Open debate: NTCA MPL Commercial vs Recreational rules

[RudiGreyling]

Should NTCA MPL Commercial Operations be Stricter Controlled than Recreational?

This question stems from a debate in another section: viewtopic.php?t=5861

It seems to me, my opinion, that Commercial want all the benefits of Recreational and some more and a Paying Joe Public.
The airworthy and maintenance rules as it currently 'stand' PART 24 does not make a big differentiation, and hence recreational will suffer in the future, with stricter rules.

What do you think, cast your vote, and agree or disagree below...

I will adhere to the majority, it is a democracy...

Regards
Rudi

[Fairy Flycatcher]

I think it is pre-mature to vote on something which has not yet been debated. Many people change their minds during the course of debate, and that is exactly why we discuss it.

Please open a debate first, and then add a vote after 3-4 days...

[lamercyfly]

I think I agree with FF on this one.........

Define the issue to debate better, eg., what extra precautions do we feel need to be taken by commercial operators (remember there are none at present).

Also are you talking entire NTCA or just microlighting..........

At the most the only commercial microlight activities which may become viable are:

1. Crop spraying
2. Aerial photography
3. Flips(very much doubt it). Most flips done from training schools...
That's about it........

You know, you can only maintain something up to a Safe standard. To imply that by stricter "something" will make it more safe, and that therefore we social pilots are happy to do "less than safe" maintenance kinda defies logic.

There is only one maintenance standard. It is called "safe", and we all do it.

My recommendation is that I agree with the commissioner, in that the AP for part 96 operations, must be 'one cut above the rest', and then I added that maybe we should do a compression 'shock-load' engine test more regularly. But you know, if that is what is safe for the commercial guys, then you can bet your last dollar that I would like to do that for my recreational flying as well.......

Kinda makes an idiot of me if I know that there is a "higher" standard of safety out there, and I don't do it.......

A cessna on a training school get the 100hour MPI, just the same as the SAA Boeing and Airbus, just the same as the cessna owned and flown privately.

So, if we are presenting to the commissioner, an argument in favour of the safety standards we want for microlight recreational flying, then surely they must be the same for any other kind of flying? There is only one kind of safety...........

Kinda get my idea?


Cheers.

[Tumbleweed]

Is this topic not interperated as an operator, who although competant enough to undertake maintenance, has a second party countercheck / sign off?

[RudiGreyling]

Hi,

looks like I opened a hornets nest. GOOD!

It was debated, both me and "skybound" has asked in various posts how will Commercial be different from Recreational. I was ignored, and saw it it the proposed new wording, so I started this. You can debate here then decide and vote, like I said in my first post.

Sorry but I do think there are more than 1 type of safety, depending on use and risk.
The 'Safety' rules for Certified and NTCA is different, why. The risk is different. Normal paying passengers with no clue of aviation want to know someone 'CAA' is looking after them and controlling it.
Hence,
The 'Safety' rules for Commercial and Recreational, needs to be different since the risk to Joe Public is different.

Why is one lot allowed to charge Joe public but the other lot not, but the rules are the same???

If you put Recreation and Commercial in the same pot, the stricter of the 2 'Safety' rules will need to apply to protect paying Joe Public, and hence recreational will suffer as with the current MORE stricter rules than what we were use to.

The result is, from feedback from Saturday's meeting with Mike, that 90%,my guess, of Micros, are flying illegal currently, because:
1. we did our own maintenance, changed plugs AND
2. most 2 stroke Rotax engines has gone past the mandatory 150 open engine up inspection, or the 300 TBO mark..

Should it be the same, I don't think so, but you may differ, I'll settle with the majority.

Regards
Rudi

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Hi,

looks like I opened a hornets nest. GOOD!

It was debated, both me and "skybound" has asked in various posts how will Commercial be different from Recreational. I was ignored, ....

Rudy, each topic needs to be debated on its own for this forum to work. Passing comments in related topics is not a debate.

Your post and topic is valuable and should remain. Just remove the poll section of it until the debate has reached some level of conclusion or gets stuck.

Everyone has the right to open a topic, and everyone has been asked to do so. Please just do it in a logical sequence. First identify the topic, post it in a logical way as a seperate issue, debate it, THEN poll it. We loose the value of the poll if it is done without debate and complete information.

Your an my opinions are only 2 people's thoughts... we need many to think about it and give some different angles to it.

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Dear forum members, I have removed the poll on this topic until a reasonable debate has run its course on the contents.

Please use this topic to debate commercial vs private operations, and how you would like to see them separated in the law, if at all.

For the 12 of you who have already voted on the issue, please accept my apology, but I truly felt that the time was not right for a poll now. I did ask Rudy in 2 separate PMs to remove it himself first, and if anyone feels that I have abused my position as moderator, please discuss it under a separate thread.

I will also amend the rules of this forum. Only moderators should add polls.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Morph]

Should NTCA MPL Commercial Operations be Stricter Controlled than Recreational?

As a gut feel I would hazzard the obvious answer and say yes. But that does not help up us. What specific issues of operating a microlight commercially vs recreationally need to be stricter? Is is that the CMPL needs to have more training and hours that a MPL. Or is it the insurance liability issues. Is it related to the maintenance of the aircraft and the minimum standards required or is it the area you operate in. What is it that commercial microlight pilots do that is different to standard MPL?

Let's get specific about these issues and gain some value, rather than just saying Yes /it all/some/a few rules/none should be stricter.

Rudi, your input is valuable

[skybound®]

I have been having my own self debate again and seem to be coming up with more questions than answers

From my understanding, originally there were two sets of regulations for part 24. One section for part 96 operators and the other for recreational guys. This came about from a debate similar to this one.

Are we not just rethrashing a debate that occured some time ago? What has significantly changed since to make us think that the decision made then is not the correct one now?

If we look at where TCA were a few years ago, they too were allowed to do some limited maintenance on their aircraft provided they were not to be used in a commercial operation. Now all TCAs are subject to the same more strict regulations. Why? Maybe there is some history for us to consider.

Dave & FF, I hear where you are coming from, and I think we all know that you folk ran a pretty tight ship.

If we leave the two together in NTCA, and some short cutting commercial operators does take advantage of the friendlier regs, and there is a 'problem', CAA may tighten the regs. As we will all be part of the one band, the non commercial guys will feel the same whip. I suppose the converse could be true too.

[Fairy Flycatcher]

I think the 25 hour inspection just about covers it. Commercial aircraft are inspected more frequently and more stringently than private aircraft.

It will be important for the 'commercial inspector' to have no direct affiliation with the 'commercial operator', or the operator must get special exemption to use someone involved in his business.

The paper-work trail for inspection can also be stricter with commercial operators, with a complete pre-defined list of everything to be checked, and notes on all of it.

The law already requires that only an AP approved by the commissioner may do Part 96 inspections, but an AP approved by Aero Club or the Commissioner may do Part 94 inspections.

There should perhaps also be a way for the commercial AP to impose fines or ground aircraft temporarily for non-compliance. These lists of non-compliance must be forwarded to CAA and attacched to the operating certificate of the commercial operation.

Changing maintenance rules from one to the other will not make one less or more safe, and we cannot argue that, but we can put in stricter checks and balances for the commercial operator.

[skybound®]

Ok - it has been a few days, can we please have the poll now, or we run the risk that the current wording that lumps both categories together may not be supported.

[Fairy Flycatcher]

I think this issue is still under-debated. More people who will be affected by this should be consulted. Most of the people here talking about 'commercial operations' are not affected, and therefore we cannot say that we are 'consulting the industry' with this kind of discussion. Therefore I don't think our ideas will actually count for much. We have to find a way of consulting commercial operators on this one properly first.

But what are the solutions? What do you suggest skybound? Should the poll have about 4 different options perhaps? Even if I can think up some, they don't begin to cover the issues properly.

But I guess we can start braking it down into some basic directions in the mean time. Maybe ?
1. Treat all the same
2. Commercial operators must be subject to the same regulations but stricter enforcement.
3. Commercial operators must be inspected more often and strongly enforced.
4. Commercial operators must have their own set of mainenance rules, follow the maintenance schedule to the letter and all maintenance to be done by professional people

[skybound®]

I just had a quick look on how many organisations have posted here on this web under the schools/agents etc forum. There are over 20 commercial operators that have taken the time to advertise their wares on that commerial forum.

If these organisations have chosen not to get involved and offer comment and be part of the process, then so be it. Can lead the horse......

If the recreational flyer sees potential risk in being put together in a single pool, no matter how many commerical operators are consulted, there will always be more recreational votes.

[lamercyfly]

Hi Guys.

I would like to view my opinions, but I am just not getting around to it. I just need a few more days.

Just hang for a couple more days......I want to get some school operators to have their say....... But I can only start getting around to that in a couple of days.

Later,

[African Grey]

Hi there

Schools form the main commercial operation using these aircraft and would be the correct bodies to chat to.....

School aircraft will be well looked because:
1) Instructor's earn a living form the aircraft
2) Instructor's have families and do not want injuries/death
3) It's far less stressful training in a well maintained aircraft
4) Schools want to impress and retain students with well maintained aircraft.

In addition to the 25hr inspections all schools must have a Red Tag system highlighting all aircraft problems/snags no matter how small they may be.

There are also regular safety meetings required and a designated Safety Officer who signs and accepts responsibility....!

I feel the aircraft should be "safe" no matter who flies it commercial or otherwise. The above requirements if adhered to should ensure this in sschools and there is no need to further burden the schools and students with additional paperwork.

Schools are also subject to "Short" Term Technical Inspections by CAA (had one in September)....everything has to be correct.....!

Although not directly related to maintainence, the paper trail for a "dual" flight in a school would have to be recorded 7 times...!
1) Flight Authorisation Sheet
2) Student Progress Sheet
3) Student's Log Book
4) Instructor's Log Book
5) Aircraft Log Book
6) Flight Folio
7) Student Account sheet.......!
No more paperwork please lets teach people to fly

Rgds
Russell