Thanks David for a very clear exposition of the current position in the development of the ELA category up to 1 metric tonne.
An appropriate cut off point, however any such figure throws up anomalies in that most Cessna 172's would fall into the ELA weight band but the latest version does not, by a fraction. Cessna, of course, are a US design and manufacturing company governed by the FAR's not any EASA classification but I wonder if designing to a limiting MTOM for an ELA might give problems in later years. This since product improvement rarely results in weight reduction and thus it would give a reduction in useful load.
I can understand the frustration of your Czech colleague at the failure to accept the US LSA criteria since much of the current export market from Europe is directed at aircraft meeting the LSA category in the USA. Excellent aircraft they are but the manufacturers will lose market share in the EU if we get the ELA category.
I would imagine many flying clubs and schools are a trifle cautious about buying LSA compliant aircraft for use in Europe. Some of them seem rather fragile to suffer the slings and arrows of training.
I would like to echo David's suggestion that folk should make every effort to attend the EASA conference at Turweston on 4th September. I went to the last one on 11th August organised by the RAeC of the UK and found it of huge benefit in my appreciation of what is proposed for Part M and the disturbing financial implications for owners and operators along with existing M3 approved maintenance organisations. Have no doubt, costs will go up.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
