Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

600kg rule for microlight?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

600kg rule for microlight?

Old 4th Dec 2016, 20:19
  #21 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,194
Received 46 Likes on 24 Posts
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

Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 4th Dec 2016 at 20:31.
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 09:36
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dublin
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it going to happen? Rightly or wrongly a 600kg limit makes sense for me.
MarcusH is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 17:09
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There has been pressure from some to increase the microlight weight limit even since I started flying in 1990. Remember then it was only 395kg!

Whilst it makes no sense to me that the weight limit of some aircraft in the UK can be increased considerably by minor mods such as addition of an electric fuel pump, the pilot training requirements are still less onerous for microlights than for Group A. It is still possible to obtain a microlight licence (albeit with operational limitations} with as little as 15 hours instruction, and have these limitations removed with as little as 25 hours under instruction. Furthermore the training is usually cheaper per hour and on more modern aircraft and engines than at a typical Group A training school.

So, be careful what you wish for. Increasing the microlight weight further may well make microlight licences (and the first foot on the ladder) more expensive to obtain and maintain.

If you want to fly heavier (and often more complex) types you can upgrade to NPPL (SSEA) or LAPL or even a PPL.

PS I have no axe to grind. I have not instructed in microlights for over 20 years and currently fly LAA types on a LAPL.
Forfoxake is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 17:12
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 77
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the concern is damage to third parties due to impact energy then would it not make sense for there to be a potential energy limit based on E=1/2MVV. This would mean higher weight lower max speed so a 750kg machine has a reduced VNE and stall based on above formula. So E goes up as a square of the speed but linear with weight. Simple if you want fast reduce weight want to go heavy go slow. May be a variable VNE/stall based on all up weight of the day. Would it be a viable idea and overcome the argument? So 600/750 x VNE/stall of 600kg machine would be max VNE/stall of 750kg machine. So if VNE is 100 for 600kg the 750kg would be 86.6 Think the maths is correct.

Last edited by horizon flyer; 8th Jan 2017 at 17:31.
horizon flyer is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 18:10
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,777
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
The maths may be correct, and if they aren't they can be corrected. But AFAICS you missed the point: those who are whining for 600 kg now will never stop whining, and will never want to give anything up. Not Vne (which in most countries is not regulated, today, for microlights) and not the liberties of self-maintenance and indeed nothing at all. They will go on whining and whining like little boys who are never content with the toys they were given. There is no use in seeking a compromise with them. Well, with some of them, that is. German microlighters in especial. They have already bended the rules to the very last inch, installing autopilots and glass panels and multiple GPS, which were far from the ideas of the original microlight concept.

They made these little machines into perfect travellers (low-cost, fast, reliable, well equipped) and now they realise they are at the limits so they clamour for a weight increase, so they can take them even further. That's all there is to it. If they are granted 600 kgs they will immediately start to clamour for 750 kg and ad infinitum.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 21:37
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why do people keep banging on about a 600kg limit for microlights? The proposal is for a 600kg limit in the new Annex I. It is then a matter for individual NAAs to decide whether they approve an increase in the microlight limit. Airworthiness and licencing implications will ensure that decisions are not taken lightly.

http://www.europe-air-sports.org/fil...cember_2016.pd

The Commission is proposing no change, except "540 kg for a land plane, two-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system and equipped with electric propulsion system;"

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52015PC0613

I read somewhere that the Council is in favour of a MTOM of 500kg + 25kg for a parachute and Vso 35ts
patowalker is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 22:12
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 100
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"Whining" aside a move towards any limit that is common to the major markets would benefit us in the UK by potentially making available many more types to the NPPL (M) pilots.
Licencing would be easy to address with minimum experience requirements and rating training to cover the heavier class.
Hadley Rille is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 06:56
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With the FFPLUM against an increase in microlight MTOW, there is no chance of a higher common limit. Their position is understandable, as they have the most to lose by any change.
patowalker is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 14:46
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,777
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
a move towards any limit that is common to the major markets would benefit us in the UK
There _is_ a limit common to the major European markets: it is at 450 kg, or 472,5 kg if suitably equipped (ballistic chute).
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 15:09
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I read somewhere that the Council is in favour of a MTOM of 500kg + 25kg for a parachute and Vso 35ts
Correct.

Council General approach (p 202)

EP Amendments (see no 341) relative to the original Commission proposal.
bookworm is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 17:22
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks bookworm. It looks as if the EAS proposal has a good chance of being approved.
patowalker is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 19:44
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 100
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers
There _is_ a limit common to the major European markets: it is at 450 kg, or 472,5 kg if suitably equipped (ballistic chute).
This discussion is about an increase in the weight limit e.g. 600kg which is the LSA class in the US, similar in Australia and being lobbied for elsewhere in Europe. What's the relevance of the common 450kg limit when looking to enable more types to a higher UK microlight class?
Hadley Rille is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2017, 08:28
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We are up against the largest microlight federation in Europe.

http://www.ffplum.info/

Today in a complex European environment, we continue to defend our vision of the 450kg microlight and our regulations, unique in Europe and so well adapted to our needs.

We continue to believe that we would have nothing to gain, other than new constraints, in accepting the MTOM increase demanded by our European neighbours.

We continue to believe that the evolution of microlight aircraft we witness every day can continue under the rules that contributed to our success.

We continue to believe that it is perfectly possible to manufacture machines that are perfectly adapted to and compliant with our regulations.

We embrace these choices, which the DGAC supports and will defend with us.
patowalker is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2017, 14:21
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: southern England
Age: 66
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thought this was post Brexit. Still being cowed by the French and no guts to oppose them. Makes yer prahd ter be British,dunnit.
m.Berger is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2017, 18:19
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"We are up against the largest microlight federation...."

So, the fact that they are so much larger than us implies they maybe are more successful and so maybe know what they are doing?

As for more choice for UK NPPLs: who designs and makes three-axis microlights in the UK? They are all imported already anyway!

As for weightshifts, you can buy the fastest and round-the-world flown ones from a UK manufacturer! So why would you want a foreign one?
xrayalpha is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2017, 21:17
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An agreement ad referendum has been reached between the EU Council and the EU Parliament, which includes an opt-out for aircraft under 600kg MTOM. This will leave any increase in the MTOM of microlights to the discretion of NAAs.
7a. A Member State may decide to exempt from the provisions of this Regulation the design, production, maintenance and operation activities in respect of one or more of the following categories of aircraft:
(i) aeroplanes, other than unmanned aeroplanes, which have no more than two seats, measurable stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not exceeding 45 knots calibrated air speed and a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), as recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600kg for aeroplanes not intended to be operated on water or 650kg for aeroplanes intended to be operated on water; ...
see page 43

Last edited by patowalker; 24th Dec 2017 at 07:57.
patowalker is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2017, 07:29
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Suceava, Romania
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Page 43 of what doc please?
byteworks is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2017, 07:58
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oops! Click on "agreement".
patowalker is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2017, 08:36
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,777
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Thanks for the info, @PW. Rumours to this effect were already doing the rounds.

I much regret this decision because some countries are highly likely to do increase MTOW for ultralights to 600 kg, Germany first of all, while others will staunchly refuse to. France comes to mind and, in their wake, Belgium too. The next step will then be that France no longer silently allows foreign ultralights.

No problem for Belgium, though: my silly authorities require an "overflight permit" for foreign registered ultralights anyway.

PS what does the ad referendum mean, in this context?
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2017, 08:39
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: South Beds
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Subject to agreement by other parties.
WilliumMate is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.