I agree @Silvaire if I lived in the USA I would have kept an old twin (loads of choice at low prices) and kept my MEP and instrument rating.
Sadly in Europe that doesn’t add up not only running costs but medical high priced airports because of handling fees. Avgas at the cheaper non handling airports is becoming rarer. But perhaps even worse is the need to get an STC or similar for nearly every change you.want to make.
LeSving wrote:
If we want this “class” of aircraft around also in the future, not just 30-40-50 year old relics, drastic measures must be done with the whole certification regime.
I agree 100%. But talking about it here wont bring much. The change must come from a system that is notoriously inflexible. So we’re kinda screwed. I don’t see how this can be overcome. In the states at least AOPA is representative the whole country so any lobbying they do can be much more effective than here in Europe, each AOPA installment trying something on their own, if at all. Who else is out there lobbying and pushing for this? The established manufacturers don’t want change because it will mess with their profit. Any potential newcomers don’t have money or time for that. Do we have any other organisations? Could they even do something if we did?
Silvaire wrote:
I had previously considered finding a depreciated Tecnam 2002 for something like €55K,
They are sold for €70-80 today, mid 2000 approximately. US LSA is more like CS-LSA than UL. A typical European manufacturer, take Pipistrel, makes 3 different Alphatrainers for instance. One US LSA, one CS-LSA and one UL. They look the same, they smell the same, the same sound, same MTOW. Still, they are different (according to Pipistrel). What exactly is different, I don’t know. I expect nothing at all from a structural point of view, but try to make Pipistrel admit that so you can change the MTOW (ask me how I know 
). Anyway, from an owner perspective, an UL is completely unregulated, an LSA is not. That’s the main difference.
I also have to mention the Savannah. It has a on a copper plate on the aircraft it say ASTM 560 kg or 600 (depending on year). The stamp also say UL2: 450 kg. The manual even say that even though the aircraft can be loaded more than 450 kg, it’s not allowed to fly it that way if your country has a lower limit It made it dead simple to increase MTOW though, with the new 600 kg regulations ICP only operate with ASTM. If it is ASTM, it’s also according to the German UL2 spec (there are two versions, before and after 2019 when 600 kg appeared), which works everywhere. Almost everywhere. It does not work in France or UK, which have quirky limitations, weight mostly.
hazek wrote:
The change must come from a system that is notoriously inflexible
And protected by old, angry men who cannot stomach a change that involves others getting privileges “for free” while they had to work hard for them. But there are loopholes.
The obvious one is experimental homebuilt aircraft. The other one is national registered aircraft. As long as no EASA certificate exists on the type (EASA protection scheme), any aircraft can fly on a national register. This usually means experimental register (for practical reasons), but not necessarily so if the factory exists.
Anyway, from an owner perspective, an UL is completely unregulated, an LSA is not. That’s the main difference.
FAA provides for LSAs to be converted to experimental category E-LSAs for that reason, the only category of factory built aircraft for which this is true without significant operating limitations. It’s a good way to go if an UL-type aircraft is what you want, to e.g. fly without a medical. Given that I had no problems in that regard with 3rd Class or Basic Med, paying less for more performance with a standard category plane was my N-register choice. If I wanted still more performance, but at a higher cost, I’d buy an RV and join the crowd.
MOSAIC is about to shake things up in the US, exactly how will depend on the final form of the regulation. I’m hoping they raise the maximum stall speed so that I don’t have to hassle with BasicMed or any other medical certification in the future. That would remove the only potential issue in flying my factory built certified plane for the ‘rest of time’. Otherwise an RV-9 or similar looks increasingly attractive as a way to get speed and freedom combined.
And protected by old, angry men
Less of the bitterness please.
Nothing is free anyway in this business. The savings mainly come from
Pretending otherwise is just doing a disfavour to newcomers.
Europe has a population of 750 mill, the USA has 330 million. 1180 million.
750 mill? Educate me please.
After checking inflation-adjusted prices from the 60s-70s, it seems that prices new weren’t that far off what we have today (i.e. $200k 2024 dollars for a brand new 2-seater). I might be wrong on numbers (and inflation calculations can be shaky), but it would suggest that the sudden drop in manufacturing has much more to do with demand than supply / certification costs. Maybe it’s just the effect of crude prices since 73 ?
aart wrote:
750 mill? Educate me please.
Wikipedia says 745. Of course when some people say “Europe”, they don’t really mean Europe. They mean the EU, or continental Europe, or western Europe, or Europe except Russia and Turkey or whatnot.
In this case LeSving really did mean “Europe”. Whether that’s relevant to the discussion is another matter.
gallois wrote:
Before that could start tou would need to get all of EASA to agree a set of common UL rules.
Yep, and that is what I was talking about. Not to transfer UL’s to the existing framework but to transfer the existing regulation framework of UL’s around Europe into a single one which would make it the same for UL pilots and manufacturers as in the certified world: One set of rule fits all. And if EASA is not the right place to do this for psychological reasons, it could also be achieved by a European umbrella organisation which in turn gets acknowledged as the authority by the national CAA’s.
Right now, as LeSving explains below, you need a license to fly ULs in each country and manufacturers have to adhere to different standards in each country. I think if it was possible to achieve a regulation whereby the existing UL laws get harmonized far enough to get a single licence, single medical and single construction criteria valid all over Europe and an organisation behind it which can enforce those towards the national CAA’s, it might be a huge boost for the seriosity of ULs.
It may also be a stepping stone for then adapting ELA1/2, FCL and NCO towards the same criteria, which for me would be a logical thing to do.
