Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Microlight up to 600 kg MTOW

That’s pretty much nonsense about LSA. Agreed, I wouldn’t certify under CS-LSA, but that would be because any aircraft gets heavier as the model evolved. Always has been the case. But that’s a different topic.

Microlight ops is, in fact, much more bureaucratic than operating an LSA or experimental, at least in Germany and with the intend of touring Euope. Europe is past getting permission to enter an other EU member, not knowing if your licence is valid or the insurance is accepted – unless you fly a microlight, then all that plays a role and every member state has his own set of rules. That’s not unbureaucratic, it’s the opposite. The German microlight flight instructor can’t instruct anywhere else, you are not allowed to fly an F-Reg microlight in Poland with a German license, or in class C aircraft in Austria… Make it easy for all, use the tools at hand and enjoy aviation together. You already argue in a complete irrational division between “GA”, “LSA”, “Microlight” or whatever. No change in MTOM will change that and we desperately need to bury the tomahawk and join forces for survival of the “low” end GA.

How do you justify that people should be able to fly a microlight CTSW in Sweden, but not an LSA CTSW in Italy while on vacation? Why should you be able to fly from Aachen to Spa in an LSA Viper, but not in a microlight viper? A National Microlight needs to be certified in every country, needs an agency to supervise TMs and ADs in every country, needs an extra licensind apparatus in every country – why? Because that is the implication of your/Jo Konrads idea of rising the MTOM to 600 kg and letting all else at status quo. There is no progress in that claim and in my opinion it will further hurt GA because it will cement fences and borders where there should not be any. If we have an opportunity to change things, we should insist on changing for the better, not for the worse. Implement an easy transition and grant more freedom where risk is manageable and you will vitalise all GA, from the Cessna and CT-Jockey to the FK-12 and S1S-aerobat.

The gain in transitioning to EASA is pretty clear:
1.) Real certification. There have been plenty documented cases in Germany, where Microlights did not comply to the certified type, where the manufactured aircraft did not comply to the certified type and – and that is pretty hefty – where the certified type won’t match the certification specifications.
2.) Clear rules for the pilot according to mass and balance. At least in Germany, Certification of microlights allow the aircraft to be weighted with nothing but basic equipment, so the empty mass is determined without the Skyview, GPS, Cussions, etc. The pilot has to account for all these in his mass and balance calculation. That was some “trick” of the “certifying” clubs to be able to comply with certification regulations. Thus, many stated empty weights have nothing in common with reality.
3.) European standardisation of certification and pilot privileges. It is very clear, that you can use your privileges throughout EASA countries. In microlights: Not so much.
4.) Easy upgrade if you want more. You can easily train further towards PPL, IR, Aerobatics (prohibited in microlights, at least in Germany), Night flying (dito) …
5.) One license for everything from C42 to C172, from PS28 to PA28. Why should you not be allowed to fly C150, if your ride is a FK14 oder why not fly Breezer if you own a D120? You could very well be current for your LAPL with flying a Dynamic or a Fascination or a CT and take your family to the sea once in a while in a 172.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Maybe Jan has a point after all Getting down to it, he has much more experience about the real situation on the continent than I do, as can be observed in this thread.

Let that be as it is. I agree that EASA certification has some merit regarding Europe wide operations, but mostly in theory, and that’s about it. The other edge of the sword is tons of real and hard bureaucracy and sky rocketing cost that you have no control of, not to speak of an indefinite number of EASA regulations that no one is able to understand on a day to day basis. Neither CS-LSA or CS-VLA allow aerobatics for that matter, and what use can you possible have with a license that enables you to fly a C-172, when your plan is to get a WT-9 with all the newest gadgets? In the heart of Germany where the closest maintenance shop is never farther away than 1/2 an hour by car , these things are a bit less problematic, but when it is 2 hours by plane, the situation is very different.

Another thing. I bet 95 % of microlight (only) pilots here never fly outside of Scandinavia (we have more than enough airspace to fly in, and most of them never even go to the larger airports, they don’t even have/want English speaking radio license), so why exactly is this European-wide operation so important for this tiny 5% minority, that despite current “obstacles”, have no problems flying exactly where they want? I mean, EASA certification is a solution to some things, but do we really have a problem?

I think we know what EASA certification means, and it is most certainly no solution to the microlight weight limit problem. CS-LSA is the EASA solution, and it is dead even before it is properly born.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I bet 95 % of microlight (only) pilots here never fly outside of Scandinavia (we have more than enough airspace to fly in, and most of them never even go to the larger airports, they don’t even have/want English speaking radio license)

I think that’s true for any country in Europe and any aircraft class

And 10x more true for countries where English is not the primary (or comfortable second) language.

why exactly is this European-wide operation so important for this tiny 5% minority, that despite current “obstacles”, have no problems flying exactly where they want? I mean, EASA certification is a solution to some things, but do we really have a problem?

That is the " I am allright Jack! " principle.

Sure you can fly any uncertified aircraft anywhere you want, and many do, without obtaining the permits. There is no checking or enforcement. You just possibly end up doing a flight with no insurance…

But I think there is a significant aspirational element in GA. Despite most people chucking away their new license pretty quick, and most of the rest never getting past the local burger run, I think if you told everyone that they can never pop over to say France for a lunch, they would not bother.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Sure you can fly any uncertified aircraft anywhere you want, and many do, without obtaining the permits. There is no checking or enforcement. You just possibly end up doing a flight with no insurance…

They do it legally. For microlight, permission is needed also between the Nordic countries. This really isn’t this huge towering problem as you can be led to believe reading this site, it’s about as problematic as filing a FP. The CS-LSA would of course remove this altogether, but at what cost? The majority (and by this I mean more than 99%) have no urge whatsoever to exchange the freedom and uncomplicated world microlight with tons of bureaucracy, complications and cost from the European Community. Only madmen (and bureaucrats) believe CS-LSA is a solution to anything. CS-LSA is the wrong solution to a problem that hardly exist, that is the reality of the matter.

Nevertheless, IF the weight limit is increased to 600 kg, I would be surprised if this came with no threads attached. A special license for flying and maintaining “complex” microlights or something. Admittedly, some of them are complex; retracts, CS prop, FADEC, all glass VR vision and they fly at “Cirrus speed”. More direct responsibility from the local authorities could be equally unsurprising when thinking about it. Jan undoubtedly has a point, but as long as no plans exist, I think it is much too early to be against it.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

it’s about as problematic as filing a FP

So you obtain the permission by sending off a message of some sort and not waiting for a reply?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

So you obtain the permission by sending off a message of some sort and not waiting for a reply?

Yes. I have never flown a microlight other than in Norway myself. But, from what I have seen, each country has their routines, some have forms to fill out (Sweden for instance). The point is, this is a permission to fly in that airspace, and you can apply for months at a time, but no longer than the permit etc for the aircraft and licenses are valid. It is not a permission to cross the border. You can cross the boarder as many times as you want, this is business as usual, with FP, customs etc.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

I agree that EASA certification has some merit regarding Europe wide operations, but mostly in theory, and that’s about it.

No, not only in theory. For entering permissions see below. But there is more to it. If you, for instance, like to do your biannual training flight for a german license, you have to do it in Germany, because only a German FI would be allowed to so it (since it’s a national license) and if not otherwise stated, the instructors license isn’t valid outside of Germany, even with a D-Reg microlight and a German student. That is completely irrational in a unified Europe.

LeSving wrote:

The other edge of the sword is tons of real and hard bureaucracy and sky rocketing cost that you have no control of, not to speak of an indefinite number of EASA regulations that no one is able to understand on a day to day basis.

Spoken like a true expert. No, honestly, I don’t know where your anxiety comes from, but flying and certification under EASA is far from what you fear. I have never seen anything but great exaggeration towards EASA regulations from you and open name-calling of those working with it and understanding the system. Granted, it isn’t perfect, but it is far from what you dream up. You shouldn’t demonise what you don’t know and really try to understand for a change. What, in your opinion, is more bureaucratic in holding a LAPL, than in holding a national microlight license?

LeSving wrote:

Neither CS-LSA or CS-VLA allow aerobatics for that matter,

Both allow special conditions, exemptions and deviations, for instance the Dirmond DV20, Aero AT3, Aquila AT01 and Tecnam 2002 are certified for nightVFR, although that isn’t direct part of CS-VLA. The DV20E is certified for intentional spinning, the ASG32 has an MTOM of 850 kg as a glider, all on the basis of a special condition.

LeSving wrote:
and what use can you possible have with a license that enables you to fly a C-172, when your plan is to get a WT-9 with all the newest gadgets?

What do you mean “what use”? Why should you be excluded to fly a 172 occasionally, if you own a WT9? What do you think, makes a PA28 so much more demanding over a VL-3 that you should need a separate license for that?

LeSving wrote:

I mean, EASA certification is a solution to some things, but do we really have a problem?

In my opinion we have a problem and the notion of 600kg microlights make it worse. We have two separate sets of bureaucracy (actually we have one EASA-set and one or more for every country) and quite a few microlight pilots here around have given up because it is a one-way track and their only chance of aviation progress would have been 30 hours completely unnecessary flight training to the LAPL. We have a hole industry with outputs unavailable to many pilots because the hours flown do not count for currency minima, albeit demanding higher proficiency in some cases. We have a system of divisions that has been programmed so much into the brains of certain members, that they often openly lie, moan, envy the members of other aviation branches and call them idiots and filthy rich snobs and alike. We are all aviators and I hate to read in German microlight forums blunt lies about certified aircraft, in IFR forums belittling of glider pilots, in soaring forums moaning about skydivers and among skydivers name-calling toward microlight pilots. If we have a chance of changing rules, we should unify aviation and not cut deeper trenches. The division is not rational now, and it doesn’t become more rational if there are two identical aircraft not being allowed to fly with just one license.

In what world is it not a problem if you are allowed to fly a FK-14 but not a C150, unless you “serve” 30 hours basic flight training?

LeSving wrote:

CS-LSA is the wrong solution to a problem that hardly exist, that is the reality of the matter.

And yet, you want to establish a national carbon copy of CS-LSA, rather than a unified approach to vitalise the low end GA.

LeSving wrote:

Yes. I have never flown a microlight other than in Norway myself. But, from what I have seen, each country has their routines, some have forms to fill out (Sweden for instance).

That is wrong. Among the countries needing permission, only Finnland does just require a note. In some countries the permission has to be asked for 14 days prior entry, some countries limit the days where you can fly there, others cost between nothing and 100 Euros per permission (Belgium: 94€ for 30 days, Ireland 75€, UK 65 GBP…) . Some countries don’t allow microlights in CAS except E (like Austria, CH) or have other stupid limitations like limiting to flights below 1000 ft AGL (Portugal). Further details here: http://emf.aero/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MLA_flying_in_Europe1.pdf (Quite a long document for “no bureaucracy”).

[ above doc posted previously and here is the local copy – Peter ]

Last Edited by mh at 25 Mar 23:32
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

mh wrote:

Granted, it isn’t perfect, but it is far from what you dream up

It’s in fact worse than I could ever dream up. I’m an accountant for our club, and I’m revising the accounting right now. I don’t feel it is right to disclose the details here on the web, but I can safely say that the whole concept of maintenance organisation creates down right crooked behavior by those organisation. It does this because there is no practical way for us to control them, or to prove what they do wrong. They got both ends of the rope and can do whatever they want, exactly as EASA intended. For this last accounting, we have two examples that you simply wouldn’t believe, and it will set back the club’s financial resources by several years. This is EASA regulations in a nutshell. The point of “why bother with this sh!t anymore” is reached all over the place, even the national CAAs around starts to react to this destruction of light/private GA.

The other club, the gliding club where I am towing gliders has switched to microlight towing plane since two years back. The expenses has been cut to 1/4 or less, and consists today almost exclusively of fuel. We used to have 10k + in maintenance alone on the Pawnee, today we have none, only upgrades as we see fit (+ break pads )

Myself, privately I am all experimental homebuilt, To get away from EASA is not a main thing for me, but it is for sure is no negative thing.

mh wrote:

That is wrong

You should read the rest also. The permission can be made valid for several months. For Norway it is 3 months at a time – period (it’s the only thing the CAA bother to consider whether you need it or not). During that time you can fly as you want, and cross the border as many times as you want, exactly like you do in any other plane. Others may have more flexible arrangements. These permissions is a one time thing that lasts for months. It is not something you bother with each and every trip. It is not ideal, but it is nowhere near a complete disaster that warrants an EASA regime (and everything that follows), not by a long shot.

MH, I don’t think we disagree that much in principle, but it seems to me where you deal with ideals, I deal with reality. One license (to rule them all so to speak) would be a nice thing, but the EASA solution comes with way too much unwanted and unneeded baggage to ever make it worth while.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

where you deal with ideals, I deal with reality.

The reality is that most (all?) aircraft insurance policies require the flight to be legal so if you disregard the permit matrix (in the document referenced by mh) you have (IMHO) no insurance.

Whether that matters is of course dependent on your attitude to risk… and whether you ever fly outside your country’s airspace.

Speaking of credits for microlight hours, is there a reference somewhere?

I have done some digging and I am not any wiser. It is damn hard to find out the information. A huge amount of people have posted on various sites asking if e.g. they can credit microlight hours towards a PPL or a CPL. There used to be, in the UK, a 10hr credit for microlight time towards the JAA PPL. I can’t see any clear references for anything else.

It’s a pity that so many people have gone the microlight route for financial reasons (at least, all those I have ever spoken to have told me they do it for financial reasons) and then as the finances of some of these people improve over time, they are stuck and have to re-do a lot of hours in some old tin can.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

mh wrote:

Granted, [the EASA regulation system] isn’t perfect
Far from it, I’d say. The problem is not so much the regulations themselves but the lack of accessibility. The regulations are clearly written for lawyers and not for the people they are intended to regulate.

There is no table of contents or index in any regulation. If they were not available in electronic form it would be almost impossible to find your way in them.

The division between articles and annexes makes it even harder.

Updates to regulations are published as change regulations, so it is difficult to be sure you are looking at the correct version of any particular paragraph. Some regulations are available in consolidated versions, but not all and not in all languages. An even if they are, there may be more changes after the consolidated version.

AMC and GM are published separately even though the AMC are frequently absolutely necessary. Again they are updated with “change regulations”. I only know of one regulation (OPS) where there is a consolidated version which includes the AMC and GM.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top