|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
PUFA NEWSLETTER
 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
January 17, 1997
Jeff Rochon, President
Bernie Strotmann, Vice-President
Ken Buck, Treasurer
Glenn Ursel, Secretary
Mail to: Pacific Ultralight Flying Association
102-16071 82 Avenue
Surrey, B.C. V3S 2L6
PUFA Newsletter published by Glenn Ursel
From The President
by Jeff Rochon
The year 1996 is over, but I wonder who shares the same idea. With the icy cold December and the mother of all storms, flying our ultralights was a rare occurrence. Some members may know that my Renegade was down for a refit. In my case at least, flying was out.
The Annual General Meeting was held in early December at PUFA's usual meeting place. I found it to be an interesting meeting due to my lack of preparedness. Somehow I fumbled through and found myself President for another year. Thank you all for your patience and understanding, as well as your vote.
Speaking of the new year, I trust we will have a good flying season with lots of fly-ins and other activities. Your participation is most valued at all events and also at our regular meetings. Bring your enthusiasm and ideas to the next meeting.
In conversations with various members, there was no consensus about a long distance flyin this summer. Oshkosh has been mentioned; so has Churchill and even Sudbury. So far itineraries do not match well to individual ideals. Perhaps trips of short distances are in order this summer.
Editorial Note
by Glenn Ursel
We note with sadness of Cliff Raymond's recent death from another heart attack. Just before Christmas, Cliff was telling me of his near death last summer at the time of his bypass operation and of his extreme regret for his former heavy smoking lifestyle. When I related my own family members' propensity for puffing, he took great pains to inspire me to try to talk them out of it. I dutifully followed up on his suggestion; however, it seems that people always think it won't happen to them and my efforts in this regard have been unsuccessful despite the news of Cliff's passing.
We also observe Reg Lumsden's recent hospitalization from the effects of a stroke and wish him well in his recovery.
In this first issue of the PUFA Newsletter for 1997, we highlight Fred Glasbergen's letter to the COPA monthly newspaper, Canadian Flight, which was submitted in the finest 1990's "third wave" fashion via email over the Internet! Fred is quite rightly proud of his (our collective) effort to protect ultralight flying in Surrey by going political.
In order to facilitate discussion of the first item on the agenda for this month's meeting, Transport Canada Recency Requirements Study Program, I thought it appropriate to include some excerpts of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARS) and current regulations respecting ultralights which I downloaded off the Internet. For future newsletters, I encourage (plead) all of you to consider scribbling down some story or anecdote of your flying experiences and send it in to me for publication. In this respect, please note my brand new (married) address above.
Attention: Doris Ohlmann, Canadian Flight
Re: The Ultralight Airfield That Won't Go Away!
For over 15 years Airflow Ultralight Aviation Ltd. has been operating a flying school at King George Airpark on the King George Highway in the City of Surrey just south of Vancouver, B.C. There are up to forty ultralights tied down including the flying schools' planes.
As with many airfields there seem to be lots of bureaucrats and politicians who want to close the fields and get rid of the noisy airplanes that fly there; it seems the politically correct thing to do. The city of Surrey thought along those lines also. About five years ago the bylaws department took out an order for a demolition permit for the hangers and airpark buildings, but it needed council approval to complete the action. On hearing this, about 100 aviators showed up at the council meeting, so Council shelved the idea.
That of course was not the end of the issue but just the beginning. The aviators formed a committee and drew up a petition of local householders' signatures who approved of the airfield and finally a delegation made a presentation to council. The Airpark committee and local Ultralight association rallied close to 300 hundred supporters to attend the meeting and made front page news in the local papers and seemed to be getting support from the local residents. This, however, brought the radical environmentalist out of the woodwork - the Surrey naturalist, White Rock nature walkers, Vancouver Heritage Society - who basically all said the same thing, that we were harming the birds, chickens, livestock and anything else they could come up with. We have even been accused of visually polluting the sky.
The most absurd comment came from a Fish and Wildlife biologist stating that we actively and deliberately fly through flocks of birds. A letter from Bill Lishman to city council was a great help in calming that fear.
At one of the many council meetings, a neighbouring dairy farmer was invited to state how these terrible ultralights were disturbing his herd of dairy cattle. There was absolute silence as he told how he wanted to make sure that the ultralights kept flying over his cows as their milk production had increased since the Ultralights had been flying over the cows on their final approach to the airstrip. Council then decided to allow the Airpark Committee to work with the planning department to find a suitable alternate site for an airfield. The head planner, on his own, imposed a prohibitive criteria. The airstrip was to be 2 kilometres from residential homes; his own feeling was that Surrey was now the third largest in the province of B.C. and that an Ultralight airfield just did not fit into his plans. After writing a letter to the planner indicating that there probably wasn't an airstrip in Canada that could meet that criteria, except maybe on Baffin Island, the planner wrote a corporate report which was presented at a secret council meeting. I guess I should call them by its proper name "in camera" meetings, which means you are not allowed to attend.
Then, in November 1995, after another secret meeting, the city started legal action, giving us 60 days to vacate the land. After receiving notice of this intention to obtain an injunction to close the field, I was ready to pack it in because now we were getting into high legal costs and I felt like David when he met Goliath.
This news made front page again and support started pouring in. COPA got involved by offering assistance from their lawyer and pledging to pay half of the lawyer's costs. The Pacific Ultralight Flying Association also donated to the cause, raising money by putting on a couple of pancake breakfasts.
There was to be a municipal election in November, 1996. The Airpark Committee decided that the only way we were going to keep the airpark open was not by fighting in the courts, because the city had endless taxpayers' money to throw at this, but to become politically active and talk to councillors on a one to one basis, write letters to the editor of the local newspapers and meet potential candidates to see where they stood on the issue.
Over a hundred of us joined one of the local parties so that we could be instrumental in deciding who got nominated. It soon started to look like the aviation community was a political force not to be taken lightly. At the all-candidate meetings, we were asking the same question over and over: "What is your stand on the Ultralight Airfield question?" The one on one lobbying was very fruitful as all the politicians were looking for votes.
About a month before the election, the city voted at another of their secret meetings to drop their legal action against us. The candidate who brought this up was running for mayor so we chose to support him. The councillors were a little more difficult as there were 40 candidates running for 8 seats.
A telephone campaign invited prospective candidates to the airfield to judge for themselves how beneficial the airfield was to the community and many took us up on the offer of a flight. We also helped put up election signs which gave us a lot of credibility. One sunny (okay, between rain showers) Saturday afternoon before the election, a group of pilots were putting up signs and they had the son of one of the incumbent councillors with them. We soon got him up for an introductory flight and he went home to tell his mother that he was going to learn to fly and she had better make sure that the airfield was going to stay. By now the airfield had become a major election issue.
Before the election, council was split with the Mayor casting the deciding votes against us most of the time. November 16, 1996 saw the mayoralty candidate we supported elected and 7 out of 8 candidates, who had stated they supported the airfield, also elected.
We were naturally a bit sceptical about truthful politicians, but things are starting to look up as we are receiving cards and calls thanking the aviation community for their support. Just today I have been asked to sit on a committee to see where ultralights can be utilized in major disaster planning.
So the morale of this story is that, if your community is giving your airport a rough time and talking about shutting it down, get POLITICALLY ACTIVE because political pressure does work. It hopefully did for the King George Airport, although that will be another story.
Fred Glasbergen, President
Airflow Ultralight Aviation Ltd.
Ultralight Regulations in Canada
The vehicle definitions are as follows:
ULTRALIGHT SINGLE-PLACE AEROPLANE:
Power-driven aircraft designed to carry not more than ONE person and
having a 'launch weight' not exceeding 165 kg (363.8 lbs) and a wing area
of not less than the 'launch weight' minus 15 divided by 10, but in no
case less than 10 sq. meters (107.6 sq. ft.).
ULTRALIGHT TWO-PLACE AEROPLANE:
Power-driven aircraft designed to carry not more than TWO persons and
having a 'launch weight' not exceeding 195 kg (429.9 lbs) and a wing area
not less than 10 sq.meters (107.6 sq. ft.) and a 'wing loading' not greater
than 25 kg/sq meter, calculated using the 'launch weight' plus the occupant
weight of 80 kg (176.4 lbs).
ADVANCED ULTRALIGHT AEROPLANE:
Propeller-driven aeroplane designed to carry a maximum of TWO Persons,
including the pilot, and
having:
1. In the case of a landplane, a maximum take-off
weight of:
a. 285 kg (628.3 lbs) for a single-place aeroplane.
b. 480 kg (1058.2 lbs) for a two-place aeroplane.
2. In the case of a Seaplane, an additional weight
allowance of:
a. 35 kg (77.2 lbs) for a single-place aeroplane.
b. 70 kg (154.4 lbs) for a two-place aeroplane.
3. A maximum STALL SPEED at maximum take-off
weight not exceeding 72 kmh (45 mph) indicated
airspeed.
The aircraft construction has to also comply with the "Design Standards for Advanced Ultralights" (TP 10141), issued by Transport Canada. Among other things, this states that only "Aircraft Quality" materials and construction techniques are to be used.
AMATEUR-BUILT ULTRALIGHT:
An aeroplane built and inspected in accordance with the Airworthiness
Manual that also meets the Stall Speed and Maximum weight criteria published
in the "Design Standards for Advanced Ultralight Aeroplanes", TP 10141.
The 'launch weight' is the total weight of the aeroplane when it is ready for flight, including any equipment, instruments, and maximum fuel and oil, but not including: floats (up to 34KG/75 lbs), the occupant, and any ballistic parachute installation.
The pilot requirements are as follows:
The minimum requirement to get a Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane is 10 hours, of which not less than 5 hours dual and not less than 2 hours solo time are required. Also, within these times, no fewer than 30 takeoffs and landings, including no fewer than 10 as sole occupant of the aircraft must be obtained. The actual time required for the average person works out to be about 18-20 hours. "NO PASSENGERS" allowed with this permit.
With the new Advanced Ultralight category, a Private Pilot - Airplane (Certified) can carry a passenger and a Pilot Permit - Ultralight can carry a passenger if the passenger also holds a Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane or Private Pilot Licence.
Ultralights in the CARS
The following are some of the changes in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) which apply to Ultralight Aeroplanes and Pilots:
The name of the document which the ultralight pilot holds has been changed.
The Private Pilot Licence-Ultralight Aeroplane is now the Pilot Permit-Ultralight Aeroplane. The privileges and operational conditions remain the same. The training requirements also remain the same.
The Commercial Pilot Licence-Ultralight Aeroplane is now a Flight Instructor rating-Ultralight Aeroplane. There are some differences in the licensing requirement as follows:
In 421.88 3(d), the applicant is required to
obtain a 90% in the written examination
PSTAR, if not previously completed.
Transport has assured us that this is a mistake
and that the PSTAR requirement will be deleted
in the first amendments to the CARs.
The validity period has changed from 60 months
to the 36 months. Transport has
assured us that this is a mistake and that
the old validity period of 60 months will be
reflected in the first amendments to the CARs.
The privileges and requirements of the UL flight instructor remains unchanged by the CARs except for the above two items which are mistakes. When/if passenger carrying is allowed, there may be changes to the instructor requirements and privileges.
The Recency Requirements introduced in the CARs DO apply to ultralight permits:
401.05 (2) "no holder of a flight crew permit
or licence, other than the holder of a pilot
licence - glider, shall exercise the privileges
of the permit or licence unless the holder
has successfully completed a recurrent training
program in accordance with the
Personnel licensing standards within the 24
months preceding the flight;"
421.05 (2) In order to comply with the currency requirements
of 401.05 (above) any of
the following are considered acceptable as recurrent
training programs:
(a) completion of a flight review conducted
by the holder of a flight instructor rating in
the same category;
(b) attendance at a safety seminar conducted
by Transport Canada Aviation;
(c) participation in a recurrent training
program approved by the Minister which is
designed to
update pilot knowledge of human factors, meteorology, flight planning
and navigation,
and aviation regulations, rules and procedures;
(d) completion of the self paced study program
produced annually in the
Transport
Canada Aviation Safety Newsletter, which is designed to update pilot
knowledge
in the subjects specified in (c) above. The completed copy shall
be the
most current
published by date and shall be retained by the license holder;
(e) completion of a mandatory training program
or Pilot Proficiency Check as required
by Parts
IV,VI, or VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations;
(f) completion of the requirements for
issue or renewal of a pilot permit, licence or
rating,
flight instructor rating, landplane or seaplane rating;
(g) completion of the written examination(s)
for a permit, licence or rating;
You have until December 10, 1996 to fulfil this recency requirement. Your first 24 months startsnow. If you know anyone who is not aware of this requirement, please let them know. Most ultralight pilots don't get the TCA Safety Newsletter that comes with the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).
The holder of a Pilot Permit-Ultralight Aeroplane must now renew his currency requirement every two years and his medical every 5 years.
The holder of a Flight Instructor Rating-Ultralight must keep track of three recurring dates; his recency every two years, his validity every three years, and his medical every 5 years (at least until the mistakes are corrected in the CARs).
In the CARs under Aircraft Type Ratings, 4211.40 (1), a Blanket Type Rating is issued automatically with the issue of the appropriate licence, as follows: in (d) "Ultralight Aeroplanes - all ultralight aeroplanes, excluding advanced ultralight aeroplanes."
In 421.40 (3) Individual Type Ratings for (i) Advanced Ultralight Aeroplane - "An applicant for an individual aircraft type rating for an advanced ultralight shall (Standards under development)." This means an ultralight pilot can fly any ultralight but must get a type rating for an advanced ultralight aeroplane.
Transport has assured us that this type rating for AULAs is a mistake
and that this
0will be deleted in the first amendments to the CARs.
Ultra-light schools will be Flight Training Units and section 406.05
states:
(1) No person shall operate a flight training
unit using a glider, balloon, gyroplane or
ultralight
aeroplane in Canada unless the person notifies the Minister in writing
of
(a) the legal name, trade name and address of
the operator of the flight training unit;
(b) the base of operations;
(c) the category of aircraft;
(d) the type of flight training to be conducted;
(e) the name of the flight instructor who will be responsible for operational
control of the flight training operation.
(2) The information referred to in subsection
(1) shall be provided to the Minister by
the flight training unit
(a) prior to commencing flight training
operations:
(b) within 10 working days after any change
in the information; and
(c) upon the service being discontinued."
All training units currently operating are requested to submit the above information by December 10, 1996 to Transport Canada.
Information above provided by Canadian ultralight instructor Munden Critch (ecritch@dragger.ifmt.nf.ca) and published on the Internet by Dan Grunloh.