Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41
    Co-Pilot Martin Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    495
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
    I made the mistake of looking at this thread again, even though I said I wasn't going to, and I can see that Mr Barker is tying himself in all sorts of knots.
    Here's another piece of the jigsaw that he is apparently missing:-
    All aircraft have to be registered. When the owner registers an aircraft they have to declare the MTOW.
    using this form, which has MTOW in Question 1.
    http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...08_Enabled.pdf
    This is recorded for each individual aircraft - its on G-INFO if you care to check.
    In other words the owner of an aircraft has documented the MTOW. End of story. It doesn't matter if it THEN is accepted as SSDR, either way the MTOW is agreed and a pilot in command who flies that aircraft overweight is illegal, uninsured and stupid.

    Here's an example. My TST which is a two-seater is registered with a MTOW of 380kg. I can take a seat out and declare that the MTOW is now 300kg. The CAA will then say, "OK that's fine and as it meets the other criteria for a microlight, it is now SSDR". I cant fly it at over 300Kg MTOW, even though I know it is physically quite safe to do that.
    Last edited by Martin Watson; 15-02-19 at 14:06 PM. Reason: link to CAA form
    Martin
    BMAA 5370
    Fixed wing instruction, examinations and revalidations in Norfolk.


  2. #42
    Airfield Ops Christopher Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Watson View Post
    All aircraft have to be registered... the owner of an aircraft has documented the MTOW. End of story. It doesn't matter if it THEN is accepted as SSDR, either way the MTOW is agreed and a pilot in command who flies that aircraft overweight is illegal
    Er... again, not quite, Martin. There is nothing that makes it an offence to fly over the MTOW stated in the aircraft’s registration. I am afraid you just made that up. Your notion of ‘agreed’ is lovely - and frankly would make more sensible law - but it is not the law.

    The only person so far who has pointed to the correct answer is Zombeh, at #37. The offence is in failing in one of the obligations of the Pilot in Command. The PIC has a duty to ensure that the aircraft complies with any limitation specified in the flight manual, the weight schedule required by article 43, or equivalent document.

    The weight schedule does not apply to us. Obviously, the flight manual does.

    No-one would get away with arguing that the aircraft’s registration certificate was ‘an equivalent document’ to its flight manual, so no offence is created by flying over the registered MTOW, only by flying over a limitation in the flight manual. ‘Flight manual’ is defined by the ANO and will cover a POH or the like.

    Read Article 69 if you are not sure. The offence is in allowing the aircraft to fly over any weight limitation that its flight manual may specify.


  3. #43
    Co-Pilot Martin Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    495
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Barker View Post
    The offence is in failing in one of the obligations of the Pilot in Command. The PIC has a duty to ensure that the aircraft complies with any limitation specified in the flight manual, the weight schedule required by article 43, or equivalent document....


    ...No-one would get away with arguing that the aircraft’s registration certificate was ‘an equivalent document’ .
    I agree on what the offence is.
    But I am argueing precisely that in the absence of anything else, the registration document does define the MTOW. It is an equivalent document in that sense.
    Martin
    BMAA 5370
    Fixed wing instruction, examinations and revalidations in Norfolk.


  4. #44
    Airfield Ops Christopher Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Watson View Post
    I agree on what the offence is.
    But I am argueing precisely that in the absence of anything else, the registration document does define the MTOW. It is an equivalent document in that sense.
    Yes, sure. I think anyone would have an uphill battle arguing that the aircraft's registration certificate - the document you linked to - was an ‘equivalent document’ to this (from the definitions in the ANO):

    "Flight Manual" means a document provided for an aircraft stating the limitations within which the aircraft is considered airworthy as defined by the appropriate airworthiness requirements, and additional instructions and information necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft

    That's just not what a registration certificate does. But I agree, that's what they would have to try to argue to make an offence stick.

    And imagine if an SSDR builder and owner creates a flight manual/ POH for his aircraft that omits to mention any weight restriction, even if it includes CoG limits. Then, where's the offence?!

    Its builder has written nothing down to change a 'MTOM' from the 300kg that he registered it with, so Article 28(1) doesn't require him to inform the CAA of any change to the registration information

    There is no basis for anyone to challenge that MTOM

    That MTOM is within the microlight limit, so the aircraft qualifies as SSDR, and contrary to most of the posts in this thread, simply flying it over that weight doesn't change that.

    As it qualifies, Article 43, which defines and requires a weight schedule, does not apply.

    The PIC is still obliged to fly it within any weight limitation specified in (a) the flight manual, (b) a weight schedule or (c) an equivalent document. But (a) contains no such limitation, (b) doesn't apply, and (c) doesn't exist. Whoops.

    So the pilot is complying with the law, even if he's flying his aircraft over its declared MTOW.

    It's dismayingly badly drafted. Thank God that in practice we have such an effective culture of responsible behaviour.

    As for 'uninsured and stupid' - yes, of course I agree, and I did say so myself earlier. My interest was in pinning down what the actual restrictions were; never in being irresponsible or promoting irresponsible behaviour.


  5. #45
    Co-Pilot Martin Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    495
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
    Well this has been most entertaining Rick, but since the only way to test your assertion is in court, I think we might as well stop there don't you?
    Martin
    BMAA 5370
    Fixed wing instruction, examinations and revalidations in Norfolk.


  6. #46
    Airfield Ops Christopher Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Watson View Post
    Well this has been most entertaining Rick, but since the only way to test your assertion is in court, I think we might as well stop there don't you?
    Yup. !


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30-05-14, 08:23 AM
  2. Why are SSDR Microlights not Vehicles.
    By goldrush in forum SSDR & Foot Launched
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18-04-13, 19:07 PM
  3. Interesting interpretation of the 500 foot rule
    By RobHill in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30-03-13, 11:19 AM
  4. microlights on tv
    By simon160567 in forum Off Topic Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15-01-12, 18:59 PM
  5. What microlights would you like to fly?
    By Ginge in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 18-06-10, 16:13 PM

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
  •