2. EASA CRD on NPA & MDM032
EAS Cologne 14th March 2008

3. Background
EMF members have always expressed their clear and determined choice that aircraft below 450kg MOTW (472.5kg with recovery parachute) remain outside of EASA’s control, in Annex II
The EMF is very satisfied with the current situation in this regard and has no wish whatsoever to see it change

4. EMF & MDM032
Nevertheless, during its General Conference in Prague in 2005, EMF members expressed their interest in supporting the creation of a new class of aircraft (which could be comparable with the US Light Sport Aircraft) to fulfil the need of some of their pilots who want to fly heavier aircraft without the burden of the heavy regulation they would face today.
EMF experts have therefore participated in MDM032.

5. M017 & MDM032
During the EMF Conference in Madrid on 8th and 9th of March 2008, the members carefully reviewed the Comment Response Document relating to the Notice of Proposed Amendment , issued on 6th March 2008 relating to Part M.
As a result of their deliberations they unanimously agreed to express by letter their great concern for the future of Sports and Recreational Aviation and, in particular, the process associated with EASA’s Working Group MDM032.

6. Problems with EASA Process
The process of preparing Part M illustrates some serious problems in the way EASA drafts its regulations
By participating in this flawed process we allow EASA to claim that these regulations were made with our support
The problems seen in the preparation of Part M cause us to fear similar problems following the work of MDM032
We can easily provide examples of the problems

7. Change for Change’s Sake
This problem is summed up by the following phrase in the General Issues Section of the Comments Response Document (CRD) to NPA :
“Although there is no evidence pointing to the existence of a safety concern with the currents national systems, this does not mean that safety cannot be improved”
So EASA justifies the development of unnecessary and, to many, burdensome new regulations on the grounds that they might be better, despite the lack of evidence to support either this.

8. One Size Fits All
EASA’s initial intention was that MDM032 should deal with aircraft with a MTOM in the range from zero to 5.7 tonnes. Although this band was reduced, the band from zero to 2 tonnes, even divided at 1,000 kg, is still too wide.
The inevitable result of trying to bring a broad range of aircraft under single regulation is that those with the heavier regulations gain while those with lighter regulations suffer an increased regulatory burden.
This has nothing to do with safety but is simply the result or regulatory averaging.

9. Sham Consultation We are asked for our views and then ignored
In the case of Part M the overwhelming call from the light end of SRA was for a Part M Light
This call was rejected, apparently because of the administration problems it would cause for EASA
However, EASA can claim that we participated in formulation of the rules which ignored our wishes

10. The EMF Position
The EMF is an organisation of volunteers dedicated to defending the right of its pilots to fly in a sensible aeronautic world
EASA asked for our expertise and we participated. We expect our input to be reflected in the result. Instead, EASA ignored what we said.
EASA’s heavy regulations take no account of the good safety record of lightly regulated microlights.