Airborne_Again wrote:
Does “ein Luftsportgerät” mean only UL or does it also include LSAs, gliders and such?
Only ULs – according to German laws, gliders, LSA, etc. are actual airplanes, while ULs are “Air Sports Equipment”…
Cobalt wrote:
So let me get this straight – a membership driven pilot’s organisation is against giving their members more freedom with no downside??? Just goes to show that while we all moan about regulators, we should be grateful we are not regulated by other pilots.
I think I understand the French pilots just fine. Keep it simple, keep it light, and they are left alone to manage stuff without intervention from the authorities. More weight, more complexity and more operational space in terms of air space and runways, also means more regulations AND more intervention by the authorities.
In Norway the opposite thing has happened and is happening. What this ends up with is the CAA getting tighter and tighter grip. Yes, ULs can be operated here exactly as any certified aircraft. We can use all of the airspace, every airport etc, but this “freedom” also mean the CAA can and do enforce whatever regulation they want.
It all depends on what you really mean by freedom. If by freedom you mean to fly and operate as if the UL was a certified aircraft, then this is wat you get. But, you get the whole cake, the “good” parts and the “bad” parts. Bad in this respect meaning adherence to Part NCO, Part SERA, long and convoluted path to licenses both theoretical and practical, PPL like medical requirements and so on.
However, if by freedom you mean zero bureaucracy as in “free as the bird” freedom, then your “operational space” is restricted accordingly. But the operation does indeed become a “free as the bird” kind of operation. The extreme is probably paragliders. Perhaps the ideal being paraglider kind of operation, but with an engine.
Out in the countryside in the wide open G airspace where most ULs live, there is no requirements for radio. No requirements for transponder and so on. You can take your UL license out there, and from there on live there all your life without ever talking in the radio, without ever bothering about airspaces or busting those airspaces. At a controlled airfield, there is no way you can obtain a license and live there without proper knowledge and experience and proper equipment (radio + transponder). The authorities will also enter the scene to make sure:
Unless you want to create a plethora of different UL regimes and licenses, the common denominator will set the rules. The thing is though, the “common denominator” in this case will be whatever the national aviation authority say it is.
Here and now, at this point in time the UL license in Norway is no UL license at all. It is a de facto national PPL, but with restrictions on flying ULs only. More or less exactly the same theoretical knowledge as for LAPL, only with substantially larger technical curriculum. One can simply follow all LAPL/PPL theoretical courses, but replace the technical subjects. This is what many/most do. Exactly the same amount of minimum flying hours needed: 30h. The exact same RT course and exam. I am an UL instructor and should know a thing or two about this. It has happened fast, perhaps during the last 10 years, and most of it during the last 5.
Lately I have been asking myself (and others), is this really what we want? What exactly have we become? I recon the French pilots have seen this development coming and answered in unison : NO I also have a PPL, for 30 years this year. For me personally, this is no big deal, but I do understand the French UL pilots 100% They focus on the “free as a bird” concept, while others focus on “free to operate wherever I want” (which for all practical sense means to operate in controlled airspace like a certified aircraft). What is the underlying drive here? So that every UL pilot in theory can purchase a new €250k racer that he/she cannot afford in any case? I mean, it really is very hard to not be amazed by French pilots here, and their sense of what aviation in general is mostly about for most people (remember, everyone is free to take a LAPL/PPL in any case).
I have to wonder where this will end up un the future. Straight up I would think a simpler UL license and operational regime will come out as a result, sooner or later, loosely based on the French concept, but perhaps even simpler. For the current UL license and regime, I think this will blend into a pure national PPL kind of license. Perhaps only as an extra theoretical/technical and practical courses on top of LAPL/PPL and valid for all non certified aircraft. Time will show I guess.
Thanks for this very good analysis.
LeSving wrote:
Lately I have been asking myself (and others), is this really what we want?
The challenge I see in Germany is that the UL-community has become too large and too diverse to talk about a “we” in that sense.
From the Paraglider that wants to have an Engine on the back to the “Non-AOC AOC” that does commercial flights with ULs w/o paperwork, CPL, etc. you literally find everything. It’s also a non trivial task for the associations to bridge the different gaps.
LeSving wrote:
Bad in this respect meaning adherence to Part NCO, Part SERA, long and convoluted path to licenses both theoretical and practical, PPL like medical requirements and so on.
Actually, everything that flies has to adhere to SERA as you’re sharing the airspace with others.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Actually, everything that flies has to adhere to SERA as you’re sharing the airspace with others
That was my natural and intuitive understanding but apparently it is not the case !
The operation of Annex I aircraft is exempt from basic regulations packs (SERA, FCL, NCO), obviously “national rules of the air” and SERA are both based on ICAO standard, the former tend to be more strict than SERA, so no issue for compliance with SERA while operating non-EASA aircraft under national laws as one will not have problem of non-EASA & EASA aircraft sharing in same airspace…
Now if one says BR/SERA has nothing to do with “aircraft operation”, well then the sky is the limit: everything & nothing is in scope 
SERA is part of Basic Regulations and BR has the following scope
EU 2018/1139 Basic Regulation :
Article 2 – Scope
3. This Regulation shall not apply to:
…
(d) the design, production, maintenance and operation of aircraft the operation of which involves low risk for aviation safety, as listed in Annex I, and to the personnel and organisations involved therein, unless the aircraft has been issued, or has been deemed to have been issued, with a certificate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.
…
4. By derogation from point (d) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, this Regulation, and the delegated and implementing acts adopted on the basis thereof, shall apply to the design, production and maintenance of an aircraft type falling within the scope of points (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of point 1 of Annex I and to the personnel and organisations involved in those activities
Ibra wrote:
SERA is part of Basic Regulations and BR has the following scope
SERA (EU regulation 923/2012 with amendments) is not part of the Basic Regulation (EU regulation 2018/1139). It is also neither about design, production, manitenance, or operation of aircraft.
Now if one says BR/SERA has nothing to do with “aircraft operation”, well then the sky is the limit: everything & nothing is in scope
The difference between “operational rules” (e.g. part-NCO) and “Rules of the Air” (SERA) may not be obvious, but it is very real. A bit simplified, you can say that operational rules concern the safety of the aircraft itself and its crew/passengers/cargo, while the Rules of the Air concern the safety of people outside the aircraft.
Under what legal basis you could apply SERA to AnnexI aircraft if both are excluded from Basic Regulation? or other than “common sense”, is there a legal text that says AnnexI “Rules of the Air” are those of SERA?
High likely “SERA is part of BR”, it’s on the first page of EASA regulation structure, the 10th item…
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/regulations_structure-12062014.pdf
Ibra wrote:
Under what legal basis you could apply SERA to AnnexI aircraft if both are excluded from Basic Regulation?
SERA is an EU regulation! That’s the legal basis!
High likely “SERA is part of BR”, it’s on the first page of EASA regulation structure, the 10th item…
It shows the regulation structure. It doesn’t say that SERA is “part of” the Basic Regulation.
But in same fashion, FCL is also an EU regulation also neither about design, production, manitenance, or operation of aircraft (above it suggest “operation” means AirOps? not SERA for rule of air or FCL for licensing?)
There has to be something why FCL does not apply to AnnexI but SERA apply and I really fail to see it? all I can see is “common sense”: rules of the air are on everybody, the guidance of the wise and the protection of the foolish
Edit, it seems here, silly me…
I have recently heard that even if you apply properly, France flat out refuses issuing any permit for flying say a German 600kg-microlight within France (unless it is just for a one-off flight to get it across the country.)
MLA still has nothing to say about that:
This seems like a huge cockup. Nothing from say DAeC either. All of France effectively closed for all modern microlights from other adjoining countries? Europe really has gone downhill in some way recently…
In fact, for say a German modern microlight owner wanting to fly legally, most of western the western half of Europe is now closed or a hassle:
