Some people like flying locally. Ultralights address that market sector well. One negative there is that you often end up flying alone.
Some people like flying further away. That is where the full PPL comes in.
The attraction of each type of activity depends on how it is organised. Flying alone gets lonely after a short while unless it is within a social-friendly context. There is also a cultural effect there… in some countries almost nobody flies more than say 100nm, while the GA community from some others is seen all over the place abroad. Pilots from countries where English is spoken comfortably tend to fly internationally a lot more, etc.
So there is a market for all these things, but it will vary geographically and culturally.
The bottom line however is that the NPPL and LAPL take-up has been minimal and there has to be a reason for that, whether one likes the reason or not. I think there is a message in there somewhere. One never gets anywhere in life by wishing something wasn’t the way it is 
Patrick wrote:
Come to think of it, the only “special rule” is about landings on runways < 600 m. You’re free to do these, but at your own risk. The club won’t pay for any damage due to landings on runways < 600m. I think that’s a fair rule actually.
Surely, that will depend on the aircraft?! The longest runway at my club airfield is 630 m grass, and we operate quite happily from that with C172s and PA28s. Now, if we had a TB20, it would be a different matter.
Patrick wrote:
The club won’t pay for any damage due to landings on runways < 600m. I think that’s a fair rule actually.
No, just paternalistic. I can’t really see why a club should have more rules than that the flight has to be legal.
I can’t really see why a club should have more rules than that the flight has to be legal.
I agree; it is just a symptom of a “club”
The problem with insisting on well trained or current pilots is that your market shrinks, possibly drastically. As you go higher up the capability scale it gets worse e.g. for renting out a DA42 you might require an IMCR or an IR but nearly all IR holders already have their own plane.
I would not operate a TB20, MTOW etc, from 630m grass unless it is like a billiard table, super smooth and clean. 450m tarmac is OK.
Peter wrote:
Some people like flying further away. That is where the full PPL comes in.
Not necessarily. The high performance ultralights (VL3, CT, MCR, … ) are faster than the typical spamcan and can carry the same instrumentation, especially in glass. Why would they be less apt for flying further away?
Having followed the various discussions I must allow that the PPL, even with no additions, is a clear winner over microlight flying because of higher weight, which means more payload, be it people or their luggage or fuel. One can travel in a microlight, even a slowish one, but one needs to be alone then, indeed.
Aviathor wrote:
The problem is that the rules apply to all alike whether they have flown 100 or 10 hrs in the last 12 months.
On the other hand, a club has no skill requirements for who is allowed to fly the aircraft. People that are hardly able to fly an aircraft, and have never done a proper landing in their whole life are welcome. You wouldn’t start a syndicate with arbitrary anybodies either (or maybe you would, and will regret it later). It’s a fine balance. Too much, and people start leaving, too little and the aircraft will constantly be grounded due to repairs, and the hour rate increases, creating less flying.
It seems to me clubs (for better or worse) are able to stand up relatively well against the decline in PPL level GA. But only increased private ownership will increase it again, because it is the private ownership part that has declined most. The reason for the decline is an increasing lack of utility and increased cost, which together makes a severe decreased lack of value. That value was never all that good to start with, and with EASA it has become zero (negative in actual terms, even a horse and carriage offer more utility and value). A microlight or experimental still has positive value because the operating cost, and hassle, is only a fraction.
LeSving wrote:
On the other hand, a club has no skill requirements for who is allowed to fly the aircraft. People that are hardly able to fly an aircraft, and have never done a proper landing in their whole life are welcome.
Well, most clubs (mine included), will require a checkout of new members to ensure that are reasonably competent — and in my case also that they can handle a shortish grass runway.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Having followed the various discussions I must allow that the PPL, even with no additions, is a clear winner over microlight flying because of higher weight, which means more payload, be it people or their luggage or fuel.
I fly both PPL and micro, lets do a fair comparison of the pros and cons without any “imaginary” benefits. This means a 1-4 place, VFR, PPL level aircraft compared with a 1-2 place microlight (from the top of my head).
Pro PPL (bare):
Con PPL (bare):
Pro Micro:
Con micro:
This means (according to me ) the following conclusion:
A PPL (bare) is good if you want to:
A microlight license is good if you want to:
In my opinion this is a pretty fair assessment for VFR PPL with no additional ratings, which 90% of all PPLs are, compared with microlight. The overall main conclusion is that a PPL is a ticket for renting old spam cans, while a microlight license is a ticket to own an aircraft. Going a bit further into PPL possibilities, but still on a bare VFR with no additional ratings, you can get into Vintage/Experimental and also get a Diamond/Robin diesel. Then further on to Twin, IFR, SET which is only for the very few and requires costly and time consuming ratings..
LeSving wrote:
The overall main conclusion is that a PPL is a ticket for renting old spam cans, while a microlight license is a ticket to own an aircraft. Going a bit further into PPL possibilities, but still on a bare VFR with no additional ratings, you can get into Vintage/Experimental and also get a Diamond/Robin diesel. Then further on to Twin, IFR, SET which is only for the very few and requires costly and time consuming ratings..
Give us an update on that after you return from Oshkosh 
