Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

600 Kg Aircraft

Ultranomad wrote:

These aircraft are not under EASA, so the approval varies from country to country. Some countries have already approved them, some haven’t.

So how to handle this as a pilot or owner?

Let’s say you own an airplane which in its country of register is certified for 600 kg MTOW. So is the fact that it’s registered there the limit the other countries you might overfly or land in have to respect? Or is your plane going to have different MTOW according to the country you fly in?

Normal rules would indicate that it is the country of registration which determines the MTOW which is then written into the airplane specific POH and that is it. But this is Europe after all….

I guess 600 kg MTOW is certainly a step in the right direction, seeing that flying those planes with the old MTOW was to a large part impossible because with 2 on board and some fuel you were already over… I remember some discussions on the west side of the Aero, where all the shiny planes were. I once took a bit of time exploring that and could not find one single plane that I could have flown legally even with my 5 year old daughter as a pax, some not even alone. Ok, I am fat, but so are many people.

So what are the payloads of these 600 kg planes? Are they an improvement or have the planes just become heavier in empty weight as well?

What I wonder is, why EASA does not include a certification class which would get these planes covered Europe wide so that a hassle free operation would be possible and even ops under part NCO with benefits (e.g. light IFR)… more and more I am thinking that this is an easier way to deal with those issues than convince 26 CAA’s to somehow harmonize their efforts.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

“ Maybe that is what is written in the POH but my eyes say something different”

On the aircraft I flew with 300kg MTOW & 5500RPM propeller & 32kts VS0, the RateOfClimb judged by my eyes and ears seems dramatic, it does not have VSI but I know it takes more than 20min to reach 6000ft, so no different than PA28 & C152…

Also it’s easy to confuse gradient & rate of climb

Last Edited by Ibra at 18 Jul 10:15
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

So what are the payloads of these 600 kg planes? Are they an improvement or have the planes just become heavier in empty weight as well?

Most of them have an empty weight of between 300 and 350 kg, so a payload of 250-300kg, which is good for a 2-seater that does not need a lot of fuel.

My feeling is that eventually most countries will migrate to 600 kg, so the X-country travel would legally only be an issue when landing in France (max 525 kg, irrespective of whether your MTOW is 600 kg and your actual landing weight is less than 525 kg AIUI). My gut feel is that most non-F ULMs will not bother and just land in France and take the ‘risk’. Remember they usually use smaller aerodromes where no Gendarmes would await them.

Private field, Mallorca, Spain

aart wrote:

Most of them have an empty weight of between 300 and 350 kg, so a payload of 250-300kg, which is good for a 2-seater that does not need a lot of fuel.

That is pretty neat indeed. Wonders how they ever flew with 425 kgs though. So maybe the 600 kg limit is simply acknowledging what has been done for decades before and make sure the airplanes can actually carry it?

aart wrote:

My gut feel is that most non-F ULMs will not bother and just land in France and take the ‘risk’.

Well, that is exactly my point. What rules will apply? IMHO, an airplane which has a documentation which comes with it’s registration has the MTOW connected to that. If an Austrian ULM’s legally binding POH sais the MTOW is 600 kg, than that is what it is. So can the French or anyone else who has not adopted the 600 kg rule overrule that by claiming that the class is limited?

Obviously it would be quite attractive to go “flag of convenience” if what is in the individual airplane’s documents would count.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

This is where my friend is very happy to have a Pipistrel Virus SW 100 with EASA PtF and 600Kg MTOW.

It doesn’t face the restrictions on overflying other countries. It will climb at MTOW at more than 1000 feet per minute. It will cruise at 130Knots TAS at 22lph at 2000 feet. It has an empty weight of 325kg, means with full tanks – 100l – fuel it still has a useful load of more than 200kg. It has a dual axis autopilot. The Permit to Fly means maintenance is less expensive – doesn’t need “certified” parts – yes, it needs renewing yearly with the LBA but now my friend knows what’s involved, it’s not really that difficult. It has a chute. It has airbrakes for steep descents in the pattern – if you’ve never tried a descent using airbrakes, it’s fun.

It would actually be the perfect aircraft for me, if only it weren’t so cramped in the cockpit…..

Where I see issues with 600kg ULs in Germany will be with the Autopilot. The authorities deem that Ultralight aircraft are for sport and therefore sport flyers will not, by necessity of wanting to experience their sport, need an autopilot…. It would be like having cruise control on a Porsche 911, some say – why would you need if, if all you want to do is experience the power under your right foot.

Unfortunately they don’t realise that sometime it’s beneficial to have an autopilot if you’re using your UL for slightly longer trips, or in complicated airspace to ensure you don’t drift inadvertently into CAS. But I don’t see the German authorities changing anytime soon; I hear that certain manufacturers of 915iS powered vehicles are pushing for this – VL3, Blackshark Prime, Shark – but if they talk about “autopilots becoming a safety feature for their 180Knots machines,” I’m more inclined to believe the authorities will put a limit on the power and performance than allow an autopilot…..

Some people revert to removing the servos before an inspection and refitting them afterwards but is that really the way we should be looking?

EDL*, Germany

Steve6443 wrote:

This is where my friend is very happy to have a Pipistrel Virus SW 100 with EASA PtF and 600Kg MTOW.

Well, so EASA issues a PtF for a plane they are not willing to certify or rather that people don’t want to certify because certifying it will make it more difficult to own.

The perversion of this system is simply staggering.

Airplanes like this should be the way forward, clearly. But available to everyone but on a basis where it can be owned, flown and operated under similar terms all over Europe. The data are excellent, economic, even ecologically very reasonable and attractive. But to fly it, instead of welcoming innovation, EASA pushes them to the very national authorities they wanted to stop from doing stuff like this?

If the Germans will ban autopilots (wtf?) then all you need to do is to register it elsewhere, get an EASA Permit to fly and voila?

So PtF is the new normal because the regs are too strict? But with a different piece of paper it’s ok? Jesus wept….

For me, this whole game of paper push garbage is simply sickening. Instead of getting certifications to a level where they encourage new designs, where they are open enough to allow all classes of airplanes under a common rule, they resort to taking airplanes out of certification and back to the responsibility of national CAA’s which EASA was founded to replace?

PtF is nothing but the bancruptcy of the certification system, as much as the experimental regime is in the US?

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 18 Jul 11:54
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

PtF is nothing but the bancruptcy of the certification system

Agree.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

as much as the experimental regime is in the US?

Disagree – in the US you can really fly pretty much anything as Experimental, while, for example, UK PtF is that you have to follow (to a degree) a certification process.

Let’s see what happens with an introduction of EASA Part-21 Light…

EGTR

Let me get this right… Germany bans an autopilot, for ULs in the 600kg class, but not in the 450kg class? What is the detail there?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

France will not accept a ULM under the national rules above 500/525kg with parachute MTOW.
There are other restrictions as well.
If you want to fly a 600kg you fly it as a VLA. That means you need a recognised PPL or LAPL and a minimum class 2 medical or an agreement as in the case between the UK and France for homebuilts, experimentals etc.
If it is EASA certified under PtF the bilateral agreement is not necessary.
The problem is that people seem to think that EASA should make this or that rule to suit them and don’t accept the opinion of others.
I was recently reading some reports from meetings between groups like IAOPA, European light aircraft group, FFA .and a few others. The idea was to provide a consultation paper for EASA (which had only just come into being ) on the way forward for GA in Europe under EASA.
The FFA which represents clubs and IAOPA as a representative of owners were often well apart and in some cases totally opposite in their proposals. And this is before NAAs, commercial enterprises and others got involved. The only thing they all agreed would be in common was that the .basis should be ICAO and the Chicago Convention.

France

An AP is illegal in a german Microlight (D-M…). No matter the MTOM. (was related to Peter’s post).

Last Edited by europaxs at 18 Jul 14:43
EDLE
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top