Micro Light Aircraft MLA | EASA Community

Karel Abbenes • 3 February 2020

in community General Aviation

6 likes

It might be an idea to keep track of what countries and MS are doing in regard of the MLA. Germany has already opted out as has France (with a different MTOM) Who else has opted out? In the Netherlands we are working on the Opt Out (which allows noncertified light aircraft up to 600kg MTOM to be under National legislation) and are working on maintenance and licence issues. I would be interested to hear what other countries are doing. It might also be good to promote border crossing and getting rid of the formal permission you now need to fly with your Microlight to other MS. Another topic that is strange is that if you fly with your MLA (some of which are more complex than an SEP) these hours do not count for your SEP recency hours. But flying an Annex 1 (fi Piper Cub) does count. In my view this is a mistake. All hours flown with any 3 axe MLA's should count toward the SEP recency hours. We are promoting the possibility to fly (after a difference training) MLA with LAPL or PPL but this seems difficult because of the hours not being validated for SEP recency hours.

Does anyone have any views on this topic?

Karel

Comments (23)

Kadir Hattat • 4 years ago

EASA is over regulated. They should leave anything and everything under 1.000 kilograms to national authorities. A lighter, kinder approach to light aviation

Paul Wheal • 4 years ago

I know that the aviation world is full of acronyms, but articles would be a lot easier to read if they were explained at least once in the text.

Karel Abbenes • 4 years ago

MTOM-Max Takeoff Mass
MS Member State
SEP Singel Engine Piston
LAPL Light Aircraft Pilot Licence

Anton Eiser • 4 years ago

Dear Hattat,
it might appear attractive at first glance but I would prefere pan-European regulations because otherwise you are bothered by national bureaucracy, different languages, etc. when you want to offer new products or to fly in neighbouring countries.

Kadir Hattat • 4 years ago

Dear Anton,
I could not agree with you more but, as EASA has many countries with different light aviation cultures and histories, I fear getting a pan-European EASA regulation written up that will satisfy all the stakeholder country authorities and get formalized will take longer than my life expectancy. I am 59 and hope to fly till I am past 90

Karel Abbenes • 4 years ago

One of the issues is that these MLA's are not certified, and all Member States MS have different views on what the technical specification of an MLA should be. The second issue is that certification is very expensive and time consuming. Part 21 Light might bring some improvement. The Micro Light Aircraft are appealing to young pilots for they can be light, well equipped, fast, value for money with an hourly price much lower than SEP and the licence is in some countries relatively easy to get. This why I would like to see a LAPL for MLA's. This is however again coupled to the hours issue I described earlier.......

Paul Wheal • 4 years ago

One problem with the LAPPL is it cannot be held with a EASA PPL(A) I therefore have a NPPL for microlights and a PPL(A) for group A aircraft. [~1985]

Malte Höltken • 4 years ago

[~168] with FCL.205, the PPL(A) includes the LAPL(A)

Keith Vinning • 4 years ago

Microlights have really come on since we started flying them in the late 70's so I am in favour. Obviously weight shift aircraft and very early two axis aircraft that would fit into the Microlight class bear no resemblance to a SEP like a Cirrus so it should not be universal.

Paul Wheal • 4 years ago

I disagree, a Cessna 150 is positively agricultural when compared to a modern 3 axis microlight like an Ikarus C42.

Jozef Jankovic • 4 years ago

[~168] I can only agree with this opinion. If we can take Dynamic WT9, VL-3 Evolution or Bristell into comparison - all of them with retractable landing gear and CS propeller ... then many SEP aircraft are really historical vehicles.
We can feel as advantage that all our microlights called "Flying Sport Devices" have limit 600kg MTOM according national standard and there are no limits for aircraft complexity. We are able to provide better training for young people for less money, so final result is higher standard and better safety of air operations en block..

Trevor Sexton • 4 years ago

EASA were suppose to be issuing an updated " Easy access rules for Flight Crew Licencing (Part-FCL) " document in January.
Within this document is suppose to be AMC ( Alternate Means of Compliance ) which will allow for hours flown on 3 axis Microlight/MLA aircraft to count towards SEP recency hours.

So the question is, when will this updated document be issued and what will the actual wording be.....

Thomas Dietrich • 4 years ago

There was a list promised with all the types that can be used for SEP time. Anybody has an idea how to make it more complicated?

Cristina ANGULO • 4 years ago

Dear all, In the EASA web you can find all about Opt-out related to design, production, maintenance and operations (Art 2(8)): https://www.easa.europa.eu/opt-out-article-28-211.
There is also a table with the countries that have Opted-out and the respective categories as not all Opt-outs are the same: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Table%20Art%202%288%…

Jozef Jankovic • 4 years ago

Well, yes, it is big step forward for microlights (considering go-by production about 20 000 Piper J-3 Cub MTOW 550kg as aircraft for years) definitely.
But EASA AMC ( Alternate Means of Compliance ) which will allow for hours flown on 3 axis Microlight/MLA aircraft to count towards SEP recency hours is still missing.
Common understanding that present status of quality of pilot training is simply not good enough - basic "manual flight skills" are desperately missing. (The FAA has formally requested the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to address the issue of declining manual flight skills among airline pilots.)
Present 3 axis Microlight/MLA aircraft are effective way how to improve situation. The price of operations of present SEP is simply unacceptable, that's the reason why 3 axis Microlight/MLA aircraft are so important.

Jean-Claude Ribaux • 4 years ago

Hi Karel, You may ask Rieteke, EMF. Up to now only three states declared the use of OPTOUT 600 F, G, CZ. It's a pity as Part 21L is not a solution for microlight furthermore, EASA would not only like to convince microlight flyers to switch to Part 21L but also to Part ML and EASA LAPL licensing. It is of utmost importance that all ML Associations promote OPTOUT 600 and ''try'' to work together.
ML Flight hours
Acc to EASA officials a new AMC should be published at the end of February 2020 to allow ML Flt Hrs for SEP revalidation but not for basic training ? Let us see

Gerald Menclik • 4 years ago

In Austria the optout is in progress, as we hear. What is possible in Austria, is the count of MLA (three axis controlled) hours for SEP prolongation. Only the checkflight has to be flown on a SEP.

Trevor Sexton • 4 years ago

The updated FCL is out https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations#regulations-aircrew

and the microlight bit
AMC1 FCL.140.A; FCL.140.S; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) Recency and revalidation requirements
All hours flown on aeroplanes or sailplanes that are subject to a decision as per Article 2(8) of the Basic
Regulation or that are specified in Annex I to the Basic Regulation should count in full towards fulfilling
the hourly requirements of points FCL.140.A, FCL.140.S, and FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) under the following
conditions:
Annex I to ED Decision 2020/005/R
Page 7 of 61
(a) the aircraft matches the definition and criteria of the respective Part-FCL aircraft category, class,
and type ratings; and
(b) the aircraft that is used for training flights with an instructor is an Annex-I aircraft of type (a),
(b), (c), or (d) that is subject to an authorisation specified in points ORA.ATO.135 or
DTO.GEN.240.

Karel Abbenes • 4 years ago

Thank you Trevor! Can you confirm that an aircraft falling under the OptOut is still an Annex 1 aircraft? I would have thought that if you OptOut you are no longer part of something. The next question is: what is an Micro Light Aircraft having used the OptOut if it is not an Annex 1? A National LSA?

Jannes Neumann • 4 years ago

Karel, if you read the text of the AMC carefully "aeroplanes or sailplanes that are subject to a decision as per Article 2(8) of the Basic
Regulation or that are specified in Annex I to the Basic Regulation" you realise, there are two references.
1. Article 2 (8) = opt out
2. Annex I to the BR
And to further answer your question, an OpOut aircraft is never an Annex I aircraft and vice versa.
The regulative framework (Certification, maintenance, FCL, OPS, ...) for both Annex I and OptOut are subject to national regulation which might be the same for both or can be different. In addition subject to each Member State own framework. Thus, your last question neds to be answered per MS.

Julian Scarfe • 4 years ago

Hi Karel, OptOut aircraft are "aeroplanes or sailplanes that are subject to a decision as per Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation"

Karel Abbenes • 4 years ago

Thank you for the clearification!
Does this means that these aircraft can not be used for training for LAPL or PPL ?. If this is correct I feel that EASA should make this possible and include MLA’s in the training for EU licences and count the hours for recency for EU PPL and LAPL.. My understanding was that this was still subject of discussion is this still the case?

Jannes Neumann • 4 years ago

Dear Karel, please study the latest amendment of the AMC to Part-FCL, both the Explanatory Note and the amended AMC. While doing so, please have in mind that any reference to Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation is a reference to the opt-out possibility,

https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/acceptable-means-of-complia…

You are not allowed to comment on content in a group you are not member of.

View group