LSA and recreational licence Part 62

[apollolight]

Hi folk, anybody know when this will actually become reality I'm pretty exited by the new part 62 offering, I'm sure too that many MPL schools are exited?

[Morph]

Welcome Apollolight

at the moment the talk is around Jan 2008. Whether that in fact happens is a different story

[apollolight]

Hi Morph, tks, pretty much what I've heard too, well we can hope, a lot of things are happening in Jan 2008 with the updated part 61, and the new JAA exam syllabus.
I'm usually on avcom.co.za and only recently came into contact with this chat site.

[skybound®]

Welcome Apollolight

at the moment the talk is around Jan 2008. Whether that in fact happens is a different story

Not talk - it is reality. Was gazetted and to be effective 1 Jan 2008. Part 61 and 62.

There was some talk of a licence offering being put together to give a bit more weight than the current MPL weight restrictions (Simlar to the USA's Sport Pilot), but would say that everyone is probably very busy just to get grips with these new parts that will be effective 1 Jan.

[Massimo]

What exactly will this part 62 entail? As you mentioned skybound will there be an increased weight class?

[apollolight]

Hi folk have a look at the misasa site www.misasa.co.za, and then go to Light Sport Aircraft summary, it explains it pretty well.
Just heard there have been a few industryupdates to the summary on misasa, but the basic LSA layout is pretty much what it will be.

In a nutshell
Max weight 600 kg's
Max speed 140 Kts/150 get conflicting info here.
Stall max 45 Kts
Min training 15 hours solo, total 35 hours
Credit to PPL 35 hours

Recreational licence will replace the MPL, the LSA type 3 axis aircraft will become an add on rating within the recreational licence.

This is my understanding of the summary at misasa...

What I'm not clear on is - are all tradional MPL type aircraft (3 axis and trike) based on the under 450 Kg weight and then anything over 450 Kg but under 600 and with those speed criteria based on LSA type, I think I may have answered my own question here - I think!
African Pilot carried an LSA article on all the LSA aircraft in SA a couple of months agoy, the intro was all about the new part 62 LSA, interesting reading..

[Chunky]

[quote="apollolight"]...
Min training 15 hours solo, total 35 hours
...[/quote]

They need to up the hours. 35 hours is not enough on some of these aircraft.

[apollolight]

Hi Chuncky, oh yes agreed the new LSA's are in many instances as u and I and others on the forum have pointed out a little tricky to fly notably in windy conditions and also many of these new generation "microlights"/LSA types, most can outperform typical traditonal trainers like the C152, however remember that the hours required by law and reality mostly differ, in reality more than likely around 40 - 50 hours will be required on the LSA. (slightly shorter xcountries will be required) The PPL 40 hours was laid down in the law pre 1976, however I'm under correction I think the national PPL average is sitting around 60 hours. Had the figures somewhere but it is not many PPL pilots for example that get their licence at 40 - 45 hours. Usually the full time residential student gets close or at.
Just as in the MPL licence where often pilots will go to 30 - 50 hours the industry will reasonably self regulate, very, very few instructors will turn a pilot loose at legal requirement unless he/she shows above average ability. But again the industry automatically self regulates and students will not be sent solo or signed off as completed until meeting the standard required, and that really is what it is about, meeting the standard required, some do it at minimums some don't. Had students ready for solo in a Jab at 7 hours others took almost 20. Both landed up flying equally well at 40 hours, the human factor! Not always about hours. Students may struggle at different stages to each other. Some students are so good at handling the a/c at 8 hours ready for solo but their situational awareness and radio work require a few more hours. Others great radio and situational awarenes but struggled to master the circuit and landings.
But I hear what you are saying, with todays more complex airspace, improved performance, higher density traffic those minimums need to to be possibly revised to some - but if the reasons above are valid which I think are- do they?

[skybound®]

Plenty of truth in that Appollolight.

Worth mentioning that even the PPL requirements in the new Part 61 have increased from 40 to 45 hours.

The one thing that I would be scared of is that sometimes you get that 'clever' oke that quotes chapter and verse and puts the instructor under pressure - saying he has the hours required and hence must sign him off. It does happen.

The question I guess is that if the real numbers are far more - surely there is no harm in increasing them anyway.

Also with more and more individuals saying that these newer types are more difficult to fly than the traditional tin, why then would we be trying to keep the hours below that of a PPL?

[apollolight]

Hi Skybound, mmm, valid concerns indeed, the Prt 61 5 hour increase certainly shows the powers that be are aware of the changing invironment and taking appropriate action. Sure there will be the occasional student who would argue their case based on those min hours required. Most instructors would not give in to that, as if there is an accident they will be grilled and if the student did all on minimums there will be questions as to was the student really ready?
Also remember that CAA, FAA and such carefully scrutinize requirements.
You have a point though maybe we need to relook at the required hours, if there is a problem - and that is the million $ question, is there a problem with the min hours required? Is the industry suffeciently inducing self regulation over the min hours required in the interests of safety and reasonable competence? My experience is they are but maybe I'm not fully aware of what is happening out there outside of my operating invironment? There will always be the occasional chancer student and flight school or instructor, I hope it is rare though.

[Chunky]

I went solo on a trike in 3h 45 min. I completed my 3 axis conversion in less than 4 hours too. Although it was great to get sent away on my own so quick I can recall not being 100% comfortable with the idea.

I have seen guys taking 50 hours to go solo and I did not want to be around when they did.

Just my opinion but its far harder to fly the new LSA types than conventional bliks and I reckon the training should be adjusted accordingly.

I can see some of the Microlight training schools being automatically elevated to LSA training schools. This is going to spell only disaster in my opinion. LSA licences should be at least of the same standard as PPL.

(Better put my bullet proof vest on now)

[apollolight]

Hi Chuncky, agreed that the LSA type aircraft sometimes can be a little trickier by virtue of their light weight and in windy conditions, but a huge factor is the instruction given. Good instruction will produce no problems for the student training on LSA's. But remember why the LSA was started in the USA, it was designed for pilots not wishing to persue a career in flying and also to allow more people into aviation without breaking the bank. The LSA licence in the US for example is a different set of exams to the PPL and not much of a lower standard, the point being it is an LSA not a PPL, so there will be a lower hour requirement and standard, if you want to make it the same as PPL what is the point of having a MPL LSA then? Why stop then and simply make PPL to commercial standard? Do you see my point? There cannot be one standard, there needs to be recreational licences like the LSA and MPL, pilots then that want to go further can persue the PPL comm, ATP.. I'm not advocating lowering any standards but avocating that there must be an entry level standard before PPL such as there has been with MPL and the soon to be LSA, which will probably align closely to PPL standard. A lower exam standard will not suddenly cause accidents. I hold a commercial licence and know that not everybody is cut out to do the licence, and many that do not want to, but that there are many good pilots flying at MPL and PPL level who have no desire to swot exams, spend much money, they simply want to fly for fun. More so than changing exams and hours is the importance of changing the South African pilots ATTITUDE, the mindset of too many pilots out there is I'm indestructible and it will not happen to me, it shows in the way we drive our cars and our accident stats on the roads, hey I'm not saying ALL SA pilots, I think most pilots have the right attitude but there are too many who do not.
Finally there really is no reason why a MPL or LSA pilot cannot fly to the standard of a PPL, again not so much in the hours and exam standard but in the ATTITUDE of the instructor, the school, and then passed on to the student.
Hee, hee, maybe I should bring out my bullet proof vest now!!
Would appreciate comments on this!

[Morph]

I have absolutely no desire to go PPL or beyond. I fly for fun and microlights for affordability. It agree it does not make sense to move the LSA requirements up close to PPL in terms of minimum hours. Why then would we have a distinction. IMHO a minimum of 25 hours is sufficient for 3-axis training for an MPL. (What does a PPL do in those extra 15 hours?) I do not see the need to increase it to 35 and more. Your instructor can decide if you are ready or not.

What I do think is very important is that the level of ground school should be identical.(MPL/LSA/PPL). It is the same air and the same rules apply. In fact perhaps on MPL/LSA more emphasis should be placed on the significance on adverse weather conditions such as turbulence, high winds, crosswind landings in blustery conditions etc.

As far as the standard of instruction is concerned, I believe that it must be at the same level. In fact I don't see why it ever should be different. We need to occupy the same space of air and therefor need to be taught the same discipline, attitude, respect and abilities.

Perhaps they should introduce a multifaceted approach. When you build a new aerie, you have to fly it on a strict proving flight authority to 40 hours in 6 months limited to 100km radius from your airfield. Perhaps they should set the licence to minimum of 25 hours for MPL/LSA, but then introduce a minimum solo flying hours after that, say 20 hours before being allowed to take a PAX etc. Even maybe limit the size of the cabbage patch. I have not thought this one through thoroughly but it's meant as a point of discussion.

[skybound®]

The part I am struggling to reconcile is the minimum requirements.

There appears to be some consensus that many of the LSA type aircraft are more difficult to fly than the conventional tin.

With the above in mind, the message sent and perception created by the requirements is that you can get your licence to fly a more difficult aircraft, in less time. This does not make sense to me.

I have read through some parts of the proposal - but the one point that I cannot find is - What is the objective of the LSA category? Why do we need it?

[RV4ker (RIP)]

IMHO the min hrs mean little. It should be based on the pupils ability. The hrs are purely guidelines.

LSA has reduced medical requirements which is possibly why it is so popular in USA. Limits on performance and only 1 pax. IMHO BIG ISSUE with PPL is that you can drive ANYTHING with a PPL. If you can afford it you can drive a 747 with a PPL after initial PPL and convex - not sure you get insurance, but if you can afford a 747 you possibly don't need it. I think there is a place for the "smaller" aerie license (LSA or 3axis - both my be overkill), but I think if you have PPL you should be allowed to fly LSA/3axis with a simple convex.

I see no point in having 3 axis microlight and LSA. Confusion rules KO!