Originally Posted by
ChickenHouse
I think that whole construction with ultralight, microlight, LSA, sports equipment is among the worst bull**** ever happened to aviation and its progress.
You claim (I have always assumed spuriously mind you) to be in Wales, where ultralights don't exist, and microlights are clearly regulated through a combination of BMAA, LAA and behind them the CAA.
All these machines fly and the sub-weight categories were only born to bypass the stupidity of certification and regulation authorities,
Not in Britain, Germany, most of Eastern Europe, Canada... Or even Wales!
And in the USA, LSA has a clear regulatory category also.
so isn't it time to get rid of all that fight? There is no use in discussing 600kg or 750kg or 813.254kg - there is no physical reason for that distinction.
Yes there is. Firstly the ultralight / microlight / SSDR definitions have been determined by quite clever people who put a great deal of consideration into the potential to create third party damage, and to suffer structural failure with standard materials.
Oh yes, and 750kg is the European VLA category, capable of receiving a CofA, and also acceptable in the USA.
Many of us warned that the authorities would regulate private aviation to extinction. They also warned, after the sports utility workaround was in place, that technological advances will come from the ultralight/microlight and experimental sector quite soon. It did.
"Us" ?
Why can't we go simple? There is an aircraft and it has different MTOW/MTOM. One set of regulations will increase the burden on the current ultralight/microlight/LSA community, but lighten it on the more classic GA side.
That's exactly what we do have, and if you were either an aeronautical engineer or a pilot of any experience, you'd know that. You'd also know that stall speed and number of seats are also fundamental to these distinctions. You might also be aware that the stall speed / mass / seats combination both defines the regulatory burden - and the number of people you've a fighting chance of killing at a time. That combination is neither stupid, nor a coincidence.
G