Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Microlight up to 600 kg MTOW

I can see that France is not happy about going to 600kg while keeping the concession of not requiring any kind of medical.

In aviation there is always a connection between a qualification having reduced requirements and having crippled privileges – look at the UK NPPL.

Are there any French UL pilots here?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I took my UL qualification in one of these :
http://site.bestoffaircraft.com/language/en/nynja-5/
They are popular in France and have a 200-240 kg payload. My local instructor must weigh at least 100 kg so it is pretty obvious that most are operated overweight. You don’t need a special medical examination, but I think you may need a certificate/statement from your general physician that you have no contraindication. This is required for many sporting activities. Since I have a PPL I didn’t need to take the written examination, which covers much of the PPL material.
Simon

It seems that the 600kg MTOW for certain ultralights is on route.
The importer for the WT9 told me that they are confident to get the new certification until 2019. The austrians will copy the germans and they are working vigorously on this issue.
It is not for sure yet if they can get 600 kg MTOW or, if all else fails, at least 500kg + parachute. That would still be 542,5 kg which is good enough for 7 hours of endurance @130 kn and 2 pilots to be legal.
They are also confident that the new MTOW will be possible for existing airframes and not only for new deliveries.

If this info proofs to be correct it would be a major improvement on aircrafts in the category of a WT9 or similar.

Austria

ASW22 wrote:

If this info proofs to be correct it would be a major improvement on aircrafts in the category of a WT9 or similar.

Actually it would be a huge step back in aviation. Building fences never helped anybody. And as long as the german “Beauftragte” self-declare (way outside their jurisdiction and without any expert knowledge) changes in the certification basis – to be found out in correlation with a lethal accident, I don’t think we will see much good come out of this.

Divide and conquer, isn’t it? And our “lobby” sacrifices general aviation on the basis of pomposity. Well done, indeed.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

@mh
your train of thought is intriguing as I have never met anyone who operates a WT9 or similar who thought this way.

In your opinion, what would be the drawbacks on using an airframe that has a current certification for 600 kg MTOW (currently as LSA) as an ultralight by changing the paperwork?
To my knowledge the LSA-version of a WT9 has the same airframe as the UL-version and the MTOW is defined by the price one pays (i.e. LSA or UL).

My thought was that one could finally use the aircraft as it was designed and certified.

Last Edited by ASW22 at 23 Jan 10:46
Austria

ASW22 wrote:

In your opinion, what would be the drawbacks on using an airframe that has a current certification for 600 kg MTOW (currently as LSA) as an ultralight by changing the paperwork?

IF the WT9 was designed for 600kg, they should certify it for 600 kg and perform the apropriate tests. An EASA LSA certification is actually not that complicated in comparison to 32 national certification programs. Plus, the customer base would be higher.

IF Jo Konrad and Cie wanted to benefit aviation, THEN they should have put their effort into tearing down walls and enable an easy upgrade path from ULM to LAPL, along the “difficulty” to go from SEP to TMG or similar. (Still, the 600 kg won’t change a lot, because the built fences by the ULM community are discouraging new pilots – we currently have 18 new students, but only 1 wants to make an ULM license … for gyros.

So WHY would you want to have the same plane – like the Tomark Viper – be flown with a ULM license, but not with a LAPL when it has a D-M beneath its wings and be flown with the LAPL but not with the ULM-License when there is a D-E on the fuselage?

That doesn’t make any sense at all. Unless you would believe that Jo Konrad and the DULV don’t want to make flying easier for all, but secure a bit of their declining pilot / plane licensing income. Ein Schelm, der böses denkt.

WHY should I not be allowed to fly to a ULM field with a Morane or Super Cub, easily capable of handling these places? Why should in return a WT9 be excluded from landing in EDDL, while the SF25 would be fine?

ASW22 wrote:

To my knowledge the LSA-version of a WT9 has the same airframe as the UL-version and the MTOW is defined by the price one pays (i.e. LSA or UL).

This doesn’t make any sense at all. The necessary paperwork is exactly the same for both, the “real” cost would be printing a piece of paper. Unless you want to cut some production corners or there actually are effort defining changes. “To my knowledge” is extremely dangerous in aviation. And especially the WT9-class of ULM had their share of (completely unnecessary(!)) inflight breakups, that could have been prevented by simple engineers due diligence.

link1
link2
link3

ASW22 wrote:

My thought was that one could finally use the aircraft as it was designed and certified.

You can: Buy an LSA. And you can’t possibly think you could easily get “post-tc-stamp-payload”.

[ links fixed and localised ]

Last Edited by mh at 23 Jan 11:14
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

mh wrote:

WHY should I not be allowed to fly to a ULM field with a Morane or Super Cub, easily capable of handling these places? Why should in return a WT9 be excluded from landing in EDDL, while the SF25 would be fine?
That has nothing to do with certification or aircraft categorisation and everything do to with some states insisting on approved landing sites.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 23 Jan 12:11
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

mh wrote:

IF the WT9 was designed for 600kg, they should certify it for 600 kg and perform the apropriate tests. An EASA LSA certification is actually not that complicated in comparison to 32 national certification programs. Plus, the customer base would be higher.

The WT9 actually is designed for 600 kg.
In the beginning it was certified as an ultralight and when the LSA-route became an option they just opted for it and got that certification as well (with 600 kg).
There were, according to the importer to austria, no changes made when they got the certification as an LSA.

As for the rest of your post it seems to me that your main two concerns are:
1) the reliabilty of the manufacturer even though there have been more than 700 WT9 built. I haven’t read all accident reports ever published in aviation, but until now I haven’t read about a single WT9 that has crashed due to a production problem.

2) the licence one has to have to be allowed to fly it. It is not certified for IFR. And in the world of VFR I see no limitations due to the aircrafts capabilities, but only limitations due to weather which are very much the same in a VFR-only C172 or in WT9. Except that in a C172 one allways feels that there isn’t enough power and in a WT9 I climb with 1.500 fpm quite easily.
If an aircraft was really complicated and dangerous the pilot in question should inform himself before spending 100k on that thing especially if he isn’t skilled enough to pilot it securely. It is quite similar to beeing allowed to buy and operate an Audi RS6 that legally runs 300 kph on the german highway with the regular licence on the very same day one gets that licence. There should still be some kind of personal responsibility on the customers side.

mh wrote:

You can: Buy an LSA. And you can’t possibly think you could easily get “post-tc-stamp-payload”.

I have no interest in paying more for a different piece of paper and on top of that beeing forced to put in certain expensive avionics, as is mandatory with the WT9-LSA, if they don’t get me any advantages.
I like my simple steam-gages. With normal maintenance they work wonderfully and reliably and allow me to fly all across europe without trouble.
If I paid another 10k and put in a G3x or something similar I would get a nice screen and no additional functionality.
As for the upgrade on existing WT9s: I can only relay what the importer told me last weekend. I hope it works and if it doesn’t I still have a wonderful aircraft with great capabilites which is good enough for me and the misses to fly comfortably a couple of 100 nm at sufficient speed due to us beeing quite light. For 2 persons with 80kg each it allready get complicated to fly a modern UL a considerable distance legally.

As I see it the 600 kg is a wonderful way for more people beeing able to experience the great possibilites one can have in modern aviation. Going for a nice weekend from Austria to Greece? No problem! In a new aircraft with modern aerodynamics and great efficiency in a couple of hours and a parachute for safety.
If you buy an Echo-class aircraft that can do all of that (and certainly a little more → 4 people, IFR and more speed) you would have to buy a Cirrus which for many people is no option and possibly no necessity.

Austria

ASW22 wrote:

…I hope it works and if it doesn’t I still have a wonderful aircraft with great capabilites which is good enough for me and the misses to fly comfortably a couple of 100 nm at sufficient speed due to us beeing quite light. For 2 persons with 80kg each it allready get complicated to fly a modern UL a considerable distance legally….

The upgrade to LSA would require certified instruments & equipment, wouldn’t it ?
How many of these are equipped with or can be equipped at reasonable cost with certified instruments – this is where a big share of the price difference can be explained.

I cannot see how a national body will allow a conversion from ULM to certified LSA without fully certified equipment (top 2 bottom).
The related cost could be prohibitive. (and yet the manifacturer is correct in stating “it is possible” – just useless info).
How would they argue for other LSAs and their equipment ?
How would they defend the need for all other standard aicraft up to 1200kg or 5700 kg ?
From a regulatory perspective it looks like a slippery slope that I feel unlikely they will step on.

Last Edited by ch.ess at 23 Jan 14:22
...
EDM_, Germany

It wouldn’t be an LSA. The MTOW of the UL would be upgraded to 500-600 kg (still open).

At least this is the info I got from the WT9-importer.

Last Edited by ASW22 at 23 Jan 14:46
Austria
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top