Is this the end of microlighting in S.A. ?

[zucac]

is it not cheaper to pay the fine R500 for the first one,the next one a year later R1000. So maybe I pay R1000 a year to fly.Cheaper than R30000,same machine still can fly.

[gertcoetzee]

is it not cheaper to pay the fine R500 for the first one,the next one a year later R1000. So maybe I pay R1000 a year to fly.Cheaper than R30000,same machine still can fly

You lost a decimal. R5000 and R10000

[skybound®]

Great - thanks for passing along the info Gert.

Just remember - the crank is not the only bit of maintenance required. Flying past 12,5 hours without regapping your twinkelcorks is the equivalent of flying past 300 hours on the crank. Maintenance is maintenance and thy be done according to the maintenance manual.

[skybound®]

Double post - Damn 3G!!!

[zucac]

Top Gun thanks for the correction not so cheap any more

[flying-i]

This is not the fault of the CAA and it does not help hunting the villans now. Rules and regs need to be made with everybody in mind and this was not done, nor was the correct procedure followed. For what ever reason the microlight community was not represented adequately or at all at CARCOM.

Now it would be easy for CAA to hold the moral high ground, with a "we are not in the wrong attitude", and then continue to beat us with a big expensive stick, but that would just spawn a clandestine microlight industry which operates illegally and spends all its time working against the CAA.

OR we could appoint someone with the regulatory knowledge to stand up on our behalf, go to an advocate and liase with the CAA with the intention of reworking part24 and having it introduced the way it was intended. That person would report back on this forum as to progress made on a regular basis and I believe with the correct dedicated person we will make headway fairly quickly.

This would start with the immediate suspension of part24 so that CAA and ourselves can start to develop a worthwile relationship.

My vote is for Dave Daniels to act on our behalf. He has the required knowledge and is active as an instructor and AP. He was part and parcel of the initial discussions and drafting of the regs.

This would take considerable resource and so we would need to pay for the service. This would be cheap at the price when you consider the alternative.

Dave (or other) would be required to open a trust account, keep a record of expenses and command a salary. I for one would be happy to pay half my MISASA fee towards that cause. If we had 300 people paying R200 (R60 000), we could certainly expect a solution over a two month period.

If anybody else is available for the job let them place their name and suggested soultion on record here.

Morph, how do we do the vote thing on this forum. Time to move on and be part of a solution. No more moaning. No more living in the past.

I want a valid ATF. I like reasonable rules for the better good of all.

Dave are you in or out?

[RV4ker (RIP)]

This is not the fault of the CAA and it does not help hunting the villans now.

I disagree - CAA are responsible for the situation arising 100%. The Rattex manual has not changed recently as I understand it and the 300hr issue has been there all along.... If they had enforced the 300hr issue from day 1, there would be no 2 strokes flying today and we would all be hapily driving quad bikes and jet ski's....

If I had bought a 2 stroke trike last year I would be very grumpy right now. Similarly if I had bought the 582 Cheetah we are now leasing I would be very grumpy and IT WOULD BE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE LACK OF ACTION OF CAA IN THE PAST. They are more a part of the problem than the RATTEX manual....

To unilaterally suddenly enforce laws which they have KNOWINGLY overlooked in the past is not on. There is a legal term - Something like by your actions you have ratified the "illegal" operations thus making them legal. Furthermore the fact that none of these life threatening 2 stokes are falling out the skies every day also does little to strengthen their holier than thou attitude of safety for pilot and public. For me personally it goes about the way they went and continue to go about things. When it suits the law is the law. When it doesn't they let us do what we want, only to return later to say that we should be great full that they did not do their jobs then, but they are now choosing to do them and thus they are not to blame. BULLSHIT...

PS
Nothing personal against anyone at CAA (I have met Andre, Braam and Mike and I like and get on well with them), but to enforce reg's after the fact which have such far reaching effects (killing all entry level aviation) with little apparent empathy for those caught in the middle I find totally unacceptable. Not being a legal man, I don't know, but having been through a fair number of cases in my time I do think that Joe Microlighter has a very strong case to say that by their actions CAA (not individuals at CAA) knowingly allowed operation of cranks over 300hrs (not just 1, all of them which holds some water) and thus have condoned it's use over 300hrs in contradiction to the Rattex manual. To now suddenly jump on their high horse and say it illegal seems a bit comical and dare I say typically autocratic? I have also found that in legal battles only the lawyers win... (I will never forget a case we won against one of the biggest retailers in SA, after 18 months and R300K's fees when I asked the opposing attorney if he had read the documents and why they were fighting it, he replied... "That's what I get paid to do. Win, loose or draw it's my job. I knew my client was wroing and we had very little chance, but usually if we draw it out long enough the little guys like you go away...")

[gertcoetzee]

I for one would be happy to pay half my MISASA fee towards that cause.

Hang on, was it not MISASA/Aeroclub that was supposed to keep us (at the time I was still a member) out of this mess?

Well said RV4ker - I guess it would be for someone to get the first R5000 penalty to pay a lawyer to argue your points.

flying-i, the clandestine microlight activity has already started on January 1st - listen this weekend how many trikes pass through the Delta200 - and I will bet you half knowingly (or unknowingly) fly with ATFs which have become redundant on Jan 1st. RV4ker's arguement will be tested in court as soon as someone gets the first R5000 fine and pays a lawyer to argue his points in court. I can also bet you that MISASA will be absent from that scenario too, so I agree with you on paying a WILLING person to take up the issue with CAA, or even better, I pledge 10 years MISASA fee to the legal costs of the first sucker being caught.

In the mean time, Niren assures me that A-E are working very hard to get a new service plan approved by the CAA.

I, for one has been a MISASA sceptic, and had MISASA taken the lead here I would have been towed back into fold. Now I think flying-i is right, the time has come for someone with nothing but microlighters' needs in mind, to represent us. Dave?

[ICEMAN]

The only consistency for this while bun fight is the fact that nobody actually knows for sure what the CAA wants, expects or intends to do from 31 days ago- neither the AP`s, the agents, the manufacturers, the official bodies such as the aero club or misasa, the training schools, the instructors etc etc know what is wanted or expected......... how then can the "powers that be" expect the average MPL to know whats expected.

Until somone official steps up to the microphone and tells us what they want/expect or how to interperet what is written its business as usual in my books..........

[gertcoetzee]

CAA wants, expects or intends to do from 31 days ago-

Iceman, read my post above. Mike Cathrow was more than happy to explain the what the CAA want, expects and intends to do.
Want : ATFs may only be issued by APs when the Rotax 582 complies with Rotax's scheduled maintenance
Expects : Expects us fools who bought Rotax engines based on past CAA practice to now spend R30000 every 300 hours and to know that your valid ATF becomes invalid the moment you pass the 300h mark, or fail to comply with any of Rotax's maintenance requirements
(see RV4kers good post on this above)
Intends: to fine us R5000 if they catch us.

More interesting would be to know what you want, expect and intend to do! I know my answers to these questions.

[zucac]

my vote is to go with dave .he can do it .lets set up this fund,cheaper then a crank.

[ICEMAN]

More interesting would be to know what you want, expect and intend to do!

For a start, i intend to fly the same type of computer simulated flights that you fly of late

and secondly, being in the buyers market at the moment i intend to find a product that lasts longer than 300hours

[Lone Ranger]

Whilst sifting through over 1200 emails regarding the new regulations
in order to help formulate our case, I found some very interesting
emails.
Please, I don't want to cause more controversy, the people mentioned
herein may have other opinions today. It is not my intention to badmouth
anyone, this should serve merely for the "newer" members to see
where we are coming from and how long this has been going on.


From: John Young
To: commisasa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 July 2001 09:15
Subject: [commisasa] New Regulations

To you all,

I must first of all apologise for not being vocal earlier, I have been extremely busy. However, with responsibility comes accountability, so let me account to you about what happened in Pretoria on the 11th July 2001.
Neil de Lange rang me a few days prior to the 11th, and voiced his concerns about a meeting that was scheduled for 9am on the 11th July 2001, and to be held at the CAA offices. The meeting was to be chaired by Mr Cor Beek, (he is a Aviation Consultant to the CAA responsible for the drafting and drawing up of most of the SA-CATS documents) the subject matter, the tabling of the proposed SA-CATS documents that would cover the Operation Of Non-Type Certificated Aircraft. Namely, SA-CATS-OPS Parts, 94 and 96. The Airworthiness Standards: Non-Type Certificated Aircraft Part 24, and the Civil Aviation Technical Standards SA-CATS-NTCA for Non-Type Certificated Aircraft. Neil, after reading these documents felt that MISASA needed to be at the meeting. After clearing it with Martin and forwarding to me the relevant documents so I could bring myself up to date, I found myself drinking a cold cup of tea in a CAA boardroom listening to Mr Cor Beek opening what he described as a "meeting of the industry". The industry was well represented, all the sections (except model aircraft) were there. General aviation was represented in various forms as was microlight manufacturing with Davies Aircraft in attendance.
Neil de Lange representing the Aero Club made the first statement from the floor, "I trust this meeting is held in the interest of all the roll players and that transparency is the order of the day" this was in answer to Cor Beeks opening statement, "I am glad to see that common sense is finding its way back into Civil Aviation". CAA were their in full force, Chris Pernell, Joos Cloete, Kim Gorringe (legal department), Minesa ? (legal department). Karl Gregor, Piet Hatingh. Cor Beek made a point, when ever he got the opportunity of stating that he was not part of these guys (the CAA) he was like us one of the industry. I found it very strange later on when he gave us all his business card that it was a SACAA card with his job description printed on it as Legislation Executive.
The purpose of the creation of Part 24 and 94, is to contain the LS/1 document in the regulations. Cor Beek felt that the present LS/1 was not always clear and needed to be defined and simply put, in his words "somewhat tidied up". Nothing wrong with that however, whilst 90% of the contents of Part 24 and 94 is a direct translation of the LS/1 Document, some groundshaking proposals are made;
1. A definite separation between "Weight Shift Aircraft" (Trikes) and "Aeroplanes" (3-axis)
Perhaps something some people have wanted for some time.
2. The removal of a weight classification or category with regard to all Aircraft.
Ok, this is what it is leading up to.
3. The complete removal of the term (identity) "Microlight"
Chew on that one for a while. Give it serious thought.

If you don't have a weight category then why have a Microlight. Why not just have Aircraft.
You can have Aeroplanes, Helicopters, Gyroplanes, Gliders (which will include self-launching gliders and tour-gliders?) Manned captive and Manned Free Balloons, you can have, Airships, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Hang-Gliders and Powered Hang-Gliders, Paragliders, including Paraplanes and Parawings, you can have, Parachutes, Model Aircraft and even Rockets, but NO!! you can not have Microlights. Oh! yes, you can have Weight Shift Controlled Aircraft, they can weigh what ever you like (how about a nice 6 seater Trike in any colour you like. Weight shift controlled Aircraft were also not on the list and it took Neil de Lange to point this out and I think somewhat reluctantly got included, with much apology. I ask you how can you forget to include a Type unless perhaps you have already mentally removed that Type from your thoughts i.e.. Microlights.)
Read the attached SA-CATS Documents and it can be seen (in this case, not seen) that the word, term, reference to or in anyway related to Microlight does not appear.

Stewart Wood from the EAA section of Aero Club asked the chairman the following question: "Can we make alternative suggestions in this case ( the case is not important here)" the answer
"Yes, but I don't think it (whatever the suggestion was) will be accepted".
That was very much the tone of the meeting. I got the impression that we were going through the motions required in law, to hold an open forum, but that decisions had already been made and cast in stone. (I maybe wrong but I have this feeling, maybe not?)

We were informed at the meeting that all other Parts to the SA/CATS will change in line with the "PROPOSED" Parts 24 and 94. These include, but are not limited to, the following;
Part 36 - Environmental issues: "Noise standards"

Part 41 - Aviation Training Organisations: If we don't have Microlights then we don't have a
need for Microlight licences. Then we don't have a need for Microlight training schools.
(Is there a picture coming to-gather here? Maybe not or just maybe!!)

Part 61 - Aircrew Licensing: After much input and countless workshops, all input will be re- developed into a Part 62 (not existing at the moment, the brain child of Mr. Cor Beek)
that will give us a "Recreational Pilot License" which we are informed will have ratings
on it. We have at this time absolutely no idea what to expect here or where it could lead

Part 91 - Operations: Probably general changes.

Part 98 - Part 106 (except 105 - Parachutes) will disappear, along with previously proposed Parts
107 and 109.

Part 97 - Will be created to deal with Airshows.

Part 146, 147, 148, - Dealing with Manufacturing, Designing and Testing will also come into play
where the new Part 24 falls short.

Part 149 - Designation: This Part states that " the designated body (was Aero Club, now back with
CAA) will set standards for Aircraft Airworthiness, Pilot Training and Licensing and
shall issue such permits and licenses". (Why does that picture keep coming back to
trouble me. Am I reading to much between the lines?)

As Neil de Lange put it, "does Coke Cola change their identity when they decide to change the packaging of their product???" Then why does CAA want Microlighting to DISAPPEAR.

Neil forgive me for pinching some of your words, but you put things so well. Neil states: "while rewriting the LS/1 document into regulation, a platform is created to change and amend shortcomings. Some of the users of this Document have wanted an avenue for change for a long time, and this is our opportunity. BUT ONLY IF IT IS TO INSPIRE OUR SPORT AND TO MOTIVATE DEVELOPMENT".

I also see this as an opportunity for certain officers of the CAA to amend and define in order to enable them to enforce their own ideas, which we have learnt from the past, are not always in the interest of our members or our sport.

In conclusion, I would point out that we do have a voice. That we are still MISASA (not for much longer, OOP's is that the picture I keep trying not to see) That we need to be constructive and co-operative. But not at the expense of giving up that which we believe in.
Again I quote Neil, " I believe we are standing at a junction in sport aviation and need to apply our minds with wisdom in making some groundbreaking decisions"

Please read the attached proposed Parts. (then tell me to stop worrying)

I don't think this can wait until the 17th August 2001, our next scheduled MISASA meeting. I propose we hold a special meeting as soon as possible to address my concerns.

Regards to you all,
Red Socks.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Woody]

Good day all
Can anyone tell me if the crankshaft issue"making everyone krankie"is related to all rattex products like 447;503;582 and up.If this is the case i foned for a quote on my 503,before i put the phone down the quote was there ...R26700. as said above without labour.I thought ill be the right thing and do it legal....ya right. A new rattex is about R35K.
We are sitting with load shearing,i wander if there is provit shearing between rattex and caa
CHEERS
JOHNNY

[flying-i]

Hunting the villans now will not slove anything. We need a solution for all microlighters now, not a court case which could take years and leave us vulnerable in the mean time.

We need a legal standpoint and we need to take it to CAA with a view to building a long term relationship. Every country has a CAA and we will always have to work with them - there is no divorce option, they are the regulatory body. The constitution however allows for us to have a say and that is where we must focus.

Everybody is frustrated and irritated with the situation but we need valid ATF as soon as possible. Part 24 needs to be suspended...

My solution is a guy like Dave, but we first need to stand together as a community and act rationally. A dedicated person with our needs and wants as his priority is our only hope.

Ask yourself "am in in for a solution or do I just want to vent off?"
Morph how does the vote thing work...