Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

UL/LSA Annex II Advice

LeSving wrote:

UL or microlight is an EASA construct. MTOW 450 kg (or 600 as it will be), VFR day only, no acro, 2 person max. They are the same all over EASA land. The operational aspects may differ slightly though, licenses and so on, but not enough to matter in any practical sense. The owner is responsible for all maintenance and can do it all him/her-self.

Thank you LeSving. It is an EASA construct but regulated nationally or harmonised in all EASA countries?
Can you fly a UL in all EASA countries?

always learning
LO__, Austria

UL privileges.

It is a matrix similar to (but different from) what applies to homebuilts, for which we have several threads example.

It is worth noting that Europe doesn’t have an “experimental” regime like the US has. You have homebuilts, which some call “experimentals”.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Thank you all for your replies!
So there are the following, all non certified (?):
Ultralight/Microlight
Homebuilt/Experimental

And certified:
LSA

Some countries allow IFR, others do not?

What are the maintenance requirements against the authority?

always learning
LO__, Austria

Ultralight / Microlight usually are certified (depending on the country). Even Experimentals have to pass some tests.

LSA are certified but can use components that are not certified in itself (the combination of component and airframe is then certified as a whole).

Maintenance requirements differ with experimentals and ULM from nation to nation.

It is an EASA construct but regulated nationally or harmonised in all EASA countries?

Basically not harmonised. MTOM will differ from country to country, necessary license, medical requirements, certification standards… In the end , these nationalsitic regimes don’t make any sense at all. But it is there and it will continue to divide aviation, as people like lesving will not be tired to prove.

Anyway, physics is the same and there are nice aircraft out there and shitty ones. No matter what you paint on the fuselage. As I said before, from a regulatory point of view, take a closer look to TMG for cheap and fun flight.

https://www.segelflug.de/osclass/index.php?page=item&id=30032
https://www.segelflug.de/osclass/index.php?page=item&id=29483

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Peter wrote:

It is worth noting that Europe doesn’t have an “experimental” regime like the US has. You have homebuilts, which some call “experimentals”.

You need to (re)define “Europe” then and homebuilt and experimental also for that matter. Most countries do in fact have an experimental regime, and it’s also defined by EASA in Annex I chapter 1b in the basic regulations. Chapter 1c is the typical built from kit, but not necessarily built from kit. The term “homebuilt” does not exist anywhere though, not in national regulation, and not by EASA. What 1c say is:

aircraft, including those supplied in kit form, where at least 51 % of the fabrication and assembly tasks are
performed by an amateur, or a non-profit making association of amateurs, for their own purposes and without
any commercial objective;

If the aircraft according to 1c is experimental or not, is besides the point. It can be both – if- by experimental you mean a new design, or a large modification of a kit for instance.

The thing is, that in most countries, aircraft that are not microlights are put in the experimental category. It is a category on it’s own, and it’s called experimental. It does not need to be according to 1c in the basic regulations, it can also be old military aircraft, or any other aircraft that is not an EASA aircraft. They receive an CofA as experimental. What that mean is a special maintenance regime, and also typically it cannot be used commercially. Other aircraft can be non-EASA, but still be used commercially. They are in the “normal” category, only not EASA.

It’s only the UK that has this LAA “permit regime”, and it’s a very odd thing. They aren’t put in any category, they receive no CofA. They fly only on a time limited “permit to fly”.

Snoopy wrote:

What are the maintenance requirements against the authority?

Microlights do not have any authority in the correct sense. This point is different from country to country though. The most usual form is they are organized under some air sport organisation, and the national AA only look at the organisation to see that they use common sense in a way. No direct control of any kind.

Experimentals (amateur built, homebuilt or whatever you call it) is normally under the authority of the national CAA. They are are in principle maintained just like any other certified aircraft, but it is relaxed who can do it. It means the CAA approves the person maintaining them, and no other approval is needed. This is also different in the UK.

This is all very country dependent. The best you can do is to contact your local CAA, and the local organisations for correct information where you live.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Can a non homebuilt become an “experimental” in Europe and, if so, what is the process?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Would you call HB-SIA and HB-SIB a “homebuilt”?

And how about the KA8b with CoA, built by some Aeroclub in Germany?

The KA1 with CofA and serialnumber “1-Müller”?

A friend once owned a Wassmer built D120 as OO-Experimental and I know a DR250, built by CAE with a F-P reg.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Peter wrote:

Can a non homebuilt become an “experimental” in Europe and, if so, what is the process?

It can at least be done by an organisation with a Part 21 DOA or its national counterpart (for aircraft types remaining under national jurisdiction).
I think @Genghis_the_Engineer may be able to explain the European experimental regime in detail.

Last Edited by Ultranomad at 13 Nov 20:01
LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

Peter wrote:

Can a non homebuilt become an “experimental” in Europe and, if so, what is the process?

Yes indeed. The process is just to ask the CAA. However, as always, it depends on the country. It cannot be done with an aircraft that otherwise can be registered as an EASA aircraft. It can also not be done with an aircraft that already is airworthy, for instance an old, but perfect condition Cub. The latter is more a matter of practicalities though. Old military aircraft is the typical target, because they cannot be registered as anything else.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

EASA (certified) aircraft have a “Type Certificate holder”.
If that holder disappears, they become “Orphan” and Annex1. (Formerly Annex2)
If some entity takes on the “Type Certificate”, they can object to the aircraft moving to Annex1.
Aircraft which have become Annex1 for some obscure historical reason cannot move back.
Bolkow Juniors are EASA aircraft, with Airbus Industrie holding the Type Certificate.
Some however are Annex1, which is very desirable in the UK. I’m part-owner of one.
I’m also part-owner of a Jodel DR1050, which was Certified until 2007?, but is now Annex1, as an Orphan.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top