Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
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, 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

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

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.


That’s what 600 kg MTOW does.

125 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top