Proposed amendments to FAI Section 10 for 2004

From the UK CIMA Delegate, Richard Meredith-Hardy

Draft 2, 14 September 2003

1  Microlight weight clarification

There was again some confusion at WMC 2003 over the weighing of microlights.  The problem is particularly acute in the AL2 class.  The problem, or perhaps the confusion arises of how you actually do the 'proof in principle'.  The obvious solution is to use 2 x 84 Kg weights, but more commonly the pilots are weighed so that you can get an idea about proof in principle and some sort of idea about proof  operationally all in one shot.  What is not clear is whether you can trade one pilot off against the other for the purposes of 'proof in principle'.  We believe you should be able to, and it is this which we are trying to clarify.

Proposal 1.1

An explanation about weighing is put in S10 Annex 1.

 

AIRCRAFT WEIGHT CONFORMANCE

 

Proof of aircraft weight includes two tests:

 

1. Establish that the aircraft conforms to the FAI definition:

The aircraft, excluding supplementary items  (S10 5.4), must weigh no more than the maximum weight allowed for the type of aircraft (S10 1.3.1) with 84 Kg in each seat and full fuel load or the amount specified for the type of aircraft, whichever is less (S10 1.3.2)

 

2. Establish that the aircraft is being operated within the FAI definition:

At takeoff, the entire combination of aircraft, fuel, crew and all supplementary items (S10 5.4) must weigh no more than the maximum weight allowed for the type of aircraft (S10 1.3.1).

2     S10 Chapter 5.4 Weight

This is OK in principle but needs a bit of editorial updating.

 

The words 'items' and 'equipment' are used confusingly.

CIMA also agreed to our proposal at the 2000 plenary meeting that in championships (only championships, not records) any emergency parachute system should be considered to weigh nothing. This is purely a safety thing, (ie people shouldn't be persuaded to remove parachutes to otherwise conform with the weight).  Unfortunately this provision has never actually got into S10,  but nevertheless it was agreed so it is valid and was included in the WAG 2001 and WMC 2003 statements of weight policy. 

Proposal 2.1

We propose S10 Chapter 5.4 Weight is altered to the following:

5.4.1       The empty weight of the aircraft is its weight ready to fly except for the pilot, fuel and supplementary items.  [suggest reference deleted here, it is only just below]

5.4.2       The take-off weight is the weight of the aircraft ready to fly including pilot, fuel and any supplementary items.

5.4.3       Items included in the empty weight:

Flight and engine control instruments and associated equipment including batteries, essential to their operation;

-    Fixed ballast;

-    Canopies, fairings and pilot harness.

5.4.4       Supplementary items are items not fixed to the aircraft such as:

-    Cushions, maps, hand held computers, food and drink, extra clothing;

-    Parachute and its activating devices;

-    Barograph or flight recorder;

-    Reserve fuel, lubricants and cooling liquids which are not connected to the motor and which cannot be connected in flight.

5.4.5     In championships, emergency parachute systems are considered to weigh nothing.

 

3     Proof of airworthiness at championships

At WMC 2003 Long Marston, the organisers were obliged to comply with the UK requirements for airworthiness.  In the UK all aircraft apart from those that are foot-launched are required to have been inspected annually by a competent authority and certified safe to fly.  The organisers of WMC2003 were obliged to provide the CAA with a list of:

 

  • Aircraft registration numbers
  • Date of airworthiness expiry
  • Name of organisation certifying the aircraft airworthy
  • Reference number of any airworthiness certificate

 

This proved extremely difficult.

 

The US FAR Part 103 aircraft, for example, had no registration numbers and required no annual inspection.  Fortunately the team leader was a USUA inspector and produced documents locally that were deemed by the organisers to have met the requirements.  Whether or not these would have stood up to a CAA inspection is uncertain.

 

One of the PL2 aircraft and few of the PL1 aircraft carried any form of airworthiness documentation and were simply ignored for the purposes of the UK requirements.

 

In certain countries some or all microlights only require an inspection on initial certification and this lasts the life of the aircraft (or so the organisers were told).

 

Where documents were available, often different pilots from the same country gave different interpretations of the meaning of certain words written in their own language.

 

As a result:

 

  • The whole process of attempting to validate the airworthiness documents took a disproportionate amount of time.
  • Aircraft were flying before they were properly registered
  • The UK requirements may not have been properly met with the result that the organisers ran the risk of prosecution and liability in the event of an accident.

 

The most satisfactory documentation was provided by the Russian Federation, who had no individual documents but instead provided a single list certifying that all team aircraft:

 

  • held a National Certificate of Airworthiness
  • were of a sufficient standard for competing in FAI Category 1 events
  • complied with the definition of a microlight in Section 10 of the FAI Sporting Code

 

This document was signed and stamped by the Joint Federation of Superlight Aviation of Russia.

 

Future Competitions

The regimes under which microlights fly vary from country to country.  Some countries such as Australia have an equivalent to the US FAR Part 103 system where single seat aircraft below a certain weight are deregulated and no pilot licensing or aircraft airworthiness inspections are required.  In the UK PPGs are deregulated.  This is not the case in France, for example, and the President of the FFPlUM has already said that this might present a problem in future competitions.  At the CIMA meeting in 2002 France made a bid for WMC2005.  The situation for EMC2004 in Portugal has yet to be clarified.

Proposal 3.1

deleted

Proposal 3.2

In order to improve the situation and reduce the risks to the organisers of championships and the FAI it is proposed that the current entry form be extended and the existing entry form in S10 Annex 3 is replaced with the draft at http://www.flymicro.com/cima03/Proposed_new_entry_form.doc which constitutes Annex 2 to this submission.

 

4     Classic classes task catalogue

It has been agreed in principle that the Classic Classes Task Catalogue (S10 Annex 4, Part 2) should be updated and a completely new task catalogue was used at WMC 2003. 

Proposal 4.1

It is proposed that the existing  task catalogue Classic Classes Task Catalogue (S10 Annex 4, Part 2) is deleted and replaced by a new one.  A draft is available at http://www.flymicro.com/cima03/Proposed_new_Classic_Task_Catalogue.doc  which constitutes Annex 1 to this submission.

 

5     Section 10 Annex 6, flight recorders

There are various modifications to be made to this annex as agreed by the Flight Recorder Approval Committee so that the MLR SP24 XC, which was proven to be satisfactory at WMC 2003, may be approved according to the rules of the annex.

 

A list of proposed amendments is available at http://www.flymicro.com/cima03/FRAC_draft1.htm and a revised S10 Annex 6 incorporating these amendments at http://www.flymicro.com/cima03/sc10-2004-an6_DRAFT1.doc