New licence law - a summary

[Fairy Flycatcher]

FF Thanks. Makes for some interesting reading.

Is copy of SA-CATS-FCL 62 available or is it still being drafted/finalised?

Cheers

The SA-CATS-FCL 62 refers to the technical standards.Skygod and I have written it because SACAA did not get around to it. Rob Hill has published it on the MISASA website in four sections, microlight specific. There is the Student Pilot requirements, the Microlight Pilot licence requirements, Instructor requirements and Part 96 Authorization requirements. It is almost a 100 page document, so I do not blame anyone for getting lost in it. If you take it one section at a time, it might be easier.

Have a look at the Part 96 Authorization. You will see that it is of a high standard, but applicable to the kind of commercial work that can be done. As NTCA (Non Type Certified Aircraft) can not do charter in any form, and any commercial work will be limited, we have tried to stick to what is relevant in our sport.

This is exactly why we are calling for comment. In the past other people have made the rules for us, even though it is our constitutional right to do if for ourselves.

Now I don't want to just become another set of "other people", and I know I can not possibly take everything into account when writing the technical standards, as I only know what I know, and research what I can.

Thank you very much to everyone who is taking the time to read/ study it, I am looking forward to all comments and criticism.

PS
Still not clear on 1 thing?

Do I need RPL to be grade C instructor on microlight aeries if I have PPL in terms of part 61? (excluding hr requirements, tests etc)

CAR 62.09.1 (1) is quite clear on this. You have to have a valid recreational pilots licence. (Have a look at the full version published on the MISASA website)

Although you can get credit from your PPL towards your RPL, they will be from now on 2 separate licences, so you will have to get a RPL to be a Grade C Instructor. This makes a bit of sense for the flex wings and gyro point of view, but I think it is total bollocks for the 3-axis guys.

Also, your RPL can be issued by an Aviation Recreational Organization, as it is not controlled by ICAO, whereas your PPL has to be issued by the South African Civil Aviation Authority, as it is an ICAO-based licence. Two very different administrative procedures.

If you have some ideas on how to resolve this, without lumping all 3-axis with PPL, I would love to hear about it. I don't make the law, but I would like to see if we can get a better working solution, and send a proposal to CARCOM (Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee)

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Thanks. Reason I looking for CATS is to asses what needs to be done in terms of the instructors ratings. Will check MISASA web site.

Don't know the solution to the PPL RPL 3 axis question. Don't know enuff bout the whole license issue, but will wade my way through the docs. Don't see a solution as the issuing auth will be 2 different org's and based on experience co-operation (practically) between anybody and CAA is a battle at best....

(3 axis) Suggestion could be Recreational PPL, as stepping stop towards PPL, but that a whole new can of worms.... and could only work if CAA was willing (and able) to assist...

[skybound®]

Skygod and I have written it because SACAA did not get around to it.

........

I don't make the law, but I would like to see if we can get a better working solution, and send a proposal to CARCOM (Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee)

Okay now I am confused. By writing it, you are suggesting what the law says.

Thanks for taking the time to do it - I know these tasks are often thankless. I will have a comprehensive look over it in the next few days. Got some time to losse whilst on Scareways between PE and JHB over the next two days.

Who do we send our comments to for inclusion?

[Sonex711]

If you have some ideas on how to resolve this, without lumping all 3-axis with PPL, I would love to hear about it. I don't make the law, but I would like to see if we can get a better working solution, and send a proposal to CARCOM (Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee)

What would be the down-side of lumping 3-axis with PPL? Lots of the 3-axis MPL guys I know, took in excess of 45hr to get their MPL (me included ), so from a training hours point of view, I don't see a big difference. Also, there are a fair number of EAA type airies that meet the ML spec (weight, speed, etc) which are currently flown by PPL's anyway.

Please note, I'm not trying to throw the proverbial cat amongst the birds!

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Okay now I am confused. By writing it, you are suggesting what the law says.

.........

Who do we send our comments to for inclusion?

Sorry skybound, I keep on thinking that other people know more or less what this is all about. It took me years to just start getting interested

I was not involved in the Civil Aviation Regulations. That is the law, and the framework to which I had to draw up the Technical Standards. The Technical Standards are the syllabi to use in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Regulations

CAR = Civil Aviation Regulations. Written by CARCOM, difficult to change, takes months and loads of presentations at CARCOM.

CATS = Civil Aviation Technical Standards. The "how to" of the Regulations. A living document. Can be changed and adapted by the industry with less hassle. Normally written by SACAA (South African Civil Aviation Authority) - but on this one they were clue-less.

You can send your comments on the Technical standards to me, to work towards a finished product.

If you would like to send your comments about the Civil Aviaiton Regulations to me, I can also assist in either routing it to the right people, or putting together a presentation to CARCOM, if the situation warrants it.

[ACE]

Hello FairyF,

Thanks for the latest posting - it puts CARCOM, and CAA etc into perspective and now we know who is who

I have to say thanks - like many others before me - for all your input on this.

Regards.

[Fairy Flycatcher]

What would be the down-side of lumping 3-axis with PPL? Lots of the 3-axis MPL guys I know, took in excess of 45hr to get their MPL (me included ), so from a training hours point of view, I don't see a big difference. Also, there are a fair number of EAA type airies that meet the ML spec (weight, speed, etc) which are currently flown by PPL's anyway.

Please note, I'm not trying to throw the proverbial cat amongst the birds!

:D :D

Funny thing, this is my feeling exactly, I think it would make everyone's life a bit easier, including CAA and MISASA. When I suggested it, I got some serious flack from the industry. It would sort out so many headaches its not funny.

The line between the industries are very blurred. Performance of most new 3-axis microlights are already surpassing the standards PPL training aircraft (compare sting vs C150)

This will also sort out Part 24 better.

The medical we do is already the same medical, just valid for longer, and as you say, the guys take 40 + to do the licence in any case. The radio licence is the same, the airspace is the same... makes sense, but not money!!!

And my skygod almost had his wings clipped for suggesting the same.

Bear in mind that the 3-axis MPL instructors need to earn a living? I think in a big way if it was not for that, we would have had all of this sorted out about 10 years ago already.

I wanted to suggest a system whereby the MPL 3-axis instructors can get credit for their hours, instructor's ability and a period for writing all the exams, so they can become PPL instructors. That would make sense... but damage egos... (both MPL and PPL instructors')

Money and egos... how do you work past those with logic??? Even if it is in the long term interest of everyone

[Sonex711]

Bear in mind that the 3-axis MPL instructors need to earn a living? I think in a big way if it was not for that, we would have had all of this sorted out about 10 years ago already.

I wanted to suggest a system whereby the MPL 3-axis instructors can get credit for their hours, instructor's ability and a period for writing all the exams, so they can become PPL instructors. That would make sense... but damage egos... (both MPL and PPL instructors')

Money and egos... how do you work past those with logic??? Even if it is in the long term interest of everyone

Aha - didn't consider that one. However, quite a few of the 3-axis MPL instructors I know are specifically looking at doing PPL training on Part 96 registered ML's! Go figure.

Thanks for all your effort FF. We really do appreciate it, even if we sometimes argue with you

[Fairy Flycatcher]

... We really do appreciate it, even if we sometimes argue with you

I am a bit too quick to jump on my high horse sometimes. You are welcome to argue and dissagree. It mostly helps me to sharpen up as well. Please don't stop

I have always known that I will make a rotten politician. NO diplomacy from me .

Generally I really enjoy a good debate, and I do sometimes remember to be less defensive

But please don't let me stop you asking questions... It is essential that everyone has the chance to give their input, whether they fly or not, if they have an interest in flying, or hope to become a pilot, all of this will affect them. I have at least 2 "professional passengers" who I ask for advice as well.

[skybound®]

Funny thing, this is my feeling exactly, I think it would make everyone's life a bit easier, including CAA and MISASA. When I suggested it, I got some serious flack from the industry. It would sort out so many headaches its not funny.

You have my support here. As you say too many blurry grey lines. Put them together

It may be interesting to see how many MPL that fly 3 axis pilots there are that have not upgraded to PPL anyhow, or how many MPL's have there PPL.

[Sonex711]

It may be interesting to see how many MPL that fly 3 axis pilots there are that have not upgraded to PPL anyhow, or how many MPL's have there PPL.

I'm busy investigating "upgrading" at the moment. My insurance broker suggests that the cost of my disability cover may drop by a few hundred rand a month

[Redeye]

I

wanted to suggest a system whereby the MPL 3-axis instructors can get credit for their hours, instructor's ability and a period for writing all the exams, so they can become PPL instructors. That would make sense... but damage egos... (both MPL and PPL instructors')

You guys are forgetting an important part of being a PPL instructor
You NEED a com locence first to be a PPL instructor-- That costs about R250 K - I dont think too many Micro instructors will go through the comm
course just to get a PPL instructor rating

[Fairy Flycatcher]

You guys are forgetting an important part of being a PPL instructor
You NEED a com locence first to be a PPL instructor-- That costs about R250 K - I dont think too many Micro instructors will go through the comm
course just to get a PPL instructor rating

The money is mostly for the flying. If you already have over 200 hours on conventional aircraft, which you have to have for an instructors rating, all you have to do for a com, is the exams.

I don't think it would be too bad for the instructors to know a bit more.

The other people who will have a big problem with this is the guy who had to do R 200K's worth of flying to get his com. But remember, he is still rated on certified types, which the microlight instructor is not, and the industry will sort itself out on this.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

2 Problems with the PPL Comm
1 is currency.... I will realistically never use it other than for training (MPL/RRP) so will need to find IF to keep current.

2 is the fact that you have to write 4 subjects and pass 3 subjects in one shot (sitting - week) is not that simple while trying to run a business outside aviation. When CAA comes to their sences and changes to 1 exam per sitting them it may be viable alternative. At moment if you don't do full time Comm ground school and write the exams you are at a huge disadvantage.

PS
Not saying getting added knowledge is bad, just the system sucks. More emphasis should be placed on the flying ability rather than ability to compute and regurgitate huge amounts of (mostly) usless info in a short period of time. I have flown with Comm pilot who had the briefing's (theory) etc down pat, but when the shit hit the fan and there was real emergency he paniced and took way too long to react. Luckily we had huge height and time was on our side.......

Comm course is aimed at the charter/career pilot and almost all the systems you will be tested on a MPL/RPL will never even see. eg - If the WX is bad we sit in Bar and talk flying, while the Comm/IF guys go play. No turnbine Micro's. Navigation is largely VFR with no ref to any instruments. (Map, clock and odd road )

My 2c, keep them separate. Ego's apart the objectives are hugely different and if MPL/RPL instructor never has asperations to become career heavy iron pilot (like many are) then why go through all that.

firesuit on...

[Fairy Flycatcher]

2 Problems with the PPL Comm
1 is currency.... I will realistically never use it other than for training (MPL/RRP) so will need to find IF to keep current.

FVR comm?

2 is the fact that you have to write 4 subjects and pass 3 subjects in one shot (sitting - week) is not that simple while trying to run a business outside aviation. When CAA comes to their sences and changes to 1 exam per sitting them it may be viable alternative. At moment if you don't do full time Comm ground school and write the exams you are at a huge disadvantage.

I have seen the sample questions. I think even I could answer it with just a little bit of studying, and my experience with 3-axis is a bit low.

PS
Not saying getting added knowledge is bad, just the system sucks. More emphasis should be placed on the flying ability rather than ability to compute and regurgitate huge amounts of (mostly) usless info in a short period of time. I have flown with Comm pilot who had the briefing's (theory) etc down pat, but when the shit hit the fan and there was real emergency he paniced and took way too long to react. Luckily we had huge height and time was on our side.......

Fully agree with this. Had a com pilot work for us on trikes. Scary...

Comm course is aimed at the charter/career pilot and almost all the systems you will be tested on a MPL/RPL will never even see. eg - If the WX is bad we sit in Bar and talk flying, while the Comm/IF guys go play. No turnbine Micro's. Navigation is largely VFR with no ref to any instruments. (Map, clock and odd road )

I think maybe VFR comm will sort this out as well?

My 2c, keep them separate. Ego's apart the objectives are hugely different and if MPL/RPL instructor never has asperations to become career heavy iron pilot (like many are) then why go through all that.

firesuit on...

Funny thing is, PPL instructors get paid much worse than MPL instructors, and as you say, many just use it as an hour building exercise. How come the general training on PPL is still better than on MPL?

It has been a bit quiet on the forum. Redeye said he will miss a bit of debate. Can you think of another topic which will get the blood pressure up as much as this :D :D