Airborne_Again wrote:
but I would rather think the pressure is from the pilot community to be able to take on a reasonable load without being overweight.
Yes. The pressure is definitely from the community. The thing is, only after things have changed will the results of those changes be visible, and they aren’t all in line with how the community envisioned it to be (before the changes). With MTOW 450 kg, the aircraft either have to be extraordinary well designed, or it has to be light and slow (like they were 40 years ago) to carry two people + fuel. 600 kg MTOW will enable two person + fuel on most aircraft. It is definitely a better match for what the intentions of these aircraft in the first place is.
But what has happened in Norway, and I guess lots of other places, is the CAA has said: OK, you can have more complex and heavier, faster aircraft, but then you have to step up the operation of them (in all meanings of the word) a few notches. A small price to pay right? Perhaps, but then the reality strikes back. While 600 kg allowing two persons and full fuel is nice. The utility value increases a whole lot (on paper at least), what most people did anyway most of the time was to take a short trip around the barn just to get some air in the hair, or test new settings on the carb etc. This was done alone. Now everyone has to take “LAPL grade” licenses to do the same thing in “CS-LSA grade” aircraft. This is certainly causing dissonance. What is happening next is in all likeliness a step back. An additional new category of ULs and a new UL regime is coming. This will be similar to the US UL regime (one seat, very light, simple stuff, not meant to go far and fast). This will probably be cool, but I have to wonder. The current regime is in all essence CS-LSA-style aircraft with LAPL-style licenses. What is the difference between this and “true” LSA and “true” LAPL license? There certainly are a few fundamental differences (maintenance for instance), but it all has a slightly bitter taste to it IMO, at least until a new lighter regime pops up.
I still think though (not entirely in agreement with myself here, but still) that the French community is wrong in the long run. I understand them 100%, but essentially stopping development, stopping most other ULs from other places, simply is not the right way to go. 600 kg is here, and people will use it for what it’s worth, especially those who do travel a lot. There are other ways of doing the “free as a bird” regime than total isolation.
Peter wrote:
The “homebuilt” and UL communities have always been flying unrestricted. Permits have always been needed in most places but half the countries never replied so people just went, or sent off the email and went. And they still do. No problem; just make sure you don’t use Mode S because otherwise all sorts of people “who might know the rules” will see you. If I was Annex 1 the first thing I would do is install a Mode C only box The man in the tower cannot tell if it is an RV, a UL, or a Part 23.
@Peter – You are completely mixing up homebuilts/Annex 1 with microlights. With homebuilts you can uswually just fly abroad on the base of mutual recognition. In some countries like Spain you have to apply and pilots report they get permission within 24 hrs free of charge. This “non-tpx-under-the-radar-claim” – well, I give up 
What indeed got enforced in the recent years in different european countries concerning foreign reg. homebuilts is their homebasing, which partly became difficult. OTOH it’s now sometimes possible to change registration to the country where the homebuilt is based (e. g. France and Germany) – which I just did this year 
UL permit situation for international flight.
That even emphasises, what I’ve written…
Homebuilts and their pilots are more regulated than ULs in some countries.
You need a PPL perhaps LAPL will do and a class 2 medical to fly homebuilts.
Although you can do your own maintenance on a homebuilt you still need a control/ Airworthiness Certificate via OSAC or RSA every I can’t remember whether its every year or every three years.
With ULM you get a doctor (not necessarily AME) to confirm you are in good health initially (a class 2 would also do the job) after that its up to you to decide whether or not you are fit to fly.
The same goes for the aircraft. You can maintain a ULM yourself and after an initial check it is up to you to decide whether the aircraft is fit to take to the air or not.
At least that is the current situation in France AFAIK.
As to flying to other countries there is often a reciprocal agreement or one gets permission via email.
AIUI anyone can fly their UL to France as long as it meets French MTOW limits.
The difference between kit builds or experimentals and UL is that AFAIU there are no weight limits on the experimental and of course some countries (eg Switzerland) do not accept ULs in their airspace.
AIUI the Spanish and Italian don’t charge for permission for either homebuilds or ULs.
According to @LeSving France charge €50 for a UL of 600kg. I can not confirm this as I have never tried flying a 600kg in France.
I’m quite sure, this document was posted before in the context of travelling abroad with a permit/amateur built aircraft.
have you noticed the French reg VL3 ULM on plane check?
Yes there are two VL3 on planecheck with F-Jxxx, not buying anytime soon
I have an aircraft already and I am banned from getting anything else: gliders, vintages… but if get a ULM soon, it has to make 150m strips with 2pob and I can leave 5min nearby
The amateur built etc international privileges are another thread which I have just updated with the above LAA doc (which is not ULs).
gallois wrote:
According to @LeSving France charge €50 for a UL of 600kg
It’s not according to me, its according to this:
MLA_flying_in_Europe_1_1_2022_pdf
Then going to the France section and follow the appropriate link.
As I interpret this (but I could be wrong), ULs that do not fall inside the French UL regulations, has to apply for approval, with a fee of €50.
