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

[Wargames]

What if CAA decided to stop all the bull about the cranks etc and the owner had to sign an indemnity - ie I the owner take full responsibility for the engine / re the crank etc - I think it could work , its your plane and life at risk should you exceed the "required checkup"
It seems to me the issue at the moment is who will take the responsibility re the engine ;
CAA will not , The importers / agents are bound by the supplier over ze wasser , so why dont we take care of ourselves , Make yourself accountable for your deeds -

Agree. This is how it was while LS1 was ruling the sky. And that is how every microlighter accepted the responsibility. We stand together, and that is how you make friends so easy in this section of aviation. If you have a problem, you go and ask. Personaly, I feel that this is where the blikkies lost that brotherhood. They don't rely on each other, but on their AMO.

Microlights rule.

[Rudix]

I for one think this is a fantastic new Law that they are pushing for. It has been long time coming that the microlight scrap that fills the air should be removed from the scene.

Last year December I had the chance to take a trike flip on the natal coast with Mr Daniels's crew. My word. Just before me one of the trikes failed with an engine seizure. The trikes were in terrible condition and definately not airworthy.

I also saw one of the Trike formation team's trikes at the Durban airshow at Virginia. ZU-ACB (I am trying to attach some photos) That trike should be grounded for sure. It has bent tubes, ripped wing sail and a very skew front wheel.

There were also a few guys at the old LaMercy field that used to fly real junk.

For this reason I think its great that the Law Makers are putting stricter controls in place to rid our skies of unairworthy aircraft.

I now dont feel so bad after paying R20k per year for an MPI on my certified craft. Its my ass in the hot seat.

097 097 097 097

[Ranger]

Its my ass in the hot seat.

Airlaw. It seems to me YOU are the ASS in the seat.
Anyway, as one pilot to another. Be safe. Remember why you reached for the sky in the first place.

[Boet]

Airlaw, you are walking on very thin ice here.
You can insult my cat
You can insult my dog
You can insult my family, my car, my house.
MAAR as jy kak praat van my vliegtuig................. Hou net WYD bro, .....BAIE wyd van my af..

[Chunky]

Airlaw = Tosser !!

[Aerosan]

Guys, guys don't be so rude with the newest member on our forum he must be joking otherwise he must be very big or stupid Should it turn out that he is indeed serious about these comments well then we can always remind Mr Airlaw that by all accounts the very first aircraft were closer to microlights than bliks. or we can just bust his head open 074 097

[DieselFan]

Serious or not, Airlaw's post did crack me up

[Arnulf]

Ag man, relax guys. Poor old Airlaw is just on a little fishing expedition. If I want to cause kak on AVCOM or PPRUNE I do the same. It can be quite entertaining.

[John Boucher]

Maybe he could not pay his R 20 000 MPI.... So, his blik is grounded!

Maybe it's one of our fellow microlighters just wanting us to forget about Part 24 and Crank issues.... No can do AIRLAW!

Maybe he is a member of the Uhuru movement....

Who cares about what you think AIRLAWless...

FOOD FOR THOUGHT : "Think like a man of action and act like a man of thought." - Henri Louis Bergson

[lamercyfly]

I have to admit that Airlaw pipped Demon at the post...........

Demon tried a new thread to get us all onto a more happy note..... I have 'cracked-up', seriously doubled over with laughter at some of the replies to airlaws post

Thanks airlaw........we have all had a good dose of 'span-saam' gees and a darn good laugh....

Anyway, on a lighter note, I would love to meet you, and answer you with regard to your observations. I am concerned that you left your microlight experience with such 'bad' memories......... It should not have happened, and I would really like to try to amend the bad experience.

No hard feelings, O.K. You are wellcome to PM me if you would like to join up for a beer or two.

Regards.

[Tumbleweed]

Airlaw,

Welcome. Your thoughts are refreshing......I can't understand why these okes are being nasty with you, they're just bullies.

You obviously can't be the only one sharing the same thoughts coz a coupla cleverer okes approved and signed that thingie in 2002 and since the rest thought its such a load a k@k, it became law.

We should'nt chastise mainstream thinking. Our leading party has elected a convicted fraudster, suspect rapist (maybe he just did'nt pay), can't handle his personal monthly budget (coz he dont have matric coz he was fighting in the trenches for us) so gets a chom ( who's a known bosluis) with no little financial background but a lotta connections to improve his affairs to run our country.

Maybe it was a vote of no- confidence in our current president, who's health minister questions modern medicine and tells hospitals to write on the death Certificate- "Hypertension - TB", or more words of wisdom like "sleep longer to get cleverer".

So boet, if you think Rotax 582 cranks being replaced in all ntca's at 300 hours is gonna make your flight in your certified aerrie safer; be load and pround, rustle up your mates and fellow thinkers and protest.

Sleep longer before each flight,
Wear a condom during flight,
Make sure to shower inmediatly after your flight.

Ps. These, and other worthwhile tips will be available once our new business venture has been registered.

[skybound®]

Man you okes really let that Airlaw oke push your buttons. He is lucky his last MPI was only R20k - can I swop bills Airlaw?

What if CAA decided to stop all the bull about the cranks etc and the owner had to sign an indemnity - ie I the owner take full responsibility for the engine / re the crank etc - I think it could work , its your plane and life at risk should you exceed the "required checkup"
It seems to me the issue at the moment is who will take the responsibility re the engine ;
CAA will not , The importers / agents are bound by the supplier over ze wasser , so why dont we take care of ourselves , Make yourself accountable for your deeds -
Lets teach the present government not to say sorry , but take control and be responsible , Just a thought whilest cruising through the Free State , Leprachaun , presently in Burgersdorp

Leprechaun who is cruising through the Free State, I think the issue with your idea is that it could be seen as not protecting the innocent pax or even the person on the ground that may be injured if something were to go pear shaped. I think this is how a person from CAA could view it.

I am having a bit of internal self argument at present - I try to put myself in others shoes to see if I can appreciate their side of an argument. I have been grappling with the question - If I was the CAA person responsible for safety - would I be happy with any joe soap in maintaining an aircraft? If I was this person, my only answer at this stage could be that it would be not just anyone doing the maintenance - they must have some level of competency.

Relating back to business - would I allow any IT enthusiast come into our operation and allow him to work on our mission critical applications? I would want some level of competency check before I would allow them to do that - whether it be a degree/diploma or at least something measurable like good experience with references. I am asking should it be any different in aviation?

If you see where I am headed with this, please let it be known that I do not have an AP rating and would be one of the enthusiasts that have now been precluded from doing this maintenance - and believe me I enjoyed the tinkering. Going to the airfield without the tool box makes me feel naked and exposed and has taken some time to get used to.

In essence trying to present a different view to this current landscape.

[Wargames]

Hi Skybound,

I think that the thought process you have is one that everyone understands, and respects. And sure, if I was those CAA blokes, this type of reasoning would not be unrealistic.

But, there is unfortunatly a toss up between safety and keeping aviation at grass root level booming. Microlighting is the sector of aviation that has shown the most growth over last few years, because it was affordable. (I am not mentioning the fun part, that would be emotional blackmail.)

Is part 24 and safety that important too CAA that they are willing to kill NTCA??

Your guess as good as mine.

074

[lamercyfly]

Hi Skybound.

If we did not have the track record to prove that owner discretion maintenance worked, then I would have to consider the 'CAA view' (for want of a proper description).

I am open to correction here, but to the best of my knowledge, we suffered zero fatal accidents in trike flying for 2007, and so far zero for 2008.........

..........go boyz, keep up the good work. It did not happen by chance. I believe standards of maintenance have picked up, and fun flying is now being had with knowledge and training and 'inter-friend' discipline paying off. I believe the sport has grown to the point where hangar talk has come a long, long way....

I have no hesitation is going 'all out' for the re-instatement of the clause as it was in the LS/1 document, which allowed owner discretion maintenance.

Well done trikers!!!

[flying-i]

Is there a plan for someone to actually put in an application at CAA? Cause if the hoof kokalollie at CAA, Mr Jordaan, does not get it, then nothing gonna happen and my ATF is due soon!

Dave aka LS1 have you booked a flight yet... before we attract more non swimmers like airlaw.