Snoopy wrote:
The C172 is commercial. Prices:
2 POB VFR 3,3€
3+ POB VFR 3,6€
2 POB IFR 4,0€
3+ POB IFR 4,32€
Huh? How does that work – they charge you according to flight rules and POB ??? WTF !
Yes. That 172 is really tricked out. CD155, G500Txi, GTN750&650TXi, dual G5, GFC500, absolutely gorgeous interior.
The price is 1,5€ less per minute than comparable planes. The idea is that vfr pilots don’t use IFR navdata and charts (1800€ per year) and 4 pob result in more wear / fuel burn / engine power.
It’s good marketing as well being able to advertise a „from …€“ price.
Sorry, @Snoopy, but this is absurd and in 25 years of flying I’ve never heard anything like it. The nav data sub will need to be paid anyway, saying 4POB inflict more wear and tear is a tenuous argument at best. In any case, way too expensive for a 172. Are you really telling me that someone is willing to shell out the equivalent of USD 370 for a 172 (that’s the one you mention that costs EUR 1,50 more/minute)? If these prices don’t kill GA in Europe, then not even Putin can.
Then again, I guess there are people – and I see that in our club as well, must be a Millennial thing – for whom the ‘nice panel’ is more important than the airplane. Funny thing is, they never actually go anywhere and could fly all their ‘missions’ without any avionics.
Silvaire wrote:
I think you can find lots of excuses for perceived barriers to solving obvious and success limiting problems, or you can solve them.To me, the concept of adopting the FARs includes eliminating national differences and cross border hassles and goes hand and hand with adjoining, geographically small nations giving up their sovereignty in all aviation regulation. I thought I made that point implicitly, given that the basic concept of the FARs is Federal regulation,
“Federal” in Europe refers to sovereign countries like France, Germany, Poland, Spain, etc. To assume that a “federal regulation” in Europe should be done on a EU level is as realistic, as assuming that a federal regulation in the US includes Canada and Mexico. US states are no sovereign nations.
Also content wise the idea adopting of US aviation regulation does primarily demonstrate that the differences between US and Europe in terms of structure of aviation are not understood. Adopting the FARs in Europe would not only kill the major share of GA but also of commercial aviation.
There are fundamental differences (like no need for ATPL to act as Co-pilot in airline operations, no need for CPL to act as glider instructor) that could be done differently but are not at all trivial to solve when trying to change the system. Therefore the vast majority of people who propose to apply US regulations to Europe either do not know the differences or really mean “only this FAR that I like but not those that would cause significant harm to the system” – and partly adopting a different system is like half pregnant…
Silvaire wrote:
Nor does FAA require a transponder of any kind in Class D or E airspace unless it happens to be very close to Class B or C airspace, which is limited to a few airports, or above 10,000 ft.
A good illustration for the general fact that every set of rules and regulations looks the more attractive the less you know about them: When I read “You don’t … unless very close …” I like the simplicity of the EASA rules.
Adopting the FARs in Europe would not only kill the major share of GA but also of commercial aviation
Why?
172driver wrote:
Sorry, @Snoopy, but this is absurd and in 25 years of flying I’ve never heard anything like it. The nav data sub will need to be paid anyway, saying 4POB inflict more wear and tear is a tenuous argument at best. In any case, way too expensive for a 172. Are you really telling me that someone is willing to shell out the equivalent of USD 370 for a 172 (that’s the one you mention that costs EUR 1,50 more/minute)? If these prices don’t kill GA in Europe, then not even Putin can.Then again, I guess there are people – and I see that in our club as well, must be a Millennial thing – for whom the ‘nice panel’ is more important than the airplane. Funny thing is, they never actually go anywhere and could fly all their ‘missions’ without any avionics.
The company invested around 250k into each of their two 172s and that pricing is their strategy. I’m just the messenger here, I have no affiliation whatsoever, so no need to be sorry.
I believe the planes fly (combined) 1000+ hours a year so it seems to work.
The next „similar“ plane is a 11 year old DA40NG with G1000 and Austro Engine. It’s now 4,8€/min.
The 172s do 120kts. The DA40 140kts.
NeilC wrote:
Why?
As written: Many First Officers in Airline operations in Europe do not have an ATPL (and we do not have the structures in place required for “time building” below ATPL if we changed this).
Glider flying is a big thing in Europe – and for many current GA pilots it has been the entry into flying. If gliding instructors needed a CPL, we would shut down basically the entire glider training and hence the most important source of new GA pilots in some parts of Europe.
Just two examples.
Btw.: I truly believe that one of the most important things is that we as European pilots stop to always complain and badmouth our own GA scene. There is no reason to always complain and feel inferior to the US.
Yes, landing fees are an issue in many European countries – but FBO fees are rapidly becoming an issue in many US states as well.
Yes, it is difficult to impossible to operate an aircraft out of your own backyard in many European countries – but how many of us actually own a property that would theoretically allow to do so from operational reasons. And if talking about helicopter – ask Steve Balmer how easy that is in more densely populated US neighborhoods…
Yes, we do not have an experimental scene in Europe – but we do have a very vivid microlight community in many countries. In addition: There are roughly 7500 gliders currently on German registry. That is more than 90 per million population. There is clearly less than half of that in the US.
Aviation is different in different places in the world – we should stop pretending everything is bad here and the grass is always greener elsewhere.
I believe the planes fly (combined) 1000+ hours a year so it seems to work.
Sure; a school doing 1000hrs/year will be absolutely minting it 
But it would be sad if GA activity ended up as a load of schools, billing a C172 out at €300/hr, especially given that the vast majority of their output is never seen again because they
In reality we need everyone – all categories of GA. Training definitely (even if most of it is just wasted), renters, syndicates, and single private owners. Each one of these is flying a largely different mission profile.
Many First Officers in Airline operations in Europe do not have an ATPL
That is however a self-inflicted issue in Europe: there is no “ATPL” here; it is just a CPL/IR with 500hrs multi pilot time.
but we do have a very vivid microlight community in many countries
Sure, but only after normal GA collapsed… so they moved “under the radar”, transponders off, etc
JAA started with the FARs, btw, often not even bothering to renumber the paragraphs. Then they applied the “We are European, not American” political requirement, and we have what we have. Gold plating all the way down.
172driver wrote:
Are you really telling me that someone is willing to shell out the equivalent of USD 370 for a 172
That is on the high side of a 172. Typical prices at commercial renters are more in the ballpark of 320USD/hr.
If we compare that to US prices, roughly half of the difference can be explained by fuel price, the other half by VAT (in contrast to most US states, in most European countries aircraft rentals are not exempt from VAT/sales tax).
One also has to keep in mind that due to the different legal system there is typically no need for an aircraft renter insurance in Europe. If you check the premium for renter insurance in the US wit e.g. 1 Mio. per person bodily damage coverage and 1.000USD copy full coverage on the aircraft, you can quickly see that comparing apples to apples (i.e. same liability risk for renter) esp. for people with few hours of rent per year the prices in Europe are not so high…
Peter wrote:
That is however a self-inflicted issue in Europe: there is no “ATPL” here; it is just a CPL/IR with 500hrs multi pilot time.
Every regulation is “self inflicted” (and yes: there is an ATPL here – it’s just that airline pilots don’t have/need one to start there career).
And I’m not arguing which system is better – that is a very complex question. I’m just stating that if we would apply US FARs in Europe tomorrow, not only GA but also commercial aviation would collapse. And there is no short term fix for this because we do not have the time building structures/market required to produce ATPLs outside airlines. Again: It is a complex chicken/egg question what is reason and what is cause – just stating the facts.
And this leads to the simple conclusion: Applying US FARs to Europe is – even taking all political aside – operationally nonsense. It would always be a “well, I didn’t mean all FARs – just the ones I like – and of those obviously I need to adjust a few…”.
And it’s not only the FARs or even aviation regulation in more general: It’s the entire legal systems! Several things that are regulated in aviation in Europe are “regulated” by insurers outside of the law in the US as liability laws/philosophy there is a completely different one. You can’t have the one without the other.
Even if we complain about UK CAA or German LBA for some of the things they do on airspace infringements, proper planning, etc. There is a reason why in the US the AOPA very openly advertises for new members with its legal cost insurance while it doesn’t do that in Europe….
