The second life of the EMF and the future of our regulations

Origins of the EMF

The EMF (European Microlight Federation) was created in 2004 so that EASA (the European Union Aviation Safety Agency) would have a European point of contact for ultralights. Although ultralight aviation falls outside the Agency's remit (under the famous Annex 2, which defines the aircraft excluded from it), it is important that activities on the Agency's fringes are represented. That initial choice was the right one because, as we have seen over all these years, there have been many discussions around, on the margins of and alongside Annex 2. We can also see this with drones, which were also part of Annex 2 (below 150 kg) and which seem to be returning to the heart of the Agency's concerns, posing serious difficulties for model aircraft flying.

That said, the EMF has never been an official interlocutor in the way a sports federation can be in France. It is only one lobbying body among others, operating in a way that owes much to the Anglo-Saxon culture of lobbying, with its codes and strategies that sometimes surprise us. It is mainly through EAS (Europe Air Sport), historically the first formal institution at European level to defend sport aviation, that this strategy of influence has been built. Most of the EMF's contributions are in fact passed on to EAS to fund the lobbying work. The Federation also contributes to EAS
through the CNFAS (National Council of Aeronautical and Sports Federations).

Balance of power

It must also be understood that within the EMF, the concept of the ultralight has never been unified. There are countries like Germany or the Czech Republic where practice and above all regulation have been completely delegated to private institutions. Countries where national authorities handle regulation, with national federations or flying clubs as their contacts.
Countries where, in effect, there is no difference between certified aviation and ultralight activity. Countries where the sporting side (recognised by the FAI) and recreational flying are clearly separated, countries with or without the paramotor, countries where volunteers or employees run the activity. France, a founding member of the EMF (whose seat is the FFPLUM), is the leading country in number of pilots, with growth not seen elsewhere and microlight strips that are quite unique. But the paradox is that our way of organising things is relatively in the minority.

In October 2005 in Prague, the EMF affirmed its attachment to 450 kg and 65 km/h while working towards the creation of a new aircraft category close to the LSA (Light Sport Aircraft regulations) that the USA had just created.

What has happened over all these years? When the Agency has no particular activity, not much. When, on the other hand, as has been the case for some years, it enters a cycle of general negotiation on the basic regulation, in effect a redefinition of its scope, then the power stakes and the crystallisation of the balance of forces become very important.

Within the EMF, two main approaches could be distinguished. One tendency, favouring an extension of the exclusion up to 600 kg, was carried by Northern Europe and by professionals; the other favoured the status quo, to preserve regulations that have been successful precisely because they have not followed the path of certified aviation. It is clear that the combined effect of the professionals' lobbying work and a more effective culture of influence (in the press, at shows, with Members of the European Parliament) ended up making the little tune of 600 kg heard loudly, to the point that the EMF was eventually accepted as one of the main supporters of this supposedly inevitable change! The loss of Dominique did not help matters, and we lived through the last three years in a rather chaotic atmosphere for our French regulations. It was even rather fashionable to say that the battle was lost!

Back to basics

The Générations ULM team went back to work from the fundamentals. The main point is to return to an engineer's logic and not a battle between salesmen or lawyers. Now, considering the laws of physics
(table 1: Kinetic Energy), it appears clearly that what makes the microlight special is its low kinetic energy in an impact. In practice, this is the energy generated in stopping the mass of a moving aircraft, which in the conditions of a normal landing directly determines the distance needed to come to a complete stop.

We can clearly see that the central point is not so much mass as speed. For the same mass, doubling the speed quadruples the kinetic energy. It should be stressed that the 600 kg option is planned with a stall speed (VSO) of 45 kt (83 km/h), which represents a 30% increase in speed and a doubling of kinetic energy compared with the current 450 kg /35 kt (65 km/h) situation.

This work, of which we mention only one aspect, was accompanied by a realistic and pragmatic study of the empty weights of our machines, in particular on Tour ULM 2016 (table 2: Summary Table).

Empty weight is not taken into account in the European discussions. This exercise, often wrongly seen as taboo, was very beneficial because it showed that, overall, our fleet of machines is within the limits. Overruns are often due to options (a variable-pitch propeller, for example) which are in fact costly for a marginal overall gain. It cannot be repeated enough how important it is for a prospective owner to weigh a machine, and to do so before buying it! Our declaratory system is based on responsibility, and that starts with following the rules.

It is from these arguments that an acceptable envelope for our microlights can be defined, as formulated in the programme for this term of office: "To be, with the DGAC, the driving force behind an alternative proposal to Europe for a regulatory adjustment that, while keeping the reference empty weights of our current microlights and a minimum speed of 35 kt, raises the MTOM to 500 kg so as to reflect the reality of the current fleet of three-axis microlights, on the pragmatic basis of 2 pilots of 85 kg (European standard) and 3 h endurance (50 l/35 kg of fuel), while respecting the general framework of our current regulations".

Final round

Armed with these arguments, the latest negotiations on the Basic Regulation took place this spring and summer. In the complex mechanism by which law is made (see table 3: Proposed change), Parliament is one player, but not the only one. A compromise had to be reached between the three bodies: Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This is what is known as the trilogue. It is striking that a subject that is, all things considered, rather marginal to the running of aeronautical Europe has mobilised so much energy over so many years! According to those who took part in these final arbitrations, there was a clear will to conclude, because the subject had ended up tiring most of the participants (how many times have we reported on European news in ULM-Info!).
As positions were deadlocked, a compromise was reached that takes the following form:
» Creation of an annex 1 almost identical to annex 2 as far as we are concerned, with a limit of 450 kg (see table 4: Extract of proposal).
» Option for the States that wish to do so to opt for a limit of up to 600 kg, known as the Opt-out (see table 4).
As Timo Schubert, the lobbyist mandated by EAS (and therefore also by the EMF) to take part in the negotiations, reminded us, aptly quoting Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see how they are made".

What should we make of this compromise?

First of all, the staunch supporters of the 600 kg limit are deeply disappointed. They were in favour of an "opt-in", that is, a former Annex 2 raised to 600 kg, which would have imposed from the top a system on microlights, which are in fact aeroplanes, with a pseudo-certification scheme, and moreover only for three-axis machines. This system would have stifled our current regulations by bringing them closer to certified light aviation under EASA oversight. Its promoters often claim that such a system would make it easier for aircraft to travel across borders.
But this argument is partly hypocritical. What has always mattered is lobbying for manufacturers
in the name of institutions that have a financial interest in the game.
Crossing borders already happens in practice and always will.

Are we satisfied?

Clearly yes! First of all, the future annex 1 takes over the scope of annex 2. The technical arguments, effectively relayed by the DGAC, helped block the 600 kg at 45 kt proposal. Finally, the possibility of an Opt-out up to 600 kg allows us to envisage an Opt-out up to 500 kg. This is the position on which the DGAC and the Federation clearly agreed. The last joint Board of Directors and Regional Committee meeting (October 2017) unanimously voted for this position, in conjunction with the regulatory experts who have followed the matter from the beginning (in particular Philippe Tisserant). Regulations are never perfect, and it is time to turn the page.

The EMF assembly in Vilnius

It was in this decisive context that Louis Collardeau and I went to the EMF General Assembly in Vilnius. We stated clearly that we were not there to come back as losers or winners, that we had to make the best of our differences, and that all international discussions are a matter of compromise. It was in this spirit, moreover, that the skilful president Rieteke Van Luijt concluded her annual report: "We must deal with our differencies". Above all, we had the opportunity to present our overall strategy and our fruitful cooperation with the DGAC.

We set out the facts. The growth of our movement (4 000 members in 1996, 16 000 today), which has no equivalent in Europe in recreational aviation. The representation within our Federation of companies and associations, manufacturers and pilots, competitors, and all 6 classes. Above all, we spoke about the 800 highly specific microlight airfields that are often forgotten in the debates, our safety policy, our work with institutional partners, our insurance system, our events (Blois, Icare, the Championship, the Tour...), our outstanding manufacturers, and the importers who are very satisfied with our current regulations and who support our policy. Starting from the realities is what gives our debates meaning, and we were struck to see that the arguments of the supporters of the 600 kg limit are rather poorly supported.

One of the most recurrent is insurance. How can we fly if we are not insured? When we ask for a single insurance case that was not settled after an accident in all these years, none can be named. And that is only normal, because we do not know of any. Coming back to safety, weight is not what explains losses of control in flight. We have a very effective insurance system within the UFEGA (Union des Fédérations Gestionnaires des Assurances). It complies with the current regulations, and claiming that Annex 2 must be changed in order to comply with insurance is a fallacious argument.

Another argument, directly linked to insurance, is the weight of passengers. How can two passengers of 100 kg fly together? Our answer is that this is a problem that also affects certified aviation. Why do we rarely see a Rallye or a TB-10 take off with four people on board? Moreover, one of the technical arguments that justify a take-off mass of 500 kg is precisely the weight of passengers, and the fact that ICAO (the International Civil Aviation Organization) recognises 85 kg as the average weight of pilots. So everyone must take their own responsibilities.
You have to know what you want.

Another argument is crossing borders. Our answer is that the disparity of current national microlight regulations already allows people to travel (as the Tour ULM shows, for example, in Germany, in
England, in Spain...), and that since the role of the EMF is certainly to facilitate these exchanges, changing a regulation at European level supposedly to unify travel is not the right way.

The ultimate argument is that this weight increase is wanted by customers. This calls for some education. Our declaratory system presupposes responsibility, and you cannot have the variable-pitch propeller, the leather seat, the butter and the dairymaid, at the risk of shaking the whole system for the sake of a handful of cherries.

The discussions were rich and the questions many. The liveliest moment came when the EAS representative reminded the Czech and German delegates that Europe would not go back on this compromise, and that their position was judged unacceptable precisely because their interests are those of certain manufacturers, whereas the EMF and EAS bring together pilots!

At that moment we sensed that a new page of the EMF was being turned, and we argued for a second life in which the EMF would be less the armed wing of certain lobbyists and more a federation serving pilots by offering them concrete services, such as an update of the arrangements for crossing borders (we will update and translate the work undertaken by Thierry Barbier), and a sharing of our safety experience given the number of flight hours we accumulate and our close relations with the DGAC and the BEA. We are also considering talking about sports policy and education in aeronautical culture (along the lines of the BIA, for example), as well as EMF events!

Everyone took the measure of the situation and became aware of the irreversible nature of the European regulatory framework. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Belgium (England was not represented) are clearly of the same mind, but in a way, all the participants have embraced a new approach despite the obvious dissatisfaction of some. It must also be clearly admitted that some countries are already, in effect, within a certification system and that they have an understandable interest in the 600 kg limit. All the speeches and the annual report are on the website emf.aero

The election of Louis Collardeau (First Vice-President of the Federation) as Vice-President of the EMF marked recognition of our approach. We insisted on turning the page and on the EMF being a place not of opposition but of convergence.

We began and ended our speech with the two posters that we are sending to clubs and schools for the 2018 season: "You dream of flying? It's easy, it's ULM!".
Despite the complexity, and the energy and time devoted to these subjects, our position is simple. We apply a pragmatic programme, which explains the success of our activity, without imposing a universal conception of microlighting ("Napoleon is over") and by getting the best out of the EMF!