Things are in constant change of course. Still, today getting experience with flying and owning and maintaining is a factor 5-10 cheaper with a microlight than with a clapped out C152 under EASA reg
I seriously doubt that. Admitting the same level of owner competence in maintenance, I would like to see a calculation backing this figure up. There might be a difference, but maintaining a C150 is not even close to 5 to 10 times more expensive as a microlight.
I seriously doubt that. Admitting the same level of owner competence in maintenance, I would like to see a calculation backing this figure up. There might be a difference, but maintaining a C150 is not even close to 5 to 10 times more expensive as a microlight.
I agree; it cannot be.
If you compare like for like performance, the whole “uncertified v. certified” operating cost comparison hangs mostly on
I say “mostly” because a C150 is likely to be used for training and thus cannot have any non-company maintenance.
Obviously, one of these will cost less to maintain than one of these 
LeSvig,
last year moving through the Aero exhibition, I saw a lot of very interesting microlights or even LSA’s (or whatever they are called in the EU now) with great avionics, even 3 axis AP’s and lots of goodies.
Now, I weigh around 100 kgs. (I wish…)
Which of these can carry me plus one BMI25 passenger and maybe 20 kgs of bags plus fuel?
That is the major problem with those even for folks who fly only VFR and are willing to take all the restrictions these planes have.
Factor 5-10 may be true for some of the most “primitive” designs like motorized hanggliders or so, but the others I doubt the factor is like that.
The primary problem we have with regulated airplanes is the certification process itself and the resulting cost. Having experienced first hand what it means to certify a relatively simple installation of one Aspen and an S-Tec 55 with a pre-existing GNS430 for IFR operations, including upgrading the GNS to WAAS, the paperwork involved is frightening. I can only begin to imagine what it takes to get the boxes certified in the first place. Maybe that is why a Dynon flight deck with very similar capability than a G1000 costs so much less than the said G1000, let alone retrofitting a G600 or similar. GA needs to get rid of this exorbitant certification processes or it will die. That is why in the US people flee to homebuilts and in Europe to Microlights, with the distinct difference that experimentals in the US can do pretty much the same thing as certified planes, whereas here the are really nothing but expensive toys.
That is why in the US people flee to homebuilts and in Europe to Microlights, with the distinct difference that experimentals in the US can do pretty much the same thing as certified planes, whereas here the are really nothing but expensive toys.
Well, that depends what you want to do with your ‘expensive toy’
What one looks for in flying is a very personal thing, of course, but flying VFR in my experimental Lancair is – to me – very satisfying and every bit as valid as IFR touring. You’ll have gathered I don’t regard it as a toy.
Personally, I share LeSvig’s obvious enthusiasm for all things aeronautical – if I were doing it all again, I’d go at it from just the same angle: fly anything I can get my hands on, any way I can…. high-wing, low-wing, taildraggers, plastic, microlights, experimental, aeros, night…day.
IFR touring is great, and fantastic if you want to do it, and have the machine and the funds to match, but there’s plenty of fun to be had doing other stuff, too!
Jojo,
IFR touring is great, and fantastic if you want to do it, and have the machine and the funds to match, but there’s plenty of fun to be had doing other stuff, too!
The point is exactly that: Why is it possible in the US to fly planes like yours IFR if you like, whereas in Europe it is excluded for no real reason. Lancairs are born travelling planes with their high speed and hugely economic performance, so why restrict them to VFR day? IFR here is still a golden cow for the CAA’s who in part are scared of too many IFR flights “crowding their airspace” and some elitary thinking by some of the powers that are, who would like to reduce most of GA to what the experimentals are now.
There is no reason that a private experimental with the necessary equipment should not fly IFR. And with necessary equipment, I do not mean gold plated certified boxes but stuff which works and does the job for the task at hand. Why can’t a Dynon equipped experimental not be allowed to fly at least Enroute IFR? Or VFR night for that matter? There is no practical reason, otherwise it would not be happening in the US all the time, but it is simply something which European regulators once said NO to and will not budge. Not only that, but the need to get overflight permits and other restrictions conveys one message: Stay out, we don’t want these planes, otherwise too many people can fly.
The very same goes with the arbitrary idea that a microlight can weigh only as much, VLA’s that much and others that much. What use is a 400 kg airplane? Particularly if the very same unmodified airframe can be certified by some hundred pages of paperwork to have a 600kg or even 750 kg MTOW? None whatsoever other than creating a situation where these things are flown notoriously overweight.
I sometimes get the impression that the regulators also try any and all possibilities to make todays affordable 2nd hand aircraft artificially expensive by their money making schemes such as the horrendous paperwork required even for a small mod, in the end it all amounts to the fact that the powers that are in Europe are vastly against General Aviation of any kind, either because they are socialist in their political core beliefs and/or because they are ecofascist misantrops who feel that anything which gives joy and fun to people must be bad for some bug or the other and has to be forbidden.
Europe doesn’t do this in Aviation only, but in many aspects of our lifes, where manic rulemaking takes more and more freedom away until there is nothing left.
I happen to have some info on what is happening on this (IFR in homebuilts) in the UK, and it looks quite positive.
It is a slow process and on a quick reading is likely to involve approval of individual aircraft, not a blanket approval of all aircraft of a given type.
There will be various requirements with regard to type / quality of electrics, avionics, etc. and I think these are entirely sensible – because VFR flight has the obvious escape routes when your wiring goes up in smoke or the single electrical bus fails (map, compass, handheld GPS, etc) whereas IFR could be solid IMC which is a very different thing.
But a lot of money gets spent on some homebuilts (you can easily pay 2x for say an RV than for an old TB20) so this will be a development which will be both welcome and affordable to many homebuilders.
What you won’t get is the ability to jump in and just fly Eurocontrol IFR across Europe in the way certified aircraft can do. This is because the individual country permissions will still be needed, though obviously over time this may change. But it has hardly changed for standard (VFR) homebuilts, in many years, has it? EASA won’t help because this is below its control, and I am sure 99% of homebuilders don’t want EASA involvement which has been a disaster in most areas in GA. What I hear is that in some cases (like one country which reportedly takes months) people tend to apply for the permission and fly anyway. There is no policing.
Does that make them a “toy”? Well, for me, for going places, yes… depending on what is involved in getting the permissions. As the process currently stands, it’s of little use. Within the UK, one can hack around in Class G pretty effectively, with nobody caring about flight rules. Homebuilts can de facto fly IFR enroute, Class G, with no possible policing. Elsewhere you will need “IFR” to get the easy airspace access (regardless of actual conditions) which makes IFR flying so easy.
The main thing which motivated me to write up my trips was the huge wastage in the PPL scene, where most people give up early. And it is obvious that the key to hanging in there lies in getting lots of value out of the flying (setting aside cases where e.g. somebody simply runs out of money or is banned by their spouse, etc).
Different people can do this in different ways but I think people doing short local flights will always get fed up with it pretty fast unless they are doing aeros in an aerobatic type which seemingly one can just do locally for the rest of one’s life. GA will always involve a fair bit (a huge amount actually, sometimes) of ground hassle and one needs to work hard to maintain the fun/hassle ratio. Going places is a big part of getting value out of flying.
Why is it possible in the US to fly planes like yours IFR if you like, whereas in Europe it is excluded for no real reason
It would be nice if you people would stop spreading this misinformation. IFR is perfectly legal in homebuilt experimental aircraft in Norway, Sweden and Italy, probably more places as well, Finland (I think) and Poland? According to ECAC 11.1 (something) which most of Europe has agreed to, neither UK or Germany for instance can legally stop LN or SE reg experimentals from flying IFR in their air spaces, and this has never happened either as far as I know. This situation is a bit similar to the legalities of N-regs. This is very restricted in Norway (max 12 months, and only with an explicit approval from the Norwegian CAA). In the latest magazine “Flynytt” there is a lengthy and very clarifying article about this and the practice by the CAA. The main issue is that the Norwegian CAA has created rules (max 12 month rule) that cannot be related to the law or any international agreement. It’s an arbitrary ad hoc rule that they simply have made up for no valid (legally bounding) reason. They have eased up on EASA regs from other EASA countries now (no restrictions), but it will be interesting to see how long they dare to continue with this 12 months rule for general ICAO registered aircraft after that article which pretty much shreds the CAA reasoning to pieces.
Back to topic. A Lancair is fast and efficient and maneuverable, but is it a good IFR platform? Maybe with a good autopilot, but in my opinion flying a Lancair on autopilot IFR, is more like driving a Ferrari with automatic transmission and cruise control on the Autobahn. Who would do such a thing? I guess a whole lot (for the same reason people get SUVs for driving around in the city), but a Lancair is made for hand flying VFR in the same manner a Ferrari is made for driving.
Back to topic (the real topic) The question was, what would you have done different today. Things have changed a lot since I took my PPL in 1992. The small private one (or 2-3) man schools are all gone. Microlights have entered big scale. Small, practical and relatively cost efficient helicopters have popped up from everywhere and so have helicopter schools, small private and good ones with instructors that wants to teach. Clubs have changed into semi commercial PPL schools and semi commercial rental places with no sense of community, using instructors that are only there to collect hours (with several exceptions though, some are very good). The private flying community is the microlight community.
You can get a microlight today for €200k. A nice new shining carbon composite machine, retract, Rotax 914 with CS prop, all the newest gadgets. But, you can also get a used €5k machine with a reliable 4 stroke (Rotax/Jabiru). That is what I would have done today. Got myself a €5k microlight and a license and flown all over the place for a tiny fraction of the cost of getting a PPL and renting a worn out old C-172. I said a factor 5-10, but in reality it could be more. I would have done it for 2-3 years, then LAPL/PPL and an experimental. With the PPL, I could do IFR, acro, motorglider, sea planes, night VFR, and everything can be doe using experimental aircraft. And I could also take PPL-H or LAPL-H as an addition, and built myself an experimental helicopter, and be able to land just about everywhere I want.
For me, IFR is way down the list. The weather conditions and terrain where I live are so extreme (in European flatland context) that a good IFR aircraft requires minimum a reliable turbine or two pistons, and real de-ice. That is at least €200k for a good used twin, and for what? Fly straight and level for 4-5 hours on autopilot holding my bladder waiting to come to England or the Continent? How fun is that? Norway (and Sweden) is a bush plane country, a helicopter country, a microlight country. It is just way more practical to get around VFR than IFR. It’s only along the coast at Avinor commercial airports that IFR has any value, not inland, where most private flying activities are happening on private VFR fields.
Another way to look at it: I can use €10-15k getting CB-IR, or I can use €10-15k getting PPL-H. Every 8th PPL issued in Norway in 2014 was PPL-H. How many PPL-A holders took IFR rating? I would guess close to zero. Today, both alternatives are out of the question for me. I’m starting acro tomorrow After that I’m starting to become too old to effectively learn anything new (maybe N-VFR though?). But I got the licenses I need, microlight, PPL (acro, tailwheel, towing) and gliding.
I have to agree LeSving that if I lived in Norway I would do a PPL-H too – or buy a jet
Anytime you have IMC (which is most of the time in Norway 
) you have a high chance of moderate to severe icing conditions and nothing short of a TBM is going to deliver a usable despatch rate in that. Then sometimes you have fantastic VMC and superb views…
I have been planning to visit Norway (Trondheim actually – have a nice customer there – and the TB20 can do EGKA-ENVA nonstop) but a flyable slot of say 3-4 days is presented maybe only 5 times a year.
A Lancair 320/360/IV can do IFR of course but long legs in any plane warrant an autopilot. And if you want to do it in IMC then you have to have ice protection because the wings have almost zero tolerance for contamination. IFR at Eurocontrol levels means passing through IMC on many or most flights.
Norway (and Sweden) is a bush plane country, a helicopter country, a microlight country. It is just way more practical to get around VFR than IFR. It’s only along the coast at Avinor commercial airports that IFR has any value, not inland, where most private flying activities are happening on private VFR fields.
I won’t comment on Norway because my experience of flying there is limited, but you include Sweden and then what you say about IFR just isn’t true.
