LeSving wrote:
According to Vans the biggest thing is factory produced “experimentals” or “big LSA” or whatever one shall describe it, with increased performance.
The biggest thing for them. Not necessarily the biggest thing.
I did like Vans published comments on the MOSAIC notice of proposed rule making, particularly in relation to raising the maximum stall speed to 61 kts clean. While medicals aren’t a big hassle for me, under BasicMed they are almost nothing every four years, I would still prefer them to be exactly nothing ever for any plane I’d like to fly with two aboard, certified or not 
UdoR wrote:
Maybe you refer to ab initio training and not instrument training.
Correct, I was referring to plain-vanilla PPLs, which are the vast majority in Europe, due to the asinine requirements to get an IR.
I think you’re right but one would hope that the light would come on over time, not go out over time and that the limited rights for international GA accorded by ICAO acceptance would be a only a baseline to opening and unifying the airspace and cross-border structure across Europe in a rational way. That’s what GA really needs, for ‘everyman’ and every plane.
I forgot to add that even if Europe did it, most of the other ~200 countries absolutely would not touch GA with a bargepole. Way too dangerous; no half respectable dictatorship (i.e. most of the earth’s surface) would allow it.
Silvaire wrote:
What I think is present in Europe is a subset of pilots and ground personnel who are basically uptight because they lack relevant experience in a mixed traffic environment and don’t understand the difference between competence and theatrical ‘professionalism’ that adds no actual value.
There is that and the main reason is the attempt by authorities and airport owners at the same time to keep GA out. How should mixed traffic exist, if it is actively discouraged or outright banned.
That is the symptom, not the underlying problem though. The main problem we have here is that aviation is mainly not regulated by aviators but lawyers and lobbyists. And opposed to the US which has a massive lobby with AOPA, European GA has none. Or, maybe that is not quite true…. but the answer will make some folks cringe: In fact, those who have most protected GA in recent years from abuse by local CAA’s was EASA and it’s GA roadmap people. Unfortunately they have no legal way to stop the airport problem (particularly outpricing) however, not for their lack of wanting though. But with various initiatives such as ELA, ML, NCO they have indeed given large parts of GA a chance to fight their way through those CAA’s who would love to see it much more restricted or banned.
But I also have to say, my personal experience working with the Swiss FOCA and with the EASA roadmap folks has always been positive. They help where they can (at least those at the front) but they are also under the hammer of politics and of interest groups who will do their damnest to damage aviation.
Peter has a very valid point in terms of “dictatorships” allowing GA or not. We should not forget: GA is largely something which happens in the Americas and Europe as well as Australia. There are parts of Africa where GA also thrives. Asia? Middle East? practically no GA at all and where it exists, it is heavily regulated. Why? Because most of those countries have very different ideas about personal freedom and what they allow their people to do and because the level of poverty in quite a few of them discourages GA further.
ICAO is the guarantee that epic trips like the terbang trip to Australia and back is even possible.
If the assumption that certified GA in Europe is dead and will be replaced by UL only becomes true, then a very large number of pilots will have to hang it up. Me being one of them, but also it is the end of people with families flying and people who wish to travel seriously rather than joyride around the traffic circuit. I am afraid that I fear exactly this is going to happen sooner or later. But once certified GA is eradicated, the UL community will need really warm clothes as I am sure the same folks who are after certified GA will come for them next.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And while we are at it: Put it into LAW that any and all airports and airfields with civil aviation movements are PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE which excludes banning any form of traffic. Cap total taxes an airport may charge to any airplane at 5% of it’s MTOW and put the hurdles for PPR sky high, so whoever wants to limit access to their airport/airfield needs to have a REAL GOOD case which as a final word is being decided by the CAA with a possibility of appeal to EASA itself.Now that will never happen, i am perfectly clear, because everyone is watching his own garden enviously and with smirks towards the other groups.
That will indeed not happen, but not for the reason you think. Rather it is because the EU is economically a neoliberal project where deregulation and privatisation are seen as good things in themselves. Thus there will never be any EU legislation that will declare airports as public infrastructure in the way you suggest. Recently I read that the EU wants to force the Netherlands to allow private companies access to their very well functioning unified national rail network. That will only lead to pointless fragmentation. (Note that I am not at all against European integration, which I think is a great idea. EU is in many ways a bad setup, but that’s what we have so we need to work with it. There is no feasible alternative.)
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If the assumption that certified GA in Europe is dead and will be replaced by UL only becomes true
I don’t think it will. It might be the situation in Norway, but I don’t see that happen even in neighbouring Sweden. E.g. looking at the flight schools of aeroclubs associated with the national Royal Swedish Aeroclub (the vast majority), 50% more clubs offer PPL/LAPL training compared to UL training.
I also don’t see any rush to buy ULs – particularly not with CS-LSA which is a normal category certification standard.
I think a little perspective is called for here.
In France ULM regulation has been formed by ULM.pilots themselves. They have formed a strong enough body to negotiate with the DGAC and as ULM is regulated nationally we can do that.
We are able to fly with what is basically a PMD medical, we have a licence for life with no currency or controls. The aircraft we fly require the equivalent to a 1 off C of A and maintenance is down to the owner. One can choose to DIY or to go to a professional.
A licence IIRC can be issued to a 14year old (I would have to double check that. It might be solo flight)..
Whilst the STOL capabilities of ULs allow us to land almost anywhere it doesn’t mean we are limited to farm strips or even grass.
We can fly in controlled airspace and we can use most airports which are also used by CAT. Most of the airports we possibly cannot fly to are those which we probably wouldn’t fly to even in certified aircraft IFR eg CdG, Orly, Nice, Bordeaux Merignac, Lyon, Lille. We wouldn’t fly there because they are too expensive and have nothing to offer us in the way of fuel. The only thing they probably have going for them over the smaller airports is easier access to public transport and hire cars.
Flying Internationally is getting easier and would be easier still if EASA could lighten up regulation even more than they have done.
The problem for EASA that the FFPLUM/DGAC did not have was that EASA were unable to start with a blank sheet of paper. They had to start with ICAO annexes and changes have to be passed a EU parliament level. That’s many lobby groups, and political opinions to take account of.
But to be fair on them, they have lightened up on much regulation but they still have a long way to go to be an offer that French ULM pilots could not refuse. We also need to recognise that some EASA regulation is a lot lighter than that offered by the FAA.
To move to the 500kg/525kg we have had to accept theory exams at a nominated location. (LFFK happens to be one nominated location) The theory exam is not difficult but it does add an extra layer of regulation/formality to what we had before, when your instructor just put a question paper in front of you and it took about 15 mins to fill out.
Getting the DGAC to agree to night flying or even IFR would be possible and the DGAC haven’t closed the door on that. We have, as a community because it means accepting a lot of EASA regulation. The same goes for moving to the 600kg weight limit.
Outside of the IFR regime it is perfectly possible to do the terbang adventure by ULM. This can be seen on You Tube where a French guy has had an around the world adventure in a Nynja ULM and like the terbangs did much in fact most of the permits himself.
For me both the terbangs, Dan and several other Euroga posters use their aircraft for adventures rather than just a means of transport to get from A to B. It’s the sort of flying I like to do as a hobby. I have no real desire to play with 747’s or to pay handling fees. And there is little to stop me doing this in the Super Guépard.
There are of course downsides, such as the weight limit and only 2 seats.
Sadly the MCR4S world which would allow me to carry 4 people and luggage or the RV world which would allow me to carry more weight and go faster would give me little extra for a lot more regulation. Regulation I do not want. The certified world brings even greater regulation plus added cost.
Hopefully EASA and French UL pilots might find an acceptable compromise in the future.
From the airspace point of view France is very little different from many other countries including the USA. We do however have more “R” airspace than many others including the USA. This is usually military airspace which possibly has something to do with the fact that our country was invaded less than a century ago and the public here take defence very seriously. That’s not to say that the USA doesn’t but we are possibly cramming ours into a much smaller space..
However, when that space is inactive it is no problem to transit through it and even when active military controllers will usually let you through unless they are very busy.
I have written on previous occasions that UL is not for everyone, especially if you have a family, but it ticks a lot of boxes for those who like to travel 2 up and for me it’s a awful lot of fun.
If the assumption that certified GA in Europe is dead and will be replaced by UL only becomes true
I don’t think that is anyone’s assumption. The first does not automatically leads to the second. It could of course, but UL is not the only alternative, just one of three as of today.
particularly not with CS-LSA which is a normal category certification standard.
CS-LSA is a dead end.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That will indeed not happen, but not for the reason you think. Rather it is because the EU is economically a neoliberal project where deregulation and privatisation are seen as good things in themselves. Thus there will never be any EU legislation that will declare airports as public infrastructure in the way you suggest. Recently I read that the EU wants to force the Netherlands to allow private companies access to their very well functioning unified national rail network. That will only lead to pointless fragmentation.
I vividly recall my last attempt to use the privatized British rail service, incidently to visit Peter from another coastal town. Cost me more than a rental car would have and was not an experience I’ll likely repeat. So now they want to do the same to the Netherlands…. well, thankfully it’s flat and people have bicycles.
I know it won’t happen. And that is why I think another solution will be necessary. But I have one argument up my sleve which I am currently discussing with some people regarding the outpricing and banning policies. I’ll talk about it in due time but want some things run their course right now.
gallois wrote:
I have no real desire to play with 747’s or to pay handling fees.
I don’t want to do that either, neither of it. But I do want to have the right to travel with my plane as I travel with my car. UL, Helicopter, 747 or certified GA. And I do want the right to use the infrastructure at prices which correspond to what I use. How would you react if e.g. the French motorways would decide they only want lorries and therefore every personal vehicle should pay as much as a 40 ton lorry? That is essentially what airports are trying to do.
I am happy for each of you who is ok with ULs and 2 seaters but somehow it feels to me like a Stockholm syndrome thing that we should be thankful that at least that still is tolerated by the powers that are. Well, I am sad that we think that way, because every right we use will be followed by another. It’s airplanes now, it is Diesel cars, it will be combustion cars and it sure as hell sooner or later will be ULs as well (they use fossil fuels after all). It’s slice after slice. Yea, most probably I won’t be there to see it and actually hope so, but it makes me wonder what kind of society our children grow up into. Intolerance and ignorance.
LeSving wrote:
CS-LSA is a dead end.
Care to explain why? There seem to be a fair number of CS-LSA aircraft around which are selling reasonably well.
