PDA

View Full Version : Have the goalposts moved for SSDR?



Starship Skyranger
02-07-17, 12:29 PM
As I am sure a few are aware SSDR has allowed a few 2 seater microlights to be adapted or downgraded to fit into the SSDR category, our understanding was that anything 2 seat was allowed to have the MTOM reduced to 300kg as a 1 seat microlight landplane ( emphasis on 2 seat down to 1 seat ) as there has always been scope for anything built as a single seat microlight to vary the MTOM between it's 390kg and 300kg if it meets criteria (i)

Now we have just noticed that a 2 seat microlight that has been adapted or downgraded to SSDR status has been granted a 350kg MTOM.
This is confusing us as 350kg doesn't show in the 300/315/330kg definitions anywhere nor does it give scope in the 390kg definition by having been a 2 seat version moving into the 1 seat ( SSDR ) category.

If the CAA or BMAA/LAA have now moved the goalposts wider to allow a higher MTOM under SSDR it is a Win,Win situation for us all. It will certainly benefit us as we have put an identical microlight into SSDR for a client at 300kg MTOM, the extra 50kg would be useful in our next application.

Any input from the more knowledgeable members who were involved in getting SSDR agreed would be welcomed .

The definitive wording outlines the variances allowed below;

* SSDR DEFINITION AS WE UNDERSTAND IT*
A single seat microlight (SSDR) is now defined as an aircraft which:
a) Is designed to carry one person;
b) Has a maximum take-off mass of no more than:
i.
300 kg for a single seat landplane (or 390 kg for a single seat landplane of which 51% was built by an amateur, or non-profit making association of amateurs, for their own purposes and without any commercial objective, in respect of which a Permit to Fly issued by the CAA was in force prior to 1 January 2003*); or
ii.
315 kg for a single seat landplane equipped with an airframe mounted total recovering parachute system; or
iii.
330 kg for a single seat amphibian or floatplane;
and
c)
Has a stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots calibrated airspeed.
* The intent is that if this clause is used to allow a microlight of between 300/315/330 kg and 390 kg max gross weight to be an SSDR, the Permit to Fly that was in force prior to 1.1.03 must have been for the aircraft as a single seat microlight not as a two seat microlight or as an SEP Aeroplane, i.e. to ‘grandfather’ pre-existing ‘heavy’ single seat microlights into the SSDR category.
Converting a two -seat microlight into an SSDR :
If the aircraft has a 450 kg MTWA then it’s unlikely to be eligible to convert to a single seat SSDR because the empty weight will most likely be too high to allow an adequate payload at 300/315/330 kg gross weight. If the MTWA is less than 450 kg (for example one of the old 390 Kg class) and there will be sufficient payload available as a single seater at 300 Kg max gross weight, a transfer may be possible but you will need to modify the aircraft to render the second seat unusable. Be careful not to remove the seat if it is designed to form part of the aircraft’s structure or if it is designed to prevent loose objects getting jammed in the control system. CAA will seek a letter (or e-mail) of ‘no technical objection’ to the change from either the LAA or BMAA as appropriate to the aircraft type. To obtain this you will need to liaise with the technical department of the LAA or BMAA giving details of how you have converted the aircraft into a single seater.

Martin Watson
02-07-17, 13:35 PM
Reference or link to the 350kg that you mention please?

Starship Skyranger
02-07-17, 13:56 PM
Reference or link to the 350kg that you mention please?

Martin... With all due respects I am looking for input from anyone who knows the SSDR rulings so I can fully understand how someone has managed to get 350kg on a microlight type that Peter only managed to get 300kg accepted for.

Another anomaly that Peter has previously highlighted and to be blunt got shot down in flames when he mentioned it was...... "CAA will seek a letter (or e-mail) of ‘no technical objection’ to the change from either the LAA or BMAA as appropriate to the aircraft type. To obtain this you will need to liaise with the technical department of the LAA or BMAA giving details of how you have converted the aircraft into a single seater."

Quite a few dug him out saying "The CAA won't be asking the BMAA or LAA anything about a SSDR application because you are de-regulating your microlight and it will have no BMAA or LAA control"
Any liasion with the BMAA or LAA is actually a form of regulation, makes sense to have their input IMHO on previous microlights under their control. It does however make a mockery of the SSDR category when you can cobble together a bag of bits and call it the 'Watson Wotsit' which won't have any liasioning with the BMAA or LAA.

I think rather than open a can of worms for the SSDR applicant who has somehow managed to get 350kg agreed by publishing details of his microlight on an open forum we will ask the question tomorrow by calling the CAA as they are the registry regulator and it has been registered as a 350kg SSDR by them.

Once that has been asked of them I will then decide what can or should be exposed on a public forum.

Paul Dewhurst
02-07-17, 15:09 PM
Martin... With all due respects I am looking for input from anyone who knows the SSDR rulings so I can fully understand how someone has managed to get 350kg on a microlight type that Peter only managed to get 300kg accepted for.

Another anomaly that Peter has previously highlighted and to be blunt got shot down in flames when he mentioned it was...... "CAA will seek a letter (or e-mail) of ‘no technical objection’ to the change from either the LAA or BMAA as appropriate to the aircraft type. To obtain this you will need to liaise with the technical department of the LAA or BMAA giving details of how you have converted the aircraft into a single seater."

Quite a few dug him out saying "The CAA won't be asking the BMAA or LAA anything about a SSDR application because you are de-regulating your microlight and it will have no BMAA or LAA control"
Any liasion with the BMAA or LAA is actually a form of regulation, makes sense to have their input IMHO on previous microlights under their control. It does however make a mockery of the SSDR category when you can cobble together a bag of bits and call it the 'Watson Wotsit' which won't have any liasioning with the BMAA or LAA.

I think rather than open a can of worms for the SSDR applicant who has somehow managed to get 350kg agreed by publishing details of his microlight on an open forum we will ask the question tomorrow by calling the CAA as they are the registry regulator and it has been registered as a 350kg SSDR by them.

Once that has been asked of them I will then decide what can or should be exposed on a public forum.

all nonsense - CAA can't classify anything over 300kg as a single seat microlight because it wouldn't comply with the ANO and EU annex2 legal definition.

as for CAA wanting LAA / BMAA nod before taking something off a permit - it's because they will know in that particular case whether it complies with the definition or someone is confused / swinging the lead. It was an agreed protocol from the implementing discussions. Of course it doesn't stop anyone fiddling through a non compliant
new type by lying though.


Paul

PS why do we have to have the silly pretense that you are not Peter?

Starship Skyranger
02-07-17, 15:28 PM
all nonsense - CAA can't classify anything over 300kg as a single seat microlight because it wouldn't comply with the ANO and EU annex2 legal definition.

as for CAA wanting LAA / BMAA nod before taking something off a permit - it's because they will know in that particular case whether it complies with the definition or someone is confused / swinging the lead. It was an agreed protocol from the implementing discussions. Of course it doesn't stop anyone fiddling through a non compliant
new type by lying though.


Paul

PS why do we have to have the silly pretense that you are not Peter?

Paul....
There is absolutely no pretence about who I am, it doesn't really bother me whether I am taken at face value or not by the large majority on here.
Peter will always guide me about who is who? With his guidance I will adopt whatever attitude is needed in answering messages.

You have theoretically called me out that it isn't possible that someone has been granted a 350kg MTOM on a microlight that has been converted to a SSDR microlight.
As you are on the respected side of the microlighting line I am private messaging you the details and perhaps you will then be able to answer my question without implying discredit to what I am saying.

sssdu01
02-07-17, 16:44 PM
PS why do we have to have the silly pretense that you are not Peter?[/QUOTE]

Because Peter has to create a new profile every week. Its easy to spot as he has his own style :take_a_crap:

Starship Skyranger
02-07-17, 17:08 PM
PS why do we have to have the silly pretense that you are not Peter?


Because Peter has to create a new profile every week. Its easy to spot as he has his own style :take_a_crap:

Maybe you are looking at a style of writing that you get to fit where you want it to fit?
I may have picked up some of his writing style, it comes from having been mentored by him for many years.

Haven't you any of your peers traits?

jetlag
02-07-17, 19:49 PM
There sure are some strange folks on here. Freud would have a field day. Is there a doctor in the house???

Richard Goddin
02-07-17, 20:55 PM
There sure are some strange folks on here. Freud would have a field day. Is there a doctor in the house???

I was speaking to my uncle Hans von Brärhaven the other day and he told me that this sort of thing goes on all the time in certain German institutions. I have asked him for fuerther information.

Dave Morton
02-07-17, 21:22 PM
it comes from having been mentored by him for many years.


It's not too late for counselling

Paul Dewhurst
02-07-17, 21:45 PM
Paul....
There is absolutely no pretence about who I am, it doesn't really bother me whether I am taken at face value or not by the large majority on here.
Peter will always guide me about who is who? With his guidance I will adopt whatever attitude is needed in answering messages.

You have theoretically called me out that it isn't possible that someone has been granted a 350kg MTOM on a microlight that has been converted to a SSDR microlight.
As you are on the respected side of the microlighting line I am private messaging you the details and perhaps you will then be able to answer my question without implying discredit to what I am saying.

The only exception is for pre 2003 amateur built 390 rule single seaters. If the type fits that rule 2.3 in the BMAA SSDR handbook) then it can have a higher than 300kg MTOW because it predates EASA annex2 and has grandfather rights in the UK. There are one or two shadows that fit this. Peter knows this so as this machine is a Shadow why would he be making a fuss about it?

Starship Skyranger
02-07-17, 22:11 PM
The only exception is for pre 2003 amateur built 390 rule single seaters. If the type fits that rule 2.3 in the BMAA SSDR handbook) then it can have a higher than 300kg MTOW because it predates EASA annex2 and has grandfather rights in the UK. There are one or two shadows that fit this. Peter knows this so as this machine is a Shadow why would he be making a fuss about it?

Paul.... With your explanation we have looked at the LAA sheet for the specific type and much as Peter likes to think he is the font of all knowledge he didn't know that the Shadow SA-M was built as a single seater as well as a double seater.....he thought G-MYTY was a one off in much the same way as you built a competition Skyranger. So hands up to the fact he didn't know there was more than one 912 powered SSDR Streak Shadow in the UK.

jetlag
03-07-17, 08:27 AM
It is similar to watching a young child playing hide and seek behind the settee not knowing their feet are in full view for all the world but happy in their little subterfuge.

paultheparaglider
03-07-17, 10:32 AM
PS why do we have to have the silly pretense that you are not Peter?

The short answer is you don't. You are choosing to play.

I think the sensible thing to do with both Peter and Rick when they play their silly, childish games is to not respond to them. We all know that won't make them go away, but there are many - if not, most - times where they simply don't deserve an answer.

jetlag
03-07-17, 12:36 PM
I have previously questioned what the family, friends and work colleagues present and past would make of the bizarre conduct of these seemingly intelligent people. Frequently posting interesting and helpful posts but via pseudonyms. I cannot begin to comprehend the strange workings of their minds or their wish play pretend, except to say it is something that myself and all my brothers and sisters used to play in childhood, but grew out of with maturity. Multiple personalities running multiple businesses from the same address maybe a hint, it maybe a lifestyle choice.

jetlag
03-07-17, 12:51 PM
14133 Is this a good photo to promote microlighting Peter ????

Starship Skyranger
03-07-17, 14:19 PM
I have previously questioned what the family, friends and work colleagues present and past would make of the bizarre conduct of these seemingly intelligent people. Frequently posting interesting and helpful posts but via pseudonyms. I cannot begin to comprehend the strange workings of their minds or their wish play pretend, except to say it is something that myself and all my brothers and sisters used to play in childhood, but grew out of with maturity. Multiple personalities running multiple businesses from the same address maybe a hint, it maybe a lifestyle choice.


Jetlag.... Funnily enough you have summed up Peter's lifestyle choices in an exacting manner....... Peter can be very helpful in posting interesting and helpful posts.
Why has he posted as pseudonyms in the past? It is something that wasn't done by choice, it was done out of necessity as without using a pseudonym he couldn't get the messages that are both interesting and helpful into the forum.

I know my posts look like the lamb that cried wolf, that is a burden I can live with.

Being That a lot of you may consider me being either Peter himself or his ghost writer I am not going to keep trying to convince the unconvinceable that I am who I say I am.
Peter had a very different upbringing to 99% of you, his childhood was one of total protection and moulded by the environs that his parents moved in, that in itself has to some degree had both beneficial and detrimental influences on his lifestyle.

It follows that anyone who had a high profile lifestyle thrust onto them as a child tends to extend it into their adult life, yes Peter does like the limelight, he will never emulate the limelight his parents had so there is always a shadow over him that he constantly tries to erase or at least lighten.
Peter is very normal in real life, his online persona is at the other end of the spectrum because he likes attention.

Peter was very lucky to have recognisable parents who were at the top of their game, if Peter had the ego you all think he has he would have followed into his fathers career and became a vastly overpaid celebrity ( he had many offers to do so, bit of the old boys club was there if he wanted it ) instead he went the total opposite way and shyed away from being " The son of "

Most of you wouldn't understand the issues Peter had being in someones shadow for most of his childhood has had on the later years.
He has experienced life in such a way that only comes from having been part of a celebrity family, he can open doors that the general public can't even get near.

Peter got into aviation because his father craved flying but wasn't allowed to learn to fly back then ( now all celebs seem to have pilots licences )

Peter was somewhat pushed into flying by his father as a natural thing having been to every possible airshow on VIP invites, now Peter wouldn't change anything with regards to his flying, his lifestyle and everything about him comes from a footballing background despite him turning his back on football when he was very young.

He only really regained an interest in football in early 1992 when he was compelled to take control of his fathers business interests within the football sector, a few years later he got out of the football rat race because it didn't give him the same buzz his father got from it.

He is certainly happier in aviation than he would have been staying in the footballing sector even though anything football related is 'Money for nothing' whilst aviation is a hard slog to make real money in. Luckily being associated to Football still brings in a few paychecks for him, not enough to brag about but enough that it is gratefully received by the charities he chooses to support.

There is an adage: The only way to make a small fortune in aviation is to start with a bigger fortune.

jetlag
03-07-17, 14:42 PM
The tears are flowing freely down my cheeks. YOUR FEET ARE SHOWING

Starship Skyranger
03-07-17, 14:48 PM
For complete transparency I will declare the following is typed verbatim by Peter.


Hi Jetlag,

I see you have harvested a picture from my facebook photos? I am only surmising that you are within my friends list to have gained access to that picture?
I thought the picture was very funny ( almost as funny as the photo a few years back of the Harry McBaine 3 seater Flexwing )

Does the picture promote microlighting? Ironically, Yes it does :threesome: First of all the photo was taken someone over India so not governed by the BMAA or LAA so it isn't something that they should be getting het up about, nor should it bother anyone governed by the archaic rulings here in Blighty.

My understanding is that in India it fits nicely into their SSDR category.
Their SSDR means Six Sikh's De Regulated, so with only 3 onboard it is actually being under-utilised.

On a more serious note: Why is it that in Blighty we have restrictions on everything to do with microlighting? Why can't UK microlighters enjoy Night Flying? it happens in lots of other countries so why not here?
<em>
https://youtu.be/F8kG3SWSjeI

jetlag
03-07-17, 15:16 PM
Complete transparency, oh deary deary me silly boy your feet are STILL showing !!! and the photo, well, I'll leave you all (that's and and your pseudos) guessing. A little research of Peter John Kelsey brings forth many pages of interesting reading. Zimbabwe and pjkair

quote "Why has he posted as pseudonyms in the past? It is something that wasn't done by choice" end of quote
probably not wrong eh??

renmure
03-07-17, 15:41 PM
14134

“There's enough material here for an entire conference,”

jetlag
03-07-17, 17:09 PM
Now that is funny.

andy dixon
03-07-17, 18:54 PM
If you think peter's picture of 3 in a trike is bad.....look at this guy, he is selling beach flights and taking innocent passengers up in a triple trike.

Also that looks like a sky ranger 912s engine in peters picture, note the exhaust and the red heat cover on the top pipe.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKo0Re0R3dllmo--N6Eizv7dHbWx12jbLDUvxi78wk7-MFdvpGLwWrXflqzc5EH1o8g26vYKs89xQ_hPs6f1l-74ntO_4w&v=9CnJpsaD6OA

jetlag
03-07-17, 19:25 PM
NO NO NO that's not Peters photo it's ............ oh 'eck ..... Starship summats ................ oh 'eck .... I got it from Peter John Kelsey's facebook page ...................CRICKEY ..... are the two the same ............... well I'll be blowed. What ever next. You'de never think it would you Ricky mi old mate, folks with multi names. Gunna ave another glass a wine. Few spelling mistakes for you to correct also there.

Randombloke
03-07-17, 20:08 PM
Peter had a very different upbringing to 99% of you, his childhood was one of total protection and moulded by the environs that his parents moved in, that in itself has to some degree had both beneficial and detrimental influences on his lifestyle.


Been working on football off and on most of my working life, and Arsenal is one of those clubs.

We'll leave there. You can't make the assumption we are all ignorant.