I’m reminded that at a similar time, the National Traction Engine Trust sought to engage with the ‘authorities’ over what the organisation perceived as a threat to the continued operation of steam vehicles on public roads. The sole effect of this ‘engagement’ was to raise the profile and the potential for bureaucratic interference from Whitehall mandarins who had quite likely never previously been aware (from their central London vantage point) that we even existed! (Not many traction engines in central London!).
Traction engines and private aeroplanes have more in common than you might think – while they have dissimilar glide ratios, both are intensely vulnerable to capricious public administration and both are regarded by a certain part of the ruling elite as being highly antisocial !
I do wonder if GA has much to gain, when it certainly has much to lose, from meddling with the ‘authorities’. The present infringement crisis is certainly the result of increased ‘visibility’ of GA for some reason that is probably not an actual increase in infringing behaviour.
At the time, I think the CAA made the point that their hands are somewhat tied by membership of EASA.
Nevertheless, they made a start by deregulating airworthiness of a few single seat microlight landplanes and allowing a few pilots to self-declare their medical fitness.
Then came the Shoreham accident, amongst the victims of which lies any hope of the CAA defending its own principle that regulation of GA should be limited to protecting uninvolved third parties.
Aveling wrote:
Traction engines and private aeroplanes have more in common than you might think – while they have dissimilar glide ratios
…you have never flown a TB10, have you?
;-)
In May 2014 the GA Challenge Panel wrote:
6.i Deregulation
CAP1123 sets out the CAA’s intention to remove oversight and rule-making in areas where there is no EU obligation, and to identify what parts of the GA sector might be removed from EASA oversight. The CAP also sets out the CAA’s intention to introduce the principle of ‘informed consent’, which moves the onus to participants to demonstrate their awareness of and then to accept the risks involved in certain GA activities. A move to a system of informed consent will shift the CAA’s role from regulation and authorisation, to providing guidance and oversight so that participants can make informed choices.
Now that the UK CAA‘s leg-irons have been removed, where, how and how far should the Authority apply its ‘principle of informed consent’ to general aviation?
Bearing in mind the political imperative to build a post-independence bonfire of EU “red tape”, which are the highest priority areas for UK GA deregulation?
Oh Grant Shapps will take care about everything 
Well, a degree of cynicism is understandable, especially from States whose leeway for deregulation is constrained by pooled sovereignty.
Meanwhile, it really may be that the UK government is listening for proposals for deregulation.
Since 1 January 2021 UK CAA has already abolished the former requirement for microlight aircraft to have noise certificates. Perhaps more of a shuffle than a step, but definitely in the direction of liberty and personal responsibility.
So come on folks, instead of sniping from the cheap seats, which UK or EASA regulations would you change to boost light GA?
I’ll start the list by nicking one of Peter’s perennial suggestions: open all aspects of light GA training and maintenance to self-employed freelance instructors and mechanics.
I’ll add another: default “no-nonsense” acceptance of all FAA and EASA TCs and STCs for light UK-registered GA.
And a third: amend and extend the UK “E Conditions” permit to fly so that it matches Experimental aircraft conditions in the USA, Italy and elsewhere.
Lastly, extend the existing UK SSDR (single seat de-regulated microlight aeroplane) conditions to include all manner of rotorcraft and autonomous passenger air vehicles up to 300 kg. Or maybe a bit heavier for single seat aircraft with electric, hybrid or novel propulsion systems?
I don’t like cynicism and applaud your optimism, so I hope you are right that there will be a real push towards deregulation in your country.
But I’d be a little careful to hope for anything substantial.
1) Deregulation in the UK after freeing yourself from the EU stranglehold is mainly meant for business I suppose. Is GA regarded as an important business? Or just an anti-social pastime for the filthy rich? See that in the light of a possible next left-wing government.
2) What does the CAA have to gain by deregulation? I do not know many civil servants that would willingly accept risks without any (personal) benefits. And deregulation comes with risks. I can see a high profile GA accident coming up, killing bystanders, caused by a mechanical fault and the maintenance was done by some freelancer..
3) Deregulation means some gain and others lose. Do you, as an example, think that established maintenance companies will just take it lying down?
Maybe things are different in the UK, but I would dread the day that Spain would no longer be part of EASA. It would be a perfect excuse to clamp down even more on GA, just to cover the bottom half of their backs.
Many of the things @Jacko desires of UK’s deregulation already exist here, especially those related to micro light, single seater and experimental aircraft. Also we have little need for freelance instructors or I should say not ATO attached freelance instructors as we already have them within the club system, many of whom give their time for nothing. We have a number of Part66 mechanics who do not work in large organisations and many larger maintenance shops allow, once a relationship has been built up, to work alongside a mechanic and use the tools of the workshop etc.
France is doing this as a member of EASA so I’m still waiting to see what advantages the UKs new found freedom to deregulate will bring. I point out that I am not being cynical, I am genuinely interested.
The UK doesn’t really have a “club” system like France. It has schools (which sometimes call themselves “clubs”) and it has a load of private owners (often as syndicates).
What is needed is freelance instructors and freelance mechanics available to private owners, not just within clubs which are anyway closed to private owners (de facto if not literally). Also the FIs within French clubs aren’t working for zero; they do get some small money (€10-20/hr according to one I knew) and some are doing a few hundred hours of instructing for free to pay back a loan made by the club to cover the FI’s ground school.
There is a lot of small things which could be done for GA in the UK. We already have removed the threat of the IMCR getting killed off, and that was a really big thing which would have massively affected safety. One could have the use of a UK PPL or NPPL with the PMD medical for all aircraft based in the UK, just like we had during certain times in recent years (e.g. pre April 2018 you could fly an N-reg TB20 on a NPPL+PMD). Acceptance of FAA STCs (done only by Australia currently) would be a brilliant move, but the emergence of AML STCs for “big glass” products has reduced the value of that in recent years, so what is needed is a better system for approving smaller mods. The foregoing probably won’t be resisted by the industry, except the AME business, which is powerful but has been heading for the rocks for some time due to so many pilots flying on the PMD already.
A lot depends on how the power balance within the various factions in the CAA pans out.
Very little chance of a left wing govt arriving here anytime soon, btw.
