aart wrote:
I have learned a long time ago that a deal has been done when the money is in the bank ;)
Yes, but the 600 kg limit is resolved regardless of what may be the end result for those other items.
The next step is that France will no longer allow free entry of German ultralights. Who asked for that?
Why not only those over 450kg, and then there would be no losers? There is in any case a “permit required” matrix for UL too, even though it is more permissive than for homebuilts.
Edit: URL added.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
That’s what I read too, and I find it disappointing and counter-productive.
No one knows how this actually will be. My (wild) guess is that factory built aircraft between 450 and 600 kg will have to be designed and built according to some LSA spec. Nothing else will make much sense IMO, because the main purpose is to have roughly the same standard for all “LSA” world wide, to make production easier for factories. A factory wouldn’t make one US-LSA, one CS-LSA and one “UL-LSA” all with different specs, and all with the same MTOW of 600 kg. They will make one aircraft that complies with the basic LSA specs (the US) and just tweak it. This should also mean that microlight aircraft (as we know them) will not be affected at all, but some manufacturers may stop producing them in favor of LSA only production.
Looks good to me, at least it may do so.
It has now been decided by the EU Council. The full text can be found here.
A Member State may decide to exempt from the provisions of this Regulation the design,
production, maintenance and operation activities in respect of one or more of the following
categories of aircraft:
(i) aeroplanes, other than unmanned aeroplanes, which have no more than two seats,
measurable stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not
exceeding 45 knots calibrated air speed and a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), as
recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600kg for aeroplanes not intended to be
operated on water or 650kg for aeroplanes intended to be operated on water;
(ii) helicopters, other than unmanned helicopters, which have no more than two seats and a
MTOM, as recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600 kg for helicopters not
intended to be operated on water or 650kg for helicopters intended to be operated on
water;
(iii) sailplanes, other than unmanned sailplanes, and powered sailplanes, other than
unmanned powered sailplanes, which have no more than two seats and a MTOM, as
recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600 kg.
So 600 kg it is, 650 for sea/amphibian, and min airspeed increased to 45 knots. US-LSA specs in all essence. It will all b in place in 2018.
And also:
Without prejudice to obligations of Member States under the Chicago Convention, aircraft to
which that decision applies and registered in the Member State which has taken that decision
may be operated in other Member States, subject to agreement of the Member State in the
territory of which the operation takes place. Such aircraft may be also maintained or their
design may be modified in other Member States, provided that such design modifications and
such maintenance activities are carried out under the oversight of the Member State where the
aircraft is registered and in accordance with procedures established in the national law of that
Member State.Any certificate issued in respect of aircraft to which a decision taken pursuant to this
paragraph applies shall clearly indicate that that certificate was issued not under the
provisions of this Regulation but under the national law of the Member State which issues the
certificate. Other Member States may accept such national certificates only if they themselves
have taken a corresponding decision pursuant to this paragraph.
A Member State may decide to exempt from the provisions of this Regulation
aeroplanes, other than unmanned aeroplanes, which have no more than two seats,
measurable stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not
exceeding 45 knots calibrated air speed and a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), as
recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600kg for aeroplanes not intended to be
operated on water or 650kg for aeroplanes intended to be operated on water;
So, am I right that the Big Q is which member states will sign up for this? And if they all sign up for it, then all is good, no? A 600kg UL is way more usable than a 450kg UL.
If I understand the previous objections correctly, the fear is that only some will sign up for it and then a 600kg UL from one country won’t be allowed to fly to a country which limits them to 450kg.
Peter wrote:
So, am I right that the Big Q is which member states will sign up for this?
I don’t know the exact answer, but it for sure will be “opted” for in those countries actively working for this change:
The Nordic countries (Finland and Norway for sure, the others most probably), Germany and the the Czech republic.
Likevise it probably will not? be “opted” for in the countries who have actively worked against it, and is the very reason why it is an “opt out” and not a standard regulation:
France and Belgium.
All the details have to be worked out of course, in each country. Some standardization also seems natural for certification and licenses, at least for the Nordics, Germany and the Czech Republic (as is somewhat the case today as well). IMO we will see a quasi pan European “sport pilot license” coming and the national microlight license gradually disappearing, if not from existence, than at least as a popular choice for many, it could also be de-regulated for the simplest microlights. Also, as I understand, the French position is not so much against the increase in MTOW, as it is for preservation of the completely de-regulated microlight regime they have there, and which an increase in MTOW, stall speed, complexity simply will not allow to continue.
So how this will pan out, will be interesting to see.
I can see that France is not happy about going to 600kg while keeping the concession of not requiring any kind of medical.
In aviation there is always a connection between a qualification having reduced requirements and having crippled privileges – look at the UK NPPL.
Are there any French UL pilots here?
I took my UL qualification in one of these :
http://site.bestoffaircraft.com/language/en/nynja-5/
They are popular in France and have a 200-240 kg payload. My local instructor must weigh at least 100 kg so it is pretty obvious that most are operated overweight. You don’t need a special medical examination, but I think you may need a certificate/statement from your general physician that you have no contraindication. This is required for many sporting activities. Since I have a PPL I didn’t need to take the written examination, which covers much of the PPL material.
Simon
It seems that the 600kg MTOW for certain ultralights is on route.
The importer for the WT9 told me that they are confident to get the new certification until 2019. The austrians will copy the germans and they are working vigorously on this issue.
It is not for sure yet if they can get 600 kg MTOW or, if all else fails, at least 500kg + parachute. That would still be 542,5 kg which is good enough for 7 hours of endurance @130 kn and 2 pilots to be legal.
They are also confident that the new MTOW will be possible for existing airframes and not only for new deliveries.
If this info proofs to be correct it would be a major improvement on aircrafts in the category of a WT9 or similar.
ASW22 wrote:
If this info proofs to be correct it would be a major improvement on aircrafts in the category of a WT9 or similar.
Actually it would be a huge step back in aviation. Building fences never helped anybody. And as long as the german “Beauftragte” self-declare (way outside their jurisdiction and without any expert knowledge) changes in the certification basis – to be found out in correlation with a lethal accident, I don’t think we will see much good come out of this.
Divide and conquer, isn’t it? And our “lobby” sacrifices general aviation on the basis of pomposity. Well done, indeed.
