Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA Basic Regulation conference

Forum,

Through a representation I hold in an important industry organisation, I have been asked to provide a list of issues that live around the EASA Basic Regulation and how it influences General Aviation in Europe.
A conference will be organised soon on changing that BR.
What issues do you see? Can you formulate them in a couple of sentences?
Thanks

Abeam the Flying Dream
EBKT, LFQQ western Belgium, north France, Belgium

Remove the aeronautical-intergalactic space medical examination, it is useless (to go to the airfield by car, you have to be in good health.)
Remove renovations expiry two years of the license
License forever, or maybe for 20 years.
One single license for all europe, in English, with a photo and identification data, similar to card drive. “european sport pilot license” to ulm, GA, glider, motorglider, acrobatic. but only 1 licence, for all air sports with wings and non-commercial flights
with this license, the pilot is responsible for learning to fly other aircraft
for example
I have a GA license, and I want to fly a glider.
I am responsible and I go to a school glider
Do you have a driver’s license for your vw ?, another for your BMW, another for your ferrari?
Another for your smart ?, another for your motorbike ?, another for your bike ?, another for your van?
No, there is only one for the same road

Last Edited by celtico at 28 Jan 15:40
pasion por volar
LEVX CERVAL

The biggest issue that has affected me is the whole anti 3rd Country aircraft nonsense, which has resulted in thousands of perfectly safe pilots including me having to get duplicate qualifications in order to continue what we have been doing for the last 25 years.

I have done the IR, but the nightmare is far from over as I have to get type ratings sorted, and this is an expensive business.

And for what? A safety case? If it’s safe for a pilot who lives outside EASA land (say Jersey) to fly his N-reg Cirrus, or Cayman reg jet around Europe in the way that ICAO envisaged, or for a Delta 747 to land at Heathrow with an FAA licenced pilot, why is it unsafe for me to fly without an EASA licence just because I live in England.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

I agree with Neil above. That EASA “project” was a purely politically motivated piece of garbage.

But what can be reversed, seriously, by this new initiative?

So much political capital has been invested into what we have. So many man-hours and careers in Brussels and Cologne, and in the national CAAs.

Anybody flying in Europe could make a list as long as their arm…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Make all STC’s from reputable ICAO states valid on EASA aircraft with only a log book entry to certify them.

Make all radio equipment that has an STC on an EASA type based on a foreign STC valid for all EASA types.

Not require an STC for ADS-B equipment that has its GPS data fed from an EASA IFR approved GPS.

Simplify the PPL Licence system in the way Celtico says above.

Dump the FTO over regulation, the UK CAA pilot training system has produced a very good safety culture and low accident rate for years……. EASA over regulation has already driven up costs and risk…… IF IT’S NOT BROKE DONT FIX IT !

Get rid of the ridiculous en route IFR rating that you can’t use for instrument aproaches, it just teaches people enough to get themselfs into trouble but with out the training to get themselfs safely on the ground………………… Oh the UK has one of these called the IMC rating that the so called “safety authority” has been trying to kill for years !

Change the EASA mind set from seeing sucsess from how much can we regulate to how little can we regulate, Curently the pilot licensing system is so complicate that it is unfit for purpose………….. Simplify it and remember that this licence is to fly SEP not a 747 so regulate appropriately.

All in all the best thing that could happen is to talk the FAR’s, cross out FAA and write EASA on the top and use the whole thing with only the name changed.

What has to be made crystal clear is that EASA has got the whole plot so very very wrong and it must fix it before accidents start to become a direct result of EASA regulation. The EASA STC regulations for ADS-B are a prime example.

Get rid of the ridiculous en route IFR rating

WHAT? NO! The EIR would have been enough to safely perform ANY flight I have made in marginal VMC and ANY flight where I had to divert for weather. The EIR is a good thing and an easy entrance into IFR flying.

Make all STC’s from reputable ICAO states valid on EASA aircraft with only a log book entry to certify them.

Logbook entry by whom? And how do you want to judge, if different STCs have an effect on each other? (http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2010/03/articles/general-aviation/the-trouble-with-tip-tanks/)

Do you have a driver’s license for your vw ?, another for your BMW, another for your ferrari?

You don’t have a license for the 172, another for the P28A and another for the MS894, so that is currently the case. But you have a separate license for a car, a truck, a motorcycle and a bus, and that is okay imho. The requires hours to get a SPL from a PPL is quite low, compared to what you have to learn.

No, there is only one for the same road

No, there isn’t. At least not everywhere.

or maybe for 20 years.

That is even worse than every 2 years. That’s a guarantee to forget it.

If you really want serious and sensible opinions, you have to ask the professionals in aviation, not some forums. You will get some opinions, but to a certain extend uninformed. (Which would include me for some of the topics. I, for instance, have no clue about Part 145 maintenance or Part med. Thence I do not offer any advice on these topics.)

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Reading some of the answers here I just can conclude that some folk got what they deserved with EASA…. increadible. Get rid of the better stuff they have done like the EIR and CBIR? In favour for what?

What needs to be done in EASA´s basic regulation is to create an environment which is not counterproductive to aviation as it is now, but which creates a positive and cost effective regulation environment which will encourage people to fly not dissuade them.

Create regulation which is in relation to the regulated aircraft and air crew capabilities, not simply dump all airliner regulation onto GA.

Get rid of all the national “specialties” and “gold plating”. One organisation, one law. NO country is allowed to impose gold plated garbage on top of an already strict law. If that does not work, abandon the project, as it becomes useless. Why bother to have common legislation if countries can screw around anyway?

LSZH, Switzerland

And how do you want to judge, if different STCs have an effect on each other?

It works in America, which “runs”, directly or indirectly, perhaps 90% of the aviation in the known universe.

Europe decided to make STCs much more prescriptive, to remove the need for the signing-off authority (A&P/IA in the USA, checks the installation for conformity to the STC, signs off the 337 and sends the 337+STC to AFS-750 in Oklahoma) to have any intelligence, which is the European approach (individuals are stupid, authority may be vested only in approved organisations).

I agree that direct acceptance of US STCs would be a great move. It is not likely to happen, due to job losses in Cologne and in the Part 21 companies which “feed” the system.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

WHAT? NO! The EIR would have been enough to safely perform ANY flight I have made in marginal VMC and ANY flight where I had to divert for weather. The EIR is a good thing and an easy entrance into IFR flying.

The UK IMC rating is accessible for the average PPL holder to fly instrument approaches……… A far better idea than marginal VMC flight.

Logbook entry by whom? And how do you want to judge, if different STCs have an effect on each other?

Log book entry by EASA part M company, most of them are quite able to see if one STC will effect another one.

There is a huge culture clash between the European Govenment regulates everything attitude and the UK attitude of the govenment should regulate as little as it can. A prime example of this is that the UK CAA was happy to let the British Gliding Association run the whole of UK gliding since WW2 and they did this very safely at reasonable cost, I can’t see any benifits to gliding in the UK from the regulation ( or should that be interferance) of EASA.

[quotes fixed up]

Last Edited by A_and_C at 28 Jan 17:40

No
You don’t have a license for the 172, another for the P28A and another for the MS894

no of course not, this is only GA.

but you have a license to ULM, GA another license. other licensed glider, other license motorglider, another license for gyroplane, another license for trike …..
I fly in sport plane, for fun, not for business.

That’s a guarantee to forget it.

If I forget, I am responsible.
I go to school and take an instructor to remember …
What is the problem?

in Germany, the driving license is forever.
Driving a car is more dangerous and many lives are at stake in each km,
sports flight has less risk,
¿We fly every day 10 hours or 4 hours in weekends?
many rules for a few hours of flight per year, no balance

pasion por volar
LEVX CERVAL
56 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top