It is noticed, that EU / EASA just shows the US / FAA how simplification of rules work. Still, there is much work to do, especially within the EU commission and among the nations. But the direction is very promising and where EASA has direct impact, simplification is fast and pragmatic.
https://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Guest-Blog-Europe-Leads-in-Simplifying-Regulation-230716-1.html
So far just talk IMO. I haven’t seen any real simplification as of yet. All I have seen is the regulation has increased 10 folds in size since EASA. The number of acronyms has increased 100 fold (you don’t only need to know the rules, you have to, for all practical purposes, learn another language). The numbering is a mess, no structure, no real names for anything. For the flying I do, now I have to keep track on 3 sets of regulations essentially (Part II, EASA and microlight). We have a situation where the exact same aircraft can be built as an experimental homebuilt, purchased factory built as LSA or as a microlight, which is extremely cool of course. But, for operating that aircraft, the LSA will use Part NCO, the experimental homebuilt will use the old national “NCO”, and the microlight will use the national rules for microlight operations.
They all use SERA though. SERA is an exception from the mess, not only in implementation, but also the way it is organized and written. But why on earth call it SERA? Why not call it “Rules of the air” ? I mean SERA (Standardized European Rules of the Air, according to google, I had to look it up to get the correct meaning). They are the Rules of the air, period. It’s a name everybody understand.
The end result of this is the National CAAs, Luftfartstilsynet in my case, have to condense, simplify and explain the rules for us amateur aviators. LT does a good job with that, making guides and tests and stuff. I have no idea what other aviation authorities do, but when rules needs to be simplified and explained, something is very wrong with the way they are written, worded, presented, organized or made available. Again, SERA is an exception, it needs no explaining or condensing, but try finding it without using google.
mh wrote:
t is noticed, that EU / EASA just shows the US / FAA how simplification of rules work.
I don’t understand. The FAA rules are already simple and clear.
There is an excellent article by Jan Brill in the recent edition of Pilot und Flugzeug about why the GA Roadmap does not yield results despite of the best intentions by those in EASA who work on it.
He claims that a lot of initiatives which all are 99% done get blocked by the lawyers in the European Commission at the last moment.
The notable thing is that these mysterious lawyers rarely if ever come into the open.
I reckon the real reason is threatened litigation by industry interests.
For example if you authorise a Part M company to perform a range of activities, sell them a licence for 20k a year, and then bring in say ELA2, which threatens to wipe out say 30% of their business, they can sue. And rightly so because by selling an authorisation to do something makes a rod for beating yourself up with if you later withdraw the authorisation! And Europe runs on selling authorisations, in everything from aviation to nutrition practice.
And EASA has done lots of little things like that e.g. a dispensation on the Form 1 in certain circumstances deprives the 145 industry of income. Acceptance of US STCs would demolish the 21 DOA industry.
In the US system it would be much harder for the FAA to get sued, because there are far fewer regular fees to the licensing authority.
