It’s going to decline regardless, but what really needed is the Sky cycling team 1% improment gain applied to the hundreds of things that we moan about on this forum.
He’s my latest
My local ATO would like to fit surefly magnetos to their aircraft. Same price as a new mag, no maintance required over its 2400 hour TBO. Starts much easier which increases the life of a 1500 quid starter motor.
Now here’s the big saving, a O-360 will burn two litres an hour less when fitted with a surefly magneto.
So when your ATO purchases 88K liters of avgas a year. Then its 7.5 grand a year saving in fuel alone.
The problem, well the Surefly doesn’t have approval. But factory new Lycomings now come with a Surefly magneto. So they are good to go.
Well they would be if lycoming hadn’t rebadged the Surefly mag as a lycoming. So the regulator regards them as completely different and thus can’t be fitted.
Bathman wrote:
Well they would be if lycoming hadn’t rebadged the Surefly mag as a lycoming. So the regulator regards them as completely different and thus can’t be fitted.
Why can’t the ATO fit Lycoming branded Surefly magnetos then? They don’t appear to be that much more expensive.
LeSving wrote:
There’s only one single reason ULs are tolerated for instance: The authorities can clear their backs completely and be fully content just pointing a finger every now and then. From a pragmatic point of view this works just fine of course, for all parties. LeSving wrote:
The primary reason ULs managed to establish themselves was that the original ULs have nothing to do with what is handled today under that lable. They were basically delta gliders with engines and similar contraptions. Today, most ULs are airplanes like others too, only that they stick the label on to avoid the dread of regulation. And regulators are sitting there some place and wonder how it happened that they missed the bus on the whole thing and I guess you are right to say that they simply wash their hands of it.
LeSving wrote:
All in all it’s hard to not see this as an incredible display of incompetence, down right stupidity and cowardness by the authorities cross the board. GA exists today, not because of the authorities, but in spite of the authorities.
True. I would even go further and say there is open hostility from some of those authorities. And again, you may have a very valid point saying that ULs have so far escaped that because there is a “hope” in these authorities that all GA is going to be reduced to ULs. Which to them will mean, they are out of their hair almost totally: No access to large airports, flying done from small farm strips, limited to slender people, e.t.c.
But, what in gods name is so difficult (impossible) by creating an equally viable scheme for all of GA, and create it with a stamp from the authorities?
That would be the solution indeed.
ULs in todays form are airplanes just like anything which is covered under ELA 1 or 2. The only reason they thrive is that they operate pretty much without regulation and in a self-controlled environment without medicals, without annuals, without CAMO’s e.t.c, pretty much like cars.
And I second your question. If ULs can be operated like this, there is NO reason airplanes below a certain size, weight and capacity can’t, including the ELA1 and 2 groups. The risks, issues, operational environment for an UL and a PA28 are pretty much identical in a non-commercial environment. There is no reason airplanes that size need to undergo 10 years of certification attempts, bankrupting almost all those who tried. There is no reason that, in the US, people have to resort to experimentals and in Europe to ULs because certification has become an almost unreachable goal.
To me, the very logical step would be that ALL light GA under 2 tons and up to say 6 seats in a non commercial environment should be put in one category with rules close to today’s UL regulation/requirements such as license/rating for life, no or easy medical (able to be issued by your GP like for cars where needed) and self-responsible maintenance as well as the same certification criteria which allow ULs to fly under.
But obviously that is not what the powers that are have in their minds.
The problem is that’s not the thinking, even within ga and different countries.
UL has regulations but it allows for self declaration regarding health and maintenance in France. Bringing in 600kg MTOW would have meant increasing regulation and possibly being governed by EASA which is fed by the NAAs of all members. So here we came to an agreement with the DGAC that we would stay nationally governed. Whilst allowing the increase in MTOW to 525kg and keeping our self declaration there were and are trade offs. One being that the theory exam, whilst still being quite basic now had to be done on a computer under the supervision of an invigilator. Up to then your instructor just slapped a sheet of questions in front of you and you answered them. If you got too many wrong, no problem you could answer another sheet of questions at the next lesson. In between the flying the briefs and de – briefs 1 the instructor would give you a bit of ground schooling to explain your errors. The instructor wrote the questions. We also had to give up any push for night VFR and/or IFR in ULs.
We did however sign up to EASA in terms that hours in a 3 axis UL could count towards your hours of experience needed to revalidate your SEP A every 2 years.
The downside of this was that we now had to keep log books so part of our self declaration in terms of currency was felt to be eroded. Or in fact more to the point it was felt at risk, slippery slope and all that.
Other countries have rushed to ULs with a.MTOW of 600kg but other than the need for class 2 medicals in Spain and no autopilots in Germany I do not know how France differs from the countries who have signed up to or declined to sign up to 600kg.
So for ga in general I don’t see regulators, de -regulating in the way you suggest when UL pilots are having to make big compromises to increase MTOW.
And of course it’s not just MTOW. You’ve also got to keep Vs and wing loading into account. These are 2 areas where a 600kg MTOW UL and a 600kg MTOW LSA have different limits.
You would also have to change ICAO. Aircrafts allow you to go anywhere in the world, which ULs don’t.
I think of this more as a technical problem, because our tools and processes for designing for and obtaining certification make the whole thing very inefficient and costly. Stuff like making sure your design and manufacturing checks some boxes should be largely automated.
Aerodynamic properties of the airframe ? GPS has a correct data source for RAIM ? Design of the AP has sufficient safeguards in case of various malfunction modes ? All are based on formal criteria and can be checked by programs. Humans would only intervene in the few cases where it can’t be easily automated (e.g. checking if an interface design is intuitive enough, which shouldn’t take a long time).
gallois wrote:
So for ga in general I don’t see regulators, de -regulating in the way you suggest when UL pilots are having to make big compromises to increase MTOW.
I don’t see it either, but it would be the logical thing. Unfortunately, logic and politics are quite rarely something which goes together.
gallois wrote:
Bringing in 600kg MTOW would have meant increasing regulation and possibly being governed by EASA which is fed by the NAAs of all members.
The question would be, if that is a bad thing. Let’s say, EASA introduces a “Part UL” regulation based on the current privileges but then is valid for ALL EASA member states. This would resolve a number of issues: common criteria for weight and whatever construction rules there are, you can fly ULs in all over the member states with a common pilots license under FCL and most of all free overflight and landing privileges in all of EASA.
Pretty much what EASA did for the rest of aviation, that once you have a part FCL licence you can fly any EASA registered airplane in all EASA States.
maxbc wrote:
You would also have to change ICAO. Aircrafts allow you to go anywhere in the world, which ULs don’t.
I am not sure if UL’s are within the scope of ICAO at all, but in reality, ULs ARE airplanes and consequently, ICAO’s provision for overflight should also apply to them. Obviously the national CAA’s see that differently.
Well, the whole point of ICAO is to have a minimum set of standards that are applied by every country, in exchange for every country accepting those standards when they have been verified by other countries (i.e. certification). So it doesn’t work (like, at all) with ULs which are uncertified. They fall way short in both licence requirements and aircraft airworthiness.
You would need to create specific categories for ULs in ICAO (with vastly reduced requirements).
maxbc wrote:
So it doesn’t work (like, at all) with ULs which are uncertified. They fall way short in both licence requirements and aircraft airworthiness.
There are several UL standards. The purpose of all of them are airworthiness. SERA works everywhere in Europe by default, no matter what you fly. This is no issue unless someone makes it an issue (which some do).
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The question would be, if that is a bad thing. Let’s say, EASA introduces a “Part UL” regulation based on the current privileges but then is valid for ALL EASA member states. This would resolve a number of issues: common criteria for weight and whatever construction rules there are, you can fly ULs in all over the member states with a common pilots license under FCL and most of all free overflight and landing privileges in all of EASA.
It’s just more of what we do not need. EASA must first enable a PPL/SEP regime that actually is viable and free of certification, for recreational flying. I don’t see that happening in my lifetime 
If ULs came under EASA there would.be no ULM in France. EASA would require all the things that people choose to avoid by flying ULs.
Medicals
Annuals
C of A renewals
Training hours to get licence
Stricter theory exams
Pilot currency
Pilot revalidations
Part 66 ot Part 145 maintenance
Heavy aircraft
Time limited parts
TBOs
Mountain ratings
Float plane ratings
Expensive airfields
Avionics that are both expensive and require STCs
There are probably more.
What would we get in return.
The ability to fly anywhere in Europe or perhaps the world without applying for permits beforehand. Normally a couple of emails.
No thanks
It would be a dead loss to France for other reasons too.
