Any news about the new 600kg Microlight/ultralight in Europe?

[Emir Sherbi]

Hi,


Is there any news about the new 600kg mtow limit rules in european countries?

Any draft or publication?


regards

[Chris Wedgwood[_2_]]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:31:01 AM UTC, Emir Sherbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Is there any news about the new 600kg mtow limit rules in european countries?
>
> Any draft or publication?
>
>
> regards

Google it?

https://flightdesign.com/easa-new-basic-regulation-600-kg-ul-aircraft/

[Dave Walsh]

At 07:38 07 November 2018, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:31:01 AM UTC, Emir
Sherbi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Is there any news about the new 600kg mtow limit rules in
european
>countries?
>>
>> Any draft or publication?
>>
>>
>> regards
>
My understanding is this is happening BUT member states of
the European Union do not have to adopt it so you might have
600kg ultra-lights in Germany but not in France?
Of course I may be totally wrong but this seems to be the local
gossip in SW France.

[Emir Sherbi]

Sorry,i didn't express myself correctly.
I was hoping that someone from Germany or Czech republic for example tell me "this is what we are going to do in our country".
It's complicated to google this new stuff in google in another language.

Regards

[[email protected]]

The regulation is now in force:

REGULATION (EU) 2018/1139 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
[...]
Article 2 Scope
[...]
8. A Member State may decide to exempt from this Regulation the design, production, maintenance and operation activities in respect of one or more of the following categories of aircraft:
(a) 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 600 kg for aeroplanes not intended to be operated on water or 650 kg for aeroplanes intended to be operated on water;
(b) helicopters, other than unmanned helicopters, which have no more than two seats and a MTOM, as recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600 kg for helicopters not intended to be operated on water or 650 kg for helicopters intended to be operated on water;
(c) sailplanes, other than unmanned sailplanes, and powered sailplanes, other than unmanned powered sailplanes, which have no more than two seats and a MTOM, as recorded by the Member State, of no more than 600 kg.


This means indeed that there no longer will be a single definition for microlights in Europe. As microlights approved in one country need a separate authorization to fly in every foreign country, this can mean trouble if your microlight doesn't conform to the foreign nation limits.

Germany has notified the European Union that it will apply these exemption rules to their full extent.

The French aeronautical authority has agreed with the microlight community to implement an exemption for airplanes and helicopters with MTOM 500 kg, 525 kg with global parachute rescue system, 545 kg with floats + parachute, AND minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots. For 2-axis microlights (deltas with engine), the limits will remain 300 kg MTOM for a single seater and 450 kg for a two-seater. No exemption announced for sailplanes.

This could mean that a future German 600 kg microlight would be banned from flying in France...

If sanity prevails and the French authorities decide that the French limits don't apply to a German registered microlight, this could mean that French pilots wanting a 600 kg microlight will have to register it in Germany.

[Dave Walsh]

At 15:45 08 November 2018,
wrote:
>The regulation is now in force:=20
>
>REGULATION (EU) 2018/1139 OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of
>=
>4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation
and
>establishing=
> a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
>[...]
>Article 2 Scope
>[...]
>8. A Member State may decide to exempt from this
Regulation the design,
>pro=
>duction, maintenance and operation activities in respect of
one or more of
>=
>the following categories of aircraft:
>(a) aeroplanes, other than unmanned aeroplanes, which
have no more than
>two=
> seats, measurable stall speed or minimum steady flight
speed in landing
>co=
>nfiguration not exceeding 45 knots calibrated air speed and
a maximum
>take-=
>off mass (MTOM), as recorded by the Member State, of no
more than 600 kg
>fo=
>r aeroplanes not intended to be operated on water or 650
kg for aeroplanes
>=
>intended to be operated on water;
>(b) helicopters, other than unmanned helicopters, which
have no more than
>t=
>wo seats and a MTOM, as recorded by the Member State,
of no more than 600
>k=
>g for helicopters not intended to be operated on water or
650 kg for
>helico=
>pters intended to be operated on water;
>(c) sailplanes, other than unmanned sailplanes, and
powered sailplanes,
>oth=
>er than unmanned powered sailplanes, which have no more
than two seats and
>=
>a MTOM, as recorded by the Member State, of no more
than 600 kg.
>
>
>This means indeed that there no longer will be a single
definition for
>micr=
>olights in Europe. As microlights approved in one country
need a separate
>a=
>uthorization to fly in every foreign country, this can mean
trouble if
>your=
> microlight doesn't conform to the foreign nation limits.=20
>
>Germany has notified the European Union that it will apply
these exemption
>=
>rules to their full extent.
>
>The French aeronautical authority has agreed with the
microlight community
>=
>to implement an exemption for airplanes and helicopters
with MTOM 500 kg,
>5=
>25 kg with global parachute rescue system, 545 kg with
floats + parachute,
>=
>AND minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration
not exceeding 35
>k=
>nots. For 2-axis microlights (deltas with engine), the limits
will remain
>3=
>00 kg MTOM for a single seater and 450 kg for a two-
seater. No exemption
>an=
>nounced for sailplanes.
>
>This could mean that a future German 600 kg microlight
would be banned
>from=
> flying in France...=20
>
>If sanity prevails and the French authorities decide that the
French
>limits=
> don't apply to a German registered microlight, this could
mean that
>French=
> pilots wanting a 600 kg microlight will have to register it in
Germany.=20
>
This is exactly the sort of thing that one expects with
"European Harmonisation". If you think it looks a mess try
re-registering a German glider trailer as a French one. Two
countries with a common border, 40+ years to get systems
harmonised, in reality a bureaucratic mess!

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:20:24 +0000, Dave Walsh wrote:

> This is exactly the sort of thing that one expects with "European
> Harmonisation". If you think it looks a mess try re-registering a German
> glider trailer as a French one. Two countries with a common border, 40+
> years to get systems harmonised, in reality a bureaucratic mess!
>
That sort of nonsense isn't the personal property of the EU, French or
German bureaucracies. Its common to all bureaucracies world wide.

In my experience anyway, it peaks in the Indian and British civil
services, where I'm uncertain which is the worst or who picked up the
most bad habits from the other. In all cases the actual job is not
relevant: what counts is who has the biggest/most important department
and, among anybody above Higher Executive Officer level, playing
dominance games with one's peers.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[krasw]

On Friday, 9 November 2018 01:09:47 UTC+2, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:20:24 +0000, Dave Walsh wrote:
>
> > This is exactly the sort of thing that one expects with "European
> > Harmonisation". If you think it looks a mess try re-registering a German
> > glider trailer as a French one. Two countries with a common border, 40+
> > years to get systems harmonised, in reality a bureaucratic mess!
> >
> That sort of nonsense isn't the personal property of the EU, French or
> German bureaucracies. Its common to all bureaucracies world wide.
>
> In my experience anyway, it peaks in the Indian and British civil
> services, where I'm uncertain which is the worst or who picked up the
> most bad habits from the other. In all cases the actual job is not
> relevant: what counts is who has the biggest/most important department
> and, among anybody above Higher Executive Officer level, playing
> dominance games with one's peers.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Historically (pre-EASA), in gliding world, UK has been land of free like no other for gliding. Or at least that is my impression. Maybe you are heading to that direction again?

[Dave Walsh]

At 07:25 09 November 2018, krasw wrote:
>On Friday, 9 November 2018 01:09:47 UTC+2, Martin
Gregorie wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:20:24 +0000, Dave Walsh
wrote:
>>
>> > This is exactly the sort of thing that one expects with
"European
>> > Harmonisation". If you think it looks a mess try re-
registering a
>German
>> > glider trailer as a French one. Two countries with a
common border, 40+
>> > years to get systems harmonised, in reality a
bureaucratic mess!
>> >
>> That sort of nonsense isn't the personal property of the
EU, French or
>> German bureaucracies. Its common to all bureaucracies
world wide.
>>
>> In my experience anyway, it peaks in the Indian and
British civil
>> services, where I'm uncertain which is the worst or who
picked up the
>> most bad habits from the other. In all cases the actual
job is not
>> relevant: what counts is who has the biggest/most
important department
>> and, among anybody above Higher Executive Officer
level, playing
>> dominance games with one's peers.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin | martin at
>> Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
>Historically (pre-EASA), in gliding world, UK has been land
of free like no
>other for gliding. Or at least that is my impression. Maybe
you are heading
>to that direction again?
>
Very good! Is this an example of European humour? From
where I live it looks like we are heading for some degree of
chaos. Even mundane driving licensing looks problematic let
alone pilot licensing. Just hope I'm wrong again.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 23:25:18 -0800, krasw wrote:

> Historically (pre-EASA), in gliding world, UK has been land of free like
> no other for gliding. Or at least that is my impression. Maybe you are
> heading to that direction again?
>
From what I've read, immediately post-war when the CAA was restarting its
civil operations, they looked at gliding, decided they didn't want
anything to do with it and handed control to the BGA, where it stayed
until the advent of EASA, when we came under the control of the CAA and
the BGA became part of the structure (CAMO). Before EASA, UK gliders
didn't even carry G-registration: exception was the GSA (military gliding
club) that put G-reg on their gliders until at least the early '70s. I
only know this because my glider was originally owned by the GSA and I
was rather pleased to get its original G-reg back.

Historically the CAA and BGA have worked pretty well together and by and
large this is still the case.

We're heading into chaos at present because a number of greedy *******s
are trying to claim considerably more controlled airspace than they need
or can justify for their traffic level and think the resulting choke
points in class G are SEP. Take a bow, TAG (Farnborough), Oxford and
Norwich to name but two. This also happened immediately post-war: they
were kicked back into their kennels then and it looks as if the same may
happen again.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org