it’s about as problematic as filing a FP
So you obtain the permission by sending off a message of some sort and not waiting for a reply?
Peter wrote:
So you obtain the permission by sending off a message of some sort and not waiting for a reply?
Yes. I have never flown a microlight other than in Norway myself. But, from what I have seen, each country has their routines, some have forms to fill out (Sweden for instance). The point is, this is a permission to fly in that airspace, and you can apply for months at a time, but no longer than the permit etc for the aircraft and licenses are valid. It is not a permission to cross the border. You can cross the boarder as many times as you want, this is business as usual, with FP, customs etc.
Peter wrote:
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.
There are no weight limits for FAA Experimental Amateur Built aircraft. There are weight limits for US Light Sport aircraft (1320 lbs = 600 Kg gross or 1420 lbs for seaplanes) and for US ultralights, which are not otherwise licensed or regulated (under 254 lbs empty, excluding any floats or safety devices)
(The other categories of light aircraft and weight limits mentioned here are not present in US regulation)
Peter wrote:
Can someone explain why e.g. CS-LSA is derided all the time, as e.g. here ?
You’ll have to ask LeSving why he bangs on it. My guess would be it has to do with maintenance (who can do it, which parts can be used, what paperwork they need, who can repair them, that sort of thing) and possibly what equipment can be installed (to meet legal requirements). I know very little about LSAs.
Peter wrote:
Does that weight have any meaning, in the USA or here?
Homebuilds (aircraft that fall under Annex II (c)) are outside of EASA’s purview. Whether it has any meaning, would depend on national regulations.
Peter wrote:
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?
Experimental homebuilts are outside of EASA as mentioned above. In Norway the MTOW is 2000 kg, but it’s not set in stone. Some experimental classic jets (although not homebuilt, but still experimental certified) are more than 2000 kg. I don’t think the authority will allow that you actually build something bigger than 2000 kg though, not as a pure amateur project in your garage at least. 2000 kg (4400 lbs) is a huge plane, single TP size. I think in Denmark it is even higher 2700 kg or something.
Peter wrote:
Can someone explain why e.g. CS-LSA is derided all the time, as e.g. here ?
Have you seen many CS-LSA around? There is your answer.
LeSving wrote:
I agree that EASA certification has some merit regarding Europe wide operations, but mostly in theory, and that’s about it.
No, not only in theory. For entering permissions see below. But there is more to it. If you, for instance, like to do your biannual training flight for a german license, you have to do it in Germany, because only a German FI would be allowed to so it (since it’s a national license) and if not otherwise stated, the instructors license isn’t valid outside of Germany, even with a D-Reg microlight and a German student. That is completely irrational in a unified Europe.
LeSving wrote:
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.
Spoken like a true expert. No, honestly, I don’t know where your anxiety comes from, but flying and certification under EASA is far from what you fear. I have never seen anything but great exaggeration towards EASA regulations from you and open name-calling of those working with it and understanding the system. Granted, it isn’t perfect, but it is far from what you dream up. You shouldn’t demonise what you don’t know and really try to understand for a change. What, in your opinion, is more bureaucratic in holding a LAPL, than in holding a national microlight license?
LeSving wrote:
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?
What do you mean “what use”? Why should you be excluded to fly a 172 occasionally, if you own a WT9? What do you think, makes a PA28 so much more demanding over a VL-3 that you should need a separate license for that?
LeSving wrote:
I mean, EASA certification is a solution to some things, but do we really have a problem?
In my opinion we have a problem and the notion of 600kg microlights make it worse. We have two separate sets of bureaucracy (actually we have one EASA-set and one or more for every country) and quite a few microlight pilots here around have given up because it is a one-way track and their only chance of aviation progress would have been 30 hours completely unnecessary flight training to the LAPL. We have a hole industry with outputs unavailable to many pilots because the hours flown do not count for currency minima, albeit demanding higher proficiency in some cases. We have a system of divisions that has been programmed so much into the brains of certain members, that they often openly lie, moan, envy the members of other aviation branches and call them idiots and filthy rich snobs and alike. We are all aviators and I hate to read in German microlight forums blunt lies about certified aircraft, in IFR forums belittling of glider pilots, in soaring forums moaning about skydivers and among skydivers name-calling toward microlight pilots. If we have a chance of changing rules, we should unify aviation and not cut deeper trenches. The division is not rational now, and it doesn’t become more rational if there are two identical aircraft not being allowed to fly with just one license.
In what world is it not a problem if you are allowed to fly a FK-14 but not a C150, unless you “serve” 30 hours basic flight training?
LeSving wrote:
CS-LSA is the wrong solution to a problem that hardly exist, that is the reality of the matter.
LeSving wrote:
Yes. I have never flown a microlight other than in Norway myself. But, from what I have seen, each country has their routines, some have forms to fill out (Sweden for instance).
That is wrong. Among the countries needing permission, only Finnland does just require a note. In some countries the permission has to be asked for 14 days prior entry, some countries limit the days where you can fly there, others cost between nothing and 100 Euros per permission (Belgium: 94€ for 30 days, Ireland 75€, UK 65 GBP…) . Some countries don’t allow microlights in CAS except E (like Austria, CH) or have other stupid limitations like limiting to flights below 1000 ft AGL (Portugal). Further details here: http://emf.aero/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MLA_flying_in_Europe1.pdf (Quite a long document for “no bureaucracy”).
[ above doc posted previously and here is the local copy – Peter ]
LAA aircraft up to 1136KG according to TL1.07
Have you seen many CS-LSA around?
Actually … Yes, given that the class is quite young.. And they still gain momentum.
mh wrote:
Granted, it isn’t perfect, but it is far from what you dream up
It’s in fact worse than I could ever dream up. I’m an accountant for our club, and I’m revising the accounting right now. I don’t feel it is right to disclose the details here on the web, but I can safely say that the whole concept of maintenance organisation creates down right crooked behavior by those organisation. It does this because there is no practical way for us to control them, or to prove what they do wrong. They got both ends of the rope and can do whatever they want, exactly as EASA intended. For this last accounting, we have two examples that you simply wouldn’t believe, and it will set back the club’s financial resources by several years. This is EASA regulations in a nutshell. The point of “why bother with this sh!t anymore” is reached all over the place, even the national CAAs around starts to react to this destruction of light/private GA.
The other club, the gliding club where I am towing gliders has switched to microlight towing plane since two years back. The expenses has been cut to 1/4 or less, and consists today almost exclusively of fuel. We used to have 10k + in maintenance alone on the Pawnee, today we have none, only upgrades as we see fit (+ break pads 
)
Myself, privately I am all experimental homebuilt, To get away from EASA is not a main thing for me, but it is for sure is no negative thing.
mh wrote:
That is wrong
You should read the rest also. The permission can be made valid for several months. For Norway it is 3 months at a time – period (it’s the only thing the CAA bother to consider whether you need it or not). During that time you can fly as you want, and cross the border as many times as you want, exactly like you do in any other plane. Others may have more flexible arrangements. These permissions is a one time thing that lasts for months. It is not something you bother with each and every trip. It is not ideal, but it is nowhere near a complete disaster that warrants an EASA regime (and everything that follows), not by a long shot.
MH, I don’t think we disagree that much in principle, but it seems to me where you deal with ideals, I deal with reality. One license (to rule them all so to speak) would be a nice thing, but the EASA solution comes with way too much unwanted and unneeded baggage to ever make it worth while.
where you deal with ideals, I deal with reality.
The reality is that most (all?) aircraft insurance policies require the flight to be legal so if you disregard the permit matrix (in the document referenced by mh) you have (IMHO) no insurance.
Whether that matters is of course dependent on your attitude to risk… and whether you ever fly outside your country’s airspace.
Speaking of credits for microlight hours, is there a reference somewhere?
I have done some digging and I am not any wiser. It is damn hard to find out the information. A huge amount of people have posted on various sites asking if e.g. they can credit microlight hours towards a PPL or a CPL. There used to be, in the UK, a 10hr credit for microlight time towards the JAA PPL. I can’t see any clear references for anything else.
It’s a pity that so many people have gone the microlight route for financial reasons (at least, all those I have ever spoken to have told me they do it for financial reasons) and then as the finances of some of these people improve over time, they are stuck and have to re-do a lot of hours in some old tin can.
