aart wrote:
as well as in CZ, I believe
Yes, that’s correct. Actually, the new Czech regulations will allow the aircraft between 472.5 and 600 kg to be registered under LAA or under CAA at owner’s option, and there seems to be a healthy competition between the two – the implementation arrangements are still being finalised, but the CAA guy in charge of certification (who also happens to be the chairman of our local flying club at LKBU) says he wants to make it as straightforward as possible.
aart wrote:
I may be overlooking something, so I’m interested in your analysis.
The LSA has one meter more wingspan than the ULM. There are furthermore substantial structural changes for the certified VLA.
aart wrote:
I understand there are very little or no modifications needed to upgrade, just testing and paperwork.
I read in a French paper magazine that Pipistrel had to make modifications to their Virus SW (IIRC) to make it pass spin testing, which I understood as “the ultralight version cannot exit a spin”. Which kinda made me feel somewhat safer in a new certified than in a new ultralight.
Which kinda made me feel somewhat safer in a new certified than in a new ultralight.
They are. There is no such thing as “just paper” in certification of aircraft.
lionel wrote:
I read in a French paper magazine that Pipistrel had to make modifications to their Virus SW (IIRC) to make it pass spin testing, which I understood as “the ultralight version cannot exit a spin”. Which kinda made me feel somewhat safer in a new certified than in a new ultralight.
What kind of modifications? Besides, all microlights can be equipped with BRS (some places it is mandatory), so this “problem” is altogether just nonsense in terms of safety, real or felt. LSA has no requirement for BRS. For this added safety of spin recovery to work, you actually have to train for it as well. No training is needed to pull the chute.
Update on the 600 kg status, recent speech by the president of the EMF:
Dear members and guests of the European Microlight Federation,
Here we are again together at our 29th General Meeting in 16 years. We used to have 2 meetings a year
until 2015. Then we decided to have one meeting each year and here we are in this wonderful place
Lucenec in Slovakia.
At our first meeting the topic was the weight of microlights. And we discussed the weight problems almost at
all of our meetings. I became a hot topic.
Now 16 years later we can say that the weight is no problem anymore. Well: Is it?
On the fourth of July this year the New Basic Regulations EU 2018/1139 was published
Annex I par (e) is unchanged for microlights.
In Article 2 (8) to 11 there is the option for Member States to OPT OUT for airplanes between 450 and 600
kg.
Problem solved you would think, or is trouble on its way? Unfortunately Yes there is. To name a few:
how are we getting all Member States to choose for the opt out
how are we getting the manufactures as much as possible on one line for airworthiness
how are we getting enough space for a reasonable payload
how are we getting the freedom to fly across the borders
how are we getting the implementation as much as possible on one line in all these different states.
That are challenges we are facing.
Some countries already are on their way to get the opt out.
Like Germany.
They also started talking with their Minister of Transport and the LBA. With very good results. Jo Konrad told
me that one person even said: don’t make it so complicated, you need to keep it simple. Jo will tell you about
the German approach.
Like Czech Republic.
Jan Fridrich has always been a fighter for a higher MTOM and a good solid empty weight so we would have
a sensible payload. He will inform us how things are in his country.
Like the Nordic Group
as Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark call themselves. They made a proposal for a Pan Nordic concept.
Nils Rostedt will tell us more.
Like France.
They always said don’t touch the 450 kilo, but they beat us all.
They already negotiated with their DGAC and are now allowed to fly microlights up till 500 kg + 25 kg for the
rescue system and a stall speed of 38 knots .
Louis Collardeau and Sebastian Perrot will get you updated.
Just for your information:
Recently at an EASA meeting for GA Committee (users and industry) and GA Technical Body TeB (NAA ’s)
Julian Scarfe from Europe Air Sports asked the Member States present about the opt out and here are their
answers:
My state will opt out: Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Spain, UK, Iceland, Slovenia
My state is undecided: Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Lithuania, Estonia,
Poland, Hungary, Czechia, and Ireland
My state will not opt out: None!
I think that the outcome is a bit flattered. But we’ll see what will happen.
So the weight is not a hot topic anymore? Is it?
We got what we wanted: No European rules but National ones.
You will find this In the New Basic Regulation in Annex I par (e) MTOM 450 kg and the opt out MTOM 600 kg
par 2.8.
Nothing new, every nation has it’s own regulations for microlights.
Of course there are differences, for instance in licensing, instruction, medical, insurance. And there always
will be differences in regulations.
So far it has never been a problem. Despite of these differences cross border flying was permitted.
Sometimes with some restriction, but always solvable.
I said ”we got what we wanted”. Question mark. Well we have the MTOM 450kg under national law, BUT we
don’t have the MTOM 600 kg under national regulation. Here we have a lot of work to do.
What are the options for EMF?
Implement the opt out MTOM 600 kg in as many countries as possible
Focus on creating a level playing field
Consolidate our efforts to achieve common solutions
Harmonize where we can
Maybe we can
Try to ask the manufacturers to create an alignment for airworthiness?
Try to influence ECAC (European Civil Aviation Conference) to make a recommendation? Like they did for
experimental- in 1980 and some historic airplanes in 2016.
Or ……… are there some options?
In this meeting we will discuss all these options and I trust and very much hope that we will succeed in
finding solutions.
There is a lot to do for all of us. We have to work hard to convince our CAA ’s that implementing the opt out
is necessary.
Let’s help each other by informing each other on how the process in your country is going. Where the
problems are and how they are solved.
It is our common interest so let’s go for it.
Rieteke van Luijt
President European Microlight Federation
13 October 2018
“We want plenty national rules”. I don’t get it how an aviator can possibly be so close minded.
mh wrote:
“We want plenty national rules”. I don’t get it how an aviator can possibly be so close minded.
The national UL rules are much lighter than the EASA rules for normal category.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The national UL rules are much lighter than the EASA rules for normal category.
They are not as flexible, not as useful and limiting. ULM certification is not easier over LSA certification. At least not, if you don’t cut corners. This national BS doesn’t get us anywhere.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
In short: ultralight aircraft should not be, or wish to be, miniatures of certified planes
Why not? Things change, maybe you are in love with an image of “what microlighting was intended to be” which is rooted in the past. Technology has moved on, life moves on. If it were not so I would be driving a Morris Minor Traveller not a Tesla
