Of course, but there are reasons why these countries are relatively poor… and it isn’t just the higher OAT 
I wonder of I and many others are missing out on something. This post could well be moved to the “Changing Horses” thread.
Yesterday I was talking to a friend in the clubhouse. To give some background he is a PPL with class 2 medical who also held an IR until he let it lapse on changing from a Cessna 182 to an Alpi Pioneer (ULM). He has ELP level 5.
Today he is flying to Italy, so because of this thread,I asked about airport costs, difficulties etc. He has been to Italy many times in his ULM over recent years (this year marks 40 years of the ULM system? in France.) His response to my question on airport costs was that he had never had to pay a cent in fees. He explained that in Italy there are hundreds.of airfields suitable for ULMs. He also pointed out that in fact the ULM scene in Italy is better.than that in France as many Italian fields have accommodation often with swimming pools either on the fields or nearby. When asked about airspace etc he explained that there are 2 types of ULM licence in Italy one is a basic licence and is limited to 500ft AGL and the other is more advanced yet not quite a PPL and with that you can enter CAS.
All he does is file a FPL and go. He gets picked up by Italian ATS crossing the border and basically follows his flight plan except when redirected by ATS.
What surprised me more (having followed various discussions on this forum) he said Germany was even easier. He flew to Berlin just before Covid restrictions came into being.
You need a PPL to fly ULMs in Germany apparently, so he files his FPL contacted German ATS on crossing the border, received a transponder code and followed his FPL. He never had to call ATS again, they called him with transits etc.
Asked about Flugleiters on small fields, he said he never saw one or knew anything about them being mandatory.
Finally at the beginning of July he flew to a small airfield near Madrid. Again FPL filed. On arrival at the Spanish border he contacted San Sebastien who gave him a code and passed him to Pamplona who told him to contact Madrid. After that he spoke to no one or more to the point no-one spoke to him until he arrived at the small Spanish ULM airfield.
I asked about the rule of being not above 1000ft AGL. His answer was that after San San Sebastien no one knew or cared what aircraft he was flying.
I was so taken aback by the description of what seems to me to be some sort of hybrid flying ie ULM flight with PPL that I didn’t think to ask many questions. I will gather my thoughts and ask more questions when he returns from Italy.
If you have questions let me know and I will ask him. But if this is a sign of GA flying in Europe in the future, I like it as long as its legal.
But if this is a sign of GA flying in Europe in the future,
Indeed; which is why the certified/IFR community has almost collapsed in Spain and Italy.
I like it as long as its legal.
It often isn’t, and much has been posted on that over the years, but in the “right” countries nobody worries about that. It is not a solution for N Europe because you cannot just keep below the radar there, and do much useful flying.
The problem is that such approach necessarily leads to airport closure and then local community loses important infrastructure object.
Not necessarily – look at Aosta, even after the bankruptcy of the management company who owned 51% of the shares the region is still plowing very significant money into developing the platform.
gallois wrote:
But if this is a sign of GA flying in Europe in the future, I like it as long as its legal.
Some of the stuff he told you (e.g. the Flugleiter thing in Germany) shows that he simply doesn’t care too much. Which can be fine and if he is happily flying like this, good for him.
Unfortunately, it does not help most of the people who want to fly with families or IFR or both. ULM’s are two seaters mostly with notorious weight problems and therefore not a solution to many who own conventional airplanes so far. Ok, the weight issues may migate a bit due to the weight increase, but the general problem stays.
ULM’s the way I see it are great for people who fly alone or max 2 up, who are willing to forego quite a few of the possibilities of certified flight such as IFR and who are not squeamish about flying in a grey area of the law.
A license which limits you to fly 500 ft AGL is total idiocy as not only is flying so low inherently unsafe but it also will cause a lot of aggravation with people who don’t need to have small airplanes flying over their rooftops at this height. Reaction time in case of engine trouble is practically zero at this height.
I agree with Peter. If this is the future of GA in Europe, I have no place in it.
Personally I think the ULM vs certified battle is a typical Divide and Conquer scheme by the regulators. I find the differentiation between ULM’s and “normal” airplanes misleading and purposeful scheming. In fact, there is NO technical diffference between the two other than the legalese which goes with it. IMHO, the ULM class should be integrated into EASA with a rule framework which is the same for any GA airplane under ELA1. That way, we could fly with one license, one set of rules (which may well be eased more to go towards the ULM way) and unrestricted operation throughout EASAland as well as outside of it. Making the difference between ULMs and certified is damaging to GA as it divides forces which need to work together.
Personally I think the ULM vs certified battle is a typical Divide and Conquer scheme by the regulators. I find the differentiation between ULM’s and “normal” airplanes misleading and purposeful scheming.
Yes; the labelling of the “lighter” community as “sports” is useful to the regulators because it implicitly kills IFR capability and airspace access. It also makes it difficult for any GA representative body to support the IFR community because they then lose the goodwill of their CAA. Divide and rule.
I agree that it is not possible to fly IFR in a ULM and accept.that it will probably never be.
The 500ft.AGL ULM licence in Italy is probably IMO to accommodate pilots who wish to fly paramotors or non 3 axis ULM.
I can’t see pilots in France easily giving up the much less regulated environment of the ULM for something which is so regulated that you have to get all sorts of permissions and spend all sorts of money just to be able to enter the IFR world, especially when all it allows is to fly to an airport where handling, landing fees and other miscellaneous charges are exhorbitant. That’s not to mention availability of Avgas and its cost, limited opening hours and PPR plus no parking.
But returning to my friend’s situation. He was for many years owner of a beautifully kept, equipped and maintained Cessna 182 which he flew regularly both IFR and VFR. With ADs etc he found that he was spending €10,000 a year before even taking to the air. On top of that he found himself more often either flying alone or with his wife.
Now he is the owner of a well equipped and well kept Pioneer. He has a full glass cockpit and back up hand held flat Garmin thingy running Garmin Pilot which not only has GPS moving map capability but which can also be set up as a back up AI and has synthetic vision. Plus parachute (not the Garmin thingy 😁)
He can maintain the aircraft himself or pay others where necessary. A new Rotax engine costs him half the price of overhauling the engine in the Cessna (although he could overhaul the Rotax engine 3 times at a fraction of the cost.)
He can go to Italy, Germany, Spain,.Morocco, Croatia and other places for a few days or a week cheaper than going by road especially when you include the cost of tolls. He lands at small, often grass strips which are very often near lovely towns, villages, or other places of interest. He finds the ULM crowd based at these strips both welcoming and helpful.
When he wants to take more than passengers than one other or he needs to get his hours to revalidate his SEP he hires the club DA40 or another aircraft, depending on need.
I blame @Aart for his posts and trip reports which I admit are the type of journeys I find really attractive.
It was Aart that got me thinking that maybe I too should change horses, but for now I am hanging on to my way by my fingernails.
I understand why pilots who regularly fly as a family, want or need to be the owner of a 4 or 6 seater aircraft.
But I also see why there are 3 times more ULMs in France than there are EASA certified light aircraft. IMO Italy have or are going the same way and possibly the same goes for Spain.
I have always considered my friend to be a very meticulous pilot and very cognisent of regulations. I believe when he comes back from Italy he is off to Berlin for a few days, so I will tackle him again on the Flugleiter subject. But as I wrote before, if anyone has any other questions/subjects they would like me to ask, please feel free.
@Peter I apologize profusely, I seem to have drifted so far off topic here, I meant to point out that there are a lot of good small grass airfields in Italy. I would be grateful, if you think it is warranted that you move it to another thread eg “changing horses”.
gallois wrote:
I can’t see pilots in France easily giving up the much less regulated environment of the ULM for something which is so regulated that you have to get all sorts of permissions and spend all sorts of money just to be able to enter the IFR world, especially when all it allows is to fly to an airport where handling, landing fees and other miscellaneous charges are exhorbitant. That’s not to mention availability of Avgas and its cost, limited opening hours and PPR plus no parking.
Nor should they. The point is not to add regulation to them but to make ALL of light aviation (say up to 4 seats and maybe 2 tons) with a lesser regulation which makes out of two artificially created “worlds” one. There is no technical reason why a well equipped ULM type airplane should get less rights to fly than a equally well equipped certified plane, there is no reason either why ULM’s can’t do what certified planes can do. There is no reason either why a certified but privately operated airplane can not be owner maintained and operated similarily to an ULM today.
Then there is no reason why certified aviation needs to be forced onto licensed aerodromes if they can operate from ULM fields and equally none why ULM’s can’t occasionally use other airports if their skills and licenses cover that (Radio, CAS)
gallois wrote:
Now he is the owner of a well equipped and well kept Pioneer. He has a full glass cockpit and back up hand held flat Garmin thingy running Garmin Pilot which not only has GPS moving map capability but which can also be set up as a back up AI and has synthetic vision. Plus parachute (not the Garmin thingy 😁)
Exactly. So why do we need a difference between equally capable airplanes, just because some legacy ideas of how this should work. We all know, “uncertified” avionics work as well and are often more advanced than certified stuff, so the only reason we deny IFR e.t.c. to these is protectionism justified by safety motives. If it is safe to fly a ULM under the licencing and technical requirements they are given then it is safe to fly certified planes like that as well. The only thing which separates them is the “fact” that ULM’s have been declared as a “easier to get” qualification to motivate people to fly them. So why not extend this to the whole PPL world and vice versa? Part NCO was a step in this direction already, but it could be extended to cover any privately operated airplane. Hence, with a PPL one could also operate ULM’s without additional license requirements and if the ULM licence could be aligned e.g. with the LAPL this would allow ULM pilots access to certified airplanes within EASA.
Agreed @Mooney_Driver. The thing that might prove difficult would be aligning the ULM pilot training with the LAPL. In Germany for instance you need a PPL to fly a ULM as I understand it.
But I agree totally that if you have the qualification and your aircraft and its equipment can do the job, why put unnecessary legislation in the way.
gallois wrote:
In Germany for instance you need a PPL to fly a ULM as I understand it.
No, you don’t need a PPL. You need the “Sport Pilot Licence” issued by the DAEC or DULV. Even if you have a PPL or LAPL, you are required to do a sort of difference training wit an instructor. If the instructor is satisfied with your skills he will inform the agencies (i dont’t know of it’s the correct word) mentioned above and your SPL licence will be issued. A skill test with an examiner is not required.
Unfortunately there is the same abbreviation for the national regulated Sport Pilot License and the EASA Sailplane Pilot License.
I don’t know the regulations for foreign ULM pilots for flying in germany in detail. But to my knowledge a german license is not required.
