Is this even under EASA regulation at all? During “Easter week” at Oppdal (parachuting and gliding), the parachutists have rented this aircraft:
It is New Zealand registered, but operated from Sweden. It is flown by ordinary PPL pilots with a type rating. A very cool airplane, STOL with a 750 HP turbine and lots of space. I think it has to be on New Zealand register because the type does not exist in EASA, at least that was the case a couple of years ago.
The PAC is now an approved type in EASA land, but it wasn’t previously. The pilots had NZ paperwork in the beginning, and the aircraft were NZ reg as well.
The PAC is now an approved type in EASA land
Surely its SET Class not a Type!
A piece of trivia: I believe the aircraft was used extensively (and perhaps still is) by Google in Australia and New Zealand.
Under EU regulation (which is not yet in effect, coming in 2016), it becomes a non-commercial operation in some circumstances:
Actually there are hearings out now on this. EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association), the Norwegian chapter just put up some info regarding EASA’s proposal, found it this morning. EAA will send a condensed note based on input from individuals on behalf of EAA. Notes and recommendations from the Norwegian aviation authorities is also there, and that is interesting reading. The initial proposal from EASA, before this last one, is mention in that note. Initially EASA proposed that all “aerial work” to require an “Air Operator Certificate” (AOC). This result of this would be destruction of almost all air sport activities in Europe, because it would be economically impossible to do anything. Air sport activities are based on voluntaries doing all needed work (glider towing, parachute flying etc) This is fixed in this last proposal, but how can they even come up with such a proposal? Besides, all glider towing will in the future be done by microlight aircraft, and sometimes experimental, at a fraction of the cost of EASA aircraft, because EASA already has made a draconian maintenance regime for these aircraft. Microlights are maintained by the owners.
As the proposal reads today, the commercial part will be eased as far as I can see for all “aerial work”, defined as some (semi)-commercial flying that does not include transportation of passengers and goods. Otherwise there will be no change. But this 6 person limit, what is that all about?
I am against this mix of commercial and recreational flying. This puts technical restrictions on aircraft (airworthiness and maintenance) that will continue to kill private GA. The rules and regulations today are so strict they make no sense for pure recreational flying and ownership of aircraft used for recreational flying. Commercial flying is different, it is a different world legally.
As the proposal reads today, …
It’s not a proposal, it’s a regulation
The initial proposal from EASA, before this last one, is mention in that note. Initially EASA proposed that all “aerial work” to require an “Air Operator Certificate” (AOC). This result of this would be destruction of almost all air sport activities in Europe, because it would be economically impossible to do anything.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification, though I wouldn’t be much kinder than you in my opinion of EASA’s opinion. The member states certainly weren’t and watered it down after several discussions in comitology. It remains a poor piece of law.
Surely its SET Class not a Type!
Technically it is a Class in the EASA system, but it is still a type of aircraft in a general sense isn’t it…
The initial proposal from EASA, before this last one, is mention in that note. Initially EASA proposed that all “aerial work” to require an “Air Operator Certificate” (AOC).
And people on this very forum have wondered why there is so much EASA bashing. Well, EASA make themselves such an easy target with this kind of grotesque rulemaking.
We’ve been glider towing here for a while using a permit to fly aircraft. We would be winch only if we couldn’t, it’s just not affordable to use a CofA aircraft to do this kind of thing in a small glider club like ours. (I’m also considering the Eurofox as a tow plane. They’ve become quite popular in UK glider clubs as tugs, and the tailwheel version looks extremely practical for this use especially since it’s a 1 person job to fold its wings and put it in its trailer, leaving us more hangar space for keeping gliders rigged).
It’s not a proposal, it’s a regulation
Yes, so I found out. But the regulations have not been incorporated in all states. In Norway the “old” regulation (which I thought was just a (very poor) proposal) will not be in effect until October this year and everything regarding “Special Operations” will not be in effect until 2017 with the “new” regulation. This means nothing will really change before 2017, and the change will be for the “better” for those who wants to do some business. In my opinion it’s ultimately just another nail in the coffin for GA.
The problem with GA is rules and regulations strangling the recreational part. To add some token “business opportunities” cannot help the recreational part one single bit. First, the purpose of recreational flying is not to make money (as per definition). Second, opening up for business only adds more strangling rules, certainly not less.
but it is still a type of aircraft in a general sense isn’t it…
But not one that requires a “Type” Rating!
