Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Switzerland requires permit on all foreign ultralights (and other countries doing similar stuff)

boscomantico wrote:

This seems like a huge cockup.

No. There is no EU-nation, exactly as there is no EASA-land!

The concept of national freedom is still apparent in almost all countries, which we Germans like to forget. In contrast to cars on the street, GA has no “right to use foreign airspace” as national type certificate cars are allowed to travel countries in the EU not their nation of register. Yes, this too is hard to swallow for us Germans, but it is fact the other countries choose to not restrict themselves to EU homologation (people buying cars in the EU being registered nationally and trying to get them registered in a country only allowing EU types, such as Germany, know what I am talking about).

A 600kg microlight on German register is a national speciality, claiming rights off the ordinary (almost) unified certified world and based on certain simplified and reduced requirements for a permit to fly – but only nationally. 600kg Microlights are not such by French regulations, that easy. France don’t want 600kg Microlights and it is their right to do so. I find it very, very nice they allow such aircraft to transit through their airspace and they have all my sympathy when they restrict that transit to the filed flight plan route and duration. These flying machines were never meant to fly cross border by regulations when these peculiarities arose from the fact that the certified world was too stiff to generate something easy and accessible for less skilled brains … keep the sarcasm if you find it.

It is stupid and a cocky impertinence to claim rights after you got an exempt to skip requirements being the basis for exactly that rights. You want to fly internationally, follow international rules, get a certified aircraft and don’t play jester. You want an autopilot, get a certified plane. You want to fly IFR, go get at least a PPL, do your IR, get a certified aircraft. There is a good reason flight safety has reached its high level and that is called proven rules and regulations. If you wanna be somebody, If you wanna go somewhere, You better wake up … and pay attention. You wanna be accepted by skill, go get an education worth that. You want to use freedom of the sky, just follow the rules, stop jerking. End of rant.

Last Edited by MichaLSA at 05 Feb 18:57
Germany

Quite a rant indeed

You make it sound as if internationally flying ULM’ers are inferior in terms of knowledge regarding VFR flying and operate tube and rag contraptions and are a ticking time bomb for third parties. The ULM pilots I have met over here from abroad were absolutely fine in terms of following the rules and airmanship. And I would take a Dynamic, VL3, Bristell etc etc anytime over some old beaten up spam can which represent a large proportion of the ‘certified’ fleet. How many of these have a working A/P btw?

Following your logic an 80 year-old in his little Fiat 600 should be prohibited from any autobahn in Germany.

Any statistics on ULM’s having a higher accident rate or being a higher risk to third parties? AFAIK they almost exclusively go to small fields, often stay out of CAS, so not much chance to exchange paint with a 737.

I think ULM’s/experimentals are the way to keep aviation accessible to people who have a passion for flying and traveling but don’t have deep pockets. This should be stimulated rather than hampered. Yes, this falls under national legislation, but it is outright silly what France is doing. What are they trying to achieve?

Last Edited by aart at 05 Feb 19:21
Private field, Mallorca, Spain

You want to fly internationally, follow international rules, get a certified aircraft and don’t play jester. You want an autopilot, get a certified plane. You want to fly IFR, go get at least a PPL, do your IR, get a certified aircraft. There is a good reason flight safety has reached its high level and that is called proven rules and regulations.

Yes, including those in countries with more developed regulations and more experienced regulators for GA, not the relative amateurs in European countries, where a death spiral of excessive regulation leads to less real world experience, which then leads to more regulation ad infinitum. Ultralight categories in Europe were created to in effect break the death spiral, but unfortunately they only way it could be done politically was to accept restrictions on use that don’t make a lot of sense.

One would hope that regressive nonsense will slowly be defeated, not reinforced. Most of the world’s homebuilt aircraft can legally fly IFR, when equipped for it. And they are very commonly equipped with autopilots. Same with LSAs, in the US they get moved to Experimental category with the only difference being a restriction on commercial use.

Perhaps somebody could learn something by looking outward, not inward.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Feb 20:30

„Central government“ (EASA) is trying to clean up the mess that is UL. France’s sport flyer associations fear this will bring regulatory burden, so France opted out of 600kg UL (they have 500kg). And voilà, France‘s differing rules automatically prohibit the acceptance of 600kg foreign ULs.

always learning
LO__, Austria

On the wider topic of uncertified international flying privileges, done for ULs here and for “homebuilts” in general here, recent years have seen a curious tightening up of the regs.

I say “curious” because a) we don’t know what is driving it and b) some of it appears to be a coordinated action e.g. France and the UK.

Maybe for ULs it was the 600kg uplift which triggered some reaction inside the various CAAs. The UL bodies were AFAIK mostly against this uplift, and perhaps they knew something?

Certainly the European landscape is changing, consigning uncertified aircraft more and more to national flying. Well, if you follow the regs, and since there are practically no checks, I don’t suppose many do. Historically, practically nobody did.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

aart wrote:

What are they trying to achieve?

Just making a point that this is France and we are French. Not that different from let’s say the UK The Norwegian CAA has finally moved in the opposite direction regarding UL. If only the customs could try to move their asses into this century, things would be nice.

It’s really odd why this stuff exists at all. With paragliders, no such things. No restrictions, no nothing. The only difference is that they seldom fly to other places. They take their “plane” with them on a 737s instead. They use the same airspace.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Peter wrote:

Certainly the European landscape is changing, consigning uncertified aircraft more and more to national flying.

Things are opening up more and more actually, if they aren’t already fully open. That’s the general trend. Then there are these hiccups. Now it’s France apparently, and the UK for that matter.

What I think has happened is that the French authorities wanted this 600 limit, the same as everyone else. This is the simplest. The French UL association did not want it. They wanted to stick to 500 for fully understandable reasons. That’s what the French authority has done, limited it to 500 and with all the consequences attached.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

A detail; it’s actually 525kg in France if a chute is included which most if not all carry. So a difference of 12,5% in MTOM.

Private field, Mallorca, Spain

Snoopy wrote:

„Central government“ (EASA) is trying to clean up the mess that is UL.

By definition and birth reason, UL/Microlight class was founded outside of ‘central governments’ = no jurisdiction there. IMHO the countries should cancel the whole Microlight idea and introduce a decent homebuilt/experimental category inside EASA to re-unite the fighting tribes of all pushbuttoneeringenden, pilotingenden, airmenwomendiversenden – sorry, got poisoned by gender talks.

Last Edited by MichaLSA at 06 Feb 07:51
Germany

Peter wrote:

Certainly the European landscape is changing, consigning uncertified aircraft more and more to national flying.

I don’t agree here. Especially VFR flying abroad, at least with homebuilts, is quite easy also from a legal point of view. A couple of years ago also Belgium skipped the requirement to apply for permission for ECAC-registered homebuilts. Normally ECAC countries allow for up to 28 day visits without the need for an application.

What indeed became increasingly restrictive is the basing of homebuilt aircraft outside the county of registration. Regulation for UL/Microlight seems to be different altogether though…

EDLE
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top