hope it doesnt come to that. None of this would be nessasary if everyone were to handle all issues in a fair manner. Problem is that "fair" is linked to an amount in RRR`s these days.....

[skybound®]

Now were screwed:

Parts 24, 48, 61, 62, 94, 96 and 185 have been approved; they will be published in the Government Gazette tomorrow, 13 July 2007

Now that the regulation has gone the normal route (and not being enforced via a special dispensation) - you can bet your bottom dollar that the contents will most definitely be applied/policed.

I hope you don't have any aircraft for sale, if maintenance not in accordance to the schedule, you just lost plenty value.

If you are a purchaser - beware and ensure that all maintence has been undertaken in accordance to the manufacturers spec or you will be coughing up plenty moolas to get the aircraft airworthy.

[Morph]

OK before we descend into a complete panic lets address the who can do the maintenance on your plane

24.01.2(1) Before a non-type certified aircraft….is considered to be airworthy it shall –
(a) have been issued with –
(i) an Authority to Fly or a Proving Flight Authority, as the case may be in terms of this part : and
(ii) a valid certificate of Release of Service;
(b) Have been maintained in accordance with the provisions of this Part and Part 43, as applicable to the type of aircraft; and ……

Aircraft maintenance schedules
43.02.1(1) Each aircraft in the South African Civil Aircraft Register shall be maintained according to an approved aircraft maintenance schedule as prescribed in Regulation 43.02.8
(2) the owner of an aircraft shall draw up, or have drawn up a maintenance schedule of his or her aircraft with the provisions of the Technical Standard 43.02.8 in the Document SA-CATS-GMR.
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subregulations (1) to (5), the owner of a non-type certified aircraft, operated in terms of Part 94 (i.e. NTCA-Morph) of these regulations, may be exempted from the need to submit an aircraft maintenance schedule for approval to the Commissioner, provided he or she maintains his or her aircraft in accordance with the provisions of Part 24 and Part 94

Persons to carry out maintenance
43.02.2(1) Subject to the provisions of subregulations (2) and (3), no person shall carry out maintenance on an aircraft or aircraft component unless such person –
(a) is the holder of an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer(AME) licence with an appropriate rating issued in terms of Part 66
(b) Carries out the maintenance under the direct supervision of the holder of an AME licence with an appropriate rating issued in terms of Part 66; or
(c) is authorised by the holder of an aircraft maintenance organisation approval with an appropriate rating …….
43.02.2(2) the holder of a pilot licence with an appropriate type rating issued in terms of part 61 or part 62, may carry out the maintenance as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-GMR if
(a) such a holder is the owner of operator of the aircraft; and
(b) the aircraft is used for non-commercial operations

I am still digging into the Overhaul issues wrt the manufacturers recommendations

[skybound®]

I am still digging into the Overhaul issues wrt the manufacturers recommendations

Some work already done there that may help toward your digging Morph. Was actually the departure point where I stumbled across Part 24.

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21243

[skybound®]

OK before we descend into a complete panic lets address the who can do the maintenance on your plane
Persons to carry out maintenance
43.02.2(1) Subject to the provisions of subregulations (2) and (3), no person shall carry out maintenance on an aircraft or aircraft component unless such person –
(a) is the holder of an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer(AME) licence with an appropriate rating issued in terms of Part 66
(b) Carries out the maintenance under the direct supervision of the holder of an AME licence with an appropriate rating issued in terms of Part 66; or
(c) is authorised by the holder of an aircraft maintenance organisation approval with an appropriate rating …….
43.02.2(2) the holder of a pilot licence with an appropriate type rating issued in terms of part 61 or part 62, may carry out the maintenance as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-GMR if
(a) such a holder is the owner of operator of the aircraft; and
(b) the aircraft is used for non-commercial operations

Panic Morph

SA-CATS-GMR is the sinker. You as pilot are only allowed to carry out emergency/en-route maintenance.

Unless emergency or en route you are not even allowed to change your spark plugs unless you match a,b or c of your above post.

[Morph]

43.02.5(1) Unless the Commissioner has approved I writing, an aircraft and it’s components and installed equipment shall be overhauled or substituted at such times as recommended or specified by it’s manufacturer
(2) Overhaul of a Class I or Class II product and repairs to the primary structure of the aircraft, it’s engines or propeller(s) shall be undertaken by an appropriately rated approved aircraft maintenance organization only


I don't yet know what the classes are but from this if you do not overhaul your engine as per the manufacturers timing and specification your aircraft is no longer airworthy, nor will you qualify for renewal of your ATF.

[DieselFan]

Looks like the only way around this is to start our own Taxi Association, start taking pax from A to B for MONEY.

- As a taxi owner / pilot we will be exempt from anything considered un air worthy,
- We can fit cardboard brakes
- Checkers bags to fix the holes in our wings caused by a rival airfield lowflyby shooting
- Get tax benefits for our petrol purchases
- Get reductions in licensing costs and so called Airworthy Certificates
- Won't need the Van Zyl's at qeues at the CAA, we won't stand in q's!
- No need to comply with restricted airspaces
- Make lots of cop friends
- We might even get goverment to buy our two seaters and get us larger Turbo Diesel 10 seater (0 Standing) trikes - with power assisted control bars! (You still only need one parachute)
- Subsidised hangarage costs
- DVD Screens for PAX!
- Heck the list goes on and on! Who needs CAA and Non Type Certified rules and regs?! We just need SAMTA - South African Microlight Taxi Association!

The only problem going this route is we'd all have Toyota undercarriages and inflight hijacking.

Now on a more serious note...why don't any of the schools know about this?!