Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

Peter wrote:

You mean… like C150 C152 C172 PA28 which if flown 2- 2- 4- 4-up anytime after around 1945 are over MTOW

PA28’s actually are better load carriers than you’d imagine but yes, in general. The main difference being that neither of those had a government limited MTOW.

that is the crux with some of those designs, which the 600 kg MTOW hike showed: Quite a few had minor if any design changes to accomodate a quite significant MTOW increase, meaning they were capable to do this all the time. At the same time, some of the constructions were made extra light to accomodate the 4xx kg limit, which caused additional structural risks. Neither of the above spamcans suffer from something like this. If you want an analogy, try the 1999 kg IFR limits which causes some rather substantial planes to single seaters with a possible infant passenger….

Peter wrote:

You mean… a political under the table deal driven by the major EASA participants and settling on the worst common denominator

Unfortunately that was what EASA was when it started out, but imho this has changed massively. Look at Part NCO, ELA1 and 2 all of which were aimed at cutting red tape some countries imposed. Look at BIR, CBIR e.t.c. which went past some massive opposition by the more restrictive countries. The Sum of all Fears is no longer how EASA rules things.

But you do have the valid point that that approach was instrumental in creating the quagmire we have now.

Of course, the main question would be FCL. UL folks would be all for having higher MTOW’s, having privileges to fly pan European, but would they be willing to get a tad higher in their licenses, e.g. somewhere in between the UL license and the LAPL? Or would they agree to go LAPL level as a standard? Because that would open up some ways of getting around the administrative limits.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Peter wrote:

I could post my view on which ones would not have it

Please do

EASA taking over Annex I would be the worst disaster ever to happen to European GA. The main reason is that EASA, in contrast to the FAA and most other national aviation authorities, just don’t care about private GA. It’s just a nuisance to them. There’s no money involved, no big stakes, no “politics” with free lunches and nice dinner parties. It’s not a place where one can get involved with “important” people doing “important” stuff. The very reason Annex I exists is the proof in the pudding.

Having a few “incompatibilities” here and there beats tons and tons of tyrannic bureaucracy every day of the week. Besides, there already are EASA (only) regimes for light GA:

  • LSA
  • VLA (if it’s still around)
  • LAPL

The only thing that makes some sense of those is LAPL for various reasons, but mostly because EASA PPL is both too restrictive and too much nonsense.

Last Edited by LeSving at 06 Feb 17:38
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Mooney_Driver wrote:

PA28’s actually are better load carriers than you’d imagine

Indeed. We have a 1979 Archer II which can take 455 kg useful weight. And it is fully IFR equipped.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

https://www.fliegermagazin.de/news/news-fuer-piloen-2022-war-ein-rekordjahr-fuer-ul-zulassungen/

In Germany 222 Microlights (3-axis) were newly registered – 22 more than the previous year. Two high speed cruise models leading the ranking – Aerospool Dynamic WT9 and JMB VL3.

EDLE

That’s what 600 kg MTOW does.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

It goes on…

https://www.fliegermagazin.de/news/600-kilo-uls-duerfen-nicht-mehr-nach-daenemark/

Note: it does make some sense that if Danish ULs are not allowed to weigh more than 475kg, the Danish association is not allowed to issue permits to such foreign aircraft either. The question will be: how easily (and at which cost) will the Danish CAA issue temporary permits to these.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

French ULM associations guard their freedom from regulation preciously.
In all areas we wanted to keep self declaration and the ability to land anywhere with tje owners permission.
We saw the rise to 600kg as being a rise into the regulatory regime of the LSA which starts at 600kg and EASA. In the case of EASA there are certain things we would have liked but it meant losing the self declaration.
Germany I believe has very different and stricter set of licencing rules than we do here. In Germany I believe one must land at an airfield. I would love to see the full set of ULM regs in Germany, perhaps @Bosmantico you could list them and I will list the French ones so that we can compare.
In Spain IIUC one needs a class 2 medical to fly a ULM. Maybe @aart could list the regs there.
For both of you, why don’t you simply fly your 600kg ULMs as if they were LSA’s and then you would have no problem hopping around France and landing at our airfields?

France

In Spain IIUC one needs a class 2 medical to fly a ULM. Maybe @aart could list the regs there.

Affirm on the class 2 medical. As to other important regulations:

  • No access to CAS and therefore no access to AENA fields in essence. Although talks are underway to change this.
  • Self declared continued airworthiness, with a right of Sp. CAA to do checks.

For both of you, why don’t you simply fly your 600kg ULMs as if they were LSA’s and then you would have no problem hopping around France and landing at our airfields?

I do! And this was an important reason for me to buy the Bristell B23, actually a CS/VLA, MTOM 750 kg. Btw, it’s not clear to me whether I can legally land at UL-fields in France or even at a piece of land with owner permission. Is that the case @gallois ?

Private field, Mallorca, Spain

Hi @aart there are around 500 CAP airfields in France you can land your Bristell B23 at any one of these most without PPR and a very few do have special requirements eg Courcheval, La Mole, Cannes.
Many of the CAP airfields a ULM might need PPR, it will be in the VAC. Entering CAS is the same for a ULM as for your Bristell ie “clearance” needed plus radio and plus transponder. As 3 axis ULMs are a relatively new phenomena most are equipped mode S.
We then have a number of “private type” airfields which also require, normally a permission (sometimes one off for life) from the airfield or the prefecture or CCI etc. They do not have LFxx prefixes. In our area there is eg. La Tranche sur Mer and Luçon Chanais.
In the mountain areas there are many such fields if you go on You Tube and search for SpeedJoJo you will see some of these fields. All of these are open to your Bristell. It is for you to decide whether you want to put your brand new Bristell on such surfaces.
Most UL fields as found on BASULM are private fields (often a patch mown, and flattened by the farmer who owns it) There are about 1000 of these throughout France and growing. The farmer will normally have an agreement with the local prefecture to operate as an airfield )I will call it unlicensed for want of a better word, and you will need to get permission to land from the owner. Usually I just SMS when I want to arrive, with what aircraft and is that ok. I usually receive the ok pretty quickly. The farmer’s agreement with the prefecture could rely on things like not causing a noise nuisance or not flying over a house or village. From the farmers point of view there might be a weight limit due to the ground conditions.And from the pilots perspective there is the length and width of the airfield. Remember that many of these fields are only 200m long with obstacles on the approach.
However, who is to know that your Bristell is not a ULM and provided it is not going to tear up his field by heavy breaking, take the tops off trees in the neighbouring field or cause a noise nuisance, it should not be a problem.
In a ULM one off landings can be done anywhere with the owners permission. Eg if you have a friend with a suitable back garden and he invites you to lunch, there is no reason not to go by ULM. There are 6 classes of ULM in France ranging from paramotor to helicopter.
If the land you want to put your ULM down onto is public land you would need permission from the prefect.
Outside of emergencies these one off landings would probably not be allowed in your Bristell not due to ULM regs which are all based on pilot/owner responsibility, but because of EASA/DGAC regulations about what constitutes a ULM in France and where an LSA can land.
Remember also although advisable to have some sort of training it is not mandatory to land a ULM on an Altiport. If you were to do the same with your Bristell without a mountain rating, then you would be committing an infringement of EASA regs.

France

boscomantico wrote:

The question will be: how easily (and at which cost) will the Danish CAA issue temporary permits to these.

Turns out this was rather a storm in a teapot. Danish CAA is currently releasing permits to German reg. 600kg-ULs without any major hassles. So far, at not cost.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top