Our regulatory choices
Our regulatory choices
The freest regulation, made for pilots!
Our microlight regulation is the freest in Europe for powered flight. That is an established fact. But we should not think that regulation is eternal or that things happen by themselves. The fight is permanent, and often thankless, to reach this "dynamic" balance. At a time when some of us will not be standing again for the next term (2025-2029) after more than 18 years as elected officials, 10 years alongside Dominique Méreuze and 8 years as president in my own case, it is important to recall a few lessons.
Regulation is the State, not the Federation!
The first is that it is not the federation that makes the regulation but the State, under a quite original double delegation (Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Sport). It is thanks in particular to a close relationship of trust between the DGAC and the federation that we were able to build this framework (in 1981, 1998 or 2018). The creation of EASA in 2003, which took over certification, made the work more complicated. The European federation (EMF) was created in its wake to campaign at European level so as to stay outside the Agency's scope (the famous annexes, the "2", then since 2018 the "1"). Paradoxically, you have to be very present at European level in order to stay outside! It is particularly important to be well introduced in the bodies of influence such as Europe Air Sports (EAS).
Without the DGAC's support, however, we could not have imposed our views at European level, particularly in the last "round" defining the scope of practices "outside" the European agency. The fight was a hard one. And the push for a 600 kg microlight in effect amounts to harmonising the microlight at European level and ultimately bringing it within EASA's remit. It is therefore absolutely vital that microlight regulation remains national! While still allowing agreements between authorities for movement between States. This has worked very well since 1981. But let's not take the example of the "free movement" that we know from elsewhere, where we are sure to lose our "feathers"! Since 2017, we have managed to win a majority within the EMF by shifting the subject from "for or against 600 kg or X kg" to "for or against national or European regulation". But majorities turn quickly, and in our history the practice of microlighting has had its ups and downs. The very good momentum of the past 20 years is no accident.
Regulation is not an end in itself
The second lesson is that regulation does not live on its own, even if lawyers out of touch with reality sometimes like to think so. Obviously, flight safety indicators are decisive. So the fight for regulation and the fight for safety absolutely must be waged together. We remember that the very bad year 2015 led to an order to change instructor training, which resulted in the 2017 reform. With hindsight (I was not in charge at the time), we should certainly have asked ourselves about pilot training before asking about instructor training. But we must realise that the DGAC is not, or no longer, a source of teaching expertise; the disappearance of its training department has meant a loss of expertise on this point. Hence the importance of a quality partnership with the ENAC (which we set up in 2018).
I cannot list the threats that have weighed on this balance, but they are many and often unpredictable. As president I was questioned twice in a judicial investigation, and each time the whole system had to be defended. Our partnership with the BEA is a decisive element that makes our approach credible. Ultimately, safety is above all a training issue, with the "long time" that implies, even though the "hot time" of accidents sometimes calls for immediate responses. The delegation of the microlight theory exam, the overhaul of pilot training, the partnership with Aérogligli, the setting up of the REV operation, the partnership with the ENAC, and the publication at the end of the year of a new federal manual are the best guarantees of our "regulation".
Although related, the insurance factor is also decisive. We manage to insure our microlights (third-party liability) for the price of a scooter, which is remarkable in the current context. Those with a long memory also know that insurance can completely hinder the development of our activity, with a very unhealthy mixing of roles. We therefore need to keep the right distance and maintain good relations with our partners so that the subject does not get out of hand. If we can no longer get insurance, regulation will be of no help to us and may even change in the wrong direction! Class 6 pilots can see this with hull insurance, which is not part of the federal contract. We also remember, during COVID, the timidity of some who wanted to ground us supposedly on insurance grounds.
The consistency of a regulation made for pilots
The third lesson lies in the consistency and maturity of our regulation, which is now well recognised. It has even been on the BIA syllabus since 2015! The main changes were the pragmatic change to the regulatory mass (525 kg max with a parachute for a two-seater) in 2019 and the addition of class 6 in 2014. The 1998 regulation had brought in gyroplanes and balloons, and in the 80s paramotors joined the two original classes (weight-shift and three-axis). But the general philosophy of the regulation has not changed: a declarative system based on responsibility, limits on mass and stall speed (from 98; the earlier regulation was based on wing loading), two seats at most, and VFR flight.
Within this framework, the microlight covers just about everything that flies: fixed, flexible and rotating wings, heavier-than-air craft and aerostats. There are currently around 12 000 machines identified in France under this regime. Each class has brought an innovation, a new use, without "cannibalising" an existing practice. We have remarkable French and foreign manufacturers, often present since the very beginning of our movement. Some microlights admittedly look like aeroplanes, but they are not. Their design and their use are different. The president of the FFA, Jean-Luc Charron, showed clearly in a recent editorial that the real brake on the development of the aeroplane is certification. We can see, for example, how fitting a rescue parachute (which comes from free flight) becomes complex, even impossible, for an electric aeroplane in the world of certification.
The two main sources of "schisms" in this framework were the paramotor on the one hand, and what are called (without really being able to define them) high-performance microlights on the other.
As regards paramotors, the obstacle of the microlight theory exam (whose questions were often heavily aeroplane-oriented when it was the DGAC's responsibility) has been removed under the delegation (this year 2000 sessions were held). Paramotor pilots account for almost 25 % of our members and bring a momentum that benefits everyone. Conversely, it is quite illusory to think that total deregulation would bring more freedom. It would be the surest way of grounding us on the order of a prefect, for example. Some recent accidents nearly called paramotor regulation as a whole into question, and it is the coherence of the microlight family that ensures the practice endures. What is more, many members practise more than one discipline, and our champions fly the microlight colours very high (not only in paramotoring). I am very proud to announce that the paramotor display team will fly the opening display of the show at La Ferté-Alais.
As regards "high-performance" microlights, a recurring subject and the perennial of our sport, two things must be noted. First, the question of performance is often in the end a question of mass, which brings us back to the initial discussion. Second, we must bear in mind that accidents are no more likely with one type of machine than another. We must also drop the idealised picture of the early days: with barely 4 000 pilots in the 80s, there were proportionally far more accidents than today. Our activity has therefore become safer over time, in particular since 1998 and the new structure of the federation and of its relationship with the supervisory authorities.
It would therefore be very dangerous to try to destabilise this whole, especially in a difficult context for aviation and all its players. The devil is often in the detail, and the best is the enemy of the good. Our regulation is not perfect, but it has the merit of having proved itself and of satisfying the vast majority of pilots and manufacturers. On this last point, it is a very good thing that our regulation acts as a nursery for new technologies for manufacturers who are often outside our world, but that gives them no particular legitimacy to change our rules towards a system that would suit them better. Especially for machines worth several hundred thousand euros, which have only a marginal place in our activity.
A federation and strong partnerships
The fourth and last lesson for preserving our regulation depends directly on the "health" of our federation. We have very varied practices, clubs, companies and airfields, far more than other aeronautical sports. Not to mention that our fields are quite technical and that our movement has never lacked strong personalities. With Dominique Méreuze and then without him, we have striven to make our federations stronger and more credible, and also more autonomous in their means of action. That requires, first of all, healthy licence numbers, which are never guaranteed, especially in the current context, but also strong partnerships.
Our two supervisory authorities have fully absorbed this history, which often has to be recalled, for example on the specific nature of the medical requirements and on the constraints linked to paid flights. Over time we have managed to get our two supervisory authorities to talk to each other about our sport. The fact remains that the State is sovereign and nothing prevents it from moving in a completely different direction. We are lucky to have a public authority that is invested in leisure aviation. We must maintain a good balance, taking our independence on certain subjects without taking charge of the whole activity. The German DULV model, which manages the entire sport including certification, has the effect of raising the level of certification on a wholly private model. We should not think that bureaucracy and standards are solely the work of the public authority.
Over time we have also built constructive relations with the other federations grouped within the CNFAS. In defending leisure aviation, the subjects that unite us (airspace, airfields, etc.) are stronger than the differences between our practices, which are no longer really a matter of debate. Within the FFA, more than 400 microlights are affiliated to the federation, bringing microlight culture into certified structures; our relations with the FFVL on the status of the paramotor raise no difficulty and we also have very positive relations (on safety, for example); our friends in ballooning work with us on class 5; the FFG has welcomed the arrival of class 6 with about a hundred machines; the RSA has long shared a strong culture with the microlight and we have many joint activities; the FFVP has used microlights for towing (which we were not in favour of at first) and this has ended up finding a framework of use that serves everyone; and our friends in model flying will be partners at the next MULM.
In this favourable ecosystem, we must regret the disappearance of the specialist press and in particular of the magazine Vol Moteur, which has accompanied our sport since the beginning. The personality and skills of René Coulon and of Philippe Tisserant did much to create shared expertise on our sport. Their role was decisive in the relationship between manufacturers, supervisory authority and federation. The print press that remains is often strongly aeroplane-oriented, with a new sensitivity to the microlight for sure, but one that still often leans towards the three-axis and the 600 kg. Aérobuzz is today the main reference for expertise. As for social networks, they can hardly be called the place where compromise and nuance are worked out.
And what next?
In conclusion, I am tempted to say: let's not touch our regulation in the current uncertain context!
As for a hypothetical multi-rotor class 7 supported by some, we should have no preconceptions, but in practical terms we have no experience of machines that will look more like drones than microlights, for consumers rather than pilots, where manufacturers will impose their own standards without regard to our history and where legal disclaimers will sprout everywhere. You can see how uncertain the urban drone-taxi project for the Olympics is. We must not play the sorcerer's apprentice with fine toys that will be expensive and do not suit today's family of pilots.
Raising the 600 kg limit as it stands would be a mistake for everyone. On the other hand, there remains a niche for non-certified aircraft between 525 kg and 600 kg. We could certainly consider a specific regulation, separate from ours capped at 525 kg, where innovative machines with specific weight constraints (batteries, for example) could find room to develop. We would then have to consider special arrangements for pilot training, machine monitoring and access to microlight airfields, for example. But let's be very cautious on this subject and not touch a proven system that satisfies the great majority.
What is certain is that what unites us most is our attachment to our regulation, which we wrote into article 1 of our statutes. It is our common treasure, beyond the differences in our practices or in our motivations for microlighting.
It is very French to complain about systems that others envy us for! We can improve plenty of things, but let's preserve our common home!
