Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA member states not correctly applying EASA regs

This is from IAOPA. Some interesting cases mentioned…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Good to see EASA making statements in favour of pilots. The varying rules by country are a bit ridiculous.

KPJC and Kent, UK

Katamarino wrote:

The varying rules by country are a bit ridiculous.

My experience about similar things leads me to believe more and more that lets say 50% of these problems are due to plain ignorance of the EASA regs by the local aviation authorities. This leads them to view and interpret the EASA regs in the light of, and in the same manner, they did with the old regs. The old national regulations were not “set in stone” in every detail of every little thing, like EASA regs are. They were broader in scope, and it was up to the AA to finalize the details of practical execution of the regs. This could even be done on a case to case basis. For some cases, a dispute in court with a verdict would set the standard (just a part of the normal legal system)

With EASA regs, it’s not really part of the job of the local authority to interpret and detail the regs. This will do nothing but to create a gazillion different versions of the regs. Still, the EASA regs often miss the point. They are overly bureaucratic, contradictory, and sometimes makes no sense whatsoever. That’s the other 50%.

IMO the cost sharing regs are contradictory. They make a mix of what is “commercial” and what is not. There was no need to do that, at least I cannot see any. Another example is VFR night regs in SERA. They are so clumsy written that following them by the letter would make VFR N impossible throughout Norway due to issues with terrain. The local AA had to make special changes. The last thing is LAPL privileges. By the book, a PPL inherits no LAPL privileges, and this was confirmed to me by the local AA. However, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a PPL shouldn’t inherit LAPL privileges, and a month or two ago, the local AA informed that all Norwegian PPLs do (same as what has been the practice in Denmark for the last year). In the new EASA regulations coming in 2022? (or whenever) this LAPL confusion will be fixed once and for all.

Katamarino wrote:

Good to see EASA making statements in favour of pilots

IME I have seen more cases of the national AA making statements and changes in favor of pilots due to poor EASA regs than the other way around. EASA has a long way to go. Besides, what those examples from Denmark show is that the Danish courts works as expected, which is not something we can say about EASA, not for light GA anyway.

I think a lot of the “local differences” are due to very old regulatory politics. This is hard to accept if you have been in your CAA for 30 years, busting people for breaking a rule which is no longer a rule.

Cost sharing is one of these. It is highly emotive (see the various Wingly etc threads here for the details) and there is the real dimension that cost sharing has been used as a cover for illegal charter. It gets specially provocative in the bizjet sphere where the legit outfits (who pay loads of dosh for their AOC) complain like hell to their CAA. And in some countries (probably France and Italy) cost sharing is likely to break tax concessions under which their schools clubs run.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

and there is the real dimension that cost sharing has been used as a cover for illegal charter

I know a few cases, and it’s not restricted to “cost sharing” only (strictly speaking). LT informs from time to time on their web sites about this also. They also inform about resent cases, without going into any detail. IMO this is a much more common problem than what it seems to be, since most cases are handled silently (no court or anything, just a reaction from the authorities that is accepted. Loss of license for some time I would think). Reading between the lines so to speak, it also seems like most excuses for busting are based on regs being complicated and difficult to find/read.

They have put up a guide now (Norwegian only). A point and click thing covering all flying a pilot with a PPL or microlight could ever do. Just tried it, and IMO you have to be pretty confused if you by “accident” should do some illegal commercial operation when going through that guide.

As a curiosity they are already starting to replace or add “sport” as a replacement or addition “microlight”. Won’t be long before 600 kg MTOW along with other “goodies” are here to stay.

LeSving wrote:

They have put up a guide now (Norwegian only). A point and click thing covering all flying a pilot with a PPL or microlight could ever do.

Very nice initiative!

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
6 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top