Editorial - ULM-PRO: for or against?

"ULM-PRO": For or Against?

As we pointed out in the editorial on "our regulatory choices", it is not the federation that makes the regulation but the legislator and the administration. At best, there are texts that we can promote, such as our regulation in 1981, 1998, 2019, or the recent delegation of the microlight theory exam, but for the most part the texts are imposed on us, like the citizens' convention with the ban on towing advertising banners, in the most incomprehensible cases.

We do, however, have the possibility, with our two supervisory ministries (the ministry responsible for transport and the ministry of sport), of "talking" about the relevance of proposals. That was the case with the Sport law concerning the amendment of our statutes, where certain provisions had to be adjusted. As for the so-called ULM-Pro subject, the request, which is already old (more than 5 years), is something the DGAC wants, and it has three main motivations.

Where the subject comes from

The first motivation is linked to several BEA recommendations, themselves old (2016), concerning "commercial services for the benefit of passengers". These relate to documented cases of commercial use of our microlights, often outside the federation structure, in a setting that can be confusing for third parties and expose our whole sport to risks. The BEA's awareness of this subject is also the subject of a specific item in the BEA's review, "Services for the benefit of third parties". The typical and caricatured case is that of a non-instructor pilot who buys a machine and gives "trial flights" back to back as a self-employed person, without even setting up a commercial structure for this activity.

The second motivation is linked to complaints made to the DGAC by certain players in aviation who consider that our sport competes unfairly with them because of a less restrictive regulation. The arguments are sometimes puzzling (such as photography, as if drones had not settled that subject). This controversy was answered in a reply to one of the main players, constructive in its later developments, "Regulating the microlight or freeing the GIPAG "

The last motivation is linked to the DGAC's wish to bring the already old regulatory texts governing commercial activities into line.

The federation's positions

These three motivations are not always explicit, and the ULM-Pro subject is first of all characterised by being confused, generating more misunderstanding than clarity. The DGAC's first proposals were pale copies of the aeroplane and helicopter regulation, perfectly indigestible and above all unsuited to microlights; they went through multiple versions in which zealotry sometimes piled on top of the confusion of a badly cooked dish. For at least four years, however, the federation's position, defensive but always constructive, has been very clear.

What is it really about? Essentially it is about clarifying the rules governing "baptêmes" (trial flights); this word has no regulatory meaning, and what is meant is in fact paid flights. The other "Pro" subjects are in fact marginal (parachute drops, etc.). The federation has put forward the following arguments, concerning non-instructor pilots giving "trial flights", which boil down essentially to this:

• The federation considers it normal for these pilots to receive specific periodic training, provided it is relevant and in the spirit of, for example, ReV (Return to Flying). The federation, moreover, introduced this arrangement into its insurance contract long ago (in the time of Dominique Méreuze), by requiring pilots giving trial flights to produce a certificate from an instructor or a club president. This is good practice that has long existed in our clubs. But to prevent pilots outside the federation framework from affecting the whole system, it is normal for the authority to generalise the principle with a defined training syllabus.

• The federation is in favour of machines that carry out trial flights being subject to particular monitoring that does not call into question the fundamentals of the current regulation. It is in favour of fitting rescue parachutes where technically possible and of carrying a personal locator beacon for flights in inhospitable areas. Passengers must also be informed of the regulatory framework in which they are flying.

• The federation is, on the other hand, totally opposed to the introduction of an aeroplane-type medical examination and has always defended the sports-type check for no contraindication in its current form.

• The federation considers that, while understanding the need to modernise the regulation, it is essential not to create complexity that penalises introductory flights for clubs with a reasonable level of trial-flight activity. In this respect, the 8 % tax threshold, which in any case has nothing to do with the ULM-Pro subject as such, is a good criterion. This text excludes from paid flights training flights, BIA flights, flights made on open days, flights made as part of an air display and, of course, all private flights by club members. The function of "trial flights" within our clubs is essentially to introduce people to our sport and make it more widely known. They should not be intended to be a club's main activity.

• From the start, the federation has stressed to the DGAC that this new regulation, justified in itself, would not be effective unless it is educational and pragmatic. It is also absolutely necessary, for proper monitoring in the field, for the system for collecting training records to work much better, which is an understatement. What is the point of such a reform if a trial-flight pilot's training has to be sent to a DSAC on paper or in a non-centralised digital format? That said, we must not lose sight of the fact that the State also has to be able to say publicly, in front of any judge, that something has been done!

Text on the final bend...

Where do things stand? The DGAC's timetable has slipped badly, and the authority now wants to publish the text before the end of the year after the final consultation phase, whose framework and deadlines are never very explicit. The least one can say is that this project has led to many meetings, often bitter and laborious, in which the most abstruse legalism frequently clashes with the original principles and with pragmatism, and in which every form of compromise is followed by backtracking that looks more like a bad game of poker than a constructive dialogue with the federation. Not to mention the pitfalls of method, where versions of the text conveniently leak, making people believe the worst or associating the federation with this work.

The ratio of time spent to results achieved on this text is rather depressing, and we have never had the feeling of a full will to build together. What would be the DGAC's interest in promoting a text "against" our pilots when we could work together on acceptable compromises in everyone's interest?

We all remember the "bad" text on air displays which, after ten years of gestation, resulted in a document that does not stand up to the test of reality, and whose "regulator" is unable to state its reasons in two pages, so completely have its true origins been lost in limbo. The unintended consequence of this text? Discouraging air-show organisers from putting on shows! Let us not make the same mistake with the ULM-Pro text, whose initial motivations are legitimate and which could even be a positive gain for all concerned, starting with the third party who discovers our sport, which we need not be ashamed of for the seriousness and modernity it brings to the discovery of flight.

At this stage, the DGAC has taken many comments into account, starting with the commitment not to apply the aeroplane medical. However, the text as it appears, informally, has all the symptoms of a bad text, simply because it is on the whole unreadable, giving an impression of simplification and of respect for the original principles that does not survive a detailed reading. In particular, the DGAC must draw a clearer line between structures below 8 % and those above it. On the medical side, there is no need to reinvent criteria out of nowhere. We simply need to stick to the original principles and implement them effectively together. The other option, which we do not want, is for the DGAC, deaf to our comments, to publish a text that is completely out of touch with reality and will lead to predictable deviations, while discouraging those who want to introduce people to our sport, in a responsible and free setting.

So "ULM-Pro": For or Against? For, if the DGAC does not decide to play "against"! In any case, it cannot be said that the federation's positions have not been explicitly put forward, in everyone's interest, all these years. There is still time to get it right, and we will not hesitate to say clearly whether in the end we are For or Against!