LSA vs Microlight

[sleemanj]

Don't want to drift the Open Day thread any further...

Feb 9, 2009 21:32:39 GMT 12 philip said:

My Remos is an LSA but it takes a while for CAA to catch on to the rest of the world so it is registered as a microlight.

I don't particularly agree with introducing yet another class of aircraft, I think that "Class 2 Microlight" is a perfectly useful definition which covers what we do now, including the "LSA", it's time it was tweaked a bit is all.

What I would like to see happen (and I admit, the chances are probably slim) is a combination of two things...

1. Like seems likely to happen in AU in the very near future, increase the weight allowance, specifically for Class 2 Microlights. RA-AUS and CASA seem to be heading for 760kg.

This is not just a convenience matter, I believe there are safety implications in the current status quo - many pilots buying these new breed microlights take the weight limit imposed here as a "paper limitation" as they look at the apparently same model overseas and see it has a higher weight, when infact what they see as a paper limitation may be a very real physical limitaion due to changes made to the aircraft by the manufacturer (either to fit in the category, or even just to save money because it doesn't need to be engineered so strongly).

2. Like has happened reasonably recently in the UK (last year), drop the no flight over congested areas limitation (probably just for Class 2 Microlights, at least to start with), on three main basis:
a) A pilot must always ensure they can glide clear in the event of an engine failure
anyway (91.311).
b) People are really not flying about in Class 2 microlights with failure prone engines any more.
c) Compare damage from GA aircraft crash and Microlight crash in the worst instance... I think I'd rather have a microlight crash into my house than any single engne GA thanks.

To be fair, in the UK that limitation is probably a lot more of a problem than it is here, but we shouldn't have rules which do not serve a useful purpose.

In short, I think it's time the CAA took another look at this rule and tried to come up with some good reasons to keep it, I think they might struggle to justify it in these modern times.

With those changes I really can't see why it would be a problem for "LSA" to just be handled by the existing Part 149 organisations (RAANZ, SAC, and recently RNZAC), as indeed they are today just with some arbitrary limitations.

[DragonflyDH90]

Present it to them, I think you may find that they are already looking into some significant changes regarding various certificates even as we type this. Potentially these things you discuss may be being addressed.
Still worth asking though.

[shorty]

I often wonder why, when NZ has the ZK,ZL and ZM prefixes that the ZM (previously only used on 2 Flying Fleas) isn't used for Microlights only, that way the limitations that are imposed on these types would be instantly apparent, even when making a radio call, especially with a lot of the ZK regos being reused.

[Bruce]

LSA is on the way, Rex Kenny from CAA presented it in an update at Ashburton. key thing is our NZ LSA classes (actually there will be 2 - one for amateur built and one for factory built) will be different to the US LSA category becuase the existing microlight category is already exceeding the US restrictions (constant speed prop, retractable gear etc). LSA will make very little difference in NZ other than allowing PPL flight training and commercial operations with the LSA aircraft. aircraft in the category will need to meet industry defined design standards (many microlights won't at this stage). the flight over built up areas restriction will be dropped.
It is expected LSA legislation will come in sometime during the next 18 months, although this may vary as the RPL legislation demonstrated!
As an aside, the Special category of aircraft (which includes the current "experimental" category) will be changed soon - March - April. The Experimental category will only apply to aircraft undergoing test flying. when testing is complete, homebuilts will become "special category - amateur Built" which removes the restrictions on flight over built up areas (previously exemptions had to be applied for) and only requires a "Review of Airworthiness" every 2 years instead of annually.
The legislative changes are on the way, even if they may not satisfy everyone, they appear to be reasonable, considering that our existing rules are very different (and generally better than) many overseas countries.

[philip]

Thats interesting Bruce as by my reading, the NPRM only waived the built up areas restriction in regard to landing or taking off. Developments may have occured and I'm looking forward to Rex's address at pilotexpo.

The microlight classification is very wide, maybe too wide.

[sleemanj]

Feb 10, 2009 8:20:18 GMT 12 philip said:

Thats interesting Bruce as by my reading, the NPRM only waived the built up areas restriction in regard to landing or taking off.

The draft rule says...

Except if taking off or landing, a person must not operate an
aircraft that has a special category airworthiness certificate over a
congested area of a city or town unless the aircraft has been authorised
to do so by the Director in writing.

In the UK, I believe the limitation regards this was done "on the permit to fly" rather than within a rule as such, so in theory some aircraft could have been exempted (and as mentioned, last year, the restriction was lifted from nearly all permits), it looks like this will be effectively the same, but in reverse (defaults to no-permission, the director can give you special permission).

[Bruce]

thats probably correct, I didnt note down all the details of Rex's presentation. certainly amateur builts will be able to fly over built up areas without requiring exemptions once the new rules come in.

[philip]

I attended Rex Kenny's address at the pilot expo. The rule will be as James wrote above however LSA-S (factory built) will have directors approval rubber stamped and LSA-E (homebuilt) will be approved once the 40? hour testing period is over.

[flyinkiwi]

My question is, how would the no flying over built up areas rule be enforced? It seems to me it would only be enforceable if: you had an incident which required a forced landing controlled or otherwise, you overflew a built up area in controlled airspace without permission, or someone captured your indiscretion on video and sent it to the CAA.

[sleemanj]

Or, a CAA employee happens to spot you, and know that you are not supposed to be there.

Exactly that happened to a microlight pilot in Canterbury a few years back, CAA inspector looked up to see them cutting across Sumner to the harbour or somewhere like that, knew the aircraft was microlight, I think it just ended up being a finger waggling "see you don't do it again".

But yes, it's just going to get silly-confusing to enforce though, for all intents and purposes we could (will) get identical aircraft under 3 rule sets, factory constructed LSA, amateur built LSA, microlight.

[philip]

Feb 10, 2009 7:22:01 GMT 12 shorty said:

I often wonder why, when NZ has the ZK,ZL and ZM prefixes that the ZM (previously only used on 2 Flying Fleas) isn't used for Microlights only, that way the limitations that are imposed on these types would be instantly apparent, even when making a radio call, especially with a lot of the ZK regos being reused.

Except you're not obliged to have the ZK- unless you fly overseas and few NZ light aircraft display it

[philip]

Well that's a kick in the nuts..................

I was just reading the latest Vector magazine and it would appear that the new LSA category requires a PPL or RPL to fly it and not just a Microlight Certificate which was talked about before.

That means that pretty much all of the country's LSA fleet which are being flown by microlight permit holders (and i'd say that's most of them) will have to stay on the microlight register and not be allowed an increase from 544kg to 600kg.

It's not really a worry to me although I'd quite like to be able to fly over towns. My aircraft is only 320kg empty and can fit easily under the 544kg with 2 passengers and full fuel. However, there's a few aircraft around that the numbers just won't stack up on.

[sleemanj]

Philip - Rex Kenny told me last year that he is trying to get a rule change through so Part 149 microlight pilots can also use an LSA.

As far as the aircraft itself though you won't be able to convert a micro aircraft to LSA, no paper trail. Maybe in the very rare case where your micro has been maintained by an LAME to manufacturer specifications even though it's on the micro register... but don't count on it.

LSA = maintained in accordance with the manufacturers maintenance specifications, and documented as such, by an LAME or somebody with "approval", can be used for training PPL, will be able to be used for Part 115 Adventure Aviation.

I expect the ability to use Microlights for sight seeing flights with a CPL pilot would be removed (LSA substituted under Part 115 Adventure Aviation).

I still stand by my words that I think making a whole new LSA class was kind of retarded, but it's here now so got to make the most of it. For my concern, the ability to train PPLs in it is the biggest plus, currently the "cross credit" for micro time, is pitiful.

Rex said:

LSA is a factory built two place aircraft with a max gross weight
of 1320 lbs and a stall speed of 45 knots or less.
They must be maintained by an LAME or a maintenance approval holder and
to the manufacturers maintenance manual.
They can be used for PPL flight training and fly over congested areas.
They will also be available for use under Part 115 adventure aviation
once that is introduced late next year. At present a PPL is required to
fly them but I have a proposed change to Part 61 that will allow
microlight pilots to also fly LSA's. This is probably six months away.

(August 2009)

[simon]

I really hope CAA see this through to allowing both GA and Microlight pilots to fly aircraft in the the LSA class.
I cannot see ANY reason at all why this should not be the case. It seems to me the most straight forward approach would be simply that the terms of your license would apply.

Currently I can fly a Tecnam ZK-PAB, but to fly ZK-TLS, I need a part 61 instructor's approval and presence as I am PPL Student.
But lets say it's a lovely day and the only instructor I can find is not rated in TLS? Well, I can take them flying in PAB with Me as PIC and issue them a type rating under my SAC instructor rating. Then we can jump in TLS with them as PIC and they can "Teach" me to fly it. I can then log this time toward my PPL.

That is a very crooked line to follow.

[jpschulze]

Time to pick out an old thread.

Can anyone offer some insight to whether I can actually register a "Microlight" as LSA (IBIS GS700) and fly it with a PPL (Train on it). If so this will GREATLY reduce the cost of my PPL.


Regards
JP

[Bruce]

If the aircraft has previously been registered in any country as a Microlight and maintained as a Microlight, it will have to stay that way. LSA is a "higher" standard and operation in a "lower" category essentially "contaminates" it to prevent it from going up to the higher category. Its because you cannot prove that all previous maintenance was carried out by a LAME as required for LSA.

[jpschulze]

Alright, so the IBIS is suitable for LSA operation then. What organisation would this be done through, I am confused with why there are two, Sport and Recreational?

[daqqy152]

If you have a LSA, It is certified as a LSA, and it has been maintained as a LSA.....The Light Sport Aircraft (LSA), when constructed and flight tested under factory conditions, may be operated for hire or reward or for flight training.

Look up Part 21 on the Caa website, that should tell you everything you need to know.

[Bruce]

Jun 1, 2014 17:20:01 GMT 12 jpschulze said:

Alright, so the IBIS is suitable for LSA operation then. What organisation would this be done through, I am confused with why there are two, Sport and Recreational?

All initial aircraft certification is done through the Civil Aviation Authority - regardless of what it is. SAA doesnt have anything to do with certification. RAANZ and SAC, the microlight organisations do the ongoing airworthiness for Microlights only.
LSA is CAA and a LAME.

there are two microlight outfits (RAANZ and SAC - not to be confused with SAA) because "back in the day" not all microlight aviators could agree with one another, so two separate approved organisations evolved. In practice they are both pretty good, so if you are going the microlight way you can choose whichever one suits you.