Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Pros and cons of non-certified aircraft

Sorry, devide by 10 (was thinking in NOK)

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

Sorry, devide by 10 (was thinking in NOK)

Then it seems very low, even for a LAPL. Can a national UL license in Norway really be had for not more than 40 kNOK?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Mooney_Driver wrote:

The Diamond bunch are about the only real innovation around, as they are new from all sides and quite popular too. But they are European. I would claim that in the current climate a development like the DA42 as well as the Thielert Diesel would never have been possible in the US, they all would have run out of Money long before they hit the streets. It is weird that this should be like this. But also in Europe, failed developments are much more than actual success stories, primarily also because they depend on US engines and avionics. Looking at the Panthera for starters, who could have been a game changer, they failed because Lycoming let them down with their IO390 and the subsequent engine was unsuitable. Had they gone Diesel, I think they would be flying now.

Funny how we all see the world from our own perspective. I think the stuff described above is a local response to extreme European gasoline taxes, not relevant outside of that corner of the world and not relevant to real world economics. I guess that’s one form of progress, not one I’d buy into with my money, but an interesting experiment that supports Diamond to supply a small local market, now under Chinese ownership. Thielert also supplies the US Army in volume, I’m guessing the Army was originally their primary source for R&D funds and is today their highest volume customer, and the one that kept them going after Diamond developed their own engine.

On the other hand I think Mooney_Driver should to go to Oshkosh one year, and not be so stuck on certification as a necessary milestone: Switzerland and its issues are not the whole world, just one part of the world. Anyway, Oshkosh would surely have been more exciting in the late 1970s and 80s, when so many new homebuilt types were being introduced every year, but it’s still pretty exciting and interesting now that the field has likewise down-selected to a few successful types (RVs obviously being the best example) and 30 years on the numbers of them are so high.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 19 Jun 14:35

BeechBaby wrote:

Yes the halcyon days are all but over. Peculiar that as technology developed, our freedoms and ability to enjoy the developments were/are being curbed. Take air travel itself, which now has to rank as one of the most unappealing ways to travel available to us. It used to be the greatest of adventures. One would have thought the opposite would have been true with advanced technology improving the overall experience.

What has happened to commercial air travel is that it’s much, much cheaper and can be enjoyed by many more people. My wife and I vacation on the other side of the world twice a year… Do you think that would have been affordable to us 40 years ago? I don’t think so. Normal people enjoy tremendous freedom of movement now in relation to the past. (as demonstrated by my wife and I meeting and eventually marrying while living and working 6000 miles apart)

In relation to GA, it’s now more affordable to own and fly an aircraft in the US than ever before. My freedoms and ability to travel by GA are greater than my father’s, a situation largely created by people who built aircraft to last almost forever and the people who bought and paid for them new, years ago. They plus a guy named Van Grunsven who has made it possible for average people to travel far and wide at 160 kts, doing rolls and loops along the way. That’s a very good thing, and the only problem is if and when restrictive regulations and taxes act in opposition to GA opportunities that are more fundamentally expanding for the average person.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 19 Jun 14:53

Airborne_Again wrote:

Then it seems very low, even for a LAPL. Can a national UL license in Norway really be had for not more than 40 kNOK?

Much less actually, depending on how you look at it. The requirements are min 30 h, which includes 5 hour navigation. You can take instructions in your own plane, as long as it is equipped correct, and the instructor agrees. The theory is a substract from PPL theory + some microlight specific stuff, and you can read on your own, but you still have to pass a test (multiple choice). The only thing you have to pay for is a medical check and membership in NLF. This is together about €2-300. In practice people want (and gladly pay for) “real” theoretical instructions, classroom style, typically over 2 week ends. People don’t usually have a plane on their own, so the club plane, or one that is “operated” by the club is used. We also have a standard fee for the instructors. A determined and self sufficient person (much more than the average student to be fair) will be able to take the license only paying the minimum (+ aircraft on his own and fuel etc. He/she should preferably be a very good friend of the instructor also)

If you do everything in 30h at our club, it will be a bit less than 40 kNOK. We operate at an international field, so radio is mandatory. The radio exams are handled by LT (Norwegian CAA), don’t remember what the cost is €1-200 maybe. For us this is nice. We get a lot of students because they also wants to learn to use the radio, and get experience flying within a busy control zone, for later when travelling.

How many hours they actually use, varies a lot of course. I haven’t been in the instructing game long enough to have any personal experience. They way it works is very similar to PPL. We have a set of skills that shall be executed satisfactory by the student. However, we don’t have any minimum hours. If it’s good enough, it’s good enough. The only thing is the total 30 and 5 of those must be cross country. A good student will end up flying lots of solo hours, or do some “extra”, while a more problematic one will never be “let loose” unless he performs satisfactory. The seasoned instructors say the number of hours needed to learn to fly (safely), is equal to your age (on average). This probably is true. A 45 year old would pay about 50% more than a 30 year old, on average. There is also a rule that you must have had (at least) 50 flight hours before taking along a passenger. There is a separate checkout for that.

We use Atec Zephyr and Faeta. They are considerably more difficult to fly than a C-172. Much less wing loading, and much quicker responses especially in pitch, yet practically impossible to push into a situation where you lose control of the airplane, so it is very safe. Going from C-172 to Zephyr/Faeta can be very difficult for many PPL pilots, mostly because you have to land correct, use the correct techniques (as in a tail wheel aircraft). A C-172 is very forgiving, and it is easy to get sloppy. Going the other way is not an issue at all. For the students this doesn’t seem to matter a tiny bit, starting from scratch they don’t use more time learning ta land a Zephyr than a C-172, strange but true.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving,

no matter how many times you repeat it, for me Microlights simply are impossilble to use for simple weight and balance reasons. I would not even be able to take lessons in one, as no ML on the market can take me and an instructor. My current airplane could take me, my wife and my kid and ample baggage and full fuel and with a kid you end up with 50 kgs of baggage even for an overnight trip. Most microlights I’ve seen could not take me and fuel for 2 hours so what is the point.

the reason why most people go the PPL route in this country is that microlights were banned until very recently. Some people I know went to fly in France and what they told me about traning, theoretical and practical formation and the state of both the microlights, the instructor and the airfield was appalling. I would never allow my daugher to go near one of those outfits. apart, she is just 2 now, so by the time she is old enough, I personally doubt that there will be anything for her to fly here unless she manages and wants to pursue an airline career. and going the way those jobs are now, I hope she has got better sense.

I am at the end of my flying career more or less, give or take a year, as I have no time anymore to do anything at all, so it all should not interest me anymore, but it does hurt after fashion to see the whole industry in the shape it is.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Yes well, as I see it’s a matter picking and choosing. We chose based on what we prioritize among the choices we have to our disposal. However, including choices that aren’t realistic is not a good start when you want to end up with a good result. Neither is not including some choices due to ignorance rather than facts. In the end though, if you are satisfied with your “pilot life”, you get your needed “bang for the buck”, then all is fine IMO. Nothing else matters.

Trying to list up pros and cons is therefore difficult, it’s mostly a matter of taste and preferences. Misinformation, misconceptions and FUD is much easier to pinpoint. I can start with the usual ones for microlight. Microlight is a European thing. It’s defined by EASA.

Microlights are inherently unsafe: FALSE. Microlights spans a vast area of different “contraptions”. From the simplest garden chair variety to all carbon hot rods with RG, CS, all glass, autopilot, FADEC. Safety is built into them with low stall speed and low wing loading (EASA regulation). In case of a power out, the landing speed is max 65 km/h (35 knots, bicycle speed), and the low mass contribute to less damage. There is also BRS. BRS is mandatory in some countries, optional in others. All microlights are designed to have one, and if it isn’t installed, just install one. If all else fail, pull the chute, and you have to be incredibly unlucky not to survive.

Microlights are space and weight constrained: TRUE. MTOW 450 kg is a tight requirement. Soon (within a year) this will, most probably, be increased to 600 kg. This is also a tight requirement, but much better than 450. They are called microlights for a reason.

New microlights are way too expensive: FALSE. The top of the line is packed with tech and features, way above what you find in the average SEP. It is obviously a market for these top of the line planes, and therefore they are produced, and they are expensive. Still, lots of simple and cheap microlights around. No one (except yourself) forces you to buy the top of the line.

You can’t bring your family along in a microlight: TRUE (seriously, it’s a microlight, not a jumbo jet). One passenger is very possible though.

The microlight license is a dead end as far as converting to PPL goes: FALSE. With a microlight license only 15 hours are required for LAPL. Then PPL is optional if you want/need. From PPL to microlight is more of a formality. Having both, gives you lots of choices. In most circumstances going the route: microlight – LAPL – PPL is the cheapest in terms of cost of instruction for the PPL. It’s not the fastest, but it enables a step wise approach, and you can fly on your own while doing it.

You cannot fly across borders with a microlight: FALSE. Most countries don’t require prior permission, some do, and it’s all found here.

You have to do all the maintenance yourself: TRUE and FALSE. You can if you want to.

For experimental classified aircraft (generally known as “homebuilt”) it’s much more fuzzy, mostly because different countries have different definition of what this is, and different “regimes” for how they are handled. France is actually the country with longest and broadest tradition with homebuilt aircraft, but today it is most popular in the US where the modern kit industry has developed from the 80s and onward and made experimental homebuilt aircraft what it is today. The “normal” way is they are handled just like any other aircraft, but restricted to non commercial use, and restrictions about training in them. But this varies.

Probably the most common general misconception is that you have to build 51% of the whole aircraft. Those 51% are only for the airframe. The engine, avionics, seats, and all systems (whatever they may be) and the installation of those things, are not part of the 51%. This is logical, building engines, avionics and instruments requires specialized competence, tools and factories. You can still do it though.

You cannot fly across borders with a homebuilt: FALSE. For most part in Europe, no prior permission is needed.

Then, the magic acronym on this site: IFR. You cannot fly IFR in a homebuilt: FALSE.
For even more magic: You cannot fly IFR legally in a homebuilt: FALSE, plain and simple, but depends on the local aviation authority.
Then crossing borders and fly IFR at the same time surely must be illegal: FALSE. I couldn’t care less personally, I don’t fly IFR, and crossing borders up here is a non event (as is IFR in a homebuilt for that matter). But, it’s probably worth mentioning how this usually is handled. To my knowledge, all countries restrict foreign aircraft to enter their airspace. The restriction is ICAO compliance only as a general rule. This means that neither microlights nor homebults are allowed to cross borders in general. The aviation authorities also has another rule. That rule typically say that exemptions from the general rule can be made by the aviation authority. Since loads of these aircraft are flying across borders, the authorities find it much more efficient to make general exemption than to handle them individually. This is usually what is done, but not always. Those general exemptions may, or may not, have strings attached. But, even if you cannot adhere to all those strings, this doesn’t imply you are not allowed to enter the airspace. It only means you have to ask for individual permission.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

The problem with writing so much and containing so much that isn’t the whole story is that most people will lose the will to live to type up a suitably long reply. So let’s just say that anyone intending to be guided by this should do their own due diligence

I know of someone who paid out nearly 100k only to discover the “incomplete story” afterwards. That’s fine if it isn’t you

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I don’t know what provoked this long reply as all I said is that all microlights I have seen can’t even take me and full fuel, let alone a pax. I am 120 kgs by the way so maybe that does put it into perspective and while I have not had greenpeace try to pull me back in the water on a beach, I am tempted to buy swimming trunks based on displacement rather than size and yes, I have been told to buy my new shirts in America (where it’s a non event compared to some chains in central Europe). But, I fit easily into a Mooney (who by fairytale have the tightest cabins short of a Mig 21 (and I’ve sat in one of those 30 kgs ago and know I would not attempt this today)).

For those happy people with a BMI of 20 I am sure they are very happy with those planes. I never said they were unsafe either. Nor are homebuilts. And yes, there are a bunch of certified airplanes I could not fly single pilot and full tanks either (e.g. a Monroy Ovation which can only be flown by an infant with full tanks or most Jetprops)

As for individual countries, clearly information is the key. Private flying no matter in which country or with what equipment usually has the advantage of flexibility. If you have to apply for permission first, be it because your airplane is not covered in the rules which say who needs one and who doesn’t, be it that airports are being difficult and want PPR for any plane, be it that by definition of EASA it’s not even an airplane you are flying but some sort of air sport device, it all adds hassle.

You are right in saying that in the end it is what YOU want to fly and are happy with which matters.

All I am saying is that the current situation between certified and non-certified or permit aircraft has something out of a Kafka oevre: All those contraptions for the lack of a better word to describe them all are deemed airworthy and capable of safely carrying crew and pax, but the rules are such that it has become next to impossible to extend the range of certified airplanes, which in the end do the exactly same thing than an uncertified one in many ways. So we are faced with different possibilities:

  • Either ditch certification altogether and have ALL GA planes for private use fly on permit.
    Pro: It would slice a sizable chunk of cost off these. It would allow much more innovation than what you have today. It would allow new engines and avoinics to be developed with a minimum of demonstrating safe operation.
    Con: It would mean it would also necessitate that at least in the closer environment all countries would have to agree to informally admit any airplane which has gained a registration within an ICAO state. That is not the case today. Under this, none of the airplanes in GA would be covered Europe wide by EASA which means each country could gold plate rules and regs as to what they can do (as is today with non-certified and so on). So we would need a change of rules quite massively to accomodate that. Under N-Reg, there would be no commercial ops for these airplanes (as for experimentals nowadays) so that is something to be considered.
  • Or, we get certification changed to something which allows much broader scope of design, which proves nothing more or less then that an aircraft is safe to operate and which includes EVERY form of airplane from a drone to a AN224 under different subsections with different requirements. For small aviation, this certification should prove nothng more than the airplane works and is reasonably safe to fly, the same goes for avionics and engines. The goal clearly would be to do away totally with todays difference in price for certified vs non certified, which is nothing but a money making machine for someone. If a Dynon PFD is safe to fly in an experimental, it is safe to fly in any airplane, so while it works, it is allowed. Should deficiencies be discovered, they get recalled, like any tin operner in the supermarket. Other than that, if it works and has proven to a reasonable extent that it will continue doing so, it’s certified to use.
    Pro: It would allow for any design to get a ICAO wide accepted certification (no more EASA and FAA separate for instance) to allow these airplanes without restrictions but within a common rulework to operate and be sold worldwide. It would make the 51% rule redundant and integrate all flying man made things.
    Con: It will be VERY hard if not impossible to convince regulators to do this, even though in reality they have done it already by allowing non-certified airplanes in their airspace.
Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 21 Jun 08:22
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

I’m late to this thread but read most of the posts. Mooney_Driver made several good posts and I fully agree with what he’s said.

I think current certified GA aircraft are running on outdated technology (especially engines) and are much too expensive in relation to their material value, which is for most SEPs similar to an above-average factory new car. The fact that many uncertified aircraft are technologically more advanced points to a flawed certification system.

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top