Why are Ultralights not allowed in Antwerp CTR

[DIBO]

On a regular basis, ultralights are refused access to EBAW CTR (even for crossing). I can understand that a 'flying parachute' ULM-type is not allowed because of very low speed, so maybe getting in the way of other traffic. But just now a Tecnam P92 was refused access, which from ATC point of view behaves similar to any other small plane (decent set of comms onboard, squawking transponder, normal speed & climb/descend rate, etc).
Shouldn't the new, sometime very performant 'ultralight' category be allowed inside CTR or even allowed to land at regional airports ? I know it isn't an ATC decision, it has been published in the AIP for a very long time now. Time for an update of this restriction ?

[jan_olieslagers]

Did you study airlaw? Microlights are basically disallowed into controlled airspace - and such is the EBAW CTR. There are exceptions to this rule: the AIP mentions special ruling for microlights at EBOS, implicitly indicating that they CAN be allowed ; and even without anything published, it is always worth asking. But chances are slim at all controlled airports in Belgium - EBCI might be the least bad. I do have known a direct EBBZ-EBCF. But as you said, no controller can legally issue a clearance to land, unless you declare an emergency.

Do carry a working transponder before even thinking of asking for a crossing! And do NOT count on any liberalisation in the rules of the air - there's only more restrictions coming our way. Your only hope could be the upcoming ELSA ruling.

[DIBO]

Indeed you confirm the current situation. I can't remember when the rule was implemented to prohibit ULM in most controlled airspace, but I guess that was then intended for the 'flying parachute' ULM-type (no disrespect intended for the pilots flying those types of ULM's). But nowadays with ultralights like the TECNAM, is seems logical to me that the rules should be updated (as you referred there is maybe hope with upcoming ELSA rules). But even now in the JAR-era, bureaucracy takes its time

[tolipanebas]

Mind you, DIBO, it may not be so much linked to the plane, but rather to the pilots operating it!

Indeed, operating at a controlled airport does require more than just 2 way radio contact.
It requires extra basic flying skills like a much stricter adherence to elementary flight parameters as well as a good knowledge of the composure of our airspace structure including the different classes and all the separation rules, so maybe the BCAA isn't convinced ULM license holders are up to the norm on them, unlike PPL holders?

Over the years, ULMs have indeed evolved up to a point where they have come to be on a par with any other 'traditional' single engine piston plane for which a PPL is needed, yet it can not be discarted that the training requirements for ULM pilots are still much lower than those for a PPL, to a point where it can be argued if ULM pilots aren't somewhat undertrained to operate on certain high-performance ULMs?

I can not but notice that over the recent years a lot of new ULM pilots have taken to the skies and are seemingly so self-assured about their piloting skills they are now even openly questioning many of the operational limitations imposed on their quite restricted licenses, all while the accident ratio with ULMs isn't exactly to be called 'reassuring', so I'd be hard pushed to ask for expanding the prerogatives of ULM license holders even further!

I know it's easy to say as an APTL holder myself, but it seems to me like some overconfidence is building in this booming segment of the aviation world and many of the ULM license holders wrongfully see themselves as fully qualified PPLs, something they are clearly not, just as a PPL isn't a CPL and a CPL isnt an ATPL...

It really is elementary for safe flight to have some self-knowledge as to your own limitations, you know and just because your plane happens to be able to do something, doesn't mean you are able to do it too: often the pilot is the weakest link these days!

[jan_olieslagers]

The accident statistics for Belgium have been very poor indeed, with pilot's over-confidence a major factor. But safety is in the pilot's mind, rather than in his license. Studying the full ATPL (sic!) syllabus will not make anyone a safer pilot, nor will hours upon hours of flying holds and approaches. Safety is a state of mind, and as such needs to be refreshed periodically. To me it is unacceptable that a pilot can fly and fly for years without ever facing an instructor, let alone an examiner - at the sole condition of flying a sufficient number of hours. But this applies to microlighters as well as to PPL fliers and perhaps even to CPL's.

But I do agree with the opening post that it is a bit ridiculous for the high performance microlights to be kept out of controlled airspace. If I can share the circuit with the PPL'ers at EBUL or EBZH, why should I be unable at EBAW or EBOS? And don't come and tell me it is too hard on the controllers to separate the slow stuff from airliners: if EBCI controllers can and do separate B737's from training PA28's and C152's, what extra complication is the example Tecnam P92?

The exclusion of microlights from controlled airspace is general in Western Europe, I believe. (I even thought it might come from ICAO, but ICAO doesn't define microlights, nor bother about them.) It must indeed stem from the era of 2-stroke powered flying lawnmowers. As I said, the real progress should come from LSA regulation, either European or national. The current microlight categorisation is too wide - another thing they fixed better in the USA. A properly defined LSA category would enable everyone to do their own bit of flying in an appropriate set of rules.

And let's hope to get rid of the ridiculous 450kg limit at the same time.

[tolipanebas]

Safety is a state of mind, and as such needs to be refreshed periodically. To me it is unacceptable that a pilot can fly and fly for years without ever facing an instructor, let alone an examiner - at the sole condition of flying a sufficient number of hours. But this applies to microlighters as well as to PPL fliers and perhaps even to CPL's.

Realistically speaking a CPL goes with an IR and an APTL is automatically inclusive of an IR even.
To make use of the privilege of the IR, you need to pass a BCAA checkride periodically, so in essence, flying skills are periodically evaluated for most if not all professional pilots...
It would indeed be a good idea to extend this principle to ALL pilots, not just those making a living from it.

I do agree with the opening post that it is a bit ridiculous for the high performance microlights to be kept out of controlled airspace.

I don't.
As I've said, there's at least one perfectly good reason for it: it's in the limited operational knowledge of ULM pilots! More privileges can only come after demonstration of the required knowledge needed for it(meaning training and checking).

If I can share the circuit with the PPL'ers at EBUL or EBZH, why should I be unable at EBAW or EBOS?

As you should know, at EBUL or EBZH, you as an ULM pilot (as well as all other pilots operating there) are fully responsible of your own separation from both terrain, clouds as well as other traffic, whereas in controlled airspace class C (meaning the CTR of EBAW for instance), the controller takes (part of) that responsibility, at least in relation to the IFR traffic operating there, so he needs to be absolutely sure all of his instructions are going to be understood and adhered to correctly by all of the traffic in his controlled airspace... Since you haven't been trained to do so as an ULM pilot, nor have you ever demonstrated the ability to do so to the authorities on a checkride, how can the controller be sure you will be able to????

Don't come and tell me it is too hard on the controllers to separate the slow stuff from airliners: if EBCI controllers can and do separate B737's from training PA28's and C152's, what extra complication is the example Tecnam P92?

The controller in a CTR is not there to separate "slow stuff" from "fast stuff", he's there solely to separate IFR traffic from other IFR traffic as well as to separate IFR traffic from VFR traffic: that's the definition of class C airspace (which you should know and understand if you want to operate in it) and in effect it means the controller will want to spend as few time as possible on separating VFR traffic really and if he does, it should be done swiftly, efficiently and above all it must be understood to be a courtosy to VFR flights, not a right!

You see, you're really putting the weight on the sholders of others (i.e. the controller), whereas it really isn't their job: if you want to join controlled airspace as a VFR flight, you should be able to correctly apply all separation rules in the different classes of controlled airspace yourself and a PPL is deemed able to do so, whereas an ULM isn't (because of his limited training/knowledge/understanding of airspace classifications).

A properly defined LSA category would enable everyone to do their own bit of flying in an appropriate set of rules. And let's hope to get rid of the ridiculous 450kg limit at the same time.

More distinctions within the LSA category are indeed needed, but don't be surprised if privileges aren't just handed out downwards , but rather only obtained after passing additional theoretical and practical checks...

[jan_olieslagers]

I can see your point, but am not finding it a very strong one. I have often enough listened in to Antwerp Tower (mind you I can do so legally!), and they never said anything that I wouldn't be able to understand and duly handle.
"report Wisky" , "report Konti", "join right downwind 29", "report end of downwind", "report final", not really hard, is it? and of course one will have to respect the altitudes but that is no different from non-controlled fields. And yes, one might get told to perform a 360 or to extend downwind, that's not rocket science either, is it?

I know I am only describing the simplest story there could be, but how hard could it get? Can you give an example situation where, lacking a full PPL training and license, I might create danger or even confusion?

And do not forget that the O/P didn't even mention circuit work, only a CTR transit.

OTOH I must agree that if ever we get an LSA ruling in Belgium (I am not holding my breath!) we will certainly be required to take additional training and the associated tests, and also to carry more equipment, such as a transponder and an AI, neither are mandatory in microlights today.

[tolipanebas]

I can see your point, but am not finding it a very strong one. I have often enough listened in to Antwerp Tower (mind you I can do so legally!), and they never said anything that I wouldn't be able to understand and duly handle: "report Wisky" , "report Konti", "join right downwind 29", "report end of downwind", "report final", not really hard, is it? And of course one will have to respect the altitudes but that is no different from non-controlled fields. And yes, one might get told to perform a 360 or to extend downwind, that's not rocket science either, is it?

I've said so before: overconfidence is looming whenever I reas such ill-informed comments...

What's next, if I may ask? "Oh, it's a bit foggy, yet my ULM has a good GPS and even a VOR/ILS receiver, so why don't they accept me for an IFR transit?" How difficult is it to follow radar vectors and center a needle right?

If you absolutely want to have the same prerogatives as a PPL, why not take the PPL check? As you say: it really is no rocket science and by far the easiest solution to the problem....

I know I am only describing the simplest story there could be, but how hard could it get? Can you give an example situation where, lacking a full PPL training and license, I might create danger or even confusion?

The thing is as a VFR flight, and contrary to what you believed at first, you should not expect any help from the ATCO at all (only traffic advice at best) during your flight in controlled airspace, unless you're in class B airspace that is, yet even though you're very much on your own, you still need to be able to operate correctly and safely according to all the rules without causing any problems to other (IFR traffic) and cope with any ATC instructions given to you and they can include more than just a 360 to delay you for a couple of minutes, like giving ETA over new unplanned waypoints, correcting speed to make a it over a point at a certain time, rerouting or going up to a complete rejection of your flight's intentions and it's up to you to come up with a way out then, midway your flight, right in the middle of your transit even...

Since you haven't demonstrated all this, you are deemed unable to for your own safety, and rightfully so.

Seriously, how though is the navigational part of the ULM exam???

[B.Inventive]

Jan,
What tolipanebas talks about is not your 'abilities' but rather 'the abilities you've proven to the BCAA'. Which is more of a way to define responsibilities than anything else.
I'm confident a lot of pilots have a lot more abilities than they are allowed to do, through their licenses. But if legislation says differently, it will usually be for a good reason. Why question that?

[jan_olieslagers]

If you carefully consider the opening post, you will observe that it is not the PILOT's being disallowed that is questioned (and not by me, by the way). Of course I know that the license to fly a given aircraft is related to its classification - but the current classification is rather absurd indeed. Up to that point, I agree with the opening post.

And you'll excuse me for NOT believing there's a good reason behind every rule and law - particularly not in Belgian aviation.

[jan_olieslagers]

Seriously, how though is the navigational part of the ULM exam???

Oh, I just followed the magenta line on some electronic gizmo...

Seriously: I prepared (without using ANY kind of electronics) a navigational flight of +/- 60NM and flew it as planned. The preparation was checked by the examiner, and that was that.

[TCAS_climb]

And you'll excuse me for NOT believing there's a good reason behind every rule and law - particularly not in Belgian aviation.

Reminds me of the first 2 minutes of the airlaw course given by the big boss of the BCAA (almost 20 years ago). He said: "Consider that everything is forbidden unless it's clearly authorized in writing somewhere".