Snoopy wrote:
Not really. UL commercial stuff has nothing to do with EASA.
Correct. It’s up to each country to make their own regulations simply because EASA won’t. Drones are OK for commercial stuff, so there really is no good legal reason why an UL cannot be used to bring goods for instance, commercially. In Norway it is doubtful because the law say explicitly that ULs cannot be used in commercial operations (with certain “gray” exception from Part-NCO). Germany may not have such a wording in their laws and regulations.
Then there is the UL license itself. But that isn’t really a license in the correct sense, merely a paper saying you are competent to fly an UL. Sounds like a semantical difference, but legally it is more than semantics. A license grants you privileges you wouldn’t otherwise have. A “proof of competence” grants you no privileges you don’t already have (everyone has the right to fly an UL, but no one has the right to fly an EASA plane without the privileges given by the license). A PPL grants you the privilege to fly privately. To fly commercially, you need at least a CPL. For an UL, you have been given no privileges to start with, so commercially or not is a moot point, unless this is explicitly stated in law. This may not be the case in Germany.
Commercial operations with ULs may be fully legal in Germany for all I know. Sounds odd if it were, but not that odd. Everyone can use their own car or bicycle for business stuff, so why not an UL?
It’s debatable.
Not really. UL commercial stuff has nothing to do with EASA.
Yes; there are loads, but if one is looking for a simple name, what should one use?
There are basically three areas:
and these vary. We are getting well off topic again but for example here (UK) an RV is on an LAA PtF, while a Spitfire is on a CAA PtF. And while the RV could not carry paying passengers, a Spitfire can and does (they charge eye watering amounts of money for pleasure flights in them).
Peter wrote:
It’s debatable. We have one poster who insists that everything with a “certificate” is “certified” (if I understand him correctly) but I think we all understand the difference between an ICAO CofA, and everything else?
I’d say that there is CofA (with mandatory TC attached), then Restricted CofA (doesn’t have to have a TC and allows more freedom) and then some forms of PtF.
It’s debatable. We have one poster who insists that everything with a “certificate” is “certified” (if I understand him correctly) 
but I think we all understand the difference between an ICAO CofA, and everything else?
This thread highlights an interesting “loophole” in the public transport regs but as I said I am sure it’s not really there; all that’s happened is that thus far such operations have not attracted attention. Same really as the borderline stuff on Wingly etc. The whole “non certified” scene attracts little attention whether legal or illegal, probably because practically nobody can understand it
Can the thread title be changed to “…in Annex 1/Nationally Regulated Aircraft”, it is misleading.
ErlendV wrote:
1121 PPL(A) and 81 LAPL(A).
Looking at the numbers this is interesting. LT counts only new licenses issued and active licences. In the US an active license means a license with a valid medical. I don’t know if this is what LT means, it probably is (easy to count), or at least something very close. Licenses are forever, a medical is not, and you can only fly if your medical is valid.
In the US for 2020 the statistics of active pilots is:
For Norway the similar statistics for active pilots give:
Sport : somewhere around 1000 UL pilot licenses (similar to PPL, maybe a bit less, but don’t know for sure) At least 1/3 also have PPL, so lets say 650.
Private pilots (airplane) : 1288
CPL (airplane) : 735
ATPL (airplane) : 1015
Rotorcraft only : 304 + 347 + 67 = 718
Glider ; Dont know
The us has 330 millions, Norway has 5.5. Thats a factor 60. Let’s multiply with 60:
Sport/UL : 39,000
Private pilots (airplane) : 77,280
Private pilots (airplane total) : 116,280
CPL (airplane) : 44,100
ATPL (airplane) : 60,900
Rotorcraft only : 43,080
Comparing, the factor of US/Norway becomes:
Private pilots (airplane total) : 1.38
CPL (airplane) : 2.36
ATPL (airplane) : 2.7
Rotorcraft only : 0.32
The fact of the matter is that when looking at active pilots and taking into account the population, the US has roughly 2.5 times as many commercial/airline pilots. It only has 40% more private pilots, and only 30% of the number of helicopter pilots compared with Norway.
Private GA is not that much larger. Even when disregarding every UL pilot, the US only has a factor 2 more active private pilots per capita than Norway. In reality it’s only 40% more. In absolute size it is 83 times as large though. What makes the US a large aviation nation is the number of commercial pilots first and foremost, not he number of private pilots, certainly not the number of helicopter pilots
ivark wrote:
I don’t see many visitors from UK or southern europe in Estonia also..
Not in Norway either. Where are these hordes of tourers? Lots of Germans though, but they come in all kinds of planes, from ULs and motorgliders to helicopters and biz jets, with the majority in any of the standard GA SEP planes.
So as to not divert this thread off topic (the OP has anyway gone away) I started a thread on European touring patterns.
LeSving wrote:
fly around Europe
in reality, Europe is big enough that I just don’t visit the parts that require permits very often. I can fly in finland,sweden, baltcis, poland, SK, CZ ,germany without any permit and I can live with getting the permit for norway.. And that covers 100% of places I might go without a lot of planning and preparation.
Anything else is so far away that it requires at least week of flying.. Of course, I don’t see many visitors from UK or southern europe in Estonia also..
Sounds about right. But that is current (valid) PPL pilots. If including various states of non-current, I would guess 10 fold or more. Then there are at least (current) 1000 UL pilots, perhaps much more when including various states of currency. More than 200 current UL instructors. No one counts UL pilots, and LT only considers current (valid) PPL. Lots also have both of course, but then there are lots of CPL/ATPL that also flies GA.
Peter wrote:
Strongly disagree One needs certified aircraft to fly around Europe without hindrance.
You don’t. An LSA works just fine. But, you never seem to get the point. To keep an EASA aircraft operational here where I live, cost you twice as much as in Germany, all things considered, and simply takes too much of your time, and is way too much grief (travelling, waiting for parts and so on and so forth). This is due to the way EASA has organized stuff. What works here is to fly during summer season and maintain/fix/upgrade during winter season. For this, both ULs and experimental are perfect.
What makes you think it is more work and grief to get an approval (by e-mail) in whatever country needs an approval, Spain? than it is to find, not one, but two windows during November-February to fly 500+ Nm in arctic winter weather to a shop to get it fixed? Or, to pay a mechanic to get up here for a week?
We got experimental aircraft for fast/room/acro/IFR and ULs for simpler VFR. All things considered, they are better than EASA. Lately also certified but not EASA is actually not so bad.
