What can we use for Prag resolution

1
What can we use for  Prag resolution 2  ?

• Or
• How to use the facts and figures about safety
• from the most liberal UL regulation system in
  Europe ?

2
The idea was

• From microlights
• We have good safety records
• We have this without heavy rules
• We achieve it without certification
• From homebuild acft
• It can be used to help designing a new acft
  category up to 600 kg.

3
Initial assumption for ULs

• We reached a 50 3-axis / 50 trike ratio.
•  Heavies  (their empty weight limits them to
  156kg payload) 3-axis are the huge majority.
• The 3_axis fatalities are only very slightly
  higher than the trikes one.

4
So we can

• extrapolate a light regulation for a new 600kg
  acft category with reasonable success
  probability.
• Defend annex II

5
What I found out

• Twice more 3-axis than trikes
• so the fatality per number of acft (or flying
  hours) may be better for 3-axis.
• if majority are  heavies 
•  heavies  may not be more dangerous
• A new category could be safe with light
  regulations.

6
Then I cheked the initial datas

• I took the F- microlights listing from the
  FFPLUM.
• I considered the 2500 first UL sorted by
  alphabetical order of owner name.
• I sorted them by official  sophistication 
• Problem in France, having a BRS qualifies an UL
  as  sophisticated  (like in-flight variable
  pitch propeler or retractable gear).

7

• I sorted them by weight
• Light more than 156kg payload.
• Heavy 156kg payload

8

• Even if we all read and hear  modern-high
  perf-heavy microlights  are 80 of the sales,
• The reality is
• More than 80 of the ULs flying in France are
  light and / or simple design.

9
Next step

• Going back to the fatal accident datas with this
  new criteria
• Result
• Light 3-axis are as safe as trikes.
• Heavy 3-axis have 3 times more fatalities than
  the  lights or simple  ones.
• ? we will have to be very carefull before feeding
  EASA with datas.

10
About Homebuilt acft

• Limited to 4 seats.
• Night / IFR only if certified engine/maintenance
• Thrust limited for Jets to (more thrust on
  special request).
• Can be really heavy!
• Aerobatic, glider towing, etc
• No commercial use
• Flown with a PPL

11
Assumption

• Majority are of complex design
• (you dont spend thousands of hours to build a
   2 CV  you can buy for cheap, you build the
  Ferrari you cant afford!)
• They enjoy a declarative system with plan and
  stress analysis checked by CAA.
• They have good safety records.

12
Verified

• Majority is of complex design YES
• (They like Ferraris!)
• Declarative system is the rule YES
• (any pilot  with sufficient experience  may be
  entitled to fly test the new born bird)
• They have good safety records YES
• (Comparable to Aeroclub certified acft).

13
Benefit from the homebuilt Acft

• You dont need certification to be safe.
• ? calls for a new question
• What about the pilot?

14
PPL PILOTS

• Comparison Owners vs Airclub pilots
• Fédération Française Aéronautique
• More than 45000 pilots 15hrs/year
• Owners
• 2000 pilots 100 hrs / year
• THEY BOTH CAUSE 50 OF THE ACCIDENTS.

15
Why this difference ?

• Average instruction hours flown by an airclub PPL
  pilots / year 3 hours
• Average instruction hours flown by an owner PPL
  pilot / year
• 1 hour every second year to validate its PPL !
• ? Because the airclub pilots are flying in an
  organized structure.

16
CONCLUSION FOR ULs

• NO NEED OF ANY CERTIFICATION.
• NO NEED FOR HEAVY LICENSING
• NO NEED FOR MEDICAL

17
CONCLUSION FOR A NEW CLASS HEAVIER THAN ULs

• NO NEED OF ANY CERTIFICATION.
• A NEED FOR AN ADAPTATED
• LICENSING / TRAINING
• (compared with ULs)