Many ATO/DTO’s in France are one man bands and do PPL, IR , MEP and type ratings, depending on the type rating. Eg a one man band at La Rochelle does type ratings for all of the King Air series.
Secondly, all taildragger/wheel, glider towing, aerobatic ratings etc can be done by a freelance.
For the CBIR there are clubs who can do the majority of the flight hours need, only 10 need to be done within an ATO.
Many ratings and licences can be done in your own aircraft if that’s what you wish, including, for the PPL .CNSK (kit built aircraft are allowed for the PPL and I believe a night rating with approval from OSAC). They can also be maintained by the owner or a club. Experimental, collection and orphans each have their own rules tailored to them.
Yes usually clubs make a 10 or 20 euro charge for double command, this , as you say can go towards the cost of training an instructor , if necessary but it’s more likely to cover insurance and any out of pocket travel expenses that the FI might have.
The IR, MEP, etc revalidations can all be done by freelance examiners in your own aircraft or freelance examiners who regularly work with a particular ATO.
There are a number of regulations within EASA that I too would like to change, In particular the medical requirements which IMO have generally become much more onerous for leisure pilots than they were back in the 1990’s.
Then there is ELP. When I started flying we had a QRI and a QRRI to prove we could speak English. Both of these were scrapped and if you wanted to fly outside of France you were expected (on your honour) to speak enough English to cope. EASA took us back to worse than we were originally.
But changing the UK’s airspace and ATC structure has always been in the hands of the UK CAA and could have been de – red taped at any time since it was set up.
Having flown in both the USA and France I don’t see a great deal of difference and AIUI there is a move within EASA to harmonise more with FAA regs for GA.
So I come back to what do you want to change that you couldn’t have already changed within EASA?
Peter wrote:
OTOH the ATO/DTO can be physically almost anywhere
That’s true of the BGA. Most glider instructors have never been anywhere near the BGA’s headquarters, but are part of the BGA’s “training organisation”. It still adds unnecessary overhead, though (and only works for gliding because all glider clubs are members of the BGA).
Personally, I’d start by looking at what it is that causes UK airports to not want to allow operations outside staffed opening hours. There is nothing more frustrating to realise that a flight that can be made safely won’t be allowed by the airport operator because they are closing at 6pm on a summer’s evening.
Maybe they fear some regulation (could be changed), maybe there is some fear of litigation (perhaps some legislation limiting this would be possible) or perhaps they simply don’t want people on the airfield when no staff is around (maybe some inducement could me made to encourage this).
If GA is to flourish it need to be not constrained to working hours or other artificial restrictions.
By the way, BREXIT isn’t needed for this. France seems to manage this without any problems.
And as soon as an “organisation” is required, all the hassle starts: employees and employment law, regulation, procedures, manuals, premises, budget and funding, directors, liability, insurance etc etc etc.
Secondly, all taildragger/wheel, glider towing, aerobatic ratings etc can be done by a freelance.
Good point. None of these were “ratings” in the UK until they were foisted upon us by EASA’s regulatory incontinence. The CAA should move swiftly to stifle all such pointless bureaucracy. An instructor’s log book signature is all that was and henceforth should be required.
But it is just an instructors log book signature for these ratings/differences, and they can be done on your own aircraft or somebody else’s and by any instructor with the appropriate rating. The number of hours needed is only dependent on ability.
Tailwheel is just an endorsement, but as I understand it, glider towing, aerobatics, mountain etc. are actual ratings, in other words you’ve got to send stuff off to the CAA and pay fees to have it added to your EASA licence. These things don’t increase safety at all over what they replaced, they are merely burdensome (and add cost).
Nationally regulated (e.g. PtF) aircraft don’t have this additional burden, so perhaps the CAA will be minded to make flying certified G-reg in line with PtF G-reg in this respect.
Well this year I had to get a replacement licence as mine was full. I also needed a Covid extension for my SEP. E mailed a copy of my licence to the DGAC and received an up to date replacement. Cost €0.
Here glider towing is just a signature from an instructor in the log book. Or at least when using a C41 Ikarus.
I don’t know about the mountain rating because I have always done this through a club and haven’t updated since EASA came in to being.
Perhaps some of the things you are trying to change are UK only things.
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
Perhaps some of the things you are trying to change are UK only things.
I think there is a political subtlety here.
One “can” do a lot of things within the EU / within EASA, so long as what you do is not provocative enough, plus you (as a country) is a powerful enough member (France, Germany, etc), or you are a small country but a symbolically important one which the EU would not want to alienate and eventually lose (e.g. Greece doing a grexit, or even just leaving the Euro, would be a massive hit to Brussels’ prestige).
For example, one EU politician was asked on TV how come Spain still has bullfighting. His answer, surprisingly honest but of course obvious, was “politics is the art of the possible”. What do you think would happen if say Belgium wanted to start bullfighting?
Many EU countries sign up to all the treaties and then implement the bits they want, and provided they judge it just right, Brussels will do nothing about it.
Unfortunately the UK is full of “compliance idiots” (why, I don’t know) and is a master at not just implementing every damn regulation but also gold plating it, reading between the rules, etc, etc. Plus the UK has obviously not ever had a relationship with Brussels which is anywhere near as influential as say France has. So any given judgement on whether “can I get away with this” will be different between the DGAC and the UK CAA.
Now, post brexit, it is still not simple because there are negotiations going on, under the table of course because “brexit is done now”, on some sort of treaty / agreement framework between the UK and Brussels, on licensing, certification, etc, etc, and if the UK just goes it alone, and e.g. allows the IMCR to be valid in Class A, it isn’t going to get any concessions. If you want someone to do a deal with you, you can’t spit in their soup 
Anyway, allowing the IMCR into Class A would be political dynamite. The whole setup is based on not having access to the air which is the property of the professionals
I would therefore give this some more time The UK can implement non provocative stuff for now…
gallois wrote:
Here glider towing is just a signature from an instructor in the log book. Or at least when using a C41 Ikarus.
That’s because the C41 isn’t an “EASA product” and is regulated nationally. I don’t need a towing rating for the Auster, either, because it’s not an “EASA product”. But if I wanted to tow in a Super Cub, or a Maule? Then you’re burdended with some pointless paperwork. This is part of the reason glider clubs have been ditching EASA aircraft for nationally regulated aircraft.
That the NAAs tend to not require this paperwork exercise for their nationally regulated aircraft shows that the NAAs believe EASA’s rules in this particular instance are burdensome and pointless. So there is hope the CAA will reverse some of these paperwork exercises for certified aircraft in the future. No, these are not “UK only” things, these are things that were imposed by EASA. At one point, glider airworthiness and registration in the UK was completely devolved to the BGA which had a safe, effective and non-burdensome system. EASA took all this away.
