This national BS doesn’t get us anywhere.
If you read the various UL related threads here on EuroGA – example example example – you see a diversity of views.
However I think the prevailing view is clearly that people prefer the freedom of the national regs, and the difficulty of travelling distances, let alone flying to another country, is a tradeoff worth having. Sure some ULs fly a long way and this gets much publicity but they are very much the exception – unsurprisingly since you can’t carry much more than a backpack 
The other part, reading between the lines / speaking to people privately, is that the relative lack of regulation leads to much less oversight and monitoring and a lot of the flying goes on “below the radar” (non radio and more importantly non transponder; especially relevant if you cannot officially go into CAS) and this also has a lot of perceived value to the participants – both physically (for those who want to fly where they should not) and emotionally (for those who don’t want State surveillance on principle; see the various privacy threads e.g. the ADS-B one).
On top you get some amazing concessions like the French ULs not needing a medical (many previous threads) within France. For some people that is even better than the UK NPPL with the medical self declaration, albeit usable UK only (although the NPPL can be used to fly the bigger stuff also). This would never be available on an EASA license; you would never get anything remotely like it past the medical committee members. So EASA-wide airframe certification is of little interest to most of the UL community because what they want is the easier pilot privileges.
And the medical benefits are much more important that you will ever read about online. So many people have told me they follow “medical” threads on EuroGA with much interest but would not post themselves. It is a huge issue in GA. To a “young” person this may appear alien but the bulk of GA is much older… Most of the UK NPPL uptake was by people who could not get the Class 2, for example, and even the UK GA bodies were quite surprised by this (the NPPL did not bring in new pilots as was hoped, but reduced the numbers dropping out).
Technology has moved on, life moves on. If it were not so I would be driving a Morris Minor Traveller not a Tesla
Indeed, but I think the pilot privileges are of most value in this sphere – as well as the general lower cost of the flying and the more general aspects like the whole “local community” thing. The 600kg increase will create a class of ULs which cannot travel around Europe as freely as the 450kg ones can, but this is going to bother very few people, and anyway it will never be enforced at airports, same as the multiplicity of “homebuilt” regs are not.
mh wrote:
ULM certification is not easier over LSA certification.
Not in Germany, in any case.
Good post Peter, hit the nail on its head.
As to differing national rules, there is some ‘harmonization’ going on in terms of ‘certification’. Some countries accept an UL to be registered if the Germans already did. Spain is considering this too I believe. Thank God for the proper Germans
mh wrote:
This national BS doesn’t get us anywhere.
And EASA does? EASA is a good thing for the European aviation industry, not so good for the average private pilot.
Peter wrote:
The 600kg increase will create a class of ULs which cannot travel around Europe as freely as the 450kg ones can
We don’t know where this will land yet. My bet is that every single EASA country will “opt out”. Some will use a bit longer time than others, but eventually everyone will. It also looks like there will be a line between planes “below 450 kg” and planes “above 450 kg”. The line may very well not even include the MTOW of 450 kg at all, but be a function of “complexity” (retracts, CS prop, max speed, “handling”), it may even include aerobatic planes, night VFR and IFR for all I know.
Eventually even EASA has to bite the bullet and admit that a strict certification regime for non commercial private GA, essentially a recreational activity similar to hiking in the mountains, is nonsense. Remove all certifications, and focus on practical pilot training instead. Pilot training is the single only thing that has shown positive effects on safety. Don’t know exactly how, but something should be done about the general piloting skills and level of airmanship instead of focusing on non-essential technicalities.
LeSving wrote:
My bet is that every single EASA country will “opt out”.I don’t think so. The reason for having and opt-out and not simply raising the limit to 600 kg was that some countries refused that.
Definitely no more if, even hardly when. Germany and the Czech republic have already “opted out”. It will take effect January 1 for Czech Republic, and early 2019 for Germany. Here.
The new Basic Regulation, in force since 11 September 2018, allows Member States to
decide to regulate aircraft below 600 kg MTOM nationally. The Federal Republic of
Germany has acted fast. The Ministry of Transport sent a notification to the Commission
that Germany will choose the opt-out option and regulate aircraft up to 600 kg MTOM
under its national responsibility. The Commission has confirmed the receipt. It will take
a few months to amend the current national law but this should be completed early 2019.
Also Czech Republic sent a notification to the Commission that they will choose the opt out
for 600kg MTOM. They plan to put it into force on 1 January 2019. More countries have
already started to talk with the authorities about implementing the opt out.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The reason for having and opt-out and not simply raising the limit to 600 kg was that some countries refused that.
You can only fight the tide for so long, before it turns from a funny little peculiarity to ridiculous. This is more like prohibiting yellow bicycles.
I’m still a bit puzzled. Is it just a matter of raising the MTOM limit to 600 kg? I thought there were more parameters involved. IIRC (current numbers for Germany) :
-max empty weight 365 kg (currently just below 300)
-max Vso: 45 KCAS (currently 35)
-max TOD so 15 m obstacle: 400m (currently 300)
aart wrote:
I’m still a bit puzzled. Is it just a matter of raising the MTOM limit to 600 kg?
The opt-out also has a max Vso of 45 KCAS. No mention of empty weight or TOD.
I did some further checking:
Empty weight
Not a fixed figure as such but the result of a calculation: MTOM minus payload. The latter defined as 2 persons of 100 kg each plus one hour of fuel. So for a 600 kg MTOM aircraft: 600-(200+15) = 385 kg. Note that MTOM may be less, as determined by the manufacturer and so the empty weight decreases correspondingly.
Vso
Indeed 45 KIAS
TOD
LTF-UL 51:
The distance required to take-off under maximum weight condition from a dry, level, short-mown grass strip and climb over a 15 metre obstacle must be determined and must not exceed 450 metres.
Explanation for 3.
The Take-off distance stated in the Operating Manual should be the average distance from six demonstration flight
To me these parameters look like adequate for nice and safe craft, but maybe @mh would disagree 
