proposed amendments to part 24 - reflecting the vote

[lamercyfly]

Hi folk.

Please read the amendments which I propose, and let me have your thoughts. I have based these amendments on the vote which has run successfully (in my opinion)......

What I have done is create a new category called microlights (h), and then followed through to word things such that we may perform our own maintenance and or repairs, and that the maintenance schedule is only a guideline to be available as reference material.

The amendments which I propose, which will allow the wishes of the microlight pilots, are as follows:

Note. RED is removed GREEN is inserted


SUBPART 1: GENERAL
Applicability
24.01.1 (1) This Part applies to -
(a) Amateur-built aircraft;
(b) Production-built aircraft;
(c) Veteran aircraft;
(d) Ex-military aircraft; and
(e) Any other aircraft not qualifying or no longer qualifying for the
issue of a certificate of airworthiness in terms of Part 21 of
these Regulations.
The aircraft referred to in sub-regulation (1) are classified in the following subgroups:
(a) Aeroplanes, including microlight aeroplanes;
(b) Helicopters;
(c) Gyroplanes and gyrogliders;
(d)Gliders, including self-launching gliders and touring gliders;
(e)Manned captive and manned free balloons;
(f)Airships;
(g)Unmanned aerial vehicles;
(h) Microlights
(i) Hang-gliders, including powered hang-gliders;
j)Paragliders, including powered paragliders and paratrikes;
(k) Parachutes;
(l)Model aircraft; and
(m)Rockets.


Airworthiness
24.01.2 (1) Before a non-type certificated aircraft, other than an aircraft
classified in sub-groups (h) (i) to (l) (m) in regulation 24.01.1(2), is
considered to be airworthy it shall–
(a) have been issued with –
(i) an Authority to Fly or a Proving Flight Authority, as the
case may be, in terms of this Part; and
(ii) a valid certificate of Release to Service;
(b) have been maintained in accordance with the provisions of this
Part and of Part 43, as applicable to the type of aircraft; and
(c) have no known condition, which could make the aircraft unsafe
for flight
7) The airworthiness of the aircraft, classified in sub-groups (h) to (l) (m) in

regulation 24.01.1(2), shall be the sole responsibility of the owner or

operator in accordance with generally accepted practices for such

aircraft or as laid down by the organization, approved for the purpose in

terms of Part 149.



Maintenance and Inspection

24.01.5 (1) The owner of a non-type certificated aircraft, specified under

regulation 24.01.1 (1) and classified in paragraphs (a) to (g) of

subregulation 24.01.1(2), for which an

Authority to Fly is required in terms of these Regulations shallsubmit

to the Commissioner or, if applicable, to the organization

designated for the purpose in terms of Part 149 of these

Regulations , as the case may be, for approval an Approved

Maintenance Schedule or........



(2) The maintenance, to comply with part 24.01.2(7), for non-type certified aircraft,

classified in paragraphs (h) to (i) of subregulation 24.01.1(2), shall be at the

sole discretion and responsibility of the owner/operator in accordance with generally accepted

practices for such aircraft or as laid down by the organization, approved for the purpose in

terms of Part 149.


SUBPART 3: MAINTENANCE

Approved Maintenance Schedule

24.03.1 (1) A non-type certificated aircraft, specified in sub-regulation

24.01.1 (1) and classified in the paragraphs (a) to (g) of subregulation

24.01.1(2), shall be maintained in accordance with its

Approved Maintenance Schedule in such a manner that it is

airworthy at the commencement of any flight.



(3) Any non-type certificated aircraft, other than those referred to in

sub-regulation (1) above, shall be maintained by or on behalf of

its owner in such a manner that it is airworthy at the

commencement of any flight. Where the aircraft manufacturer or

any approved organisation has issued maintenance instructions

or guidelines, such instructions or guidelines shall be adhered

to. availiable as reference during maintenance and or repairs.

Annual inspections

24.03.2 (1) A non-type certificated aircraft, specified in sub-regulation

24.01.1 (1) and classified in paragraphs (a) to (g) (h)of subregulation

24.01.1(2), shall undergo an annual inspection not

later than 365 days since the previous annual inspection, or an

inspection equivalent to an annual inspection, was carried out.

23

(2) The items to be inspected as part of an annual inspection are

those listed in Document SA-CATS- NTCA for the particular type

of aircraft, and shall be incorporated in the Approved

Maintenance Schedule. as applicable to type

[ICEMAN]

[Cloud Warrior]

Please define the difference between a powered hangglider (foot launched microlight?) and a microlight?

I am not trying to be difficult - just wondered if all the various aircraft types had been defined somewhere? Maybe we need to be a bit more specific wrt definitions?

Personally I would think "microlight is too broad a catergory.......

[lamercyfly]

powered hang gliders can be foot launched.....the moment it needs wheels to be launched and landed, it becomes a microlight.....

You can also not hang glide a microlight wing.......the CG is totally out, as well as the wing loading.........I know some-one who tried.......Really, really bad accident,........went screaming down the hill, approaching Vne, could not recover from the dive............very very sore and damaged......

But as to where these definitions are actually written, I will research soon...most probably in the Technical standards...........or borrowed from some overseaas Regulations........

Regards.

[Ou Man]

[Guzz]

Thanks again David,

Your efforts are truly appreciated!

*G

[skybound®]

Hi David

2 questions:

In this instance a microlight used in a Part 96 operation will they then have the same maintenance standard as a non 96 aircraft?

The Jabiru, Appolo Fox, 912 Cheetahs, Sonex, etc......... as they are aeroplane and not micro - will they still be required to follow the maintenance schedule (strictly)? Also your 24.01.1 does not seem to indicate who can do maintenance on these aircraft type (a) to (g) or does the existing paragraph stating AP/AMO/AME stay in place?

[RudiGreyling]

Hi David (lamercyfly),

Very well done for Microlights...but....

I have an interest in more than just microlights, i.e. amateur-built, and do believe the same principles should apply, owner maintenance and use maintenance schedules as guideline. I am sure you'll get the Ex-military owner saying the same, although I think a ex military jet can not compared to a single piston engined aircraft.

Anycase your changes although very good, actually still put a big portion of owners still in the same old controversial boat. I think here is where the Aeroclub need to ensure we all stand together and get it right for ALL the chapters.

In my humble opinion all "experimental" and "Non Type Certified Aircraft" should be allowed to within your new wording, owner maintenance AND maintenance schedule as a guideline.

It is only the "Experimental" and "Non Type Certified Aircraft" that will be used for Commercial Operations that should have stricter rules, becuase they will be flying the 'general public' for compensation and hence the 'general public' needs to be protected more...

Now herein lies the problem a lot of "Experimental+NTCA" schools and commercial operations are going to shoot me down for trying to put more stricter rules on them, then on me the Recreational Flier.

Without getting personal, I know a lot of Commercial NTCA Operators are warming and swarming the masses i.e. recreational fliers, in order to gain our vote and make them part and parcel of Recreational Flying, and make the same rules to apply to them, and I think that is wrong.

So basically I am saying in a nutshell:
Let all RECREATIONAL NTCA aircraft be able to do their Owner Maintenance and follow Schedules as a guideline.

Let all COMMERCIAL NTCA aircraft follow a stricter guideline, to protect joe public.

I do think it should be LAW that any RECREATIONAL NTCA aircraft then should have a clear EXPERIMENTAL sticker displayed with a warning to Joe public so that he can read that this is a NOT CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT. That will protect joe public that can read, and should help the commissioner look after the public's interest. I also think then he can keep the Recreational NTCA sectors ATF with NO flying over buildt up areas for EXTENDed periods of time. and Define the EXTENDed periods as entering or leaving an airfield and or circuits for landing.

I'll be at Microland's breakfast on Saturday to suggest the same, and
I'll be at EAA auditorium next week with the NTCA workshop Thursday to discuss the same.

I'll be working up my own reference and changes using yours as an example. I just still have to work my way through all of the sections

Thank you for your efforts,
Kind Regards
Rudi

[RudiGreyling]

Hi David

2 questions:

In this instance a microlight used in a Part 96 operation will they then have the same maintenance standard as a non 96 aircraft?

The Jabiru, Appolo Fox, 912 Cheetahs, Sonex, etc......... as they are aeroplane and not micro - will they still be required to follow the maintenance schedule (strictly)? Also your 24.01.1 does not seem to indicate who can do maintenance on these aircraft type (a) to (g) or does the existing paragraph stating AP/AMO/AME stay in place?

Ditto Skybound, was busy typing response to David aka lamercyfly when you posted.

[RudiGreyling]

Skybound / Lamercyfly,

I am thinking of making reference to part 96 Commercial operations, in here PART 24, saying that NTCA aircraft listed below and does NOT form part of PART 96 Commercial Operations, and include all of the listed types, and then use the rest of Lamercyfly's wording about owner maintenance and schedule as guidelines for ALL types.

The PART 96 then is a different story, and something I, as a recreational flyer , don't want to say much about now. That is a separate matter to debate.

Regards
Rudi

[lamercyfly]

Hi folk.

O.K. I said it in the beginning, and I'll say it again

As much as I care for all flying, my driving concern is the over-regulation of bottom end microlight flying. So, all my efforts are directed towards preserving free flight for microlighters.. If there are spin-off's which the other NTCA sectors realise a benefit from, good.....

Now, I personally fly PPL, microlights and hang gliders. I also did gliding, both winch and aero-tow when I was younger I have a tug rating on my PPL, and an aero-tow rating for hang gliders. So, that's my brief history, and I have been flying since 1972..........I do care about all the sport flying (and with engines falling off boeings, eh! mebbe I should be caring a bit about these things too, specially as my missus is going to be flying them soon )

Anyway, there is toooo much for me to tackle other NTCA problems, but I am willing to work together -but not at the expense of microlighting!

O.K. Now to answer questions:

The law clearly states - CAR part 24 subpart 2 Maintenance section 43.02.2 Persons to carry out maintenance para (3), and I quote

...Any person may carry out maintenance on an amateur built aircraft or a production-built aircraft, or any component thereof, if such person -
(a) is authorised by the Commissioner or by the organisation designated for the purpose by the Commissioner in terms of ...... or,(b) carries out he maintenance under the direct supervision of a person authorised by the commissioner or by the organisation..............

Now I think that this is a perfectly reasonable solution for guys flying more complicated type engines and airframes. What must be achieved, is a simple paper-trail application, wherein you state your credentials (CV), and are then authorised to perform your own maintenance. The option allows for seeking permission from either the commissioner or, in our case, the aero club. I have spoken to Neill, and suggested that the Aero Club AP ARO be amended to allow permission to give this authorisation. I think that this option allows both folk who have come out in favour of owner maintenance, and those who feel it is not such a good idea, a win-win solution. ie, if you think you are up to doing your own maintenance, then just simply apply and get permission...........Otherwise you must let the AME or AP supervise you while you do the work, or just let them do it for you.

As far as part 96 commercial work in concerned, I am not in favour of penalising these operators. I have over the past 9 years done in excess of 29 000 lesson 3 introductor flights, trained over 200 students and conversions to type, and never have we suffered any accident or anything related to a faulty engine, even though we did over 1000 hours on some of our 503 motors, and in excess of 800 hours on our 582. For commercial operators I would simply submit a revised engine maintenance schedule, which will be obligatory, but not severe. It will involve doing a simple and quick (10mins) test using a dial guage to test the big and small end crank bearing play. I would suggest this be done every 50 hours, and that the annual inspections be done by the AP's who are Commissioner approved. This AP system is already a stipulation.
Remember I speak for microlights.

As far as the maintenance schedule of all other NTCA types, the solution offered is to submit a revises maintenance schedule, and reword the relevant section for yourselves.

Remember to look to the future with where we are going........bottom end trike flying does not belong in the same category that can include ex military fighter jets and modern high performance LSA types...

I trust that the folk reading this will agree and support my move to distance microlight flying from the other types......But NEVER in terms of training and airmanship and safety......I will never budge on my wish to see a high standard of training throughout the industry............(I'm not saying that the standard is not high )

Anyway, please, once again keep focused on the topic. I will be calling for a vote on the final wording of this proposed amendment soon. Don't confuse it with the other NTCA. This is for microlights. There are many bright minds and dedicated individuals who are championing the cause for EAA. I'm sure they will find wording to suit there needs as well.

I will also be a ERMF for breakfast tomorrow, and I am also attending the EAA workshop on Thursday night.......Look forward to sharing ideas with you guys.

Have also spoken to CVH (chris), and he asked that I must only word my proposal for microlights, that I must not worry about the other NTCA divisions, as he is also of the opinion that they have their own bright minds who know their problems...........

the idea is to bring in all ideas, and create a working document for NTCA......

Once again, I wish myself, and all of us, good luck.......

Regards.

[RudiGreyling]

Hi folk.
<SNIP>
As far as part 96 commercial work in concerned, I am not in favour of penalising these operators. <SNIP> Remember I speak for microlights.

As far as the maintenance schedule of all other NTCA types, <SNIP>

Hi David,
(I am not fighting the person, just arguing the problem.)
(You have a commercial interest, I have a recreation interest)
(Your post reflect your view and tries to protect your interest, mine the same for recreational)

I think that is the crux of the problem, NTCA Commercial operations want all the benefits of Recreational and some more and charge joe public, but the split in the rules are not clear, and hence Recreational suffers under the 'new' rules.

The right and responsible thing to do from a Commissioner's point of view is to split NTCA Commercial from Recreational, Stricter rules for Commercial, less strict for Recreational. It is the right thing to do.

Then Split the NTCA category in different sections with rules applicable to complexity...from Military Jet to down to parraglider. It is the right thing to do.

Regards
Rudi

[RudiGreyling]

Adding to above,

To be fair maybe you should also put it to the vote...
Should Commercial NTCA Microlighting be stricter controlled then Recreational NTCA Microlighting? YES or NO.

Let the flying MPL fraternity vote on it, instead of me and you trying to consolidate our opinions.

I'll then adhere with the majority vote...Democracy

Regards
Rudi

[RudiGreyling]

I have set up a POLL here:
viewtopic.php?t=5866

[Morph]

I don't believe we have the NTCA voice and as such should be concertrating in Microlights and the new light Sport category, as that is where most of the modern 3-axis babies are going to be classified.

Nice work so far David.