gallois wrote:
But it does seem to be causing quite a lot of controversy in the ULM world.
I don’t see why. For an UL pilot who does not also have a PPL or LAPL with SEP rating, it means nothing at all, For an UL pilot who does have an EASA license with SEP rating, it offers an opportunity to take or not as (s)he wishes.
I don’t see the problem either but for some reason there is. But then I am not a ULM pilot, at least not yet. I.might change my mind if it is correct :)
gallois wrote:
But it does seem to be causing quite a lot of controversy in the ULM world.
I have a friend who participates is the european meetings between UL federations to try to align national regulations as much as possible.
The FFPLUM specifically is working double time to go the other way and make the french UL rules different from everybody else’s. If there is a controversy, it’s self inflicted.
Oh yes it is self inflicted. Both the FFPLUM and the DGAC claim that this directive which basically extends Annex 1 aircraft to also cover ULM, was issued as a fait accompli without prior discussion. They believe the Northern European countries have forced it through without discussion. Both the FFPLUM and the DGAC believe this to be the portent for the loss of liberty and greater regulation in the ULM world, and that EASA should not be interfering in what is supposed to be a domestic issue.
It is strange the DGAC have set out a statement confirming this directive and spelling out what it means, but I asked for confirmation from several ULM instructors, who had all seen and read the DGAC missive but are still saying you can not use the hours to validate the SEP by experience.
It is very weird, like A_A , I would have thought they would have welcomed it. I must ask what they are averse to..
gallois wrote:
basically extends Annex 1 aircraft to also cover ULM, was issued as a fait accompli without prior discussion.
That’s a very strange way of putting it. Annex 1 is an exclusion list and ULs have always been Annex 1 (or 2 initially) aircraft ever since the first Basic Regulation. In the current Basic Regulation ULs are in article 1(e) of Annex 1
It is not my way of putting it.
FFPLUM describe it as follows;-
“…..In effect we have always been opposed to this mixing of declarative systems and certified systems, which by its incoherence resembles " a marriage between a Carp and a rabbit"
(The French version of that is a saying here, I’m sure each country has it’s own expressions for 2 things which don’t fit together.)
