Microlight over JHB CBD this morning

[DieselFan]

Don't be too quick to...,

I've seen with my own eyes an ATF that allows flying over built up areas, or more specifically doesn't have the "no flying over built up areas" clause.

I also know that this specific trike (who's ATF I've seen) has done the Sandton - Rand route with authorised routing before, not under "radar" but with ATC knowing.

Perhaps management at CAA should be aware that there are exceptions, or perhaps they do and we do not...

[RV Sometime]

Don't be too quick to...,

I've seen with my own eyes an ATF that allows flying over built up areas, or more specifically doesn't have the "no flying over built up areas" clause.

I also know that this specific trike (who's ATF I've seen) has done the Sandton - Rand route with authorised routing before, not under "radar" but with ATC knowing.

Perhaps management at CAA should be aware that there are exceptions, or perhaps they do and we do not...

I do not understand your comment about "dont be too quick to"

I have made any assumptions & verbalised them & would like to know about the atf exceptions you talk about. The new legislation affects everyone.

We need to learn further

I would like to believe we are all on the same side

[Oddball]

I am sure it wasn't meant in that way; Dieselfan pm'd me about this first.

What is meant is that you can actually apply to have the requirement not to fly over a built up area waived by the CAA, provided you have a compelling reason of course- well, you used to be able to. Either that or at some point the CAA left this out of statement in the ATF.

Not sure which. Anyway, the point is that when you, or anyone talks to the CAA one must keep in mind that there are such aircraft that are permitted to overfly built up areas, and the aircraft that you saw may have had such a modified ATF. It may thus have been flying perfectly legally...

Not likely, but possible...

[DieselFan]

I am sure it wasn't meant in that way;

Thanks Oddball - It wasn't meant that way , RV Sometime , I was merely joking that us microlighters can sometimes get over excited and the person might have a modded ATF.

If voiced to CAA perhaps they ie management aren't aware of the modded ATF's and it wouldn't then be as damaging to our sport as first thought by many posters. As is apparent this is not common knowledge to have modified ATF's.

It's not an accidental omission but a deliberate request. I'm told there's some criteria involved such as PIC experience etc.

Allowing all microlighters to fly over built up areas could make the skies a tad busy and would most likely require different "highways" for the faster AC's.

If this servicing more regularly than one brushes their teeth is required than I can't see why we can't fly over CBD's - not that I would. Altho in an accident how much damage can a microlight cause? It would stall around 30mph and doesn't weigh much.

[Arnulf]

DieselFan wrote:

Altho in an accident how much damage can a microlight cause? It would stall around 30mph and doesn't weigh much.

Ahhh, let me guess, possibly a tad less damage than an overloaded taxi hurtling down the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic at a speed substantially higher than the limit would cause.

But then I suppose its all a matter of perspective, and what we got used to in this country of ours.

Regards,
Arnulf

P.s.: Just before everybody gets excited: I very much believe in sensible legislation, and also believe in adhereing to the rules. Flying over built up area in a single engine aircraft without a suitable forced landing site within gliding distance is not clever.
However refering to the controversial part 24 legislation where daft and ridicilous legislation is enforced to the detriment of private aviation, supposedly out of a safety concern, and at the same time the powers to be are quite blasè about the carnage on the road does not make sense.

[t-bird]

HI RV Sometime

Is it possible to get a reason from CAA as to why ZU planes are not allowed build up areas?
Take the following example to them:
A 2007 Samba is not allowed but a 1963 Cessna is
A samba weigh less, less damage
Samba glide a lot further than a Cessna, finding a better landing spot.
Better technology in Samba than a Cessna
TBO on Samba engine 1500 hours
Samba factory assembled

Robbie R22 – Magni Gyro
A Magni weigh less, less damage
A Magni already in autorotation
A Magni less complex – no gearbox on rotor to fail
TBO on Magni engine 1500 hours
Magni factory assembled
Gyro accidents happen on take off and landing
Robbie’s fall out of the sky – check the stats on heli and gyro accidents this year.

In the old days motor cycles where not allowed on the freeway. You can go out today and drive a 125 cc on the highway.

What process do we have to follow to change the rules or to let them see the light?
Why not let certain types fly over a build up area?
The PIC should have a certain number of hours – then allowed

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Guys bottom line is public safety although I fail to see what liability CAA accepts in event of crash/mishap etc.

I have had it out with CAA on this issue and if you follow thread on avcom regrding ATF cvh (chris) is trying to persue the matter. My NTCA was allowed to fly over built up area and at night. When I renewed the ATF this year, they left off the night part in error (by own admission), so I reapplied for that, but when I got the night ATF they slipped in the "not permitted to fly over built up area's" clause without justiication. That was March, now June and all I have from them is management are considering it and I am convinced that mine was a typo. Soooo Good luck. Am not being negative, but unfortunately there are few folks at CAA who are allowed to make a decision like this and even fewer who are willing to...

I think RV is on the right track, but it gonna take time. ATF is issued to the plane and not the pilot, so limiting to experienced pilots is not practical. Certified planes have some recourse to the manufacturer, not so with your ML as maint can be done by you. (same reason finance is hard to get for used ml's - Maintenance is hard to control) I know most guys will not get into an unsafe aerie and I will fly most NTCA's before I pole a 45 year old blik, but egislation still "views" NTCA (of which ML's are a huge part) as the reckless edge of aviation fronteer where anything goes and many have a death wish... (THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY)

I fail to see why a ML can not get a night ATF if it meets with the reg's which the GT450's or the plastic fantastic 3 axis do as delivered for eg or why it should not be allowed to fly over built up area. The Pilot must make the decision regarding the risks involved. When I asked how I would get into Rand or FAGC without routing over built up area they responded that I should route elsewhere. My aerie lived at Rand and was maintained at FAGC and I had been doing it (without incident) for 3 years before a typo put paid to it. What rubbish.

I firmly believe that unless CAA address the NTCA classification system that throws the L39's, Sea Fury, Hunter, RV's, Plastic fantastic's, microlights (trikes) into the same category we will never be allowed to fly where we want to as it is simply too difficult to blanket regulate. NTCA has become a dumping ground..... IMHO trikes should have their own category/class as should unpowered aeries (souring association). Aero club has different division for each and they don't even regulate. Why not CAA?

[skybound®]

your ML as maint can be done by you.

That only holds true if you are an approved person. See discussion on Part 24.

[Dreamer]

A samba weigh less, less damage , a magni weigh less, less damage

:D If we can get them to buy into this then we can get all the big stuff banned from flying over built up area's.......heck even the big busses, then built up area's can be exclusively for ML's, our own playground...

[t-bird]

Why is the aeroclub,missa,sagpa,eaa not working on the NTCA issue ?
How can we change the rules?
What is the process that we have to follow?

Why not get all the NTCA aircraft owners involved?

I have phoned CAA and asked them what I have to do if Wonderboom ATC route me over a built-up area into Wonderboom.
They suggested that I phone Wonderboom beforehand and tell them not to route me over a built-up area.
Wonderboom is very congested as it is , do you think I would be able to get this special treatment from them ?

[Eggbeater]

Hi All

I must say that I agree with t-bird on this one. Aeroclub, MISSA, SAGPA and the EAA should be taking this up on our behalf. Not only that but they should also be reporting back to us, on this forum or by e-mails, what the state of play is and, if necessary, ask for our assistance be it by way of submitting letters to the CAA or even contributing to a legal fund so that the Commissioner's decision can be reviewed by the High Court.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

your ML as maint can be done by you.

That only holds true if you are an approved person. See discussion on Part 24.

Has Part 24 been formally approved yet? (Is it law or just accepted practise?)

I am stating simply what I have seen - guys who are not AP's doing the maintenance, NOT the annual inspections... I know some AP's will only do the inspections, while others do the maintenance work and inspections. Not running anyone down, but point I was trying to make was that the system is not as regulated as the TCA stuff... (luckily, but it does make it more difficult as maint is a grey area.)

On my NTCA I am already quiet familiar with oil changes, brake bleeding, tailwheel steering link repairs and a couple other "regular" maint items which are required. I have a rocket steering link (as opposed to standard spings & chains)on my RV. It has snapped twice (in same place) while I was in the sticks landing on rough (by blik standards not ML standards ) ground strips. (It appears that it was an early model defect. I receved a new replacement one and have not had any problems since, but have upgraded to a silver bulled milled solid steering link which is supurb. When I called AMO to come out (600km by road) I got 300 stories and this left me with limited choice$.... Fly it with castoring tailwheel and hope the brakes hold out if wind X or repair it.

I did/organised "field" (magnesium weld at local engineering works) repairs to it, fitted it and flew it back to the AMO. He looked at it and said he could not have done any better and made entry in log book. When the Mags went recently I removed them took them to FAWB got them fixed and AMO fitted them on his way past the remote field. Again I could not get AMO to come out to have a look BECAUSE it was NTCA. The perception out there is that it is not necessary for AP to do it, as long as AP inspects it afterwards....

PS
Where do you draw the line. I am not AP. What am I allowed to do?
I bleed my brakes every 25hrs. ONLY reason I do this is that the big AMO's (who maintain my aerie) can't seem to get it right first or second time. Takes me 30mins (anywhere - I have a 1 man suckion bleeder kit which travels with me after the couple zero brake x wind landings went wrong). They charge for 2.5 hrs and it goes back 3 times. It has an inverted dual master cyl system which is not standard (beauty of NTCA).
I now have a spare steering link which I have field fitted when the original snapped the second time. I still carry the first one as backup should I get stranded again.
I update the panel mount GPS database via internet. (King Bendix 135A)
I have fitted upgraded avionics, flight & engine instruments...

Am I legally allowed to do the above? (I would prefer the AMO to do them, but it not always practical or cost effective - like GPS upgrade at R2000 a pop vs $25 on internet)

Hi All

I must say that I agree with t-bird on this one. Aeroclub, MISSA, SAGPA and the EAA should be taking this up on our behalf. Not only that but they should also be reporting back to us, on this forum or by e-mails, what the state of play is and, if necessary, ask for our assistance be it by way of submitting letters to the CAA or even contributing to a legal fund so that the Commissioner's decision can be reviewed by the High Court.

I know EAA via Chris (cvh on avcom) was having a look at it from the eaa NTCA types. Problem is presenting a unified voice. The frustration I experienced when I dealt with CAA, lead me to just want to get mine sorted out. They tend to chase up soooo many issues that it becomes a full time job. They get paid to argue, while I had to take leave. Just not worth it. Also a huge problem with accountability. Few have the ability to make a decision.

IMHO first step is to get NTCA categories/classes/groups set up. It is impossible to regulate with the category (NTCA) so wide...... Even CAA officials are confused and "Skaam Kwaad" and this makes any interaction frustrating for both parties and it usually does not end well.

As an illustration of how wide the NTCA reg's are. I have a Ex war bird (by the loosest def of the word, but it was used by the SAAF for recon so thus it a war bird ). It is currently reg'd as TCA (Type Certified Aircraft), has a C of A as opposed to a ATF and is thus allowed to be used in Charter, IF, recon and part 135 ops etc.... If I change only the certificate to ATF (NTCA) which can be done via a letter to CAA and payng prescribed fee, suddenly it will not be allowed to fly over built up area's never mind Charter, IF, recon and part 135 ops etc. Maintenance remains the same. I fail to see the logic, but this is the perception that exists. NTCA is not maintained to a regulated and sudited standard. Pilots in SAAF used to fly these aeries into big WX for 10+hrs per sortie, but change only the paper and suddenly it not allowed to fly over any built up areas..... WHY? Same argument for all the jet war birds. War's don't stop when the WX bad. Some of these aeries are more suited to operating in these prohibited environments than a 50 year old blikkie....

Point I am making is that this twin engined 8000lb aircraft (were it in NTCA as most of the Albat's are) is regulated in exactly the same way as my sinlge engined 1500lb RV4, or your 503 windlass.... The NTCA category is too wide to blanket regulate. Even in the ML(trike) area there is room for "different" rules. I still fail to see whya trike is not allowed to fly at night, or carry more than 1 PAX?

just my 2c

[skybound®]

RV4ker, from what I have been able to establish by talking to Aero Club sources is that Part 24 is active.

It was broght in via some special procedure contained in Part 11, and actually happened many moons ago. It was brought in via a special route owing to the LS1 document not being effective in the control of NTCAs.

The formal promulgation of the part 24 is in it's last step - that of being translated into another language. Once completed it will be gazetted as law. This is from what I understand, just formalising it as it is already active via the Part 11 process.

Only way to tackle it now is to start writing proposed amendments and taking via Aero Club and the CARCOM route.

I fear we have been caught napping on this one.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Yip I agree, but when I took on some of the guys at CAA they told me part 24 not legal yet thus it in limbo...

Again serves to illustrate the fact they not even CAA know exactly what is going on....

[t-bird]

Is it not unconstitutional if proven that zs-aircraft is not safer over built up areas than zu-aircraft.

It is easy to proof – accident history, aircraft weight, complexity of aircraft etc.

Then add a compromise – only 4 strokes with a TBO of at least 1000 hours
The PIC should have at least 200 hours
The aircraft should have a minimum of 80 hours before the flying over built up.
At least 10 of the type should be flying in RSA

New ZU registration in July SA Flyer 33 Aircraft
New ZS registration in July SA Flyer 29 Aircraft
Deleted ZU Deleted ZS 10 Aircraft

Zs accidents per DJ 10 – fatalities 2
Zu accidents per DJ 3 - fatalities 0

Per the stats the ZU aircraft are overtaking the ZS aircraft.
The ZS aircraft are leading the number of accidents

Why not get all the ZU aircraft owners involved and take them to the constitutional court ?