Why does the US appear to love GA, whereas Europe appears to hate it

I discovered very early on that the sooner one gets away from the tie to the maintenance industry (and their connections with / influence on airport management) the less hassle I had. Nowadays my base is really great but it was not always thus, and most pilots in Europe continue to have problems.

To achieve low hassle, one needs to get into some form of ownership ASAP, and N-reg makes it a lot easier. Although it does need an A&P/IA to be available, I have found them far more available than the freelance EASA66 mechanics which would be needed to achieve the same independence with a G-reg. But, more subtly, an A&P can find a suitable hangar (where ad-hoc work can be done) much more easily than an EASA66 guy would be able to – because the firm which owns the hangar is very likely to have a periodic need for the A&P/IA’s services, whereas they have zero need for the EASA66 guy’s services (because they already employ them).

So, basically, the hassle level in aviation is nothing to do with aviation and everything to do with politics, who you know, who you can rely on, who needs who, who owes a favour to who, who owns the land, who can work freelance openly, and above all who owns the land

The UK ATC system, OCAS, is disgraceful – see e.g. here – but it will never change because the funding (i.e. politics) is set up to keep it that way. What does surprise me is how many in the ATC business on social media think it is absolutely wonderful.

Peter wrote:

and above all who owns the land

“Invest in land. I hear they’re not making it anymore.”

Peter wrote:

What does surprise me is how many in the ATC business on social media think it is absolutely wonderful.

Probably for the same reason. Most of those concerned have a vested interest in not wanting to see any changes.

Graham wrote:

“Invest in land. I hear they’re not making it anymore.”

Quite right. It is interesting to see in a few places exactly for this reason, and at enormous cost, they are sort of making it. The current example in Monaco where they are reclaiming some seafront is a classic cae in point – but at what cost! You have got to be upset when you thought you had purchased prime property on the sea front with uninterupted views, to find the seafront just got moved forward by a few thousand metres.

Graham wrote:

“Invest in land. I hear they’re not making it anymore.”

Not on earth. However, there is something called Mars with lots of land. NASA will fly around a bit up there with a helicopter/drone, “piloted” and partly designed by a Norwegian, Håvard Fjær Grip, originally from not far from my place. The rover will land on Mars this evening. Due to the time delay of transmission, the drone will fly short missions autonomously/pre-programmed by command. With only 1% of the density of the atmosphere on earth, it will be interesting to see if it really does fly. If successful, it will be the first flight of a powered aircraft outside of earth.

https://mars.nasa.gov/technology/helicopter/

Live landing is on Feb 18th:

EST is five hours behind Zulu

https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/

I hope this thing doesn’t have a KFC225!

Alpha_Floor wrote:

The one thing I found in my limited time flying, is that Europe has a “no can’t do” attitude whereas the USA has a “yes can do” attitude.

True. Also European society is far more envy prone than American and orients itself often more downwards than upwards.

It’s funny if you think that once you have earned your license and paid for it too, flying is considered a “privilege” even in the US legal text. I’d say if you’ve done what you needed to do to earn a license, then it is as much a right to use airplanes than it is to use other means of transport you either qualified yourself for or paid for it’s use. To speak of privilege once again damages the actual status of pilots and owners in an envy ridden society.

Alpha_Floor wrote:

When you ask other people who have some power over your plans: for example, a head of training at a rental school, an instructor, etc. The default answer tends to be “no, that’s not possible”. Even if you present them with the facts. If they haven’t seen it before, they assume it’s forbidden.

Yes and No. In my local aeroclub, I never experienced a forbidden mentality. Yes, we have a lot members how just fly to the next grass strip in our local area and are afraid of any CTR or other kinds of CAS, but when I told my FI (how was also the Chairman of the club) that I wanted to fly to the Alps, Italy etc. he just replied: “Ah cool, go ahead! You don’t have to ask, you have your license!” Nobody ever stopped me from flying. So for this, I absolutely cannot complain.

On the other side: Yes, for sure you have always people how just see problems. I remember talking to a FI from another aeroclub in Bavaria. He tought that GA has nothing to do inside CAS, especially not in the Frankfurt, Munich CTR etc. Asking for a transit was – according to him – just stupid and bold, so he would forbid that. But those kind of naysayers are everywhere, also in the US if you ask me. If such a person is the head of a club, for sure it is no fun, but that doesn’t mean that every club or rental school is like this. A lot in my area are very accomodating and let you do, whatever you want to do.

I’m with Frans on this, a lot depends on the individual in question.

It is true though that Europeans, and Germans in particular, are more inclined to look at authority for guidance than Americans, and even tend to preemptively follow “rules” that don’t actually exist in a legally binding way. The fear of CAS is a good example in GA. Many German PPLs avoid CAS like a plague, despite it being infinitely more accessible and well regulated than say in the UK.