Silvaire wrote:
@dublinpilot, reading your recent cross country adventures was actually painful to me, in the sense of seeing almost everything you had to do in relation to the flight, whether on the ground or airborne, was related to compliance with some pointless bureaucratic requirement. I had to stop reading at a certain point. You may accept that as normal, I don’t.
You guys need counselling. 
Both systems have flaws. Obviously EASA is a lot more restrictive for GA (as in “general”) and actually for commercial aviation as well. On the side of commercial aviation (AoC in particularly), I´m not convinced that EASA is not the better of the two. From a pure pilot operator perspective (I only know the commercial side of FAA), I personally favor FAA. Anyways, counselling Gents!
Obviously EASA is a lot more restrictive for GA
How?
Snoopy wrote:
How?
Are you joking?
IF not, EVERYTHING. Licensing, no flight plan requirements, maintenance, airspace construction, ATC control. Long list. Casual approach to flying. The list is really long.
Please do share your experience with FAA vs EASA, where the latter, was easier to deal with (of particular interest from a GA pilot perspective), in any aspect, than FAA?
Is the flightplan requirement stemming from EASA (EU)? Or rather from individual member states?
EASA made Part-ML and BIR available.
I do agree the ATO requirement for other licenses/ratings is a nuisance. Basically the whole theory/multiple choice question bank stuff is useless.
Snoopy wrote:
Is the flightplan requirement stemming from EASA (EU)? Or rather from individual member states?
Called it what you want, blame who you want – reality is that EASA is not successful in controlling it.
Snoopy wrote:
EASA made Part-ML and BIR available.
Better than historically, yes, but compared to FAA. Not even close from the perspective of “ease of use”, from an overall safety point of view I´m not so sure, to be honest.
I suppose this is sort of a mundane conversation from a EuroGA perspective. At the end of the day, we´re sort of free to choose whatever suits us each the best.
Flight-plan requirements?
You will have to explain what you mean, because I only ever file a flight-plan in Europe to cross a border, and that’s the same should you fly an EASA or FAA aeroplane, and if you want to fly to/from the US and another country…
And on licencing…
In EASA-land you can have a licence from any Easa country and live in any other Easa country, ISTR a thread about needing a US address for an FAA licence these days or pay someone to pretend you live there. Similarly you can get your biannual, medical etc done in any EASA country. If you talk about individual countries and have no need to leave that singular country, many European countries have very relaxed GA licencing. You can also register your aeroplane in any EASA country and live in a different one and keep it in a third EASA country. ISTR an N-reg can’t actually be owned by a non-US resident…
I think many Americans forget that EASA harmonizes 20 or 30 different countries in relatively close proximity, but with huge cultural differences.
Regards, SD..
PS – I’m not saying EASA is great, it sure isnt, but for some of us, it’s reason for being makes some things easier than before (and before JAR for the purists).
Snoopy wrote:
Is the flightplan requirement stemming from EASA (EU)?
The flight plan requirements are in SERA, so EASA, they’re the same as in ICAO Annex 2, so you can just as well blame ICAO. (Well, ICAO Annex 2, doesn’t have the flight plan requirements for night VFR leaving the vicinity of the airport, but then it doesn’t have any rules for VFR at night – it just says that it is up to individual states to decide.)
Btw, in what sense are the FAA flight plan requirements less stringent than those of ICAO? I can guess the FAA doesn’t have the VFR at night flight plan requirement, but otherwise? (Serious question, I don’t know the FAA requirements.)
In Europe you can base and operate N-reg aircraft (privately or as a company) having any citizenship. Can you base and operate EASA-reg aircraft in the USA?
Seems to me the differences between EASA countries due to airspaces, traditions and practices are much larger than the difference between EASA and FAA based on regulations by themselves.
skydriller wrote:
Flight-plan requirements?You will have to explain what you mean, because I only ever file a flight-plan in Europe to cross a border, and that’s the same should you fly an EASA or FAA aeroplane, and if you want to fly to/from the US and another country…
Obviously the requirement for filing a FPL is not related to country of registration, but related to the individual member states interpretation of the rules. I´ve seen reference in EuroGA to “international” flights to/from Germany not requiring a FPL (within Schengen) for VFR flights.
Some EASA member states, eg. Portugal, requires FPL filing for VFR flights planning on using controlled airspace class C and D, and even for departing/arriving at certain airports in uncontrolled airspace (such as class G). I don´t care to much about this – I just comply with it an fly, not a big deal. The permanently restricted airspaces, requiring ATC approval for use, is a pain. Limited airspace for flying without limitations is annoying, but that´s universal I guess.
skydriller wrote:
And on licencing…In EASA-land you can have a licence from any Easa country and live in any other Easa country, ISTR a thread about needing a US address for an FAA licence these days or pay someone to pretend you live there. Similarly you can get your biannual, medical etc done in any EASA country. If you talk about individual countries and have no need to leave that singular country, many European countries have very relaxed GA licencing. You can also register your aeroplane in any EASA country and live in a different one and keep it in a third EASA country. ISTR an N-reg can’t actually be owned by a non-US resident…
I think many Americans forget that EASA harmonizes 20 or 30 different countries in relatively close proximity, but with huge cultural differences.
The FAA ticket spans across 50 states (not including Greenland (yet!)). One identical license. One Federal authority.
From a practical standpoint, when comparing part-FCL, the FAA system using the online IACRA and MedXPress is brilliant. Student and examiner (flight or medical) enters the data and its send to Oklahoma, and you medical or tempo license is printed. Simple.
For EASA there is a the “brilliant” Examiners differences document (107 pages) describing, as it says, the differences in each EASA member state´s specific requirement for examination (LST, PC etc.). What forms to be used and when, pre-notifications, license endorsements etc. etc. And of course this document changes from time to time. Then you have to email the docs to the right email address, some required hard copies others don´t.
Then there is a process is you want to transfer your EASA license from one member state to another EASA member state. Huge variations in response time between east EASA member state. Each member state has it´s own AIP, AIC etc. It´s heavy.
For what it´s worth, I´ve been doing dual license objective (EASA & FAA) LST/LPC/Medical(s) every single year since 2013, and operated under both jurisdictions, and time after time again I´ve had to concluded that FAA is the easiest one to hold.
The inconvenient part of the FAA ticket is the 6 monthly (40+ age) medical examination required for class 1 (even when not single pilot ops), as opposed to the EASA class 1 which is yearly. But then, for PPL this is irrelevant.
Airplanes can be registered in any member state, which of course is great, but with part-ML you´ll still need an annual inspection, by an inspector from the jurisdiction of the country of registry, if I´m not mistaken (?), and depending on in what country you reside in (with a none national airplane) that may not be so easy to find.
I keep my airplane under part-CAO so there is no requirement for a national inspector (airplane country of registry).
Snoopy wrote:
I do agree the ATO requirement for other licenses/ratings is a nuisance. Basically the whole theory/multiple choice question bank stuff is useless.
It is heavy, and even the DTO which is supposed to be simple, is not all that simple in its requirements. But, compared what it used to be, ok, easier.
