Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:14 pm
The published IAOPA-Europe piece re the EASA microlight study concerned us since it was in contradiction of what EASA told us.
In the EASA introduction letter that we are using for contact with various stakeholders and NAAs through Europe EASA state “The study is needed to comply with the above recital 5 [of Basic Regulation 216/2008] (this explains the title of the study); however the Agency wishes to clarify that it has no intentions to modify the present Annex II in particular in relation to microlights.”
Following publication of the IAOPA-Europe piece we contacted EASA to confirm their position. The reply states that they don’t know where this statement comes from. They confirm the wording in the introduction letter (reference above). Approaches by other magazines are given the reply of the text of the introduction letter.
It is worth noting that, apart from the objective of the study as set out by Paul Dewhurst, the other objective of the study is as follows:
“The recommendations are intended to support a rulemaking task that should start in the second quarter of 2010. This task (BR.010) will address the following  points:
1. Propose the necessary modifications to the Basic Regulation and EASA Implementing Rules to achieve an adapted level of regulation for ELA1 for airworthiness, maintenance, operations and licensing.”
Points 2 – 6 are other items which are not under within the scope of the study output.
ELA1 is intended to cover aeroplanes up to 1200kg MTOM, balloons, gliders etc under the remit of EASA.
The introduction letter goes on further to state: “The results of the study will be used to support point 1 and the options mentioned in the title of the study have to be understood in that context.”
I don’t think that could be clearer.
I have contacted Martin Robinson and asked him to make a correction to the IAOPA piece, which he has agreed he will do.
Hawk Information Services Ltd
Appointed consultant for the microlight study