600kg rule for microlight?
 

I hear that there is going to be a vote in EASA regarding a 600kg limit in microlights. This would be a fantastic step forwards although 750kg would be even better. Does anyone know when this is likely to happen? If it goes through would there be years of waiting or would it just happen immediately?

The Germans are strongly clamouring for this, though they content themselves with 600 kg. As I understand, the French authorities are negative. (edited to add: the German position seems to get a good deal of support, from several Scandinavian countries and from Eastern Europe). That is a bit understandable, as the French regulations are much less strict than in Germany. Also, there is a difference in mentality: Germans want to see rules and documents for everything, the French believe in self-regulation and personal responsability.

Flying an ultralight myself, I am not asking for an increase; and I much fear that IF some liberty is granted here, some will be taken elsewhere and I much fear that.

Ultralight flying should remain what it originally was: simple, free of rules, free of complexity, under the radar. And those who want more weight can always go for the LSA, can't they? Yes, that adds complexity and rules, yes. No free lunch, remember?

I think it was already said: nowadays almost all ultralight flights are done overweight with two people for all but small local bimbles of a half an hour. It would only be a practice put in regulations.

Yes, and then people would start loading them _yet_ heavier. If the 450 kg limit is not respected today* why would any other limit be respected tomorrow? It is a general characteristic of (a certain type of) humans, when given a finger, to take an arm.

That's a vicious circle, with no foreseeable end. Increasing the legal limit solves nothing.

*It isn't indeed, by many. Myself take care: I mostly fly alone, and when I take a passenger it will indeed be for a local bimble.

If you ask me it should be based around wing loading. Forget the weight limit, if the wing loading is below X amount it qualifies.

After all that's where the microlite originally came from. If you want higher performance go to a LSA or better.

When does it stop being a microlight......

As I understand it, the spirit behind the original ultralight concept was "you may create danger for yourself and your passenger as much as you want, as long as the danger to yourself is greater than that to people on the ground". The weight limit is there to minimise damage on the ground in case of a crash. Only they didn't think of limiting the speed, too... The current ultralights are way more performant than anything the then regulators ever thought of!

Frankly, what wing loading has to do with it eludes me; except if such a rule would automatically bring thick slow wings.

@bose-x: that is a good point. Especially in Germany, many ultralights are better equipped and more performant than most C152's. It is not rare to see them carry a full glass panel, two moving maps, and an autopilot. Small wonder those chaps are now clamouring for a weight increase, they have very able travelling machines and only the weight limit keeps them from travelling even more and further. But IMHO they are going well beyond the original ultralight concept. Again, I am not against it, but do not wish to give up any of the present liberties.

Perhaps the proposed changes - which I support - are driven by EASA's recognition that many in aviation, reflecting the general population, have taken on the appearance of Michelin Men !

Sorry, Cpt., but again: if an ultralight doesn't fit your mission, for whatever reason, then you need to look elsewhere. As simple as that!

BTW nobody obliges us to copy the US'an unhealthy food and drink habits, but that point is perhaps out of scope.

If you want the cost benefits of operating Annex 2 Permit aircraft as opposed to certified, then because people are becoming bigger and heavier, an increase in MAUW is to be applauded. It certainly will be by the manufacturers.

Bose-X,

My thoughts are that it already has!

And I run a microlight airfield and flying school.

My thought is that what has all but disappeared from the old GA world is the recreational flyer - in my part of the world almost the only people who learn to fly on Cessnas and Pipers are people thinking of, or working towards, a CPL.

So the microlighters have taken over the old "flying club" sector.

And now they want to stretch their wings!

(unfortunately, by relabelling the wheel, we'll need to come up with a new form of "microlighting"!)

One reason why the Scandiwegians wish to see an increase in the microlight MTOM is to enable them to carry winter survival equipment and wear suitable winter clothing when necessary.

Clothing and equipment which might suit some Frenchman flying in the South of France in Summer won't really suit someone flying in the Nordic Winter.

You hear wrongly.

The dividing line between European regulation ("EASA rules") and national regulation is set in the Basic Regulation (BR), specifically in Annex II. The entire BR is being recast, in a process that started in 2014, and will probably last until late 2017. The European Commission set out a proposal in late 2015, which made no changes to the current division. Through 2016, the draft was discussed in the Council of the EU (member states) and in the European Parliament. Each of those two institutions has come to a position on where the dividing line should be. Next year, the Commission, the Council and Parliament will try to reach a compromise in a process known as a Trilogue. EASA is not formally involved.

Whatever happens, the key is in bose-x's question "When does it stop being a microlight......?". Aircraft below 600 kg in the EASA system are called Light Sports Aircraft (LSA). If the weight division were to be raised to 600 kg (or even something lower) it is likely that national regulations for aircraft heavier than current microlights would need to be revised to use the technical requirements for LSA. The way that states choose to implement that is up to them.

Thanks, @Bookworm, there's some news for me there. I knew the matter was mostly in the hands of politicians, but if it is totally up to them then there will be no free lunch: if some rule is relaxed, then another one will be tightened. Politicians like compromises. Myself much prefer a status quo, the present situation is certainly not perfect but it is quite workable.

As you stated that both the European Parliament and the Council have defined their positions, can you describe them briefly, or suggest where to find them?

I think the first part of your post demonstrates exactly why limiting wing loading would be a good way to define a microlite.

As you say the weight limit was there to minmise damage in the event of a crash. In other words limit the amount of energy involved. The more modern ultralites/microlites (choose either depending on local definitions) have a lot more energy due to their speed.

By limiting wing loading you limit energy. It's difficult to have low wing loading and high speed.

I rather suspect the weight limit was a crude way of limiting wing loading, so why not actually use wing loading instead of weight.

Perhaps there should be an upper limit on stall speed and a max level flight speed. Say less than 25 KIAS stall and 75 KIAS max level flight.

600kg rule for microlight? No. What is being negotiated is a 600kg limit to be included in the new Annex I, which is a totally different matter. The microlight definition, as pointed out above, is then a decision for each national authority. I would expect any increase in weight beyond the present microlight limit of 495kg to require changes to licencing.

I think that whole construction with ultralight, microlight, LSA, sports equipment is among the worst bull**** ever happened to aviation and its progress.

All these machines fly and the sub-weight categories were only born to bypass the stupidity of certification and regulation authorities, 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.

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.

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.

And one standard licence?

"one standard licence ?"




Now you're talking !

One standard license and not under the authority of some nationals, but under the regulations of a worldwide agency independent of national states plus the one-sky approach for aircraft as well ...

Ok, ok, please welcome Gene Roddenberry ;-).

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.

Not in Britain, Germany, most of Eastern Europe, Canada... Or even Wales!

And in the USA, LSA has a clear regulatory category also.

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.

"Us" ?

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

Is it going to happen? Rightly or wrongly a 600kg limit makes sense for me.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

There _is_ a limit common to the major European markets: it is at 450 kg, or 472,5 kg if suitably equipped (ballistic chute).

Correct.

Council General approach (p 202)

EP Amendments (see no 341) relative to the original Commission proposal.

Thanks bookworm. It looks as if the EAS proposal has a good chance of being approved.

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?

We are up against the largest microlight federation in Europe.

http://www.ffplum.info/

Thought this was post Brexit. Still being cowed by the French and no guts to oppose them. Makes yer prahd ter be British,dunnit.

"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?

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.see page 43

Page 43 of what doc please?

Oops! Click on "agreement".

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?

Subject to agreement by other parties.