It’s becoming a mess, as expected.
France only allows a max of 525kgs for microlights. Hence, they have delcared that other’s countries’ microlights with higher MTOW will not be allowed to enter under the concession that foreign microlights don’t need authorisation. So, any flights with say a German-registered 600kg ultralight will in the future require a separate permission in order to enter France.
https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/aeronefs-etrangers#e3
Quote: ATTENTION : les limites de masse maximum de la règlementation ULM ne sont pas aussi élevées que celles applicables dans certains autres pays européens : les ULM de ces pays ne peuvent donc pas survoler le territoire français sans obtenir préalablement un laissez-passer. unquote
Not so much of a big deal though, as there will be rather few 600kg ultralights in Germany… most of them will cost >200k which very few ultralight pilots will shell out. So, most of the ultralight pilots will stick to their old and depreciated 472.5 kg ultralights and just fly overweight, as they are doing today.
And those who DO fly 600kg microlights will not know about this requirement and will just fly to France without. And, from experience, I think it is safe to say that there will be no enforcement of this in France, so all will just continue without much hassle. Welcome to reality.
@bosmantico This is why I started the thread on gyrocopter.
LeSving wrote:
The market decides I guess. More bling sell better than more pay load obviously. So much that the increase in MTOW means nothing.There should also be a max empty weight, or a minimum pay load.
In Germany there is a max empty weight limit as well – but it doesn’t help against the general trend we have also seen with the old weight limit: Manufacturers (so really buyers as the OEMs do what buyers pay for) are packing their designs with features so that useful load becomes minimal and everyone would complain that they are coerced by the regulator to fly overweight because the weight limit is so impractical We will have Groundhog Day in 5 hearts from now I bet …
There was, however, one sobering effect of the increase in MTOW in the German market: Before that every other UL-Pilot claimed that the weight limit is purely government repression as the design can surely support much more then the former 475,5kg. Therefore they liked to believe that flying overweight is merely a regulatory paperwork question and has nothing to do with safety.
No all of these pilots have to realize how difficult it seems to be to have an existing design certified for the 600kg and that almost no manufacturer is able to do this w/o design change (she of them as massive as changing the main spar.
In Germany there is a max empty weight limit as well – but it doesn’t help against the general trend we have also seen with the old weight limit: Manufacturers (so really buyers as the OEMs do what buyers pay for) are packing their designs with features so that useful load becomes minimal and everyone would complain that they are coerced by the regulator to fly overweight because the weight limit is so impractical
Maybe I have mixed-up the data, but I believe the new regulation requires to have 200kg (?) useful load with fuel for min 1h flight time, so that there is a (kind of) natural limit for adding gimmicks & options.
Yes, it does not seem a walk in the park for various designs to certify to 600 kg. For some designs it seems easy, especially those that are marketed in countries where they have already been permitted to 600 kg under local rules (Light Sport in the USA for instance). There is no need to achieve exactly 600 kg MTOM. Anywhere between 450 kg (472,5 with chute) and 600 kg can be aimed for. I believe some manufacturers are even certifying different weights in that range with varying design mods and costs to the owner.
Apart from the max Empty Weight there are also other criteria to be met, notably max stall speed, sound level and take-off distances.
I recall this was more or less forecast by those concerned about the increase beyond 450kg…
I have from time to time looked at the various 600Kg 2 seaters coming out of Europe and wondered if they are in fact the future for the majority of private flying.
I know there are some on here who do long IFR trips, and these aircraft are not the answer for those trips, but I think if most people were brutally honest they would admit that a really well equipped carbon fibre or traditional aluminium aircraft, with Garmin avionics, a digital autopilot, and a Rotax engine, would do the job for them.
The 600Kg category does not need a full medical, and owner maintenance is much easier under LAA or BMAA rules in the UK.
I note that for example the retractable VL3 will take off and land in 170M and stall at Super Cub speeds, while it can cruise at Bonanza or Cirrus speeds.
I could also be tempted by something like a Sting S4, which is fixed gear and a bit slower, but also less money.
Maybe there are other types to consider too?
Neil wrote:
I know there are some on here who do long IFR trips, and these aircraft are not the answer for those trips, but I think if most people were brutally honest they would admit that a really well equipped carbon fibre or traditional aluminium aircraft, with Garmin avionics, a digital autopilot, and a Rotax engine, would do the job for them.
At four times the cost. My plane cost $35K, and the money not spent on a plane served me better when spent elsewhere.
Silvaire wrote:
At four times the cost. My plane cost $35K, and the money not spent on a plane served me better when spent elsewhere
It’s all about personal choice.
A new SR22 or Bonanza would be six times the cost of the UL!
