I am not sure about your logics or mathematics. But it doesn’t even matter: the discussion is about damage on the ground, and I saw nothing about that in the document referred to.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
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.
The European LSA is useless. It’s much worse than the US LSA. It’s like taking everything that is bad for certified GA and inject it into microlight in the hope than people somehow will jump from GA to LSA. People go from GA to microlight to get away from the bureaucratic burdens of GA. Likewise, no one move from microlight to LSA for the exact same reasons you would like to prevent microlight going from 450 to 600 kg. It’s a dead in the water concept. If the result of going from 450 to 600 kg was some LSA-similar category full of bureaucracy, then I agree with you, it would be a terrible move.This is not the case however, or else the LSA would be OK as it is.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
the discussion is about damage on the ground, and I saw nothing about that in the document referred to.
Exactly, no personal damage reported to third parties, regardless of aircraft MTOW. It is simply not something that is even remotely likely to happen (but very easy to create equations and philosophies about).
So you would like to have the advantages of LSA without the disadvantages? That is not going to happen, not in a month of Mondays. You don’t believe EASA are going to admit they got it wrong, do you?
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
So you would like to have the advantages of LSA without the disadvantages? That is not going to happen, not in a month of Mondays. You don’t believe EASA are going to admit they got it wrong, do you?
For all intents and purposes (except 600 kg 
) this is what microlight aircraft is all about. LSA is the US answer to the European microlight, but poorly executed and planned. The only somewhat success-story over there has been the renaissance of the Cub, and unintentionally? so. The European LSA is an even worse version than the US LSA. There is no need to admit anything, and an “oops” should do just fine.
Peter wrote:
Is the above ANNEX II correct? For example a Spitfire is Annex II, AFAIK. Or is there a separate Annex II category for ultralights?
As you can see I only quoted point (e) which deals with ultralights. Historic aircraft are IIRC (a). Replicas are I think (h). Home-builds (c). I originally wanted to put the whole Annex II in here (and other things) but in the end I deleted a whole lot of it. I kept the most relevant bits and placed ellipses as appropriate.
Many years ago somebody told me “microlight” or “microlite” was a trade name, and “ultralight” was correct.
I heard “microlights” used by people from the UK a lot. I would say it’s prevalent (as far as what I encountered goes).
Isn’t there a LSA or VLA in the USA also but meaning something else?
They definitely have LSA (weight limit should be the same, not sure about other differences). And they accepted VLA AFAIK (don’t know what are the practical implications). But I know very little about this which is why I stuck with EASA.
That’s pretty much nonsense about LSA. Agreed, I wouldn’t certify under CS-LSA, but that would be because any aircraft gets heavier as the model evolved. Always has been the case. But that’s a different topic.
Microlight ops is, in fact, much more bureaucratic than operating an LSA or experimental, at least in Germany and with the intend of touring Euope. Europe is past getting permission to enter an other EU member, not knowing if your licence is valid or the insurance is accepted – unless you fly a microlight, then all that plays a role and every member state has his own set of rules. That’s not unbureaucratic, it’s the opposite. The German microlight flight instructor can’t instruct anywhere else, you are not allowed to fly an F-Reg microlight in Poland with a German license, or in class C aircraft in Austria… Make it easy for all, use the tools at hand and enjoy aviation together. You already argue in a complete irrational division between “GA”, “LSA”, “Microlight” or whatever. No change in MTOM will change that and we desperately need to bury the tomahawk and join forces for survival of the “low” end GA.
How do you justify that people should be able to fly a microlight CTSW in Sweden, but not an LSA CTSW in Italy while on vacation? Why should you be able to fly from Aachen to Spa in an LSA Viper, but not in a microlight viper? A National Microlight needs to be certified in every country, needs an agency to supervise TMs and ADs in every country, needs an extra licensind apparatus in every country – why? Because that is the implication of your/Jo Konrads idea of rising the MTOM to 600 kg and letting all else at status quo. There is no progress in that claim and in my opinion it will further hurt GA because it will cement fences and borders where there should not be any. If we have an opportunity to change things, we should insist on changing for the better, not for the worse. Implement an easy transition and grant more freedom where risk is manageable and you will vitalise all GA, from the Cessna and CT-Jockey to the FK-12 and S1S-aerobat.
The gain in transitioning to EASA is pretty clear:
1.) Real certification. There have been plenty documented cases in Germany, where Microlights did not comply to the certified type, where the manufactured aircraft did not comply to the certified type and – and that is pretty hefty – where the certified type won’t match the certification specifications.
2.) Clear rules for the pilot according to mass and balance. At least in Germany, Certification of microlights allow the aircraft to be weighted with nothing but basic equipment, so the empty mass is determined without the Skyview, GPS, Cussions, etc. The pilot has to account for all these in his mass and balance calculation. That was some “trick” of the “certifying” clubs to be able to comply with certification regulations. Thus, many stated empty weights have nothing in common with reality.
3.) European standardisation of certification and pilot privileges. It is very clear, that you can use your privileges throughout EASA countries. In microlights: Not so much.
4.) Easy upgrade if you want more. You can easily train further towards PPL, IR, Aerobatics (prohibited in microlights, at least in Germany), Night flying (dito) …
5.) One license for everything from C42 to C172, from PS28 to PA28. Why should you not be allowed to fly C150, if your ride is a FK14 oder why not fly Breezer if you own a D120? You could very well be current for your LAPL with flying a Dynamic or a Fascination or a CT and take your family to the sea once in a while in a 172.
Maybe Jan has a point after all Getting down to it, he has much more experience about the real situation on the continent than I do, as can be observed in this thread.
Let that be as it is. I agree that EASA certification has some merit regarding Europe wide operations, but mostly in theory, and that’s about it. The other edge of the sword is tons of real and hard bureaucracy and sky rocketing cost that you have no control of, not to speak of an indefinite number of EASA regulations that no one is able to understand on a day to day basis. Neither CS-LSA or CS-VLA allow aerobatics for that matter, and what use can you possible have with a license that enables you to fly a C-172, when your plan is to get a WT-9 with all the newest gadgets? In the heart of Germany where the closest maintenance shop is never farther away than 1/2 an hour by car , these things are a bit less problematic, but when it is 2 hours by plane, the situation is very different.
Another thing. I bet 95 % of microlight (only) pilots here never fly outside of Scandinavia (we have more than enough airspace to fly in, and most of them never even go to the larger airports, they don’t even have/want English speaking radio license), so why exactly is this European-wide operation so important for this tiny 5% minority, that despite current “obstacles”, have no problems flying exactly where they want? I mean, EASA certification is a solution to some things, but do we really have a problem?
I think we know what EASA certification means, and it is most certainly no solution to the microlight weight limit problem. CS-LSA is the EASA solution, and it is dead even before it is properly born.
I bet 95 % of microlight (only) pilots here never fly outside of Scandinavia (we have more than enough airspace to fly in, and most of them never even go to the larger airports, they don’t even have/want English speaking radio license)
I think that’s true for any country in Europe and any aircraft class
And 10x more true for countries where English is not the primary (or comfortable second) language.
why exactly is this European-wide operation so important for this tiny 5% minority, that despite current “obstacles”, have no problems flying exactly where they want? I mean, EASA certification is a solution to some things, but do we really have a problem?
That is the " I am allright Jack! " principle.
Sure you can fly any uncertified aircraft anywhere you want, and many do, without obtaining the permits. There is no checking or enforcement. You just possibly end up doing a flight with no insurance…
But I think there is a significant aspirational element in GA. Despite most people chucking away their new license pretty quick, and most of the rest never getting past the local burger run, I think if you told everyone that they can never pop over to say France for a lunch, they would not bother.
Peter wrote:
Sure you can fly any uncertified aircraft anywhere you want, and many do, without obtaining the permits. There is no checking or enforcement. You just possibly end up doing a flight with no insurance…
They do it legally. For microlight, permission is needed also between the Nordic countries. This really isn’t this huge towering problem as you can be led to believe reading this site, it’s about as problematic as filing a FP. The CS-LSA would of course remove this altogether, but at what cost? The majority (and by this I mean more than 99%) have no urge whatsoever to exchange the freedom and uncomplicated world microlight with tons of bureaucracy, complications and cost from the European Community. Only madmen (and bureaucrats) believe CS-LSA is a solution to anything. CS-LSA is the wrong solution to a problem that hardly exist, that is the reality of the matter.
Nevertheless, IF the weight limit is increased to 600 kg, I would be surprised if this came with no threads attached. A special license for flying and maintaining “complex” microlights or something. Admittedly, some of them are complex; retracts, CS prop, FADEC, all glass VR vision and they fly at “Cirrus speed”. More direct responsibility from the local authorities could be equally unsurprising when thinking about it. Jan undoubtedly has a point, but as long as no plans exist, I think it is much too early to be against it.
Can someone explain why e.g. CS-LSA is derided all the time, as e.g. here ?
I also believe some smaller but hi-perf homebuilts e.g. Lancair 320 are close to 750kg (764 actually for that one according to wiki). Does that weight have any meaning, in the USA or here? I don’t think it has any meaning in the USA because homebuilts there can be any size – turboprops, etc.
