From this thread on the EASA GA Community (you might need to register to read it):
The EASA committee took place yesterday and the proposal made by EASA was received positively by the Member States. We expect that the voting of the new text could happen in June 2019.
What does it says ? Thanks.
Tried to login using Facebook and then Google+. Neither worked.
It does not state more than quoted above.
Was the “positive reception” for:
A) allowing Annex1 hours to count,
or
B) not allowing Annex1 hours to count?
After reading earlier posts, I’m still uncertain.
Based on reports I’ve heard coming from EFLEVA, Annex 1 hours will count. I believe some CAA’s are anticipating it and accepting hours already now. There’ll likely be some details to ensure UL time isn’t counted for PPL renewals, but time on certified normal category Annex 1 aircraft should count.
All hours in Annex 1 counts towards recency and re-validation
Finally. Taking effect immediately (for what it’s worth nowadays) in Norway, and probably all over EASA land?
AMC1 FCL.140.A; FCL.140.S; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) Recency and revalidation requirements
All hours flown on aeroplanes or sailplanes that are subject to a decision as per Article 2(8) of the Basic
Regulation or that are specified in Annex I to the Basic Regulation should count in full towards fulfilling
the hourly requirements of points FCL.140.A, FCL.140.S, and FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) under the following
conditions:
Annex I to ED Decision 2020/005/R
Page 7 of 61
(a) the aircraft matchesthe definition and criteria of the respective Part-FCL aircraft category, class,
and type ratings; and
(b) the aircraft that is used for training flights with an instructor is an Annex-I aircraft of type (a),
(b), (c), or (d) that is subject to an authorisation specified in points ORA.ATO.135 or
DTO.GEN.240.
AMC1 FCL.140.A; FCL.140.H; FCL.140.S; FCL.140.B Recency requirements
Training flight items should be based on the exercise items of the proficiency check, as deemed
relevant by the instructor, and depending on the experience of the candidate. For aeroplanes and
helicopters, the briefing should include a discussion on TEM with special emphasis on decision-making
when encountering adverse meteorological conditions or unintentional IMC, as well as on navigation
flight capabilities. For sailplanes and balloons, the discussion should place special emphasis on
principal occurrence categories of the activity that is covered by the licence.
AMC1 FCL.140.A(b)(1) LAPL(A) Recency requirements
The proficiency check should follow the content of the skill test that is set out in AMC1 FCL.125,
point (e).
Also valid for Sweden. More people will fly ultralights now!
The question is if that will lead to more accidents, since for PPLs ultralights can be flown after a simple checkride. A few times I was in an ultralight with another PIC you can definitely feel that they’re more sensitive and require better flying skills in my opinion.
A few times I was in an ultralight with another PIC you can definitely feel that they’re more sensitive and require better flying skills in my opinion.
There are three things:
I would think those who also are CS-LSA certified and 600 kg MTOW to be very standard (and boring ) while those who are not, are completely different animals in many respects.
We have a VLA P2008 (identical to the LSA version) and it behaves very much like a C-172, while an Atec Zephyr/Faeta is very different.
The funny thing is that learning to fly in a microlight does not take longer time, even though it is more difficult to take off/land. Why? One can only speculate.
For me this is great. I’m a microlight instructor and a glider tow pilot (also microlight) and all my flying now also “counts” for my PPL license.
I think also that in the end, PPL/LAPL will be required also for all Annex 1. That is were this is heading, for better and for worse.
The funny thing is that learning to fly in a microlight does not take longer time, even though it is more difficult to take off/land. Why? One can only speculate.
It’s always a good start to look at the political angle first