Mooney_Driver wrote:
That is why my gut feeling is that it is less against the actual UL’s itself but against the licensing of pilots which goes with them.
It’s primarily against regulation arbitrage of Swiss people who do not like the regulations and either live close to the border or have their UL illegally based on a Swiss airfield (because nobody systematically tracks today if the UL really enters Swiss airspace only occasionally.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Unfortunately I have to agree with Bosco here. Closing a whole country for overflight WILL force people to fly around it and this kind of restrictions WILL lead to people pushing when they should not. It is a safety issue all right
Can’t disagree more! That’s the old “everything we don’t like is a safety issue” line of reasoning.
Weight limitation for UL? Safety issue because it forces pilots to fly overweight
No IFR for UL? Safety issue because it forces pilots too fly VFR in IMC
Taxation on aviation fuel? Safety issue because it makes pilots to gain less practice
Flying UL/Microlight is a conscious decision done by pilots that comes with a lot of benefits and a lot of restrictions. One of those restriction is that UL is by nature a national thing with a national license. It is great luck for UL pilots that some countries have agreed to bilaterally accept also ULs from other countries, but that doesn’t change the general rule that ULs are national by nature.
Btw: Looking at some of the videos on YouTube, banning ULs from Swiss airspace could also be a safety feature as less “lowland pilots” do strafe runs through mountains without knowing what they are doing…
Looking at some of the videos on YouTube, banning ULs from Swiss airspace could also be a safety feature as less “lowland pilots” do strafe runs through mountains without knowing what they are doing…
Is there any data to support this?
Besides, it’s like saying all IR pilots need to get training to fly in “UK weather” as low visibility & low ceilings are the norm 
Peter wrote:
The interesting thing is that this Swiss move is against ULs but not against the normal “homebuilt” category. If they wanted to block non-CofA they would do both.Yes, there are even homebuilt or experimental aircrafts HB-registered in Switzerland. Some ULs have the possibility to become “Ecolight” in Switzerland, which also needs to be HB-registered, but that is strictly limited. Otherwise, your light plane need to have an LSA-certification, which is fully EASA-accepted.
Actually you can’t, according to BAZL, the Swiss CAA. I asked them in 2019 about basing a foreign registered UL in Switzerland and doubt their stance has changed:Exactly. I have also never seen foreign-registered ULs in Swiss hangars. Those ULs based in Switzerland, which @Dan is referring to, are registered as so-called “Ecolights” and need to be HB-registered. You can only fly those ecolights with minimum LAPL / PPL. In Mollis, there are some Breezer-planes for rental. There was also a C42 based in Buochs, but that one has been sold to Germany.
OK. So they mainly targeted ULs owned by people living in Switzerland but basing them im near France/Austria/Germany, and flying them occasionally into Switzerland? I mean, whoever from Switzerland drives all the way past the border to GER/AT/FR to then fly it back into (small and expensive) Switzerland? I would sort of understand it if they “officially” based the aircraft outside but then effectively kept them in Switzerland for much of the year. But indeed, I also rarely have seen such ULs in hangars (which sometimes invariably are kept open during the day).
So what/who have they been targeting? Those just bimbling over Switerland a bit without ever landing there? Still seems a bit odd. Maybe a vendetta between a very small group of pilots and (someone at) the BAZL?
Peter wrote:
The interesting thing is that this Swiss move is against ULs but not against the normal “homebuilt” category. If they wanted to block non-CofA they would do both.
These are two very different things. Homebuilts (as in experimental homebuilds, RV etc) are usually and historically (from the birth of aviation more or less) regulated by the local CAA. There are some exceptions (the UK for instance), but in general this is the case. ULs are usually outside of regulation by the CAA. They are “regulated” by local UL associations. An UL is defined by EASA, a homebuild is not (high level regulation vise).
What seems to be happening all over the place is:
This isn’t necessarily bad, and it’s understandable. The CAAs are responsible for their airspace, and the (local) fleet of aircraft operating in that airspace. They also want to make this job more efficient. What is bad is that:
In essence what is slowly happening is an understandable and sound development being mishandled by incompetence, lack of coordination and lack of cooperation. In this light EASA comes out as the diametrically opposite. It is possible today to purchase an “UL” (EASA LSA), get LAPL and fly and operate 100% free in all of EASA-land. In theory at least, EASA is the way to go. In practice though, things are a bit different. As with cars, 99% of flying/driving is local, and that 99% is much better handled with a local UL or local homebuilt. That remaining 1% is of little relevance as long as it can be done somehow.
Where will it end up? A growing part of the UL community would rather keep things simple and light. The average UL pilot has no urge for 150 knots cruise speed, 600 kg MTOW, retracts, constant speed prop mounted on a Rotax iS, costing €200k and up. If that urge exists, only a few can afford it anyway. The average PPL pilot has no urge for such an aircraft either. He would rather have 4+ seats, 1500 kg MTOW, or some aerobatic or bush utility aircraft, and it has to cost less than €100k.
The next thing that will happen is obviously a lighter and more free scheme, similar to what exists in France. But this will be strictly local to each country, or perhaps 2-3 countries. Homebuilts will continue as is. High perfomance ULs will simply fade out. IF you can afford one, you are better off with the EASA-LSA/VLA version of the same aircraft in any case (The few that are interested in this kind of aircraft that is).
Malibuflyer wrote:
Can’t disagree more! That’s the old “everything we don’t like is a safety issue” line of reasoning.
Weight limitation for UL? Safety issue because it forces pilots to fly overweight
No IFR for UL? Safety issue because it forces pilots too fly VFR in IMC
Taxation on aviation fuel? Safety issue because it makes pilots to gain less practice
The issue is rather why make regulations where no regulations are necessary?
These are all made up limitations. Theoretical nonsense. Such limitations should be based on actual status of aircraft and pilot exclusively. On the other hand, the original weight limitations (450 kg) and wing loading did make some sense 40 years ago. It’s just that clever people designed aircraft that flew way too good within those limits. Today it would be more sensible to include limitations such as no retracts, no constant speed, no turbo. Keep it light AND simple. The vision of what an UL should be was lost when a Rotax 912 ULS was mounted on a carbon fiber airframe.
LeSving wrote:
High perfomance ULs will simply fade out. IF you can afford one, you are better off with the EASA-LSA/VLA version of the same aircraft in any case (The few that are interested in this kind of aircraft that is).Are you sure? Take a look at the famous JMB VL3. Their high-performance models don’t have an LSA-version and people still ordering the plane for 250.000€ onwards. There is even a waiting list. Same as with Dynamic WT-9 with retractable gear. The LSA-version of the WT9 has only fixed gear and is quite slower than the high-performance WT9, which is only available as UL-version.
Maybe a vendetta between a very small group of pilots and (someone at) the BAZL?How knows. As far as I heard from people with deeper connections to the FOCA (German: BAZL), the people in charge have quite an anti-UL attitude in general, as if every second UL would fall from heaven in Swiss airspace. It’s time that AOPA would do something, however, AOPA doesn’t seem to have so much members from the UL-scene. I doubt that local associations, like the DULV, DAeC or FFPULM can do something against Swiss regulations. EASA wouldn’t be interested to act either, as ULs are not their concern.
Frans wrote:
How knows. As far as I heard from people with deeper connections to the FOCA (German: BAZL), the people in charge have quite an anti-UL attitude in general, as if every second UL would fall from heaven in Swiss airspace. It’s time that AOPA would do something, however, AOPA doesn’t seem to have so much members from the UL-scene. I doubt that local associations, like the DULV, DAeC or FFPULM can do something against Swiss regulations. EASA wouldn’t be interested to act either, as ULs are not their concern.
Quite. The only ones really affected are foreign UL pilots who now have to fly all around this entire country located in the heart of Europe. And these have no voice in Switzerland. Hence, it is likely that nothing will change with this de-facto ban.
Malibuflyer wrote:
That’s the old “everything we don’t like is a safety issue” line of reasoning.
I can see where you are coming from and I agree with you to some extent.
The question however for any rule is what kind of risk/safety balance it creates.
You name some: chronic overweight operation, the whole IFR problematic (also for experimentals) e.t.c. are primary causes why such radical regulation is even considered, together with the obvious antipathy by certain regulatory bodies towards everything which is not EASA. For that reason, I am no friend of some of the UL traffic either, primarily because I see it as a consequence of overregulation in the certified part of aviation, resulting in various ways to avoid those regulations.
From the safety case you can argue that closing down a country which has a significant part of the alpine crossings available causes traffic to concentrate over realistically one or two existing transfer routes, primarily the Brenner pass and France.
While you are totally right that it “forces” nobody to fly, it does however prevent people from using optimal routes. And we all know that the consequence will be, that in the end this will cause people to fly sub-optimum routes when better ones were available.
We don’t need to talk about the general ICAO freedom of movement act, which goes contrary to any such restrictions.
Hence the question, whether the current national regulation of UL and also experimental aviation within Europe is a good thing or should eventually be taken over by EASA as “certified” aviation has. If we recall the mess European GA was in before we had European licensing and regulation in the certified part of aviation, where each country had different and opposing rules, where you needed license valuations and what not, I honestly believe that the way forward is to standardize rulemaking also for experimental and UL aviation.
The benefit would be obvious: No more overflight permits by country, no more second guessing of licensing and quite possibly the cutting off of old regulation e.g. forbidding IFR in experimentals while Part NCO allows IFR in much less equipped certified airplanes.
And finally, stop behaving as if there are “them and us” kind of aviation, but unify the whole thing, integrate UL licenses into the FCL rulework somewhere below the LAPL and UL technical requirements within a common EASA wide framework according to the prevailing current rulemaking by national authorities.
I doubt adding a 175CHF permit to overfly a country change anything on the safety of the crossing, especially when it comes to matching the one week weather window into the one week of the permit….but yes it will magically, reduce UL accidents in the Swiss airspace (by killing UL flights, ok let’s ground every UL aircraft on the planet )
Take Sion & Lugano, they have special crew qualifications but also aircraft needs approval for “noise, performance & contingencies”, this involve some back and forth between NAA & FOCA, for IFR, however, if it’s PC12 or PC24, that door is wide open apparently…
“Aircraft Requirements: Any ACFT to be operated under IFR at Sion AP shall be able to comply with the published IFR procedures § 2.22.1.1 or with approved company contingency procedures.The MAX IAS, as published on the relevant charts, shall not be exceeded during the corresponding FLT manoeuvres. The procedures are designed for speed of ACFT categories A, B and C. Additional speed restrictions shall be OBS during APCH and missed APCH.ACFT to be operated on an instrument APCH procedure shall be able to fly a 6° GP in INA and a 4.0° in LDG configuration.”
“ Aircraft not admitted unless a special authorisation
The following ACFT types are not admitted to operate at Lugano AP unless a special AUTH has been issued by Lugano AP Authority.
The request for a special AUTH must be filed at least 24 HR before the intended ARR.
2.1 Jet aeroplanes
REF: GEN 4.1.12., class I, II, III, IV. 2.2 Propeller aeroplanes
REF: GEN 4.1.13., class A and following aeroplanes of class B:
• BE-55 Beech Baron 55
• C 210 Cessna
• C 336/337 Cessna; 336 Skymaster/337 Super Skymaster
2.3 Helicopters
• Bell 204
• Bell 214
• Kamow”
https://www.lugano-qualification.ch/ab_qualificationrequirements.html
https://www.sion-qualification.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/tram_080706_vers5-1.pdf
https://www.sion-qualification.ch/airport-briefing/
https://www.sion-qualification.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/lsgs-AD2-1-2.pdf
On the topic, the fantastic plastic UL with screaming Rotax at 6000rpm is too cheap, too noisy and they don’t climb well in mountains to stay away from people’s heads in a calm countryside, I am not surprised FOCA wanted to kick them out of the airspace…historically they were very keen on visiting paragliders or Annex2 wooden gliders as they fit well within the picture
