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 don’t spend thousands of hours to build a « 2 CV » you can buy for cheap, you build the Ferrari you can’t 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 don’t 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)