When EASA wants to take charge of our microlights

In the middle of the COVID-19 crisis, we noticed a recent and very discreet EASA publication dated 18/03/2020.

It is “Decision ED 2020 / 005/R” and its annexes, which deal with the possibility of counting “microlight” flight hours as “aeroplane” flight hours, flown on Annex I aircraft under “European Regulation (EU) 2018/1139” of 22/08/2018.

This recent decision ED2020/005, published as an "AMC and GM: Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Materials" (that is, recommendations), supplemented by an "Explanatory Note", would describe the option for Member States that so wish to count hours flown in microlights (3 axes) towards the renewal of an aeroplane LAPL licence. All of this remains conditional for now, because it contradicts the original text of the 2018 European Regulation, which has the force of law and which, quite logically, had excluded non-certified aircraft from this possibility.

Let us be clear that this is, once again, the result of lobbying by certain European countries that have already moved to "certified microlights": the same ones that pushed for the 600 kg microlight... with all the associated constraints: initial certification and periodic inspections of the aircraft, medical examinations and periodic checks for pilots, a compulsory logbook and recording of flying hours, restricted access to microlight strips... In short, everything we do not want.

To speak plainly, let us add to this some national lobbying by a small fringe of our aeroplane pilots and aeroplane flying clubs who came to microlighting by default... and not by choice, without accepting its requirements and fundamentals.

For us in France, with our specific declaration-based system, it is quite simply out of the question to implement such a provision for our microlight pilots that would allow microlight flying hours to count towards a certified aeroplane. These are two different practices; mixing them up would make no sense and in some respects would run counter to safety.

The FFPLUM has always clearly rejected this very bad idea, and there is no question of changing that! Let us remember that microlight regulation is governed by national rules specific to each country, under the supervision of the DGAC in our case, and we will make sure that this breach is not opened.

A declaration-based system and a certified system cannot be mixed: the regulatory concepts are fundamentally different, both in how the aircraft is operated and in culture. Who could imagine logging hours flown in a Wheedoper or Skyranger, mostly from microlight sites, as "aeroplane hours"? Those who have such ideas show a great lack of understanding of the reality of our activity.

For pilots who absolutely insist on logging aeroplane flying hours on light, economical aircraft, there is now every opportunity to do so with CS-LSA aircraft from Part-21 Light. They are indeed quite close to some of our microlights in terms of performance, but they remain part of a certified system under EASA's supervision.

We are microlights, and we simply want to remain microlights. We must preserve our fundamentals, which are the simplicity, responsibility and freedom of our activity. That is what made microlighting such an extraordinary success in less than 50 years of existence in France. The proof is the large number of foreign pilots from neighbouring countries who come to fly microlights in France... it is no accident!

So, if other countries and manufacturers want to continue their lobbying to turn microlights into aeroplanes at all costs, our answer is very clear:

Count us out!

Louis COLLARDEAU

Vice-President of FFPLUM

President of the EMF