Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Captain Dave Morton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Notts
    Posts
    1,285
    Thanks
    89
    Thanked 102 Times in 89 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by zombeh View Post
    I don't see why not




    Existing 472.5kg CTSWs are already being upgraded to 600kg in Germany, the modification procedure is along the lines of "if you have BRS xxx change the sticker to 600, if you have BRS yyy change it to 590 and also change the VNe to 147"
    We have a couple of CT's at our place and one of the owners believes there is a mod involved if the aircraft was produced before 2006 in order to increase upto 600kg, can't recall what the mod entailed but it was significantly more than what's required by Germany
    G-HAMS a pretty quick Quik


  2. #32
    Captain MadamBreakneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    2,029
    Thanks
    186
    Thanked 301 Times in 227 Posts
    Its' been done before.
    When the 450kg regs came in Thrusters introduced a mod to allow existing 390kg T600s to get an increase in MTOW to something more - mostly IIRC by installing stronger (heavier) spars. It did add weight to the airframe but also increased the payload a bit. If you wanted to go all the way to 450kg you had to buy a new aeroplane though.

    I am surprised at people wanting a UK opt out for these 600kg machines. Under EASA they'd have consistent regulation across the whole of EASA-land; under CAA they'd have to be negotiating bilateral agreements with other countries or re-certifying each design under each country's regulations. That's what happens now under the 450kg microlight definition and these forums are littered with people complaining about it.



    Back to just bimbling in the TST.

    No longer instructing - just pontificating..
    and now a Tai Chi instructor


  3. #33
    Co-Pilot tomshep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Poole UK
    Posts
    102
    Blog Entries
    11
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 Times in 19 Posts
    Indeed it has. Rans S6 could be upgraded to 430 KG with new struts and the fitting of different flaps and ailerons Put a 582 in it and you have a full fat 450 Kg machine. Whether it can grow any more, I don't know but they certainly fly at considerably greater weights elsewhere.
    Underpaid but overhead.


  4. #34
    Captain Randombloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Western Europe
    Posts
    1,207
    Thanks
    399
    Thanked 228 Times in 178 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamBreakneck View Post
    Under EASA they'd have consistent regulation across the whole of EASA-land;
    An example of an EASA certified LSA/VLA under 100k?

    We're complaining about disproportionate regulation, full stop.

    We'd all have 1,200+ panel mount radios by now or be flying non radio if the radio approval hadn't been wrestled with. EASA affordable radio for microlight under 1k? Unicorn, anyone?

    When you offer us EASA regulation it's not like you're offering us a simple, easy to comply with standard like EN926 for paragliding.

    With that EASA regulation would come licencing for maintenance, and all that carry on, like full medicals.

    EASA v CAA regulation? That's a choice between a rock and very hard place where you get smashed to bits...
    Steve U.
    PG, HG & microlights
    "Weekend bimbler, day to day car driver & genuinely undeserving Southern oik who has never done anything of any worth"


  5. #35
    Co-Pilot tomshep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Poole UK
    Posts
    102
    Blog Entries
    11
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 29 Times in 19 Posts
    Agreed Steve. I would like to see a much deregulated regime for microlights but
    responsibility for passengers is an issue, as it should be. EASA let go of us some time ago but bcar section s is very restrictive. How to lighten the load without further gold plating is the key that will unlock development but the likes of us will get little choice.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tomshep For This Useful Post:

    Arielarts (31-10-19), Randombloke (08-11-19)


  7. #36
    Captain Roger Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dordogne, France
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 182 Times in 132 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tomshep View Post
    Agreed Steve. I would like to see a much deregulated regime for microlights but
    responsibility for passengers is an issue,
    So, the same old red herring. Why for goodness sake? Passengers get by quite happily in France without such nanny-state thinking. The pilot's instinct for self-preservation also protects passengers. Funny that. BTW - almost ALL accidents result from pilot error, not airworthiness problems. The FACTS and the STATISTICS prove that conclusively.

    It's about time the UK grew up.


  8. #37
    Trainee Pilot Mick Broom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    54
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 15 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tomshep View Post
    Agreed Steve. I would like to see a much deregulated regime for microlights but
    responsibility for passengers is an issue, as it should be. EASA let go of us some time ago but bcar section s is very restrictive. How to lighten the load without further gold plating is the key that will unlock development but the likes of us will get little choice.
    The real sad bit about all this is the BMAA are against any change to the present situation and are not about to ask the CAA for some sort of relaxation. I do not see the problem as section S but the of the oversight of this or any other build standard.

    The requirements were first introduced based on a safety case but as the required knowledge and equipment has become common with the use of section S or other standard to provide a more suitable machine this has been replaced in the market to a large extent by litigation or would be if the regulation was removed. It should be the responsibility of the supplier to be able to prove anything he sells as fit for use and this is best done if he complies with section S or another recognised build and design standard. He needs to be able to prove in the event of a failure that he tested and built to a recognised standard and used due diligence in testing to ensure a safe product.

    If we used this self declaration and moved the direct responsibility from the CAA to the manufacturer but with traceability for a guarantee we could have deregulation but with the same build standards and so no different to both the passenger or pilot.

    SSDR has proved benefits in the market with cost and competition returning and saving plus encouraging the single seater but has no traceability. It also has no apparent safety issues. I believe if we could get self certification in place especially if that allowed a choice of build standards both the uk and imports would return to the market with the competition needed to keep the quality up and the prices down with the choices driving an increase in interest and size within the sport.


Similar Threads

  1. Open Consultation - Rules of the air: increased fines for infringements
    By Randombloke in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16-04-16, 10:52 AM
  2. CAA consultation on medical requirements
    By paultheparaglider in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-06-15, 10:30 AM
  3. What microlights would you like to fly?
    By Ginge in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 18-06-10, 16:13 PM
  4. Important (and brief) consultation - your help needed
    By MadamBreakneck in forum In The News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-03-10, 10:08 AM
  5. Microlights on TV
    By Hollo in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-02-10, 18:42 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
  •