alioth wrote:
You don’t – the EuroFox is a non-EASA nationally-regulated machine and (in the UK) the CAA does not require a glider towing rating in non-EASA aircraft, and nor does the BGA.I think most clubs switching to the EuroFox have really done it for fuel saving (they are a lot less thirsty than a Pawnee), but the extra ballache of needing glider towing ratings is why our club will always tow with a non-EASA aircraft.
Ok. In Sweden we still have glider tow ratings for Annex I aircraft and we have always had it so it is a complete non-issue.
Which is why he pointed out Sweeden and Europe will hopefully be free to regulate further without the annoyance of the UK.
I don’t think the glider towing rating nor aerobatic rating requirement make much sense to me, as I didn’t notice people falling out of the sky beforehand.
Off_Field wrote:
I don’t think the glider towing rating nor aerobatic rating requirement make much sense to me, as I didn’t notice people falling out of the sky beforehand.
I would think it obvious that you need training for both glider towing and aerobatics. If said training is simply recorded in your log book or entered as a rating in your license seems to me a very minor point.
I would think an individual should be able to figure out what instruction they need.
would the instruction have to come through an ato and qualified flight instructor? Maybe the aircraft should be c of a and also public transport category maintenance.
Some people love to regulate everything, others do not. Which route the CAA takes we will just have to see.
Off_Field wrote:
I would think an individual should be able to figure out what instruction they need.
Sure. Someone who wants to be a pilot should be able to figure our that they need flight training. That doesn’t mean we can do without pilot licenses as proof of successful training.
Off_Field wrote:
Maybe the aircraft should be c of a and also public transport category maintenance.
Now you’re just being silly.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Sure. Someone who wants to be a pilot should be able to figure our that they need flight training. That doesn’t mean we can do without pilot licenses as proof of successful training.
I understand the American ultralight category operates without the need for a license.
There is an ICAO standard which we all agreed on. The addition of extra things here and there I think can be reasonable if there’s a good safety case for it. I’m just not convinced there’s any reasonable evidence to show why an EASA aerobatic rating or glider tug rating is needed over the situation where they weren’t.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Now you’re just being silly.
Well yes, there is a bit of tongue in cheek there, however requirements for PPL training often need such items, and If you can’t teach a ppl with an engine post TBO or calendar surely you couldn’t teach aerobatics with such an unknown dangerous item?
Given that the people who I want to teach me aerobatics are not current CFIs, only for example a former Navy T-28 flight instructor with 20,000 hours in everything flying, or alternately a former member of the US world aerobatic team, it’s a major factor for me. If faced with that nonsensical requirement I would learn from who I wanted (for the cost of fuel) then go and get the logbook entry from the kid at a school. Maybe by that time we could learn from each other.
Yes, US ultralights are not regulated and do not require a pilot certificate to fly – but they are generally limited to 254 lbs.
(Larger and heavier LSAs require an FAA certificate but utilize a US state drivers license in place of a medical certificate)
Peter wrote:
That, however, is still no more than a negotiating position adopted by Brussels. There is no law of the universe that to be in EASA you need to follow the ECJ. A whole bunch of countries which are in Eurocontrol would exterminate their neighbours given half a chance and they will absolutely not follow ECJ rulings
It’s not a “negotiating position” it is rather a necessity if we want to have the benefits of EASA. And rulemaking body like EASA can only be as good as the jurisdictional system interpreting and ensuring these rules. EASA can issue rules – but if these rules are interpreted substantially different in different member states, we still don’t have a harmonized legislation. Therefore while technically it does not have to be the ECJ, there is a substantial need for a single “Supreme Court” deciding in case the different national CAAs have fundamental dissent (e.g. one CAA believes that a certain design meets the certification requirements while another CAA doesn’t).
Eurocontrol is completely different because Eurocontrol is not a rule making body but a practical operations body that is under full control of the respective stat that owns the airspace: If Germany e.g. bans a certain operator from German airspace, Eurocontrol just executes this ban – no matter if Turkey agrees to this ban or not.
Silvaire wrote:
Yes, US ultralights are not regulated and do not require a pilot certificate to fly – but they are generally limited to 254 lbs.
On both sides of the pond there seems to be the general idea that you don’t need a license to kill yourself but the higher the odds are that you kill others while doing so, the stronger is the need for a license for this activity. That general thought imho makes much sense.
There’s only slight differences (some of them due to hard factors like different population density, etc., some of them due to philosophy) how much risk a certain activity puts on other people’s life…
