In the UK at least, there’s also ‘SSDR’ initiative – saw some very nice aircraft over the weekend that are almost entirely unregulated.
masterofnone wrote:
So why is it that GA is such an apparent whipping boy in Europe, whereas it isn’t in the US?
A word, population density.
The population density being almost three times higher in Europe, means that aviation is a less prominent mode of transport, meaning it is less on the forefront of the minds of the population as well as the policy makers, meaning it is a smaller baby. In fact, I’m amazed there is still quite a bit of (small, light) GA in The Netherlands considering half of the country’s airspace is pretty well blocked from 1500 feet up due to Schiphol airport with well over 1,000 aircraft movements per day.
That’s on the table. There’s a proposal in congress for a FAA part 23 re-write. It won’t go through this time around, but it will go through eventually. They know they have a problem and that the onerous certification process has killed development. The proposal suggest a non-commercial subpart where any part 91 operator is free to put in experimental avionics etc. When it happens it will have a huge impact. And if it passes in FAA land, EASA will have no choice but to align their rules accordingly.
Actually, the FAA’s rewrite of Part 23 is well underway. It is regulatory not legislative, so no Congressional action is required.
I have moved the “avionics software etc” posts here":http://www.euroga.org/forums/maintenance-avionics/5261-how-reliable-are-glass-avionics
Correct. Part 23 rewrite is not congressional, it’s the FAA. The FAA claims it will have it done by the end of 2015…we have heard that before. Congress is working on the PBOR2, Pilots Bill Of Rights version 2. That would allow those who cannot pass a 3rd class medical to fly on a drivers license planes up to 6k gross, 5 seats, FL18 and below.
Congress is working on the PBOR2, Pilots Bill Of Rights version 2. That would allow those who cannot pass a 3rd class medical to fly on a drivers license planes up to 6k gross, 5 seats, FL18 and below.
That is great news for US pilots of course, but is likely to make the European CAAs go into panic mode and force all based N-reg pilots to get FAA Class 2 medicals as a minimum. Well, EASA FCL achieves that anyway, April 2016 onwards, for N-regs based in the EU, by forcing EASA licenses, ratings and medicals…..
What we have had to date is that the FAA Class 3 is ICAO compliant provided there is no special issuance (i.e. restrictions) on it. Only AFAIK Ireland bans the use of the FAA Class 3 medical from its airspace and probably only for Ireland-based pilots.
Peter wrote:
Well, EASA FCL achieves that anyway, April 2016 onwards, for N-regs based in the EU, by forcing EASA licenses, ratings and medicals…..
Unless the parts of the basic regulation that requires all EU resident pilots to have EASA licenses is postponed for yet another year… What do I care now that I have a EASA IR-ME that requires annual revalidation…
KKoran wrote:
That’s on the table. There’s a proposal in congress for a FAA part 23 re-write. It won’t go through this time around, but it will go through eventually. They know they have a problem and that the onerous certification process has killed development. The proposal suggest a non-commercial subpart where any part 91 operator is free to put in experimental avionics etc. When it happens it will have a huge impact. And if it passes in FAA land, EASA will have no choice but to align their rules accordingly.
Killed development is one thing. They have killed a whole industry, and it will not come back over night.
It’s fashionable to criticise ICAO compliant component and airframe certification, but remember this system has preserved GA in countries where it would otherwise have been banned. Most of the world had to sign up to ICAO in order to get airline flying privileges, and GA (certified GA) was able to sneak in along with that.
IMHO, GA would have been banned everywhere in the world except: USA, UK, France, Germany, Australia, and a few others. GA is very much an expression of personal freedom which is why every half competent dictator doesn’t allow it, or alows it only under strict controls.
ICAO has given us more or less worldwide overflight and landing rights for noncommercial GA. Well, the places where they will boil you up into soup still need overflight permits, but you can buy those from an agent.
The uncertified community has grown on the back of the certified community. The certified community has for decades been paying for flying privileges all over the place, supporting airfields, supporting fuel distribution, supporting flight training (which is mostly impossible in uncertified machines), supporting IFR (with its utility and long distance travelling value and the ability to easily fly through complex airspace), keeping GA facilities all around the world open… you name it.
It’s great that we now have a healthy uncertified community, and let’s hope it grows, but let’s not forget how the international aviation system really works. With a certified plane, I can just jump in, file a flight plan, and more or less anywhere I want. No permits, VFR or IFR… A lot of stuff which is taken for granted happened on the back of that.
Peter wrote:
but remember this system has preserved GA in countries where it would otherwise have been banned
Where?
