EASA has done its level best to kill the IMC rating while introducing a rating that is not intended to let the holder carry out instrument aproaches.
EASA has introduced the CBIR, hasn’t it? And the IMCR was just applicable to UK pilots and to certain airspaces. So you want to kill a good thing for any European pilot because some rights for UK pilots got killed? Many thanks.
Hungerford International; sorry for the misunderstanding :-) but I still disagree. And safety is to a big extent about attitude
This is not an issue in reality because almost nobody is going to install several mods which each alter the flight characteristics
In fact, that is quite off the mark. Just have a look at most of the light GA aircraft in Canada and Alaska. Very often, they have very little resemblance with the factory originals. Tons of STCs applied.
Where is all the wreckage, in that case?
The comment was merely referred to the
almost nobody is going to install several mods which each alter the flight characteristics
bit.
I will take a shot at putting this concisely:
The Frightening thing with EASA complex, disproportionate and bureaucratic over-regulation is that it has taken responsibility and initiative away from those who are in a position to act in time and in context.
In the past, it was in a good club CFI’s interest and capability to determine activity, training and retraining needs, according to circumstances, pilot skill and attitude. Now there are flat, complex requirements, assessed away from the field. People are not stupid, a sharp CFI’s club would strengthen, and safety would go up, for a larger group of people.
Much worse for mechanics and simple maintenance. Gone is the respected old-fox engineer who had seen it all, done it all and was there, fettling in the hangar, keeping a watchful eye and able to advise. Now there are silly things like CAMO for quite simple aircraft in training activities or once every three years, as if it is OK to allow less “safe” procedures in the meantime.
A retired engineer, or an able and qualified volunteer, an active aircraft designer for example, cannot sign-off simple things in a club environment, nor can he get a part-66, because he needs to prove experience by employment in a larger maintenance organisation. This is simply counter-productive. The BGA in the UK has had a great system for raising experts in maintenance and flight instruction through a mentoring system. They had a much better perspective than paper-pushing bureaucrats, real incentive to keep people safe and prove competence to peers. This of course kept costs down and flexibility up, diverting effort where it matters in aviation. Over-sight happens over your shoulder.
Frustrating people with disproportioned EASA paperwork and silly rules (viz the same model classed as TMG or SLMG, specific maintenance plans for simple aircraft, or the Annex II parallel system, simple installations) is a sure way to make them disregard whatever sensible regulation exists and let themselves loose when they get their license.
I would much rather have a system where no-one has a “license”, remaining under the supervision of competent and empowered people, and a series of progressive certificates and other goals and checks to meet. This is what re-enforces a safety culture. I think this is a must in gliding, ballooning & ultralights, and would be quite doable up to the LAPL and light touring GA activity level. Had worked well in the UK.
there.. I failed.
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?
This will become much more complex than “country”. From 2018 a national “competent authority” will be the only one allowed to issue licenses and certificates for balloons and gliders. In Norway this has always been done by NLF (the national air sport association where the glider association and balloon association and all others are parts). The CAA (LT in Norway) or the NLF see no reason for this change. So what will happen is NLF will be made a national “competent authority”. The NLF is a democratic ideal association, so how this is going to be will be interesting to follow. If this goes according to plan, it will be a first in EASA. Austria will also do something similar apparently.
OK here is an easy one:
How about removing the CPL Theory requirement for a PPL+FI.
The FI already involves a great deal of work and flying time. The CPL TK just wastes a number of months of one’s life, for zero purpose.
Wow, lots of reactions in a short time. Let me recap what we have so far:
EASA Basic Regulation remarks from the GA PPL point of view
- General: 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. AVoid disproportioned paperwork.
- FCL: Limited validity of the pilot license. Make it lifetime licenses like FAA. Simplify PPL licensing.
- FCL: Remove differences or additional requirements between different National CAAs. Avoid gold-plating by certain National CAAs
- EASA’s move against 3rd country operators should be stopped and folded back. It forced pilots to have double licenses and did not add to safety, just to cost
- 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.
- Remove the FTO (simple) over-regulation. It’s killing the flying club life without a real safety reason.
What else?
Peter:
How about removing the CPL Theory requirement for a PPL+FI.
Fantastic timing :D
