Mooney_Driver wrote:
What the arrival of Covid has shown brutally is that the EU has no mechanisms in place to fight a pandemic in an orderly and unified fashion. Instead, it was left to each country to cook their own soup, which resulted in a total failure to fight this disease in any acceptable way.Only EU bashing is not so fair, I guess. We also need to take a closer look into federal systems in general, including Switzerland. Every canton does (partly) its “own” thing regarding Covid-rules and guidelines. In Germany, same thing: Each state has its own Covid-rules, even more diverse than the differences per canton in Switzerland. And not just that… Each German state has even its own CAA bodies (one per Bezirksregierung) with different policies from state to state. For example, some states allow “flying without someone on-site for home-based pilots”, like Hessen. Other states require a Flugleiter on-site at all times. That’s just a product of a federal political system. Federal systems do have it’s pros, but these Covid-times show also their cons quite well. Nonetheless, the EU does also quite a good few things.
What this will do to the “200k €” ULs is an interesting debate. Many report that they are toys which rarely fly too far, but they are still bought to tick off a dream of flying around Europe (nobody buys a plane for local burger runs as the objective) and there is now a big “no-UL zone” in the middle of Europe and covering much of the most scenic parts.There are some high-end UL’s how are sold as “European travel machines”. That sounds actually like a bad joke, if you take all the regulations and limitations of international UL-flying and their price into account. It’s not just Switzerland that now asks for a permit in general, even though the Swiss permit might be the most expensive one, but also Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Spain, UK, Greece etc. do make permits for foreign ultralights mandatory.
Frans wrote:
Imagine sitting at home home Friday evening after work, and you get the idea to fly to Switzerland on the next day. Good luck with that, as you need to organize permits a few working days in advance and also need to pay them
No, you don’t! If you want to do these kind of things you need a proper airplane and a proper pilot license. No problem at all – you can do exactly that with no permit and no payment for a permit. Nobody would say: “Imagine you want to drive from Frankfurt to Zurich the next day but you have no driving license and the fastest vehicle you are allowed to drive is a tricycle – Good luck with that!”
ULs were never meant to be means of international regulation and the only thing what is happening now is that many different CAAs actually reinforce what ULs have been meant for all the time. Nothing to worry about. Getting a LAPL is really not that difficult. And flying a Aquila is not so much more expensive….
Frans wrote:
We also need to take a closer look into federal systems in general, including Switzerland. Every canton does (partly) its “own” thing regarding Covid-rules and guidelines. In Germany, same thing: Each state has its own Covid-rules, even more diverse than the differences per canton in Switzerland.
No question. We both appear to live in this system and know it’s shortcomings when it comes to crisis management. The mess is epic. Actually, I am surprised that cantons did not impose testing requirements to enter their territory or whatever. Simply ridiculous. Same for Germany. But I really don’t want to turn this thread into another Corona debate, simply the parallels to certain aviation aspects is more than obvious.
Frans wrote:
There are some high-end UL’s how are sold as “European travel machines”.
And that exactly is the rub. When UL’s came into existence nobody talked about them as travel machines, they were limited to very low weight and were intended for local flying. Seeing that UL flying became much more attractive than the certified world due to massive price differences, people started to move to UL’s but wanted the proper travelling back. Well, kind of like the swiss saying “the coin and the bun”.
However, for international travel you need machines which are at least in basics guided by an internationally agreed rule set. Which is exactly what nobody wanted for ULs seeing the initial mess it got certified aviation into via JAR and EASAs first years.
Frans wrote:
For sure ULs do have their right to exist, but for international travels, you need at least some certified LSA.
The 600 kg class "UL"s can in many cases be certified as either LSA or Ecolights or at least permit to fly. The rub there will be, you need at least an LAPL to fly those. Which in turn is a license reckognized in all of EASA land. Actually, some UL’s are already certified as Ecolights or LSAs, so that idea is not exactly new. But even then, calling those things travel machines is marketing junk speak, much as using mph rather than knots or slimming down pills.
So what this whole overflight permit thing tells us is exactly what @Malibuflyer sais: CAA’s don’t favour to allow their airspace being used by non ICAO licensed personel and aircraft. For now they don’t lock the door completely but it’s a hint.
@Peter, I guess it is not quite accurate that authorities welcomed them, they rather tolerated them grudgingly. Don’t forget that UL’s were forbidden completely until recently here.
for international travel you need machines which are at least in basics guided by an internationally agreed rule set.
The salesmen tell you that you can go anywhere, some forum posters tell you that you can go anywhere, quite a lot of people quietly get p1ssed off when myself and a few others point out that this is bogus (I tend to hear about it 3rd hand, much later, or people just leave the forum), some people spend 5-6 digits without realising you can’t go very far without needing permits, and so it goes…
they rather tolerated them grudgingly.
Sure, but it’s fair to say that the permit situation did gradually improve. For many years, Spain for example simply never replied, so people sent off for the permit and then “just flew”.
Now things are moving backwards. And I wonder what is driving it.
Peter wrote:
And I wonder what is driving it.
Increased demands for permits? The change of the marketplace as discussed? And just maybe also the CAA’s read the sales pitch and go "Waitaminute, that is not what UL’s are supposed to be? "
But seriously, I think the main concern they may have is that de facto airplanes are operated using a legislation not valid within their borders. So the “what if something happens” rises questions. As long as that were few planes they tolerated it, but seeing that UL is becoming mainstream in France and Germany, it appears that some CAA’s are starting to feel uneasy.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
We both appear to live in this system and know it’s shortcomings when it comes to crisis management. The mess is epic. Actually, I am surprised that cantons did not impose testing requirements to enter their territory or whatever. Simply ridiculous. Same for Germany. But I really don’t want to turn this thread into another Corona debate, simply the parallels to certain aviation aspects is more than obvious.Sure, absolutely agree on those points.
Actually, some UL’s are already certified as Ecolights or LSAs, so that idea is not exactly new.That is true for sure up to a certain amount of ULs, but still many ULs don’t have any LSA or Ecolight certification. Take the famous JMB VL3 or Risen: Sold as a fast plane for long-distance travelling, but hasn’t either a Ecolight nor LSA certification. In other words: It is only available as UL. The Risen was formerly even called: “Swiss Excellence Risen”, with a company based in Lugano, but production already in Italy. A bit ironic, because Switzerland doesn’t give the Risen an Ecolight certification. Now, it is just an Italian company and they build only UL versions. Nonetheless, they advertise with an ocean crossing from Europe to South-America. As if everybody could do it with their machine.
quite a lot of people quietly get p1ssed off when myself and a few others point out that this is bogus (I tend to hear about it 3rd hand, much later, or people just leave the forum), some people spend 5-6 digits without realising you can’t go very far without needing permits, and so it goes…True story. Many people try to legitimate their purchase of an expensive toy. If you come with some real valid arguments that speak against it, they feel caught and/or attacked. Personally, I have to say that some high-end ULs are truly nice ‘airplanes’, like the mentioned VL3 or WT9. Can’t say anything negative about it, as long as it wouldn’t be a UL only. Why pay such a huge amount of money to have a plane, that cannot fulfill the task (international and far distance flying) for what it is actually built, sold and bought for?
Frans wrote:
There is also a story in reverse: Take the Lightwing AC4, which I fly regularly out of Buochs. It has been designed to be a certified LSA-aircraft, with a Swiss demand on quality. The plane has been sold to several aeroclubs in Switzerland, but to reach German customers, Lightwing had to make a UL version as well, for which they got an “UL-certification” from the DULV / DAeC (German ultralight association and aeroclub) very recently (end 2021).
Well, that is actually a piece of good news I suppose. So the customer has a choice. And if restrictions grow more, I suppose more manufacturers will do the same.
Make no mistake, I used to venture into that part of the Aero regularly and see those nice and shiny planes, knowing what they are and that consequently they are not for me. It gets “tragic” when people don’t realize it and get frustrated later. But I think quite a few companies today already give the choice between UL, experimental and certified versions in different stages. What could become a real winner is one which is upgradeable. Buy the UL, upgrade to LSA or certified later if you so wish.
Frans wrote:
True story. Many people try to legitimate their purchase of an expensive toy. If you come with some real valid arguments, they feel caught or attacked.
Yep. Exists in the certified world as well. Pity actually. As we say in German, it’s time that the board in front of your head gets a new paint job or better removed.
UL is certainly mainstream in France. And ULM are used to go places. France is a big country. There are some very nice hotels and restaurants which need the STOL abilities of the ULM. Then there is flying in the mountains and to mountain airfields. In France alone where as already been said the ULM is limited to MTOW 500kg or 525kg with parachute.
I don’t think many French ULM pilots in general will be at all concerned about not flying to Switzerland. Those that like to travel internationally will continue to do so, as long as the current regime exists in other countries such as Spain and Italy.
For me the Swiss authorities are acting a little like King Canute here. IMO there is very little wrong with ULMs to be singled out for this in comparison with other slightly heavier aircraft, or permit aircraft or experimentals.
I would understand it much more if they concentrated on pilot licencing and medicals (even though I am a firm believer that current class 2 medicals are now over the top and AME’s and NAA’s are now contradicting specialist consultants but that’s the subject for another thread).
France have a very easy going licencing and medical structure for ULM pilots whereas other countries have stricter requirements and I could well have understood the Swiss insisting on an LAPL or a PPL and even a Class 2 medical. But not the machine itself.
Frans wrote:
Why pay such a huge amount of money to have a plane, that cannot fulfill the task (international and far distance flying) for what it is actually built, sold and bought for?
Sold and bought for – yes
Build and designed for – not really!
Even for a single pilot an ultralight with a real useful load of 120kg (which is not uncommon if one takes the real empty weight and not the advertisements) is not a far distance flying tool. With a 70kg pilot, 10 kg equipment which is not in empty weight (headset, iPad, spare oil, …) and 10-20kg of luggage, they have just 20kg for fuel. Even with a Rotax this is not enough to cross the alps with reasonable reserves.
The problem of the entire segment is, that it is not illegal to design and built airplanes that realistically are not suitable for more than fetching the 50km 100$ burger but market them as international travel tools. It is also not illegal to buy these toys.
But when this happens there is the “unholy alliance” of manufacturers and buyers that have agreed that while they know that what they do is stupid. the regulator is the bad guy. This mindset of self victimization (“we are forced to break the law”) is deeply rooted in large parts of the UL community – in many cases starting at the very first flying lessons when the student is told that obviously a 100kg UL instructor (yes, they exist) can impossibly legally give dual instruction lessons but it is ok because it is not the instructors fault that he doesn’t understand what th “L” in UL stands for but it is purely the regulators’ fault.
Peter wrote:
The salesmen tell you that you can go anywhere, some forum posters tell you that you can go anywhere, quite a lot of people quietly get p1ssed off when myself and a few others point out that this is bogus
You are right that the sales story, as told to people that know nothing about aviation, is bogus. Of course, you cannot compare a UL with a Bonanza or a Cirrus, but this doesn’t mean the planes are totally useless. I fly a WT9 myself and have posted just a few of my recent trip reports on this forum.
Apart from the weekend flights to France, the Netherlands or Germany we did some nice longer flights over the past few years.
For example the past 3 years, I visited Croatia 4 times, Italy 3 times (this summer Sardegna), Corsica 2 times, Denmark 2 times, and 1 flight to Norway. Of course, it needs VFR conditions, but that would be the same flying a Cirrus or a Bonanza (being a VFR-only pilot for now).
As most people know I fly also Piper Cub’s, Pitts etc, so I’m not just a “UL fanboy”. I just like everything that flies and I try to use the best (& affordable tool) for the job. The reality is, during summer, I fly from Belgium to Mali Losinj for about 90 liters of fuel, with 2 persons and enough luggage for a nice trip (most of the time we rent an apartment so we can do laundry during the trip).
Can somebody answer the following question: I’m a VFR only PPL/UL pilot. I only fly with my girlfriend on trips. Why would I rent a C172 if I can fly a WT9?
@Malibuflyer: we had just the same ‘heavy instructor’ problem when I learned to fly a C152 :)
