Because Annexe 1 comes under NAAs.
Why does Sweden and Spain demand a class 2 medical to fly a ULM?
Why doesn’t Norway or France.
The reason in France is that UL pilots have banded together and agreed with the DGAC that as long as we keep within certain limits we can self declare our medicals, self declare our maintenance and have licences for life with no currency or experience rules.
In other words the pilot/owner is responsible for everything from your own health to maintenance to following the rules of the air. 450kg was agreed upon originally. This has now been increased to 500kg probably because of pressure from manufacturers who weren’t selling enough LSAs in Europe to increase MTOW to 600kg. But 600kg is the lower end of the LSA range and also the range in which many Annexe 1 aircraft eg kit builds, homebuilders and some orphelins would fit.
And while these Annexe 1 aircraft have lesser regulation eg in terms of maintenance and who can do it than their certified brethren, they still are not offer the self declaration freedoms of the ULM flyer.
So for the ULM fraternity there was a risk of losing some of our freedom with an increase to 600kg. In fact it had already happened without consultation of the FFPLUM. The European Ultralight group had successfully petitioned EASA to count the number of hours flown in 3 axis ULs towards PPL currency and revalidation by experience. This forced the DGAC to adopt this against the wishes of the FFPLUM. In fact it was served up as a fait accomplished.
Although many holders of both PPLs and UL licences were happy with this it did go against the “self declaration concept” for the FFPLUM and UL pilots in general as they now all were expected to keep log books.
@LeSving I still do not understand your problem. AiUI you have both a PPL and a UL licence plus as you have often said you don’t fly to France anyway.
But if you should happen to come and your Savannah is registered as 500kg MTOW you don’t have to do anything and can fly on your UL licence. If it is registered as 600kg you still don’t have to do anything as you.fly it on your PPL. I honestly do not understand your problem.
gallois wrote:
So for the ULM fraternity there was a risk of losing some of our freedom with an increase to 600kg.
I can understand that, but it is still a national (DGAC) issue and not an EASA issue.
In fact it had already happened without consultation of the FFPLUM. The European Ultralight group had successfully petitioned EASA to count the number of hours flown in 3 axis ULs towards PPL currency and revalidation by experience. This forced the DGAC to adopt this against the wishes of the FFPLUM. In fact it was served up as a fait accomplished.
Although many holders of both PPLs and UL licences were happy with this it did go against the “self declaration concept” for the FFPLUM and UL pilots in general as they now all were expected to keep log books.
It’s still upp to DGAC. They could have decided that only UL pilots that wished to avail themselves of this opportunity would need to keep log books. In no way does this mean that EASA forces UL pilots to keep log books. Obviously without a log book you can’t count UL time towards PPL currency, but if you’re not interested in that…
Obviously without a log book you can’t count UL time towards PPL currency
That’s actually an interesting point. What you say makes total sense and I think a lot of people didn’t think of that angle at the time (life is full of things like this; I could give some non aviation examples). But one could argue that a logbook is mandatory only to log the hours you want to credit.
I would also question the real value of not having to have a logbook. What would be the main motivation for that? It’s not onerous. Don’t you need an airframe logbook for the aircraft?
Because Annexe 1 comes under NAAs
Which is the essence here, as explained. An UL with MTOW of 500 kg does NOT fall in under Annex I. It falls in under Article 2.8 for airplanes not heavier than 600 kg.
Also, Article 2.10 clearly states that any aircraft registered after the 2.8 exemption, shall be under national regulation and NOT under “this” law (the EASA regulation).
Whether you like it or not, as far as EASA goes, and all other nations within EASA, every French UL is in accordance with the same regulation as all other 6000 kg ULs in the rest of Europe. There is no third option. They are too heavy for Annex I 1 e.
gallois wrote:
But if you should happen to come and your Savannah is registered as 500kg MTOW you don’t have to do anything and can fly on your UL licence. If it is registered as 600kg you still don’t have to do anything as you.fly it on your PPL. I honestly do not understand your problem.
Could you please elaborate?
Even if you hold a PPL license in your example the plane you are entering France with still only has a (national) UL registration. “Flying it on the PPL” does not convert the registration to EASA.
No but if it’s Annexe 1 it can be flown in France on the licence and conditions you can fly Annexe 1 aircraft in your country. Providing this is encompassed in one of either the bi lateral or European wide agreements of which France is signed up to eg UK has an agreement and there is the ECAC agreements.
France doe not accept (to put it crudely) that ULMs are Annexe 1 unless they are registered as Annexe 1 because there is no advantage in doing so. Annexe 1 does not allow for self declaration on all the things that ULs in France can profit from. What LeSving is saying IIUC is that ULs come under Annexe 1 in Norway.
There are 6 categories of UL in France and the people who fly them or their representative bodies have agreed with the DGAC a set of regulations for ULs that means that we have self declaration across the board.
If your country considers your ULM as Annexe 1 then you obey those rules which reflect EASA regulations which then tend to be gold plated by the NAA. And in France you are considered to be flying an annexe 1 aircraft.
In the case of log books. When EASA allowed time on ULM to be included towards the PPL hours of experience needed it meant that the DGAC had to have a method of monitoring and verifying those hours. Personal log books is fine to an extent but the DGAC needed a verification method if need be. In order to allow this for members who wanted to take advantage of it, clubs had to keep an aircraft log book IiUC this is sometimes referred to as a journey log, which everyone has to fill in at the end of each flight even those who do not need or wish to record their time. This also leads to set maintenance hours becoming more set (creeping regulation) Personal log books can be kept or not. That’s pilot choice.
It may seem like a small thing but there are many UL pilots who see this as the slippery slope to the infiltration of EASA regs onto UL in France. In the past there has never been a need to keep, carry and maintain any sort of log book. It has been the aircraft owners and pilot’s choice whether to and how to record aircraft and pilot .
If other countries want to tie their ULs more to EASA that is their choice and the pilots of those countries can be for or against and that’s fine.
But tell me why we should accept regulation being foisted upon us to suit others. I think I have expressed very clearly why I am opposed to any regulation that threatens the ULM.sector in France.
I promise you that I won’t try to foist regulation on the use of ULMs in your country as long as you stop foisting your ideas on us.
gallois wrote:
No but if it’s Annexe 1 it can be flown in France on the licence and conditions you can fly Annexe 1 aircraft in your country.
Well, at least for a german (600 kg) UL you need a UL license. Having a PPL as well is completely irrelevant.
gallois wrote:
France doe not accept (to put it crudely) that ULMs are Annexe 1 unless they are registered as Annexe 1 because there is no advantage in doing so. Annexe 1 does not allow for self declaration on all the things that ULs in France can profit from. What LeSving is saying IIUC is that ULs come under Annexe 1 in Norway.
Sorry, but you are very hard to follow. You keep repeating Annex I. Airplanes (new factory produced mostly, ULs typically) with MTOW larger than 450 kg (475), but not more than 600 kg MTOW are NOT listed in Annex I. They don’t belong there. They are only found in Article 2 chapter 8 to 11. A French UL with MTOW of 500 (525) kg is NOT Annex I. Unless of course by Annex I you mean something completely different.
I thought that was what I have been saying LeSving. 600kg MTOW is not a UL in France. You can call it what you want in your own country. But It is not classified as a UL in France as it does not meet French UL rules. It can be given permission to fly in France , based on it and the pilot meeting the regulations in its own country, which is exactly what is happening and there is a €50 charge for it. That is the decision of the DGAC which regulates French ULMs and their pilots.
@supersonic what are the conditions for gaining and keeping a UL licence in Germany?
gallois wrote:
@supersonic what are the conditions for gaining and keeping a UL licence in Germany?
They are much stricter than those in France:
- Class 2 or LAPL Medical
- 30 h practical training
- Theoretical exam
- Pyrotechnical instruction
Don’t get my wrong – I totally can understand your approach to “real” ultralight flying in an utmost liberal way. Actually that freedom is quite admirable! The only comparable thing in Germany is the 130 kg ultralight class.
However, for what ULs have become in the rest of Europe – the almost only general aircraft category where real progress and innovation happens – it is a pity that differing national regulations restrict the broader use of them.
