A good question! The anwer (if a complete answer can be formulated) must be elaborate, I’ll try and make a beginning.
1) EASA
===
a) ultralight
-) single-seater up to 330 kg
-) two-seater up to 450 kg
-) +5% with ballistics
-) +10% for seaplanes/amphibians
b) LSA
c) non-complex
c1) ELA1 up to 1200 kg
c2) ELA2 up to 2000 kg
c9) 2000-5700 kg
d) complex
from 5700 kg OR if 19 or more pax seats OR if powered by jet engines or more than one turboprop
2) FAA
…..
3) ……
mh wrote:
If you think about it in hindsight of an easier regulation of general aviation as a hole, an increase of MTOM would not do the trick. Microlight flying was never about “innovation” or “advances”, but about ease of flying and individual responsibility. That is not achievable by most pilots with planes like the Dynamic or VL3 or similar, no pilot is trained to be capable of investigating such a structure or design. And because the microlight class isn’t built for innovation, there hasn’t been much innovation in this class, despite claims of hardcore microlight fans stating otherwise. If you take a closer look, mainly the experimental scene, gliding, space engineering or the military are technology drivers, with a bigger impact of CAT lately.
What you describe here can be said about all categories of airplanes, except perhaps airliners and military types. It was “never meant to be” [this advanced, or have this level of sophistication etc etc]. Microlight was never “meant to be” anything in particular. Light GA was once the Piper Cub, light GA was never “meant to be” a close to two ton Cirrus with 300 hp or some turbine powered and pressurized monster. Things develops, new technologies are made and adapted and made fit for purpose. I mean VFR was never “meant to be” a moving map GPS on a pad. None of those things even existed when VFR was “invented”. We have to look at what IS, what works, what doesn’t and then try to decide what will work in the future, based on the present, but without romanticism of what things was “meant to be”, it is irrelevant because things develops in unforeseen directions.
mh wrote:
1.) De-regulate any aircraft with less than 250 kg basic empty mass (i.e. empty mass with all mounted devices, engine oils and unuseable fuel) in the spirit of british SSDR. No limit for MTOM. The design engineer should define that. If you ask me, you could very well fly those things without a license at all, as long as you stay solo in the aircraft. For passenger flying, I think, some training should be prescribed.
2.) Transfer all current microlight licenses into the LAPL by a minimum of flight training and a proficiency check. In my opinion minimum training syllabus could be limited to a theoretical update on EU licensing regulations and a theoretical and practical instruction of flight performance and handling with shifting cog and bigger variations of useful load in a four seat aircraft.
3.) Transfer all microlights into LSA class if the manufacturer is capable to show compliance for already built aircraft (My guess is that this will be an eye-opener for many people as to the alleged capabilities and structural reserves of many aircraft). If not, transfer to experimental class would be suitable for the non-LSA-compliant aircraft. This has several points on the PLUS side, since it would be allowed to fly aerobatics with experimental, but (at least in Germany) not for microlights. So any FK12 for instance would win over the transfer.
4.) Stop letting one umbrella organisation be certification “agency” and representer of interests against itself, that hasn’t worked well in the past. Include microlights into normal accident investigation (not the case in Germany)
1. I kind of agree, but not without training.
2. Why? The only thing obtained by this is more bureaucracy, and will never work.
3. Again, more bureaucracy for no gain. Besides, the difference of microlight and experimental (amateur built experimental class) is not about the capabilities of the aircraft as much as it is about how the aircraft was built and what makes it airworthy. Mixing these things is a big mistake.
4. Not worked well how? In principle I agree, the only “problem” is that it does indeed work rather well in practice.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
I think your description does not meet all of Scandinavia, but can still see your point
It meets the majority of Scandinavia by area. Maybe not the parts where most people live.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
here is one
OK, the exception that proves the rule.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Neither can I. Doesn’t that show that the current ruleset works?
No, because there are (still) more flying traditional GA airplane around than microlight. The principle is a purely academic construct that looks great on paper and it also looks great with numbers filled in. But, to this day there exist no relation to the real world in terms of actual risk for a third party.
there are more flying traditional GA airplane around than microlight
How can you tell? There may perhaps be less ultralights registered in some countries – but who registers flying hours?
At least some of them, only from EASA’s POV and just aeroplanes.
From Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012
‘ELA1 aircraft’ means the following manned European Light Aircraft:
(i) an aeroplane with a Maximum Take-off Mass (MTOM) of 1 200 kg or less that is not classified as complex motor-powered aircraft;
…
‘ELA2 aircraft’ means the following manned European Light Aircraft:
(i) an aeroplane with a Maximum Take-off Mass (MTOM) of 2 000 kg or less that is not classified as complex motor-powered aircraft;
…
From Regulation (EC) No 216/2008
‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:
(i) an aeroplane:
— with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
— certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
— certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
— equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or
…
These we call ultralights (Brits call them microlights):
ANNEX II
…
(e) aeroplanes, helicopters and powered parachutes having no more than two seats, a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), as recorded by the Member States, of no more than:
(i) 300 kg for a land plane/helicopter, single-seater; or
(ii) 450 kg for a land plane/helicopter, two-seater; or
(iii) 330 kg for an amphibian or floatplane/helicopter single-seater; or
(iv) 495 kg for an amphibian or floatplane/helicopter two-seater, provided that, where operating both as a floatplane/helicopter and as a land plane/ helicopter, it falls below both MTOM limits, as appropriate;
(v) 472,5 kg for a land plane, two-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system;
(vi) 315 kg for a land plane single-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system;
and, for aeroplanes, having the stall speed or the minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots calibrated air speed (CAS);
…
From CS-LSA
This Certification Specification is applicable to Light Sport Aeroplanes to be approved for day-VFR only that meet all of the following criteria:
(a) A Maximum Take-Off Mass of not more than 600 kg for aeroplanes not intended to be operated on water or 650 kg for aeroplanes intended to be operated on water.
(b) A maximum stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of not more than 83 km/h (45 knots) CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated Take-Off Mass and most critical centre of gravity.
(c) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
(d) A single, non-turbine engine or electric propulsion unit fitted with a propeller.
(e) A non-pressurised cabin.
From CS-VLA
This airworthiness code is applicable to aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or compression-ignition) having not more than two seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling speed in the landing configuration of not more than 83 km/h (45 knots) (CAS), to be approved for day-VFR only. (See AMC VLA 1).
There are some exceptions. AFAIK VLAs can be approved for night-VFR and DV20/ DA20 has MTOW of 800 kg, don’t know where those are buried (well, I have an idea where to look, just don’t want to 
). There was a proposal about giving these to everyone.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
How can you tell?
I think I remember traditional GA flies 3-4 times the hours all in all compared with microlight. Obviously a few number of aircraft fly a lot of hours, while a lot of airplanes fly relatively few, but this is also true for microlight, maybe not to the same extent, but still.
All respect for your thoughts and your memories…
But back to the matter: limiting the weight and speed of ultralights has worked for limiting damage to third parties even when things go wrong. Now imagine the weight limit were relaxed and damage on the ground did start to be going up, what do you think would happen next?
Do not change a winning team. The more so that, I say again, there is no reason for any change, now that the LSA status is available. If LSA does not work, as claimed, it only confirms there was no real need for a 600 kg category. But I think there may be, even if the advantages over the PA28/C172 category (what they call E-Klasse in Germany) are limited. A few are beginning to show up on the OO-register, mostly with flying clubs.
Well, according to this, page 90 and further. The total number of fatal accidents with an airplane was 53, while it was 30 for microlight. I would think all fata accidents are reported. Then when considered lots GA airplanes flies (professionally) on average several hours each day, the 4:1 relationship in hours flown shouldn’t be that far off.
Is the above ANNEX II correct? For example a Spitfire is Annex II, AFAIK. Or is there a separate Annex II category for ultralights?
Many years ago somebody told me “microlight” or “microlite” was a trade name, and “ultralight” was correct.
What is leading people to say LSA or VLA are dead?
Isn’t there a LSA or VLA in the USA also but meaning something else?
