Microlight weight issues

[Smiley]

Hello Fairy

I'm not sure if it's a Gauteng thing, but here at Springs myself and a couple of other pilots just went over the minimum hours to get our licenses and stay on the right side of the law!!

But stil there is a difference in pricing:
PPL 40hoursx700p/hour =R28000
MPL 25hoursx450p/hour=R11250

That's just my 2c!!

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Hello Fairy

I'm not sure if it's a Gauteng thing, but here at Springs myself and a couple of other pilots just went over the minimum hours to get our licenses and stay on the right side of the law!!

But stil there is a difference in pricing:
PPL 40hoursx700p/hour =R28000
MPL 25hoursx450p/hour=R11250

That's just my 2c!!

Smiley, what do you fly? Do you fly one of the 3-axis microlights which are a bit "contentious" From your post on "Why do you fly", I thought you fly a trike. The average time to finish at trike course here is about 28 hours. But we are not talking about trikes or basic 3-axis microlights which fall in the weight and speed category set by the law...

Also, if you did your MPL hours for 450/hr, you would do your PPL on that same aircraft for R 450 or LESS. Most PPL instructors get paid less than most microlight instructors. So your figures are a bit distorted.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

FF
We taliking at cross purposes. It not about limiting anything, it more about getting more pilots in the air. They guy who takes 40hrs to get 3 axis will prob take 55 hrs to get PPL. Fact remains that the cost is more due to legislated min hrs. The length of time it takes is dependant on student and instructor. Also (in Gauteng at least) most who offer PPL training are doing so on bliks which cost significantly more than the newer types (Jabi, CHeetah etc) I only know of 3 schools using the Jabi's for PPL & MPL training in Gauteng, so comparison en large is still Jabi rate (sayR450/hr) for Mpl vs Blik (say R650/hr) for PPL. HUGE difference. Also don't know if legally you can do PPL training on a ML reg'd aerie, so school would need a ML reg'd Jabi and a light plane reg'd Jabi?

3 axis MPL is being advertised in media for as little as R12500. Cheapest PPL I have seen is R27500. Many are not aware that a PPL could be done on a Jabi for significantly less. That is a huge difference and that is the public perception. Lobbing all into PPL is similar to situation to CAA NTCA, where ZU-TUG and ZU-KIM are in the same NTCA category. This is the fastest growing sector of GA and needs to be nurtured. The easier (without compromising safety) it is made the more will partake which is what we all want (I assume).

The credit of 25hrs is an entirely different issue. That what I meant when I said natural progression. There should possibly be a convex system, IMHO rather than a "credit" of 25hrs. Possibly something that requires some time on a heavier aerie, J400, PA28, C172 (more seats to explore C of G movements, loading etc) to finish convex to PPL. Ref to hrs just a yardstick. If pilot is safe and can handle it why force him/her to do additional hrs, but visa versa if not coping.

Couple comments on your comments

This is probably an excellent solution. But why limit yourself? In America night-rating and IF-time are compulsory for PPL, so the SPL makes sense. Here we don't have that additional requirement, most PPL's don't get much past a 182, so no twin turbine transport time for the average PPL oke. So what is the real difference?

Say again costs. PPL R30K+, MPL half that... PPL is able to fly complex machines and transport more than 1 pax. Why do 40/50/60 hrs on PPL when 25/35/45 is all you need for your application to fly around the patch. We seem to follow the other ICAO states, so assume we are not far off some IF training for PPL. As said they are looking at 5hrs IF time, which will increase PPL to 45hrs min.

Why limit yourself? A Jabi is a lot more slipery than a P28, and if you can fly a Jabi, you are quite capable of doing a 1hr convex onto a C152 or a Piper 140, or even a C182 or a 2-3 hour convex onto a C210RT or P200.

Not limiting, but providing more options to a wider potential usage base. Even a 1000hr jabi pilot will never (legally or practically) do a convex on a C210RT (heavy load, VP, Turbo & retract) in 2-3 hrs....

Making an additional "lower" licence, when its not too difficult to do your PPL does not make enough sense for me to support it.

It not a lower license, it just has limited application (1 Pax, min speed, max speed etc). Training is exactly the same, but costs are significantly less and process is simplified. Same way the Beetle was the car for the people this would be the license for the people. Want to go further then by all means go PPL, but if you just want to go for Sun arvie flip then why go PPL?

Also, a lot of people I know keep the Jabi's and Bush baby's etc on their schools and buy them for "hour building" towards a com licence. Many purist think this is a bad idea ('cause its not a blik), but its air experience!!!. Flying anything regularly and putting more hours make you a better pilot. You just have to learn more procedures the bigger the aircraft, but being able to fly stays the same. What if you fly your Jabi for 2 years, do 300 hours on it, and then think about doing your comm. Do you really think only 25 of those hours should count? Give me a break! You probably fly 200% better than the 17 year old who got a full time comm at 43rd from his daddy for his birthday.

Agreed. If I was going comm from scratch I would buy the cheapest aerie I could and fly the hell out of it and then do convex onto more complex. The Hr limits are just there as a guide. By same token if guy has 1000hr PPL and then does Comm which takes say 50hrs. Is he then a 1050hr Comm pilot?

So don't you think we see a decrease in Cheetah sales if they can't use it for "hour building" any-more? I certainly think we will.

Agree, don't see the relevance here. Marketing to increase sales on their part, but take away the 3 axis MPL and possibly a bigger drop in sales?

Do a PPL for those faster, heavier than MPL aircraft and stop limiting yourself, and stop limiting the industry.

Why would that limit industry, surely would it open further up industry? A Bush baby with a 582 vs a 912? Simply want a safer ML or maybe the Pilot and Pax are heavier or hot and high or has bigger fuel tanks for longer range. It flies the same way? I can't agree here. If you have a simple (No turbo, VP or retract) aerie you should be catered for. The weight restriction is something I do not understand? A sting with a 914, retract and VP prop is not a microlight regardless of the weight. It is a complex aerie by def and should thus not be allowed in there, but a fixed gear, fixed pitch, 912 Sting on other hand does IMHO.

2c

[Fairy Flycatcher]

FF
We taliking at cross purposes. ... They guy who takes 40hrs to get 3 axis will prob take 55 hrs to get PPL.

That is absurd!! By the end of your course, MPL or PPL, you have to pass a flight test which includes a 1.5hr cross country, simulated forced landing, simulated precautionary, recovery from insipient spin, recovery from stall (both glide and powered). How do you foresee that doing these excercises in a Jabi is any less demanding than doing it in a C152?

Look at the add for R 12500 and what is offered. Sometimes the students have to bring their own fuel! And it would be based on 25 hours (basically the minimum that a very gifted pilot will take), and exclude your licence fees, medical, lectures, exams, student kit etc.

Pietermaritzburg Flying Club offers a PPL on their new Jab at about R 18 000 (which I understand includes fuel, lectures and licence fees)

[Smiley]

Pietermaritzburg Flying Club offers a PPL on their new Jab at about R 18 000 (which I understand includes fuel, lectures and licence fees)

It must be cheap flying there, that would be the price of your MPL up in Gauteng with medical etc...!!!

Here your PPL on a C172 will cost you in the region of R40,000-00


Up in Gauteng people fly with MPL licenses because it's cheaper to get, and your hire and fly is cheaper on a 3-Axis microlight like a Cheetah than a C172 or Cherokee

[RV4ker (RIP)]

FF
We taliking at cross purposes. ... They guy who takes 40hrs to get 3 axis will prob take 55 hrs to get PPL.

That is absurd!! By the end of your course, MPL or PPL, you have to pass a flight test which includes a 1.5hr cross country, simulated forced landing, simulated precautionary, recovery from insipient spin, recovery from stall (both glide and powered). How do you foresee that doing these excercises in a Jabi is any less demanding than doing it in a C152?

Hu. No reference to demands or comparing a 150 to a Jabi? Does not go about how demanding it is, it goes about costs and time. Theorectically - To get to the PPL test you need to do 40hrs min. If you are proficient you pass, if not you try again. To get to the MPL test you only need 25hrs for test. What I am saying is that if a student is batteling with issues on MPL sylabus (structred 25 hr prg) he will prob battle with PPS sylabus(40hr prg) and will need more time which costs money. As you say most don't take 25hrs for MPL. Similarly m ost don't take 40hrs for PPL.

Look at the add for R 12500 and what is offered. Sometimes the students have to bring their own fuel! And it would be based on 25 hours (basically the minimum that a very gifted pilot will take), and exclude your licence fees, medical, lectures, exams, student kit etc.

Add for R12500 is all in cost in Cheetah. (May well be outdated, but principle more than figure)

Pietermaritzburg Flying Club offers a PPL on their new Jab at about R 18 000 (which I understand includes fuel, lectures and licence fees)

That an excellent price. As I say cheapest PPL advertised in Jhb is R27500 on new Technam. Most here are well in excess of R30K and some are closer to R40K. Am told a PPL at 43 will cost significantly more......

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Agree with Smileman fully. In GP it is definitely significantly cheaper to fly 3 axis than PPL. No real clubs anymore. Mainly schools wanting to make money, so costs are high in comparison to PMB...

Would love to start a real flying club at RAND with affordable flying. Have spoken to Harry at PMB and it seems they even make a return on the PPL in the Jabbi

[FAWGie]

I think that this topic is great and certainly one that more aviators and regulators should be thinking about. It does seem to me that we have a huge gap that was supposedly betweed MPL and PPL which has closed significantly in the past five or so years.

Considering that initially the likes of an MPL was intended for grass roots flying of a simple non-sophisticated machine to allow folk to safely experience the freedom of flight without having to do over extensive training.

The PPL on the other hand was targeted at making a pilot proficient to fly the machine of his choice from a simple C150 to a multi-engine turbine or jet (If one had the money) and of course covered the EAA builder as most would want to "experiment" with large performance motors, VP, Retracts, etc...etc....

Let's be honest, the aircraft appearing on the scen today (largely due to new technologies) and superior engine performance are very far from "experimental" as they are factory produced and often sport features like VP and retracts, EFIS instrumentation and performance and soem of these aircraft really perform. We have often seen that some of the slippery composites are far more difficult to master than the old blik C150, for example.....To the extent that the exact same aircraft is being used for PPL and MPL training / hour building.....

So now we have this dilema whereby our regulator has lumped most of these new types as "microlights" simply because the MAUW comes close to the MPL MAUW, but these machines should realyl require a lot more pilot proficiency than what would be expected from a PPL flying a C150....

The fact that currently a weight shift MPL pilot can do a "type conversion" onto 3-axis without a prescribed amount of training, lends itself to further compound the proficiency aspect. I recall a few years back when an "A" grade MPL instructor flew a Jabiru SP to my area....after paying for a 15 min intro flight, we took off...I wanted to do a stall and he nearly wet himself, contesting that he only had about 12 hours on 3-axis himself and didn't want to do stalls with a pax just yet.....after we landed, I suggested that he if he was not comfortable demonstrating a stall, then he should not be flying with a pax, let alone on a demo flight in the capacity of an instructor.....

Perhaps the good discipline of MPL 3-axis training schools is testimony that few 3-axis accidents have been attributed to "lack of sufficient pilot training"...but the license issues does need to be addressed as well as the class of aircraft fitting into each category......

As we all know, the smaller the aircraft, the more difficult it is to fly....The larger the aircraft, the more systems there are to operate......

By the way, one small difference between the PPL / MPL syllabis is that PPL now requires 2 hours of IFR training as mandatory....

[grosvenor]

Having a closer look at the Light Sport Pilot (LSA) rule in USA:-
The licence can be obtained in 25 hours, in an aeroplane that won't cost you an arm and a leg to fly.
BUT
then you are limited to flying a 100nm radius of your airfield. So if you enjoy around the patch flying and visiting your buddies in the airfields close by, then you need go no further.
If however you want to do some longer trips, you do some more training and you get an endorsement for cross-countries.
etc, etc so that you can add onto your licence as you interests and abilities change.
However you are only allowed to fly with a fixed pitch prop but with a reasonable all-up weight. There are no empty weight restrictions, which are actually pointless as long as there is control over the MTOW.
EAA has spend years and years refining this LSA ruling. Why re-invent the wheel?

Another point to consider is that you will find it difficult in South Africa to find two people to go flying together that both weigh less than 84kg. As in the States, our nation tends to be on the larger size!

W

[mike2flyfar]

I had a discussion with Andre Swanepoel from CAA this morning. He agreed that microlight aircraft being flown over the 450 kg limit is a problem that has been looming for some time. There have been some bad accidents recently that have highlighted the problem - so it appears that in the near future the CAA may decide to enforce the regulation that states that if you fly an aircraft heavier than 450 kg MAUW you must have a PPL.
The problem is not that the aircraft are not certified to take the weight, the problem is the training that the pilots have had and consequently their ability to safely fly the aircraft.
Andre also said that it is problem with many implications and that it must be addressed very soon. The CAA will be in touch so that we can have an input into how to resolve the immediate issues and to work out a long term solution.
I see it as a great opportunity for all of us for the future ... Who know - we might be able to also have a kind of Sport Plane category like they do in the USA! It is early days so lets not speculate on where this will go - we might even find it in our interest to just leave everything exactly as it is! I am well aware of the issues and the implications and will make sure the role players and best brains in our industry are involved.
And I will keep you informed of the progress.

Mike

[Bacchus]

Just as a matter of interest.
If I have a MPL licence, and I want to upgrade to a PPL, do I have to write more exams, or are the ones I have done already enough?
Lets say I dont want to do night rating.

[grosvenor]

I tend to agree with FF on this. Some years back the 260kg EW, 450kg MAUW, 65kph stall, suited all microlights. Microlights of the day were simple, low speed flying machines that could be flown with minimal training. Then along came more complex, high-speed machines (probably starting with the Jabiru). CAA somehow allowed these to be registered and flown as microlight even though they did not fit the legal requirements. The reality is, that if you fly one of these machines, keeping in mind that some have retracts, CS props, EFIS, etc, you should be flying it on a PPL. If CAA had stuck to the law from the start you would in fact be flying them with a PPL.

Is there place for a Light Sport Aircraft category in SA? Remember that LSA restricts the capabilities of the aircraft. Yes, you can theoretically get your Sport Pilot licence in 25hrs but LSA’s must have fixed gear, fixed pitch prop, max 2 seater, 600kg MAUW, max stall without flap of 40kts, amongst other things. If the laws get changed in SA, we still have to cater for the true microlights. So maybe we have to start with a minimum amount of training for the basic types, and then have a whole bunch of endorsements to cater for higher weights, higher speeds, retracts, VP props, cross country flights (esp. into controlled airspace), etc. However, as FF suggests, why not just go and get your PPL. If you want really cheap flying, stick with legal microlights. Later you can transition to a PPL if you need it and have access to all the aforementioned endorsements, including 4 and 6 seat aircraft.

One day a clever lawyer is going to sue the pants off you (or your family if you don’t make it) after you plough into a bunch of people whilst flying your high tech “illegal” microlight. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do the sums. 300kg EW, 2 x 90kg people, fuel – even a non-aviation minded lawyer can work out that you were flying outside of the law. And when they approach CAA, they will simply point to the law that states that not only was your aircraft not a legal microlight, but also you were flying outside of the limits of your licence. How about your own life insurance – they’re also looking for reason not to pay out a claim.

The writing has been on the wall for long enough, soon the proverbial will hit the fan.

Dave

[RV4ker (RIP)]

I have to disagree. Why not cater for the changing environment? Only thing that is constant is change. I think the whole 3 axis microlight setup needs a rethink, especially in light of new parts 61 & 62 as well as part 96. How will MPL com affect this?

I still think there is place for an entry level license before you get to PPL, which caters for these aeries. Flying is considered elitest and although I do not necessarily agree, by forcing people who want to fly to go PPL route you are increasing the barriers to entry (increased cost). Light aircraft (many of them genuine microlights in terms of the def) have evolved and so sould the law's and licensing governing them shuld follow suit. Possibly even doing away with 3 axis microlight category completely and having a light aircraft (or other suitable desriptive category) which sets the criteria. This may help with the confusion as to what is required to fly it.
If reg's as microlight (trike) you need MPL.
If reg'd as Light aircraft (say<600kg's - 300kg plane and 300kg load) you need SPL.
If reg as plane then PPL, etc....

I think there is a real opportunity to resolve plenty of the issues here....

CAA somehow allowed these to be registered and flown as microlight even though they did not fit the legal requirements. The reality is, that if you fly one of these machines, keeping in mind that some have retracts, CS props, EFIS, etc, you should be flying it on a PPL. If CAA had stuck to the law from the start you would in fact be flying them with a PPL.

Not necessarily as no ref is made to systems in the def. There is a Jora flying behind a full glass EFIS and VP is being fitted. When complete it will still qualify as a microloght. Choice of instruments and possibly power plant(eg 582 vs 912UL or 912ULS) should IMHO not come into play at all. Systems and complexity I agree with, but not. No VP, No retracts, but if guy want's to spend huge cash on glass cockpit and extra 20hp why penalise him? Compare a 912 in Jhb to 582 at coast?

I seem to be missing the boat here. What are the con's of increasing/changing to accomodate the "hotships"? Surely innovation should dictate, rather than designing an aircraft to comply with policy? USA market drives the world of aviation and many will tailor their products to the new SPL....

another 2c

[Morph]

I had a discussion with Andre Swanepoel from CAA this morning. He agreed that microlight aircraft being flown over the 450 kg limit is a problem that has been looming for some time.

Since when. Last year the predominance of accidents were trikes, well within their weight limit. The only 3-axis I can recall was a Challenger in January that had got into a problem in a box canyon. And a Challenger will not fly beyond the 450KG limit.

There have been some bad accidents recently that have highlighted the problem

Name one

The accidents lately have been a Skyfox, way under the 450kg limit with a fuel problem and landed between some houses in Lamberts bay because the little 503 cut out. Me thinks after a conversation with the pilot it was more electrical. Weight had nothing to do with it.

A Cheetah flying specifically slow and low for a cameraman stalled put it down in a field, no weight issues here. Pilot Error

And then the JK-05, at Saldana, on take-off rolled over to the left and crashed. Still waiting for the report on this one.

Yes these are all bad accidents, but where has this been a result of being over the 450kg weight limit.?

[FAWGie]

I agree with JCVB on the aspect of where the differential should be. Let's face it, our kids certainly study content at school that we only did in higher standards....Technology has evolved and the likes of EFIS and GPS make flying and navigation far easier, not more complex.....

The American guidelines for the sport license should be the benchmark regarding single engine, 2 seater, fixed undercarriage, fixed pitch and the required stall speed as well as top speed envelope......To actually allow a higher weight level actually means that designers can design tougher aeroplanes with larger motors to compensate, etc.....

Anything above that benchmark should require the PPL.......(VP, retracts, Pressurisation, etc...etc...) and of course IF and Night Ratings also remain the domain of PPL.....

Considering that any 3-axis microlight can be converted onto w.r.t a type rating under a PPL, I still encourage any pilot to go for the PPL if funds allow, even if it is for personal achievement.....

I agree that to dte, 3-axis microlight pilots have NOT contributed significantly to the accident statistics (Thank goodness)...but I agree with Dave G, our regulator has been very sloppy in the registering of various types and despite their registration, if they fall outside of legal requirements, the lawyers have a strong case and many insurance claims will be refuted....