Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Annex II / microlight aircraft accidents not being investigated...

has delegated investigation of UL and Experimental accidents to KSAK (the flight sport federation) and the local EAA chapter respectively

I’d be surprised if, unaided, such organisations had the expertise and finances to do a proper accident investigation.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

I believe in Sweden the Transportation Agency has delegated investigation of UL and Experimental accidents to KSAK (the flight sport federation) and the local EAA chapter respectively. While KSAK’s investigations are published in their magazine together with a summary of proper reports from the Accident Commission, I wouldn’t know where to find the EAA’s reports (I am not a member, they may be readily available on their website after login).

ESMK, Sweden

Silvaire wrote:

My point was that it should be as close to black and white as possible. In the US ultralights under 115 Kg, 55 kts max, and 24 kt stall are unregulated: no paperwork for either plane or pilot issued by FAA or anybody else. There is no regime or agency that regulates sub-FAA aircraft. Anything else is an aircraft with an FAA certificate of airworthiness, covered by a single FAA and/or NTSB practice. That’s pretty simple.

“Old classics” don’t exist under FAA rules. An aircraft covered by an FAA Type Certificate issed in (say) 1927 has exactly the same Normal Category status today that it had originally. There are no issues with that because there’s no requirement for a Type Certificate Holder, Support Organization or any other similar nonsense for certified light planes, new or old. It works fine. Complexity is its own worst enemy.

I understand what you say, but the real situation in Europe is nowhere as bad as you seem to think it is. The main problem is that different countries have different rules, and EASA tries to bundle everything into something that everyone can live with. The rules within each country is usually straight forward, it’s only when comparing between countries that this seems strange. For instance the UK have no concept of experimental aircraft, yet you can build, fly and maintain an RV like any other place (for most practical stuff at least). They don’t even have a concept of C of A for any non ICAO/EASA aircraft. Germany handles microlight aircraft as almost as if they were certified aircraft (only God knows why, though ) . EASA microlight or ultralight is under 450 kg and stall speed of 65 km/h. As far as EASA is concerned, this is unregulated, no paperwork, no license or anything for anybody. EASA couldn’t care less about it. It’s dead simple. However, within each country, the regulations will be different, mostly for historical and more social reasons perhaps, but they are still pretty simple. Within the whole of EASA land, at least there is an agreement about licenses and about about what constitutes an EASA aircraft (for what it’s worth, and for how long?)

mh wrote:
That is, of course, not true. Even with homebuilts you can learn a lot from accidents, be it for structural and load path design, flight characteristics

As I said, for other than the manufacturer. I think there is a very different understanding of what different aircraft are. A microlight can be a one off for instance, and many are.

In my view of things:

  • Microlight: non certified and very light aircraft. Can be factory built or homebuilt. Can be designed by professionals or amateurs. Flies on a “permit” because it is exempted any specifications by EASA or the local authority (other than MTOW and stall speed). No need for a PPL to fly, no need for any education to maintain.
  • Experimental: Same as microlight, but must satisfy certain performance/test/documentation criteria by the authority before receiving a permanent CofA, or it will for ever fly on a “permit” that has to be renewed each year. Needs a PPL because it (eventually) receives a C of A and cannot be classified as a microlight. Also needs a minimum of experience/competence to maintain.
  • Certified aircraft (by EASA “standard”): Is designed, built and maintained according to performance- and documentation specs by the authority/EASA. One major specification is safety.
  • All other Annex II: Just an aircraft, like they used to be with a C of A.

Since the authority gives an aircraft a C of A, the authority must also investigate an accident. Where no C of A is given by the authority, the authority has no reason to investigate, simply because the authority cannot do anything to improve the the situation.

I guess this is like swearing in church on this board, but neither microlight or experimentals are made, built and flown due to safety reasons. I mean, you don’t buy a Ferrari or a big MC out of safety concerns. You don’t replace your Volvo with a Harley because it makes you feel more safe. It’s the same about downhill off piste skiing, downhill biking or base jumping. It is inherently unsafe (very much more so than a microlight or an RV). But the concept is much the same. Safety is an issue no matter what, but in a microlight or another non certified aircraft, this issue is left much more up to you than in a certified aircraft. What you gain is freedom. More freedom, more risk. It is a fact of life. People are very different in this respect, some can handle the freedom and the risk much better than others. Flying isn’t about safety, it’s about freedom (unless you happen to be a pilot in an airliner). It’s about achievement and your ability to play it safe by your own, to manage your own risk. Some like true and trusted certified Cessnas, others like untested Lancairs, or Onex’es. If the only “acceptable” way of flying is in a certified EASA type with all the bureaucracy and “non freedom” and cost it involves, then you might as well prohibit all non commercial flying activity.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

To my knowledge investgation showed that those aircraft have been operated outside of their envelope. To qualify for an AD the problems need to occur within the certified envelope, as have been the case in many of the cited reports. However, this must be determined by investigating the accident.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

mh wrote:

Well in some accidents there just is nothing new to learn. But you need to take a look at it first and I have never seen something like an inflight breakup of a certified aircraft not leading to an immediate emergency AD and a thorough investigation.

If that applied to V-Tail Bonanzas that would have meant 208 immediate emergency ADs before 1980… based on that many in-flight breakups, with about 500 associated fatalities. Obviously that didn’t occur. By the early 1980s there were some ADs and the issue was somehow mitigated, but it took a while.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 09 Nov 23:46

The UK AAIB appear to have “Correspondence Reports” for most non-fatal light GA accidents, but investigate fatal accidents, on LAA, BMAA, and EASA aircraft.
The US NTSB has many similar investigations, where an investigator did not travel to the accident site.
I’d be surprised if the OP incident was not fully investigated if it had happened in UK or US airspace.
(It’s 20+ years since I filled in an accident report, and the AAIB accepted it in full.)

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

I disagree. Unless the aircraft is certified, or at least has a C of A, there is little to learn in terms of technical improvements that is to be used later (for other than the manufacturer of that particular type).

That is, of course, not true. Even with homebuilts you can learn a lot from accidents, be it for structural and load path design, flight characteristics (yes I know, you claim an accident in even the most idiotic aircraft to fly would be a pilot error rather than a design flaw) or handling/usability. This is especially with the highly prepared kits like the RVs as important as with factory manufactured aircraft.

BUT: Most microlights, like this Blackshape, are in fact factory built and thus those accidents should be investigated. In Germany, the BFU is free to investigate these accidents and thankfully they do, albeit operating at their capacity limit. The commissioned associations DAeC and DULV don’t show much interest in investigating microlight accidents, not even on a statistical basis (according to ASN numbers they would result in 2 to 4 times the accident rates of certified aircraft, depending if you normalise for pilots or aircraft. Honni soit qui mal y pense.).

Some findings in the craftsmanship and design choices of microlights were astonishing. Here are some reports of microlights and experimentals where the manufacturers or the commisioned associations have learned a lot about the aircrafts lateral stabilities, craftsmanship, unproven changes to type design, system integration of brs and so on, and subsequently improved safety in operation of these aircraft substantially (well, in some cases I know they have learned, in some I hope they will).

Just to name a few…

Silvaire wrote:

My view on this FWIW is that there’s a kind of a repetitive theme of inappropriate complexity of European aviation regulation leading to fractionalization, and a net loss of regulatory benefits. I understand Annex II is some kind of ICAO subdivision of aircraft, but its typical of European regulation that it drills down into the concept and creates unecessary divisions, which then have unintended side effects… like some aircraft accidents being investigated differently than others.

Exactly, but this is partly due to the structure of the EU as a union of several sovereign states with several NAAs, partly acting as executive branches of EASA. It would be a great benefit to aviation if these Annex II “semi-certified” aircraft would be united in the LSA or VLS class, not only for certification and safety, but also for harmonisation, freedom of movement and aircrew licensing. But many of the commissioned associations want to extend this tohuwabohu and widen their scope of aircraft (allowing microlights up to 600 kg) with all the negative impact on European light aviation (in a scenario where you could fly a D-E-registered Tomark Viper LSA with a LAPL across Europe but not even a traffic circuit in exactly the same airframe as long as there is a D-M-registration painted on the side..).

Peter wrote:

FWIW, lots of certified stuff is not investigated.

Well in some accidents there just is nothing new to learn. But you need to take a look at it first and I have never seen something like an inflight breakup of a certified aircraft not leading to an immediate emergency AD and a thorough investigation. The claim that that would not be necessary for non-certified aircraft is negating all we have learned about aircraft safety so far.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

LeSving wrote:

The moment MTOW increases to above 450/475 kg and/or the stall speed is above 65 km/h, then it is not a microlight anymore, and the usual authority of investigation must investigate an accident. CS-LSA for instance (similar to US-LSA), must be investigated, the same goes for experimentals and “old classics”.
If it is up to national legislation as you said, then there is no “must”, is there? There was an fatal accident with a Steen Skybolt in Sweden last year and it was not investigated by “Haverikommisionen”.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

LeSving wrote:

For pilot errors and similar things, there is of course much to learn.

That’s one point. The pilot has a role in almost every accident, the aircraft only in some.

Another point is that many certified aircraft are Annex II aircraft, as mentioned.

huv
EKRK, Denmark

LeSving wrote:

Again, this isn’t black and white, you draw conclusions too fast. It’s only microlights that have a different “regime”. In EASA terms, a European microlight is like a unregistered US microlight.

My point was that it should be as close to black and white as possible. In the US ultralights under 115 Kg, 55 kts max, and 24 kt stall are unregulated: no paperwork for either plane or pilot issued by FAA or anybody else. There is no regime or agency that regulates sub-FAA aircraft. Anything else is an aircraft with an FAA certificate of airworthiness, covered by a single FAA and/or NTSB practice. That’s pretty simple.

“Old classics” don’t exist under FAA rules. An aircraft covered by an FAA Type Certificate issed in (say) 1927 has exactly the same Normal Category status today that it had originally. There are no issues with that because there’s no requirement for a Type Certificate Holder, Support Organization or any other similar nonsense for certified light planes, new or old. It works fine. Complexity is its own worst enemy.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 09 Nov 20:14
20 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top