Hello EASA!
Why has this AMC not been published yet? Many flight schools and NAAs are waiting. Do you have an update on the progress?
Comments (22)
I am also waiting for the AMC
Not only training on Annex 1 but als Micro Light Aircraft and the Opted Out “ national LSA” up to 600 kg MTOM. The hours flown on these aircraft should also count toward recency SEP!
The other issue we need to address is accepting MLA aircraft to fly in other EU countries. The Basic Regulations say that you need permission to fly in other countries than the state of registration. If we have any confidence in our fellow Member States we must allow MLA’ to fly in all EASA countries.
You are absolutely right, bit this is not on EASAs table - member countries themselves have to go this way and accept without restrictions the use of their airspace with annex I aircraft from other states. Annex I aircraft are out of EASA regulation - therefore EASA here is not responsible. Germany, Poland, CZ, Italy and France are going the right way (Still missing accepance for IFR flights) - Spain and some others are far behind because they ask you to apply for permission prior to your entry... thats not practicable.
Isn´ ´t there a movement towards simpler rules? Why in the hell shall Annex 1 ( Old Annex II ) Aircraft should not be used for training? Are they not safe because they do not pay fees to EASA? They have TC and are proven. The Microlights are getting better and more sophisticated than many EASA Aircraft. EASA should remember that the S in their name stands for: Safety not for complication or restriction.,
But it is allowed since the 11th of November to use Annex I for flight training... So yes, there is a move for simpler rules and we are happy about it.
We are just waiting for the AMC to get started.
Niklas Larsson, will only training be possible or also to showing experience on 3-axis MLA to maintain your EASA SEP rating?
Tim-Peter Voss, the rule it self does not clearly state crediting like that but I have heard that the AMC might cover that. We are eager to have it published ASAP.
Dear Dietrich,
This is not a question of money, but a question of Safety. The requirements of the CS23 and Part 23 are coming from decades of experience and analysis of data coming from accident investigation. So yes, a certified aircraft is safer that a microlight. I have 45 years of experience as flight instructor, aerobatic pilot and instructor, test pilot and I could write a book full of evidence to support my statement.
Dominique Roland , John FRANKLIN , do you have any more info on the publishing?
Dear Niklas,
We were planning to publish the AMC & GM at the end of February. There is a slight delay as we faced an unexpected issue that we had to submit for review by our legal department.
It seems that we have found a way forward (today) and the package should be published by the end of March, as we need to do a little bit of rewriting.
Dominique Roland
I appreciate the answer. I sure hope that the rewriting does not affect the positive outcome of the AMC. The rule itself is very positive and have great potential if the NAAs are progressive.
Niklas Larsson - I will check with colleagues when I get back to the office tomorrow. Sorry, I was in the UK for a few days and didn’t get chance to reply until now.
No worries at all, glad that you will check it.
Niklas Larsson - the AMC is being completed at the moment and should be ready in approximately 2 weeks.
John Franklin, great to hear that it isn’t forgotten! Is there any subscription service to get info on recently published AMCs?
You are right that MLA’s are Nationally regulated. Nevertheless could International flights be accommodated by EASA regulations or at least suggestions. If Memberstates have confidence in each other’s mutual legislation and technical abilities, it should be easy to accept all aircraft in your airspace including Microlights and other Annex 1 aircraft........
Karel, this is off topic, but the Problem is 1. "If Memberstates have confidence in each other’s mutual legislation and technical abilities,..." They don´t! For reasons: The requirements differ significantly in the different states! For example try to compare the requirements for amateurbuilt unique A/C designs in France and Germany! and 2. The EASA cannot tell states to accept others states regulations. An Europe wide recommendation for amateurbuilt and historic A/C is allready made from the EUROPEAN CIVIL AVIATION CONFERENCE (ECAC): https://www.ecac-ceac.org/home-built-aircraft the states just have to go along with this and also apply for microlight aircraft.
The AMC and Guidance materials have been published:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Annex%20I%20%E2%80%9…
Please log in or sign up to comment.
You are absolutely right. Furthermore OPTOUT 600 A/C using CO2 neutral fuel are the future for Climate and Ecology. Electrical A/C are not the solution. 25 kg of the best and NEW battery correspond to one lt of fuel. Extravagants ELA 01 A/C costs are another reason .
Jean-Claude Ribaux Swiss Microlight Federation
Karel, be careful not to mix up the things. Annex 1 includes historic, amateur built and microlight aircraft independent whther they are old 450kg or opt out 600kg. So if we wish to use Annex I aircraft for training and maintaining the privileges of our EASA SEP ratings that already has all in!
Are you sure a Microlight using the Opt Out is still and Annex 1 aircraft? In my view it is than exempt from the aircraft in Annex 1 and therefor undifined...