Regulate microlighting or free the GIPAG?

Letter in reply to the press release of the GIPAG of 10 December 2021.

Dear Madam Horiot,

In a GIPAG press release, of which you are the president, entitled “Regulating commercial aerial work in microlights”, you state that your organisation, which is also a member of the FNAM, is a major contributor to an order submitted to the DGAC in November on aerial work in microlights. You have even set up a “microlight expert group” to propose a draft of the order to the DGAC. You want to bring “consistency between, on one side, a heavily regulated system for certified aircraft and, on the other, the regulatory no man's land of aerial work in microlights”. You therefore propose the whole well-known panoply of certified aviation, including, among other things, the class 1 aeronautical medical examination and the servicing of machines in approved workshops.

On what basis are you doing this? With what legitimacy? Starting from what proven problems?

You have never contacted the French Microlight Federation, but I know that for many months you have been actively working to undermine our activity with the authorities, and you even claim as much in your press release. The term “professional”, the long-standing nature of the GIPAG, and your reputation over the years within Troyes Aviation, a distributor for DAHER, MOONEY or PIPER (all companies a long way from microlighting...), create a sort of natural aura of immunity, which should not fool anyone! Everyone will have understood that the GIPAG has never cared about microlighting, that you are speaking about a field you do not know, and that your action is essentially motivated by jealousy. Locking others up does not set you free, and while we understand the difficulties of certified aviation, holding back microlighting will not make your members any better off!

I called you immediately to tell you of my surprise! In twenty minutes of conversation on the phone, I found that you know absolutely nothing about the microlight regulations and their development. Among the reasons for the lack of consistency, you mentioned photography! Do you really think that photography is today the core business of professional microlight pilots? We are talking about microlights, not drones! Crop spraying? Where? In photos in history books! Parachute dropping? From a weight-shift microlight, one at a time and in homeopathic doses! Banner towing, which was shamefully sacrificed and which we supposedly defended together?

You do not know how the microlight movement works. It also affiliates (30%) for-profit companies, like many sports federations (motorcycling, sailing, golf), which also have professionals. You remain stuck on work/leisure and club/professional distinctions that have slowly killed off the current system. It is adapted regulation (not a no man's land) and balanced development between our clubs and our companies that has made our sport a success. The microlight regulations have enabled the rise of innovative, accessible machines. They have created an ecosystem of professionals, and in every class of machine we have prestigious national manufacturers.

You claim, for instance, that the absence of an aeronautical medical examination is an anomaly in microlighting, but when I reply that England has, in certified aviation, a more liberal approach than France, identical to ours in microlighting, you say nothing! That is precisely the issue: defending our freedoms responsibly without wishing, out of convenience, more restrictive standards on others. We can create a medical expert group within the FFPLUM to help the DGAC set you free! You eventually admitted that one of your relatives was an aviation doctor…

You know the subject so poorly that you do not see the disastrous effect such regulation would have on people discovering our activity. Let us suppose your self-proclaimed expert sorcerer's apprentices get their way. What will the consequence be? The development of our sport will be held back for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with safety, which will bring nothing to your professionals and will lead everyone to ruin at a time when the threats to aviation are so many. I am struck by how it is always easy to criticise the national or European administration, yet the demand for rules and standards often comes from bodies that organise their influence and protect their turf, even if it means sinking the whole. And I do not hesitate to say it: it is fortunate that the DGAC stood with us to preserve microlighting. I invited you to the MULM but you were not available! You are welcome at the Federation and on our airfields to be shown the dynamism of our sport, which you do not know.

On introductory flights, the Federation defends a simple policy: more training for non-instructor pilots, a better tool for tracking training, and above all not upsetting the fragile balance between regulation, safety and training. Microlight pilots do not count on you to defend them, whether recreational or professional pilots, clubs or companies, instructors or managers of organisations, and I am in my role as president of a federation when I express surprise that the GIPAG meddles in our regulations with no legitimacy whatsoever. Your remarks are even hurtful in their contempt for our activity. The GIPAG represents about 70 professional organisations from the certified world, while the Federation brings together 1 200 organisations, 1 200 instructors, more than 16 000 members and a network of 800 microlight airfields. Everyone may have an opinion on everything, but it is essential to respect the legitimacy of the parties involved. I therefore invite you to contact us directly if you wish to put forward specific points.

Yours sincerely.

Happy holidays.

Sébastien PERROT

President of FFPLUM

Photo: © FFPLUM