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

[John Young]

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 …….

Hi Skybound,

Thanks for your input on this thread. Please assist with your interpretation of the following, namely: -

1. What has happened to the traditional AP status as opposed to AME?

2. (b) & (c) above must provide our options in terms of –

i. being able to work on your microlight under supervision, or
ii. getting trained by the manufacturer of your microlight (in my case Solo Wings) to perform such functions as –

- fuel tank remove and flush
- fuel filter replacement
- fuel line replacement
- air cleaner servicing
- carb rubber replacement
- flushing cooling system
- flushing rotary valve
- plugs (is there a more menial task?)
- gearbox – drain and refill
- Etc.

3. Are you able to explain why a weight shift microlight needs a weight and balance check every 5 years?

Regards & thanks in advance
John ZU-CIB

[skybound®]

Hi John

I have not yet read the regs in their entirity, but from what I have read it looks like reference to the AP system is missing. With the work that AeCSA has done on this system, I cannot believe that this is true. I must have missed something somewhere. More bed time reading to try and find it.

Under the old regs there was some latitude for an owner/pilot to do some tasks like oil change even on a TCA. Looks like that has even gone.

I really wish we could have some comment from MISASA. Perhaps they have some plan or have a better understanding of the bigger picture or correct any misinformation.

As stated earlier - I am not current with MISASA - I dont own a Micro or NTCA at present. I am a member of SAPFA but most of those guys are TCA and not really that much affected (they did help me out with some initial research into this part).

Can a member please ask MISASA for some comment?

[ICEMAN]

So are the following few examples of what our "for sale" section will look like if/when this goes through:

Trike- new wing, new prop, new instruments, immaculate condition, always hangared, 299hrs on hobbs, 300 hour looksie due, owner has been anal with ongoing preventative maintainance- plane worth 35k- asking price 3K (Value less 32K)
Trike- old tattered wing, instuments u/s, prop damaged, tires flat, never been hangared, 301hrs on hobbs, 300hr looksie worth 32k just been completed, owner never taken care of plane-whole plane valued @10k voetstoets- asking 42K (value + 32K)
which one is the safer plane to get in and fly?


Then the following mechanical services might become available:

300hr maintanance options available to cash strapped owners- cost 32K if we do it as it should be, alternative option is 5k cash to have the log book signed off as completed- no need for us to see the plane, just send the logbook.


So back to my previous posting question- what is the objective of the changes? who hopes to achieve what?

[skybound®]

Absolutely Iceman. You may have been 'joking' with your examples - but those scenarios will probably play out to be pretty accurate.

If you look at TCA, the factors you have mentioned certainly do influence the value of an aircraft.

What they are trying to achieve - I am afraid I am at a loss for an answer.

[lamercyfly]

Hi folk.

MISASA, in the form of Gavin Lundie, the Technical Rep, has responded in his personal capacity on the microlighters.co.za chat group. He has voiced sound and reasonable opinions, and stated that MISASA needs to discuss this issue of Part 24.

But this mail to you guys on this group is to ask you all:-

PLEEEZ DO NOT ABIDE BY THIS PART. Stand together as an industry. If CAA will not re-issue your Auth. To Fly, threaten CAA with legal action if you suffer financial loss due to any cause as a result (ie accident and insurance will not pay out etc.,) Their case is hopeless, as entire process of forming and legislating this part is flawed. I appeal to you all, stand together for once, and demand that MISASA get this part re-written properly. Call for a SPECIAL AGM if necessary. This is quite frankly a national crisis for our sport.

Like I said earlier, it is our fault. Yours and mine. Yes, all you guys who read and do nothing.

There have been 1275 hits on this subject, and only 15 guys have made about 67 comments. Only 44 guys have actually bothered to cast their vote on the POLL.

With this kind of support, we are screwed.

Please, if you are vagualy literate, then post a reply. Just say, "yes, I support MISASA to stop part 24 and have it re-written".

Then MISASA will do it for you. But you MUST show support!!

Please, please......

COME ON GUYS.

[Gadget]

lamercyfly,

I have been a MISASA member since the day I started flying, mind you, I think I joined before I started flying, and now looked what happened. MISASA has not been doing their job and they had better start giving clear answers to members on why they let this pass and not inform us. I for one will not be renewing my membership if they do not sort this out.

As to why so little pilots are joining the discussion, we are, most of us, prepared to continue flying, authority to fly or not, licence or not. Remember, the licence does not make the pilot, nor does the authority to fly keep the plane in the air.

The ones I feel realy sorry for is the trusty AP's who have been supporting us through the years, seems like they are the ones who are going to suffer the most. To not even speak of schools and instructors, the ones who got us to fly safe, now it is going to be too expensive to continue flying, but hey, in a country where there are already a limitless supply of jobs, let's cut a few more.

I am all for telling CCA to go jump off, (or get thrown out of) but I will not do it in support of an organization that pretends to support me.

MISASA, where are the answers?

[Gadget]

lamercyfly, where is Gavin's statement?

[Tumbleweed]

Heard from a good authority who attended an Aeroclub talk that this is sommer kak.

Wheels are in motion to transfer all licence renewal/ approval/ re-classify microlites catagories e.t.c. to Aeroclub who then sends you with an approved document to which you stand in line at CAA and just pay the cashier.

[skybound®]

Delta VV, the transfer that you speak of is to RASA - not Aero Club. There are still many things that need to happen before RASA will come into existence - the people heading that up are mainly the okes from Aero Club, but at this stage they know not what objectives, guidelines etc CAA will lay down for them.

But back to the topic, even when this organisation comes into being they will have to as a minimum comply with Part 24. They can only become more restrictive - but not less.

24.01.11 For the purposes of this Part, and until such time that an organisation
has been approved in terms of Part 149, any person building or maintaining
a non-type certificated aircraft for aviation recreational purposes shall comply
with the airworthiness standards and procedures prescribed for its members by
the national body representative of the particular aviation sport, provided that
these standards and procedures include those prescribed in, and are not in
conflict with, the provisions of this Part.

[lamercyfly]

Hey Gadget.

You need to subscribe to another microlight chat group, called SAMicro.It is a yahoo e-mail newsgroup. The address is SAMicro@yahoogroups.com

You will find quite an interesting chat on that group about this part 24, even comments from Aviation Engines, the SA Rotax dealers.

Later,

[Arnulf]

How do I subscribe to that chat group?

[nicow]

I also want to know how.
Nico
ZU-AWA

[ZULU1]

As a HKS user, obviously this is of interest and I found this compliance statement. It is really an interesting document for a NTCA.

Pity the unit is not Turbocharged..

ZULU1

[kmp]

Robert Gassmann who is part of MISASA and AeCSA asked me to post this message...

Fellow Aviators,

I've been on the committee/board of MISASA and/or the Aero Club since 1997, mostly
looking after the finances. This made me a part of, or at least I had knowledge of the
regulation changes in question.

Let me try to give you some information or answers.

In the year 2000, all the questions on the table now, were referred to the LS1 document.
This LS1 documents was written some time in the 1970's and was totally outdated 30
years later. This is when the CAA/Aero Club/MISASA/EAA and other important role-players
got together and wrote the various new regulations, e.g.. Part 24, Part 96, Part 98.
In 2002, the then commissioner of Civil Aviation, Trevor Abrahams, wrote the new
regulations into operation. Ever since then, these regulations have been in use. The
sudden panic of the last few weeks is rather unfortunate and unfounded. However
understandable, due to the many grey area's, as well as leaving room for various
interpretations. There is no truth whatsoever that the entire South African NTC fleet
is about to be grounded or flying illegal, however the net around pilots with total
disregard for rules and regulations has now tightened tremendously, with prosecutions
being imminent.

Talking about specific issues, such as the 300 hrs engine overhaul. Yes, it may be
a blanket rule at the moment, as so many others (unchallenged in court yet) and
I don't think it will go there, as CAA and the Commissioner are approachable and
willing with amendments on special applications. They are definitely not unreasonable.
However it is the manufacturers/importers, or even operators right/duty to go and show
the commissioner for instance, a 582 engine on a trike requiring 40 HP only, could safely
be operated up to 600 hrs and thereafter receive an operator's manual amendment.

You will still be changing your plugs, oil, oil filters, etc in the future, as well as doing
minor repairs.

In conclusion: I personally do not loose any sleep about these new/old regulations. I
know the best possible solution will be found.

What really gets to me: With the tremendous knowledge and enthusiasm out there,
we're still ending up having to virtually con members into volunteering to join the
various committees.

Regards,
Robert Gassmann

[Bacardi]

And the very valid reply (acknowledging the writer) :

My worry is that what you say about the intent of the parts, and what is actually written, is requiring some reconciliation. In some cases maybe it is just some clarification. In other cases amendments may be required. I would be nervous to say that Robert Gassman/MISASA said I could change my plugs, yet in the written regulation, I am prohibited from doing this. (Really don't want to be the test case when the insurers/medical aids pick up the regs and say that I broke them - hence no pay out.) If it was not the intent of the part, why were they promulgated in this way. Once again we probably carry responsibility for not doing something about it.