1. Annex II Amendment possible implications Jan Fridrich, EMF Vicepresident European Microlight Federation Working Meeting Oslo 24. – 25. March 2007

2. Modified version
Aircraft referred to in Article 4(2)   Aircraft to which Article 4(1), (1a) and (1b) do not apply are aircraft that are within one or more of the categories of this annex set out below:   […]   (e) aeroplanes, helicopters and powered parachutes having no more than two seats, a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), as recorded by the Member States, of no more than:   (i) kg for a land plane/helicopter, single-seater; or (ii) kg for a land plane/helicopter, two-seater; or (iii) 330 kg for an amphibian or floatplane/helicopter single-seater; or (iv) 495 kg for an amphibian or floatplane/helicopter two-seater, provided that, where operating both as a floatplane/helicopter and as a land plane/helicopter, it falls below both MTOM limits, as appropriate; (v) kg for a land plane, two-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system; (vi) 315 kg for a land plane single-seater equipped with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system; (vii) 600 kg for ultralight aircraft for non-commercial operation   and, for aeroplanes, having the stall speed or the minimum steady flight speed in landing configuration not exceeding 35 knots calibrated air speed (CAS);

3. Jannes Neuman* Interpretation for EAS
Reading the amendment in context, it’s obviously bad wording and fits not to the whole paragraph ‘ultralight’ is an undefined term within EU-regulations. Hence the sentence is to read as ‘600 kg for aircraft for non-commercial operation’ provided that the beginning of the paragraph (‘aeroplanes, helicopter and powered parachutes’) overrides the term aircraft coming from the amendment, the change affects beside microlights also a small number of aeroplanes (CS-23), perhaps VLA and 3 to 5 types of helicopter which are currently within the EU-system. e.g. Piper J4, Aeronca 65C, Bölkow Junior, Taylorcraft BC-12 D. Those aircraft would have to be transferred back into the national system, there is no choice.
BUT…
*Dipl.-Ing. Jannes Neumann, Deutscher Aero Club e.V., Referat Sport und Technik

4. He is not completely right:
I do not think that it is necessary to transfer current existing planes back to Annex II. I think if these vere certified and operated under different rules, they can stay where they are unless their owner or operator wish to make the transfer. The paragraph about stall speed is applicable as well, so the analysis regarding CS-23 aircraft is not completely correct. Even today I can certify 100kg plane in CS-23 if I want so. WRONG! Jannes learned from an EASA PCM that such an application would be refused by EASA as long as all requirements of Annex II are meet.

5. Some possibilities:
  1. Leave the Amendment where it is – better something than nothing! The result will be that to such 600kg aircraft the stall speed 65km/h should be applied.  2. Try to modify the whole paragraph e) to make it simplier with 600kg non-commercial. The risk is that this is the big change and if it goes wrong the whole AnnexII will be in danger and our members will not be very happy! 3. Move slightly modified wording of paragraph e) vii) to new paragraph l) – this will mean creation of new aircraft category up to 600kg  without the stall limit.  

6. Proposed Czech position:
„Presently, by ammendment proposals changed the wording of Regulation 1592/2002 is not changed by any importatnt meaning of its original intention and it is not creating room for possible decreasing of flight operation safet, but just the opposite. Proposed amendment to Annex II will allow to operate small aircraft for sport and recreation with higher reserve for average weight of current population – it means it will increase the safety margin. At the same time the current wording will not prevent starting development of operation of the aircraft which are produced in EU countries for the market in the US, Canada, Australia and other countries. With understanding that the service safety could be improved as the result of the proposed amendment to Annex II. This could also enable the progress and support for fulfilling the Lisbon strategy, the Czech Republic respect the opinion of plenum of European Parliament and supports it.“

7. SUMMARY
I think we should look at it in positive way and try to get from it maximum. This does not mean that we stop our activities towards ELA category The Council meeting is on 27.March If Council does not agree then there is a process between Council and Parliament which result is unpredictable.

8. SUMMARY
SO WHAT WE CAN DO? Try to lobby if You can in positive way. Wait for the results on and analyse them. DO NOT PANIC!

9. SUMMARY
ANYWAY AT LEAST THERE WILL BE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT 600kg AIRCRAFT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SITUATION IS UNCLEAR!!!