Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA new aviation strategy (Annex 2 becoming Annex 1?)

The new Aviation strategy is available

Lots of documents there at. Looks like certifications for light GA will in part go away.

Finally, for low risk operations, the possibility of assessing the airworthiness
and environmental compatibility of the design of products and parts without the need to issue
a certificate is being proposed. This possibility could be implemented especially for certain
aircraft used in the general aviation sector. It is also expected that the manufacturers of
aircraft listed in Annex I to the Regulation would make use of this flexibility when opting into
the Union regulatory system under Article 2.

Annex II has become Annex I

LeSving wrote:

Annex II has become Annex I

That doesn’t make sense. Annex I specifies essential airworthiness requirements while Annex II specifies aircraft that don’t have to comply with EASA regulations.

Interesting:
3. This Regulation shall not apply to:
(d) the design, production, maintenance and operation of aircraft the operation of which
involves low risk for aviation safety, as listed in Annex I, and to the personnel and
organisations involved therein.

It’s a lot of information to wrap your head around…

LFPT, LFPN

Aviathor wrote:

Interesting:

It is. However, I have at times trouble wrapping my head around which regulation they refer to when mentioning Annexes. At a glance, I didn’t see any annexes in this document. I had to laugh at this one out loud:

Without prejudice to Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXXX…

Last Edited by Martin at 09 Dec 08:57

Martin wrote:

Annex I specifies essential airworthiness requirements while Annex II specifies aircraft that don’t have to comply with EASA regulations.

Well, not in the future

It’s a bit cool to read it:

Case I: Identified examples of quantified overregulation

- Overregulation leading to high maintenance costs for small aircraft and gliders. A case study provided by Europe
Air Sports and concerning one of the EFTA States shows that maintenance costs for small aircraft and gliders increased
by 50% since 2003.34 Figure 2 above demonstrates that General Aviation in the US has a better safety record than the
EU, even though the requirements for this sector in the EU are more demanding;

- Disproportionate costs for advanced private pilot training. Instrument rating training costs are approximately twice
as big in Europe as in the US35. These differences in training costs make an overseas training an attractive alternative
for European private pilot licence holders who consider obtaining an instrument rating. Compared to the US, the share
of private pilot licence holders with instrument rating is much lower in the EU than in the US (5.2% and 26.8%,
respectively). These economic effects have also safety implications: the instrument rating qualification is an effective
way of avoiding accidents in bad weather conditions. New instrument ratings that were recently introduced by the EU
took into account the special needs of private pilot licence holders by making instrument rating training more accessible
and less costly. Further efforts are however needed to increase the number of private pilot licence holders with instrument ratings in the EU. This may include considering training outside approved training organisations.

- Regulatory burden is created by a lack of responsiveness of the current rulemaking system. When comparing
the average duration of current technical rule development to the development of an industry standard a rough
comparison indicates that it takes approximately 3 times longer to develop a rule compared to a standard, i.e. 3 years
for a rule versus 1 year and 2 months for the industry standard.36 Although referring to industry standards is not always
an alternative to a traditional rulemaking process, this comparison points to potential time and cost savings which could
be achieved by increasing reliance on industry standards.

I think EASA is starting to shake in their pants regarding (certified) GA, and this figure shows why. Instead of making it safe, they have killed it.

Let me be the devil’s advocate here.

The diagram doesn’t show a causal relationship. The cause could simply be money: uncertified are cheaper.

The prices of new certified planes (well, all the very few types there are ) are astronomical, and most of the distinct models are 1950s designs which to a present-day buyer are unattractive, for the main usage which is VFR.

EASA has presided over a big decline, for sure. But it isn’t more difficult to certify a new aircraft under EASA than under the FAA, and both are just implementing ICAO compliance, which enables worldwide flight.

Socata are not a good firm to make an example of themselves. They chucked in their piston business in 2002, for no obvious reason, while making sure none of the several interested parties in the subsequent years could restart it. They had great products and they threw them away.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

The cause could simply be money: uncertified are cheaper.

That is the whole point here. EASA wants the cost of (traditional/certified) GA to decrease. It is written all over the strategy documents that the status today is (costly) overregulation of GA, with no quantifiable increase in safety according to EASA themselves. They want a way for producers of microlight aircraft to extend their products into the higher performance segments, and there is no way that will happen with the current regulations.

LeSving wrote:

I think EASA is starting to shake in their pants regarding (certified) GA, and this figure shows why. Instead of making it safe, they have killed it.

I don’t think I agree. EASA played rather minor role in that period, a lot of it was in the hands of JAA. It certainly reads nice and I do have the feeling for some time that EASA is heading in the right direction (the issues I came across were created at national level). However, I’m not sure whether this trend survives eventual change of leadership at EASA. Let’s hope so.

Well, not in the future

So, in the future version of No 216/2008, Annex I becomes what?

Martin wrote:

However, I’m not sure whether this trend survives eventual change of leadership at EASA. Let’s hope so.

No one can predict the future. But I think the economics (money, work and competence) of it will keep this going. The European microlight industry rules the world, including the USA (LSA), and when EASA now predicts that the all GA can be ruled by Europe (with the appropriate changes by EASA), the expectation is nothing less from the politicians. Also, EASA has increased MTOW for electric microlight from 475 to 560 (don’t remember exactly, 550?), thus bringing in the “green” aspect into GA.

The UK LAA have told someone that the move from Annex 2 to Annex 1 designation has not happened yet and is only a proposal. Does anyone know more?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
11 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top