IMHO the controls are there because these types are sub-ICAO, therefore the starting point is no privileges whatsoever, but pressure on the various CAAs from national bodies had resulted in a matrix of permits. The reason why the permit matrix is different for “homebuilts” versus “ultralights” is because these have different representative organisations, who mostly don’t talk to each other
ICAO or not has nothing to do with this. EASA types such as VLA and LSA are also not ICAO, but rather EASA exclusively. ULs are in fact specified by EASA, but the specification is way too limited in scope to “equalize” EASA wide. With this 600 opt out not even MTOW is specified.
I think people talk to each other much more than you think. Often the same people have and fly all kinds of different aircraft, be it UL, experimental or “ICAO”. I’m as a good an example as anyone 
it’s more that people after all want to build, fly, have fun, rather than getting involved in politics.
The danger in trying to “solve” political issues, is in the way political issues normally are solved. It takes a long time, and more often than not ends up in a horse trade.
Peter wrote:
Currently these types are bought by people who either don’t care (almost never fly abroad, or “just fly”) or don’t know (and find out after they paid for it – like one *fox owner I know).
And what kind of (relevant) limitations did this *fox owner become aware of after the purchase?
I don’t think the national CAAs would have moved a single finger on this unless pressured locally.
Also what % of “homebuilts” flying were built by the owner? Various numbers posted suggest most “true kits” are abandoned and sold on, maybe sold on again, and eventually finished by someone else, then sold on several times and flown by a non-builder. Those I know about personally confirm this. Also the higher perf ones are de facto factory built; the “51%” is basically a fake. Read up the Evolution for example (various threads here) but the 200k+ high end ULs are no different.
The reason why the permit matrix is different for “homebuilts” versus “ultralights” is because these have different representative organisations, who mostly don’t talk to each other
That could be a different reason? but usually “homebuilts falls under craftsmanship for the love” way more socially acceptable and encouraged nationally & internationally way more than “that foreign manufacturer now is selling 300k 200kts UL that looks like aeroplane and killing our national ULM spirit and ULM factories”
Similar story with training in Annex1, Czech CAA is happy with Zlins while DGAC is happy with Jodels, the reverse is not 100% true on non-EASA types
the whole permission thingy is market protection
How would that benefit the manufacturers?
I would have thought they would want zero controls. Currently these types are bought by people who either don’t care (almost never fly abroad, or “just fly”) or don’t know (and find out after they paid for it – like one *fox owner I know).
IMHO the controls are there because these types are sub-ICAO, therefore the starting point is no privileges whatsoever, but pressure on the various CAAs from national bodies had resulted in a matrix of permits. The reason why the permit matrix is different for “homebuilts” versus “ultralights” is because these have different representative organisations, who mostly don’t talk to each other
Agreed the categories are different. French ULMs are split into 6 categories running from the paramotor to UL helicopters.
They can be plans built, kit built or factory built as long as they meet the limits set in regulation.
Some aircraft eg Jodel D19 which can be registered as a ULM or Annexe 1. Its the choice of the builder.
That even emphasises, what I’ve written…
In my country (Germany) amateur built Microlights are very rare.
But they exist…
Hence the difficulty of not mixing up the two categories. I do my best but we will just end up with two threads.
There is also amateur built ULs I think this confusion is due to different rules in every country, and lack of definition of what different organisations actually mean.
In Norway an UL is an UL no matter what. Factory built or built from scratch makes no difference.
An aircraft registered as an experimental can be anything. Mostly it is an amateur built, but could also be factory built. It doesn’t matter, because an experimental registered plane is an experimental registered plane, they are all in the same category.
Then the ECAC rule is about amateur built aircraft. But what kind? It doesn’t say, but taking the history into account it’s obvious they mean an amateur built as in the experimental category (not UL). You really have to know the history for this to make sense. People born after 1980 would have little clue.
These new French regs is obvious to me, but is it obvious to others? What about the rule makers themselves? When are they born ? It’s not perfectly clear IMO.
Ibra wrote:
Yes better stop mixing homebuilts aeroplanes and factorybuilts microlights
Not going to happen unfortunately 
