That even emphasises, what I’ve written…
In my country (Germany) amateur built Microlights are very rare.
But they exist…
Hence the difficulty of not mixing up the two categories. I do my best but we will just end up with two threads.
Agreed the categories are different. French ULMs are split into 6 categories running from the paramotor to UL helicopters.
They can be plans built, kit built or factory built as long as they meet the limits set in regulation.
Some aircraft eg Jodel D19 which can be registered as a ULM or Annexe 1. Its the choice of the builder.
the whole permission thingy is market protection
How would that benefit the manufacturers?
I would have thought they would want zero controls. Currently these types are bought by people who either don’t care (almost never fly abroad, or “just fly”) or don’t know (and find out after they paid for it – like one *fox owner I know).
IMHO the controls are there because these types are sub-ICAO, therefore the starting point is no privileges whatsoever, but pressure on the various CAAs from national bodies had resulted in a matrix of permits. The reason why the permit matrix is different for “homebuilts” versus “ultralights” is because these have different representative organisations, who mostly don’t talk to each other 
The reason why the permit matrix is different for “homebuilts” versus “ultralights” is because these have different representative organisations, who mostly don’t talk to each other
That could be a different reason? but usually “homebuilts falls under craftsmanship for the love” way more socially acceptable and encouraged nationally & internationally way more than “that foreign manufacturer now is selling 300k 200kts UL that looks like aeroplane and killing our national ULM spirit and ULM factories”
Similar story with training in Annex1, Czech CAA is happy with Zlins while DGAC is happy with Jodels, the reverse is not 100% true on non-EASA types
I don’t think the national CAAs would have moved a single finger on this unless pressured locally.
Also what % of “homebuilts” flying were built by the owner? Various numbers posted suggest most “true kits” are abandoned and sold on, maybe sold on again, and eventually finished by someone else, then sold on several times and flown by a non-builder. Those I know about personally confirm this. Also the higher perf ones are de facto factory built; the “51%” is basically a fake. Read up the Evolution for example (various threads here) but the 200k+ high end ULs are no different.
Peter wrote:
Currently these types are bought by people who either don’t care (almost never fly abroad, or “just fly”) or don’t know (and find out after they paid for it – like one *fox owner I know).
And what kind of (relevant) limitations did this *fox owner become aware of after the purchase?
IMHO the controls are there because these types are sub-ICAO, therefore the starting point is no privileges whatsoever, but pressure on the various CAAs from national bodies had resulted in a matrix of permits. The reason why the permit matrix is different for “homebuilts” versus “ultralights” is because these have different representative organisations, who mostly don’t talk to each other
ICAO or not has nothing to do with this. EASA types such as VLA and LSA are also not ICAO, but rather EASA exclusively. ULs are in fact specified by EASA, but the specification is way too limited in scope to “equalize” EASA wide. With this 600 opt out not even MTOW is specified.
I think people talk to each other much more than you think. Often the same people have and fly all kinds of different aircraft, be it UL, experimental or “ICAO”. I’m as a good an example as anyone it’s more that people after all want to build, fly, have fun, rather than getting involved in politics.
The danger in trying to “solve” political issues, is in the way political issues normally are solved. It takes a long time, and more often than not ends up in a horse trade.
Finally Norway CAA has come with a (suggested) regulation for 600 kg ULM/microlight/sport aircraft, and there are some huge changes indeed !
First they make a division between “microlight aircraft” and “sport aircraft”.
A “microlight aircraft” is an aircraft according to 2018/1139 Annex I, letter e or f.
A “sport aircraft” is an aircraft according to 2018/1139 Article 2 number 8, and which is not a “microlight aircraft”.
Neither of the two can be certified according to 216/2008 or 2018/1139 or be in a state where certification has started.
Then they make another definition: “Sportsplanes” (Sportsfly in Norwegian) which includes both “microlight aircraft” and “sport aircraft”
Microlight aircraft can only be used according to these (new) regulations. Sport aircraft can be used according to this (new) regulation if they are registered in the registry for “Sportplanes” (they can also technically be EASA LSA)
Only VFR. but:
Nothing about acro No restrictions by the looks of it.
An aircraft used for training, and registered after this regulation is in force, shall have BRS and a stall warning system.
Radio telephony and English proficiency is required. The same as PPL can be used, or a special course can be taken.
Anyone with PPL can fly, but has to follow all restrictions with difference training and type check ((much) stricter for “sport” than PPL)
MTOW:
600 kg for single seat or two seat plane, gyrocopter or helicopter
650 kg for as above with sea or amphibious ability.
PPG : as before by the looks of it.
Maximum payload shall be documented.
Min 35 knots CAS for aircraft with MTOW up to 475 kg
Min 45 knots CAS for aircraft with MTOW over 475 kg.
Foreign citizens from EU or EEC can stay for 30 days without explicit permission (must have radio certificate and English proficiency of min level 4). For longer stay etc an explicit permission is required. Today all ULMs must have explicit permission regardless.
It still has to be reviewed and taken into force, but overall rather OK IMO. VFR Night, on top and (possibly) acro. All good What I don’t like is legal requirement for radio and EP, but that is perhaps unavoidable today in any case.
This has many similarities with the Swedish regulations which makes traditional and 600 kg ULs separate classes with separate ratings etc. Everyone outside the Swedish CAA thinks this is massively overcomplicating things. You can fly them on a PPL, but you need a special rating.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Everyone outside the Swedish CAA thinks this is massively overcomplicating things
That’s a danger here of course. In Norway the CAA has little to do about ULs in general. What they do is to set up a frame work, then it is up to an organization to create the content inside this framework, which the CAA then approves (or not). A bit similar to the LAA in the UK I guess, only it also includes training, licenses, aircraft maintenance etc. It’s the UL “division” of NLF. that has a frame work today. In general anyone can organize themselves and set up competing content for that frame work though.
For instance, with VFR-N and possibly aerobatics, NLF has to include training, ratings and so on for the CAA to approve before this becomes a reality. They do however explicitly say that PPL license and ratings are adequate in general, as long as differences training and type checks are in accordance with the content of the framework (which they have to approve in any case). I can’t for the life of me see a development where acro and night rating from PPL would not be adequate also for ULs. With a PPL (only), some training or knowledge about using a BRS might be a thing here though? and certainly differences training and type rating.
Due to an over representation of accidents by ULs, the CAA has been on the neck of NLF to improve things the last years. This is also why it has taken so long to prepare this regulation.
The CAA doesn’t differentiate between “microlight aircraft” and “sport aircraft”. The explicitly say they are all “sport planes”, and all of them has to follow this (new) frame work. In that respect, the only thing that has changed is:
In the community however, there are lots of people who want simpler stuff. They want to be able to tinker with their garden chair variety UL on a Sunday morning, perhaps mount some new gadget. Then take it up for a spin or two around the barn in the afternoon without any fuzz from anyone or anything. This could be all the flying they are interested in. Lots of people want this, but lots of people also want (could be the same people) a 600 kg MTOW to be able to do some legal travelling at an adequate TAS in controlled airspace, with two person and luggage on board. They want retract, CS prop, turbo, perhaps a turbine. They want to be able to fly home at night, in the dark, while the weather is nice, and not wait until the next morning when the ocean fog has set in.
NLF will prob 100 create a much simpler training/education for “microlight aircraft”, and then build on that for “sport planes” (larger than 450 kg MTOW). The problem with this is that this larger than 450 kg license will essentially (at least seemingly) be LAPL, as more or less is the case already today (because the CAA has been on the neck of NLF the last years).
Also, because the CAA and the neck, LAPL/PPL isn’t today, by itself, adequate for any kind of “Sport Plane”. To fly a sport plane you also need today:
PPL/LAPL has lots of stuff that is pretty much irrelevant for sport planes, but none of the essential stuff above. In addition (again due to the CAA and the neck), differences training, and in particular type ratings, are much stricter for sport planes. This is of main importance IMO, because people used to the certified GA world in particular are literally clueless about “non-standard” solutions. Everything about a non certified aircraft is “non standard”, and this includes performance aspect, handling and cockpit layout.
Will it be more complex? I don’t know.
)IMO the CAA has done a good job here. How complex it eventually becomes is mostly up to NLF, that is us.
