LSA and recreational licence Part 62

[RV4ker (RIP)]

IMHO the min hrs mean little and serve no purpose other than EGO's. "I went solo in -3 hrs" and "got license in 10", "am uber pilot in the making" Comments like this scare me and it all a load of BS. IMHO it should be based on the pupils ability, confidence and proficiency. The hrs are purely guidelines and instructors should be the final judge and take some responsibility, but many milk the situation. long before you have 40/50hrs dual and have not gone solo the instructor should have sat you down and said maybe flying is not for you. Difficult when it your sole source of income. Gliding boys do not get paid for instruction and they ar tough as hell. Very few gliding incidents and they do not tolerate any K@K.

When I did twin convex I was comfortable and (possibly even) proficient after 3hrs, but the law requires min 6 hrs, so we played for the other 3 (night, IF and instrument work) to keep CAA happy. Conversely when I did the Albat conversion after having twin time I did 7 hrs dual before I was comfortable and before the instructor would "let me loose". Law requires just 1hr. bottom line is you are in charge of your destiny. Take responcibility for your actions. I always ask instructor if he would let his wife or family fly with me. If he even blinks we go on. unfortunately some milk the system. I have been billed for 2hrs I did not fly as instructor said CAA would not accept a log book with less than 1 hr for complex convex. Must be min 3 hrs. I was naive and left it, but I should have taken him on. I blame CAA for the situation. They are creating an evironemnt where it more about minimuns and covering your arse as school/instructor than safety. Catch 22, but my opinion is that they have dropped the ball here a long time ago.

Back to LSA
LSA has reduced medical requirements which is possibly why it is so popular in USA. Limits on performance (can only almost kill you mentality) and only 1 pax (reduced liability). IMHO THE BIG ISSUE with PPL is that you can drive ANYTHING with a PPL and convex. ANYTHING - If you can afford it you can drive a 747, 737, BBJ, King Air, Lear Jet 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. Obviously it an extreme situation, but legally once you have a conversion onto that aerie you can fly it with many unsuspecting pax on board. When was last time you asked PPL how many hrs he had on type or total hrs before going for a flip. Some take it as insult and usually they are the dangerous ones.

I thus think there is a place for the "smaller" aerie license (LSA or 3axis - but both my be overkill), for the fun round the patch flyer. I fly high performance pistons and agree that for that purpose LSA is not acceptable in isolation, but there is some merrit in building LSA hrs and then converting to PPL. Again instructor needs to judge when you are compitent and maybe they need to go back to designated instructors. if you want to "take a shortcut" you need to do it with CAA designated examiner. Else you have to comply with the minimums? I don't think CAA has the capacity or ability to do this, but ti would be nice.

I also think if you have PPL you should be allowed to fly LSA/3axis with a simple convex. If I understand the recreational pilot's license this will not be possible and I will need RPL, PPL, MPL & MGPL and remain current on all of them?

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


my 2c

[apollolight]

Mmm, some interesting view points, but as some have pointed out the main idea around LSA certification is to bring down costs, accomodate the exiting new aircraft that are not m/lights but also not light aircraft. - not bring down standards.

Furthermore the new Part 62 situation will have the recreational licence replacing the old MPL licence, the LSA becomes an add on rating within the recreational licence.

Under part 61 and the new PPL exams that have already been implemented there is a pretty large gap on exam standard as apposed to the current MPL exams, as a matter of fact the new PPL exam system is not very far off that of current commercial standard. It goes way into detail not required from that of an MPL or LSA pilot.
After an ICAO audit a couple of years ago our PPL exam standard was found to be below par.

LSA aircraft are an awkward situation, they are not quite microlights but also not quite light aircraft, and with the explosion of the LSA type aircraft like the Jabs, Stings, Samba's etc... they needed a licence berth. So for guys that still want remain on trikes and the older 3 axis m/lights under 450 Kg they will remain MPL or soon to be on the recreational licence, if they don't want go to PPL level but want to add on the LSA rating they can do so. This is a UNIQUE SA thing in the USA LSA means almost EVERYTHING below 1350 lbs, trikes, sambas, jabs, even a J3 Cub becomes an LSA in the US.
BUT, there is a structured LSA exam system and cirruculum that is working very well there.
It covers all the PPL material , simply less in depth and detail, a PPL would need to know more despite operating in the same airspace as an MPL as there are many more facets to a PPL's scope of added on and current operation, night flying, variable pitch (not electronic) retractable gear manual mixture, multi engine operations, instrument flight, does a MPL or LSA exam need to concern as much detail and depth then, or cover that detail in lighter detail?

On the other side of the coin the advantage to writing one exam PPL LSA and MPL namely the PPL exam admittedly does bring all to the same standard and makes upgrading far less hassle.

It is going to be interesting to see how the LSA syllabus gets implemented, and I must admit there certainly is room for improvement to the current MPL exams... but is there a need to make MPL/LSA the same exam standard as PPL?

I'm sure a lot will be more clearer once the part 62 is official.

[apollolight]

Morph that is an interesting suggestion that does have merit, I chatted to an instructor friend a couple of years ago and he suggested something like to after getting ones licence no passengers to be carried until say 3-5 hours of post MPL, no flights beyond 50 NM until 10 hours of post MPL licence and he even suggested a log book endoresment of a controlled airspace sign off (this after making at least two full stop landings at a controlled airfield - at the time I thought it extreme but after instructing for a few hours I think it could be a good idea.
Last thing we want tis over regulation but some practical infusion may be warranted?

[skybound®]

... as some have pointed out the main idea around LSA certification is to bring down costs, accomodate the exiting new aircraft that are not m/lights but also not light aircraft. - not bring down standards.

Appolo, how do you see this as bringing costs down? At training level, cost of aircraft ownership or otherwise?

As far as accomodating the LSA type aircraft, surely the minimium training guidelines should be closer to the reality, otherwise why have a guideline at all?

With these aircraft sometimes being more complex, and as suggested 'trickier' to fly, I would almost suggest that the minimums should be higher than the easier to fly, PPL traditional tin.

Flack jacket on

[apollolight]

Hi Skybound, well as far as the medical issue goes it will be less frequent than that of the PPL, class 4 cost saving there, maintenance far cheaper A 100 MPI on a ZS registred a/c can land up almost paying for a top end overhaul on a Jab or Rotax engine, TBO can be eye wateringly expensive even on a C150/152 - something in the region of R120 - 130.000 and the kite is out of service for weeks. Cost saving there.
On the LSA types with smooth Carbon Fiber or F/glass or bonded metal there are no multitudes of panels to open for inspection, that in itself can be three hours labour in a C172 for example.

On training the hourly requirements are slightly lower so there will be cost savings on training, Ive only heard mostly PPL guys complain about the initial difficulty of flying the LSA type aircraft, guys that start on the LSA 's from scratch, they simply adapt and when they go on to fly typical Cessna's and Pipers they have little trouble converting.
The problem really is the light weight and wind, something the MPL 3 axis pilot has had to put up with for a long while anyhow.
No doubt the trainee LSA pilot will not be flying in strong or gusty winds until profiecent and will be gradually exposed to windier and gustier conditions as training and ability progreses.
Some pilots learn on taildraggers and solo at say 8 hours, some pilots after having gotten their PPL's do a t/wheel conversion and battle to get it right for 10 hours.
But again if the instruction is done properly the LSA pupe will have no problem getting a handle on the admittedly slighty trickier LSA, more than difficult I think it is more so different. After a few hours say 10 - 15 dual instruction one hardly notices how "difficult" it is to fly the LSA.

And remember the hours required are a guideline by law, in reality each pilot will differ and very, very few instructors will turn a pilot loose until profecient and able to meet the standards.

You have a point though and my feeling is most LSA licence's are going to be given at anything between 40 and 50 hours. Some will do it at 35 - 40 hours.
However look at the PPL schools averaging around 60 hours for a PPL notably part time weekend pilots and close to 50 for residential full time.

LSA has been a huge success in the US, Australia, and it is going to be enjoyed by more countries, even the UK now are looking at it there they are called VLA's and much of Europe will go this route I think.
But I like the US thinking anything below 1350 lbs and fixed gear two place max and ground adjustable prop falls to LSA, that includes trikes, gyrocpters, and 3 axis.

Huge problem is that many "microlights'' are pushing very close to the 450 Kg limit and when even carrying half fuel and two up can exceed the 450 kg weight limit, that is illegal and it's also silly leaving fuel behind to stay in the legal weight but not aircraft capable weight, that 450 rule was designed in many years ago when very basic microlights were about, and needs to be revised, we gotta move with the times and progress, technology stands still for nobody!

Do you think rather keep the existing 450 Kg rule and MPL and anything over requires a PPL to fly it? I honestly don't think that is a good idea.
LSA has huge potential, opportunities, jobs, stirring new interest attracting more pilots etc... when I saw the Sting I salivated, when I flew it I thought "man this is an exiting a/craft and they are coming out all over, you see that CSTW that the two Indian Air Force guys are flying around the world with, best selling LSA in the US at the moment.


Sheesh I'm all spent out now! Are there any other pro LSA guys out there!!

[skybound®]

Some valid points particularly regarding as to what type of aircraft you start out on influencing the road ahead. Recall seeing two similarly skilled individuals starting PPL - one on tricycle and other on tail dragger. Was only about 2 hours difference in the soloing hours.

I still hold the view however that the guideline should be closer to reality.

Also no matter how much talking to a newcomer an instructor does - if he sees
PPL - 45 hours
LSA - 35 hours
There is only one conclusion he is going to draw.

Costs - hmmm - not convinced. Medical sure agreed - but is probably the one bit that none of us really get financially hurt from.

The cost of aircraft ownership can be sliced in a few ways. My own experience at present is that there is little chance of me affording one of these new types like a CT2K, Foxbat, Sting, ..... the entry cost is out of my reach.

Yet my cost of entry into a C152 is affordable even if it does cost a few grand more in annual costs from the MPIs.

A simple comparison - R300k for a C152 - R600k+ for one of those new LSA ones. Difference is R300k and at present interest rates results in additional R30k per annum - my MPIs on a 152 come nowhere close (touch wood).

Overhauls may not be that far different. Looking once again at the above aircraft types, Rotax 912 does 1200 hours, C152 2400. Rotax overhaul I believe is in region of R40k so equating R80k to R120k for the same 2400 hours. That is 1 years single interest on the additional capital cost.

[apollolight]

I must admit the intial purchase price can be rather pricey on the LSA's notably the top range ones like Stings and Samba's, Tecnams, and others mentioned, mmm, maybe a C 152 could be a better bet there, the Jabs are nicely priced, but the way one purchases is also a huge factor, min deposit scenario is going to hurt. Building yourself saves - some don't have that time.
But fuel costs and maintenance are starting to eat into the C152's now althought I must add I love the C150/152's , such forgiving and strong aircraft. Delight to fly... have a few hundred hours in 150/152's.
Jab top ends are rather much cheaper than Rotax, to purchase too.
I'm not into reduction gearbox's and all that water plumbing that Rotax offers , despite the bigger prop possible and more flat curve torque theory, I like simple that the Jab engines offer. Flying club that I flew at operated Jabs over a few thousand hours, and I was impressed at how the Jab engines were holding up, their low maintenance costs and pretty good fuel burns the newer 85HP motors with hydraulic lifters, and the 120 HP version impressed me even more, and their lowish weight. One thing I forgot to mention is that I cannot afford the new LSA type aircraft on my own too , but I'm going into a partnership with a couple of good mates and we are going to buy a Jab Fatboy or possibly a Jab J430, if we can get the 4th person we want, the 430 won't fall into the LSA situation though.
Hey folk if you are out there burning up with the high cost of single ownership/finance consider a syndicate? Three guys I know bought a Trike for R80.000 For under R30.000 each initial they own a Trike. They are having a blast.
Interesting discussions and much food for thought...