Peter wrote:
Yes, I think, definitely, much more (what some would call) “total cowboy” flying used to happen – due to the difficulties of obtaining wx data. A lot of piston GA was operated on the basis of “if you can get airborne at all, go up and take a look around, and usually it will work, more or less”.
In 1991, I made a flight (VFR) from Old Sarum to Barton. When I asked about a phone to call for a wx briefing in Old Sarum, I was directed to a payphone. The UK MET office used a premium phone number for their briefings. They charged faster than it was physically possible for me to insert coins, so when the first coin was used up after a few seconds, the call was disconnected. I asked the locals how they did it and they said they just called the destination airport asked for the current weather and once in the air checked VOLMET.
When I got home again I wrote a very unhappy letter to the MET office and actually got a reply saying that they understood the problem but had to recoup costs…
Seems like a post for old pilots 
I think navigation has changed a lot, I flew in military in 2002, you have to log dozens of visual nav & radio nav hours before flying long sectors: about 100h for pilots and +150h for navigators, something I rediscovered latter in GA when flying gliders in 2010 (PDA+GPS moving maps) or flying power in 2015 (with EFB+GPS tablets), it only takes 10min brief to get on top of navigation with current technology…
Still the current PPL syllabus swap anyone for 45h of dinosaur NAV practices worthless with complex & dense airspace we have these days !
Wow, you guys are old! No wonder this is one of the last places in the Internet where people communicate using complete sentences. Which is to my liking but not popular among people younger than me. And I am already not that young (34).
The first flight of my PPL training took place in January 2015. Until very recently I have been confined just to a single flying environment – the local flying club. During these 5+ years that have passed until now most of the changes that happened in my surroundings were very positive.
Also the nearby EPGL is building a new hard runway after – if I am not mistaken – operating on grass for more than 100 years…
However, even during these 5+ years, the airspace around here got slightly more complex. A new prohibited area was set up above Auschwitz – a move I actually support. But we also got all these “BVLOS drone testing” TRAs and what else. “Note there is an active danger area D9999 10 nautical miles ahead of you” “Oh thanks…! But wait a sec… it seems it’s not there on my current, CAA endorsed chart?” “Oh yes, it is recent and was introduced in between the map editions…” “Excuse me?”. Happened to me. Anyway, looking at London TMA, I am probably still not entitled to complaints. Another thing is that the various minimum heights above ground now apply accordingly to administrative boundaries – rather than according to built-up area boundaries as indicated on official air navigation charts (which was the case when I was in training and which was much more reasonable – I can’t see the administrative boundaries from air…).
Most of mainland Scotland north of the Great Glen used to be closed below 5,000’ after 15.00 Monday to Thursday for military use. A few years ago it was opened, unless notamed, which hardly ever happens. A great improvement.
Here is a bit of chart nostalgia for you
But, really, I have never thought CAS and its various shapes was a problem. I used to fly all over the UK, VFR, OCAS. It is the zero tolerance, thanks to the new ex RAF ATC masonic lodge at the CAA, that’s the problem. If there was a speed camera every 100m and one got 3 points at 1mph over the limit, I would also have to stop driving, and so would everybody else. I think this is a huge change for UK pilots and the realisation has not yet worked itself through the community.
37 Years..
Biggest changes?
It just all seems to be more difficult. In my early days, ATC were generally much more helpful. Transiting the Gatwick CTZ Redhill to Shoreham in a homebuilt and a handheld. No problem Sir, report the 26 threshold and cleared from there.
Flying a Super Cub from the grass at Luton, and landing a Jodel at Southampton at night – no problem!
The increase in Controlled airspace has become an issue to say the least, Southend SRZ was fairly small for an international airport, now they have more CAS, and are not as busy. Norwich needing it?
GPS has become affordable & helped us navigate immensely
Better headsets – Airlite 62 was garbage but the accepted standard amongst flying schools. Still got my DC headset which still works 36 years later
Hand Mikes in aeroplanes? Anyone still use one?
Skydemon! What can I say?
ATC & CAA being so risk averse it affects what we all do.
Pilots don’t wear blazers and cravats anymore and Elstree filled in their aero club swimming pool.
Peter wrote:
Rules are being more strictly applied around the homebuilt area – see e.g. this and this.
What is happening is more that new and more standard rules seems to be applied in places that had, and still have in many aspects, rather special rules. ie Belgium, UK, France, Spain. The rules aren’t more strictly applied. The rules are thrown overboard, replaced by new rules.
Homebult aircraft have always been fully under national regulations in every aspect: building, operation, maintenance. Instead of needing to have per flight permission to cross the boarder (at those few and special places), or having a plethora of bilateral agreements, there seems to be a standardization on:
This is fully in agreement with the 1980 ECAC recommendation for homebuilt aircraft, and from 2016 also for so called “historical aircraft”. For the handful of countries with bilateral agreements, these are (seems to be) gone, replaced by a more standard form. For the rest of Europe, nothing has changed to my knowledge, at least not in the Nordic countries, Germany, Poland, Austria, Baltic etc etc.
What is emphasized is each country’s “duty” to keep oversight of homebuilt aircraft in their respective country. It is only logical. There is no legal way for a national CAA to keep oversight of a non ICAO + non EASA aircraft from another country unless a bilateral agreement exist. And, since these aircraft are non ICAO and non EASA, there is nothing permitting that aircraft to operate in another country without explicit permission. Still, the ECAC recommendation stands, and has done so for 40 years, widened in 2016. All countries that are members of ECAC, many are outside EASA, have agreed to the basic principle. What has really happened, in those countries who did not have any special regulation except bilateral agreements, is:
The side effect is inevitably that keeping an aircraft on some “preferred” register is not possible. You have to remember that 2 is a direct consequence of 1.
