Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: MTOW 600kg ?

  1. #21
    Co-Pilot sssdu01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Name Simon Dutton
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 23 Times in 17 Posts
    I cant see any real issues with 600 KG with the following proviso's

    Maximum empty weight limit (two crew 190 KG plus 50 KG for fuel etc so 360 KG?). I struggle to see how anyone could then take off over 600 KG, unless they load up with concrete blocks ??
    Change of minimum stall speed to cater for revised higher weight limit
    Aircraft Structural integrity to cope with the higher weight limit, including suitable seat weight to cope with a real lard **** pilot

    Why is anyone against the higher weight limit ?? You dont have to fly a heavier aircraft if you dont want to, and a revised upper weight limit wont force you to categorize your feather weight plane to a higher weight limit.

    Some people are saying that the higher weight limit will just give people to opportunity to break the rules again and bust even the new 600KG limit, but with a proper set of rules/regs this will be more "difficult". I think the main reason why so many break the existing 450KG limit is that the current rules are just daft with the standard spec of two 85kg pilots and fuel for one hour just dont meet any mission spec, other than getting the faster modern stuff into a microlight category. Lets get the ground rules right this time.


  2. #22
    Co-Pilot sssdu01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Name Simon Dutton
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 23 Times in 17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ_H View Post
    Personally I think it's taking things in the wrong direction, I would prefer to see less regulation for the existing microlight 2 seat class, something I fear would be far less likely to come about if the weight limit goes up.
    I think SSDR has got it right with virtually no regs, but for two seater planes I think the current regulatory regime has the right balance - remember in any two seater the passenger is the potential innocent victim if things go wrong.
    I would worry that a lighter set of regs would lead to all manner of unsafe "stuff", with well meaning pilots doing the wrong thing. Would you be happy to let your grandchildren fly in an untested plane or anything with questionable safety standards or checks ?

    What would you specifically do to "lesson" the current regs ? You might have some no brainer good ideas. I am sure the BMAA look at this forum so please share


  3. #23
    Co-Pilot D-Flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    211
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
    I do place value on flying aircraft in a category that includes inherent, built in safety, such as the low mass and the slow stall speeds. I'd like to think that with two pilots and 50Kg of fuel, I wouldn't be exceeding the limit of my microlight but we all know that's not realistic. Therefore I'd rather see aircraft tested and approved to fly at weights that can't be 'overdone' without serious effort - i.e.it's noddy proof.

    One thing I would be interested in is the new definition of minimum stall speed. Being able to put it down in an emergency is helped by the low mass and slow stall speed, and with impact Gs increasing at the square of the velocity, it does make a difference to the likelihood of a successful forced landing if the stall speed increases.


  4. #24
    thebarb
    Guest thebarb's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ_H View Post
    I'd like to see permit revalidations being optional on all 2 seaters and instead have a self certification system available to those who feel ok with that, where the owner signs it off, we allready have medical self-certification so your impression of protection for your passenger might end at a deceitfull pilot's next heart attack.
    I don't think there are many deceitful pilots who would hide that they have already had a heart attack, I am sure there are 'self certificating' pilots who are not 'fighting fit' & maybe not able to attain a AME Medical but that said, many AME compliant pilots have suffered Heart Attacks and they were deemed fit on the day of examination ( Think M.O.T. style )
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ_H View Post
    The BMAA I believe gets it's greatest portion of revenue from permit fees together with the membership fees that are mandatory to get the permit service, I wouldnt expect them to embrace suggestions such as mine.
    The Hierachy of the BMAA will be spitting feathers at your suggestions so be very careful what you publish


  5. #25
    Co-Pilot Antoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    361
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 48 Times in 37 Posts
    Keep any damage to those on the ground least

    Don't raise the potential for said damage.

    Long may it be possible to take your mate up cheaply without scaring the horses.
    "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - G.B.S.


  6. #26
    Test Pilot Paul Dewhurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,047
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 354 Times in 203 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ_H View Post
    'Thebarb', Don't worry yourself I am sure the most my suggestion would get would be a giggle or perhaps a few "silly boy" comments, but one can dream
    happy trails
    BMAA council are just members who bother to put themselves forward to serve. None of them have any financial involvement.

    And the track record is that BMAA council do deregulate - thatís where SSDR came from.

    its a members association for members. Itís job is to support the sport.


  7. #27
    thebarb
    Guest thebarb's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Dewhurst View Post
    BMAA council are just members who bother to put themselves forward to serve. None of them have any financial involvement.
    Whilst those who put themselves forward might not have any financial involvement, it would seem there have been recent changes that now offers them a financial incentive to be on Council ( See Article 23 in the Articles of Association ) :
    23. Directors' expenses
    The Company may pay any reasonable expenses which the directors (including nonexecutive directors) properly incur in connection with their attendance at:

    (a) meetings of the Board or committees of the Board; or

    (b) general meetings,or otherwise in connection with the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their responsibilities in relation to the Company.


    I am almost worried now that the BMAA membership will start seeing reports of Rob Hughes claiming expenses for his garden gnomes & Terry Viner claiming expenses for his donuts
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Dewhurst View Post
    And the track record is that BMAA council do deregulate - that’s where SSDR came from.

    its a members association for members. It’s job is to support the sport.


  8. #28
    Captain renmure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Arbroath(ish) Scottyland
    Posts
    1,181
    Thanks
    97
    Thanked 156 Times in 131 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thebarb View Post
    Whilst those who put themselves forward might not have any financial involvement, it would seem there have been recent changes that now offers them a financial incentive to be on Council ( See Article 23 in the Articles of Association ) :
    23. Directors' expenses
    The Company may pay any reasonable expenses which the directors (including nonexecutive directors) properly incur in connection with their attendance at:

    (a) meetings of the Board or committees of the Board; or

    (b) general meetings,or otherwise in connection with the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their responsibilities in relation to the Company.


    I am almost worried now that the BMAA membership will start seeing reports of Rob Hughes claiming expenses for his garden gnomes & Terry Viner claiming expenses for his donuts
    And when discussing why folk don't bother interacting here too much, some bright spark said.....

    Quote Originally Posted by renmure View Post
    I liked the fact that you allowed Peter 1 single post each day
    Even then, I'm sure he got banned for misusing the privilege

    I don't really bother here much, although I do look in. It became a bit dull seeing folk join to ask a seemingly innocuous question that any newbie to microlighting might ask, then finding on another post that they* were also a self proclaimed expert on the most obscure area of microlighting or the CAA or business or the law or .... well, wotever.

    *or their brother or their wife or their dog
    ..and round and round we go....

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to renmure For This Useful Post:

    jetlag (04-06-18), Randombloke (05-06-18)


  10. #29
    Captain MadamBreakneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    2,062
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked 309 Times in 233 Posts
    Meanwhile, back at the thread:

    Any comments on the selection of 600kg machines in the June MF?



    Back to just bimbling in the TST.

    No longer instructing - just pontificating..

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to MadamBreakneck For This Useful Post:

    Diyan (09-06-18)


  12. #30
    Co-Pilot oldbaldyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    275
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 49 Posts
    From my point of view Russ H has 'hit all the right buttons'.

    I think owners (of all capabilities) put too much reliance on the 'permit' being a measure of airworthiness. The pilot in charge must take responsibility for the safety of his aircraft (other than simply 'saying' its in permit 'its ok'!

    Allied to that issue permit aircraft do crash and not all due to 'pilot error' - are we saying, therefore, that such crashes are, previously unknown faults, owner/maintainer inadequacies or poor permit examination (are BMAA inspectors insured against such?)?

    As Russ H says thought the BMAA has money interest in keeping the income streams in place - and its probably too much effort to examine such a radical suggestion?

    Regards
    Paul Wilkinson


Similar Threads

  1. Skyranger cleared to 540kg MTOW ;-)
    By GA AVIATOR in forum Sky Ranger
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-06-10, 07:43 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •