What I think we are all saying is that certification increases cost many times and is MOSTLY unnecessarily complicated, long, and again costly. The process should be streamlined. I wish they would have a panel from both manufacturers and other interested parties included, to overhaul the certification process, in which garbage is chucked out, that which is now strangling aviation. If the drug makers can be held to a lower standard for expediency sake and release a product into the general population only to have problems emerge once done. Which means then means their certification standards are too lax. Meanwhile the certification standards for aviation are way over the top. If the Pharma companies had the strict cert standards that aviation is saddled with then there would be no new drugs. But dont worry the new Transatlantic free trade agreement will loosen up the European standards to equal the US. I wonder how their oversight bureaucrats were able to achieve less with less when we all know bureaucracy builds more complexity the longer the oversight relationship exists. Could politics and money have had anything to do with this?
Exactly C210 Flyer.
C210_Flyer wrote:
What I think we are all saying is that certification increases cost many times and is MOSTLY unnecessarily complicated, long, and again costly
That is indeed what I am saying yes.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Meanwhile the certification standards for aviation are way over the top. If the Pharma companies had the strict cert standards that aviation is saddled with then there would be no new drugs.
And no new cars, no new anything.
Look at our engines, just for starters.
I think that some companies thrive on this, such as Garmin. They are, in the avionics dept, the only ones who really can afford this tremendous cost and obviously are the only ones who then make the big business since they are a quasi monopoly. Ok, Avidyne and Aspen have spoilt their market a bit, but that is it.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Well, quite a few of us actually see more in the purpose of flying than just flying itself. With that comes some sort of utility.Me for starters, I am not much interested in flying locally, circuits, aerobatics or the likes. I like to travel with my plane. To do that, realistically speaking, you need at least the possibility to do so IFR. Which, in large parts of Europe, excludes most experimentals. So for what I want to do does not correspond to what the rulemakers would allow me to do.
I think we all can agree that “utility” is a nice thing. Also, traveling, and traveling long distances is 99% of what aviation is all about (when you include all the airlines). But, people travel all over the place in microlights also, borders or marginal weather doesn’t stop them. It will become more practical with 300 HP, a big cabin and IFR, and orders of magnitude more practical in a B737 (as well as cheaper, even in business class, and faster).
When I wake up in the morning, I can take my bicycle down to the airport, buy a ticket, fly and eat lunch anywhere in Europe and get back to ride my bicycle home for dinner in the evening. That level of utility cannot be beaten by anything except a bizjet. What the B737 is utterly incapable of, is fly me to Oppdal and tow gliders. To do that I need a Cub and a WT9 Dynamic (+ my bicycle 
) Towing gliders is also “utility”, it’s even described as work, aerial work. The B737 is also incapable of taking me Snåsa to fish some trouts I can eat for dinner and so on. Also, you have to remember that commercial bush flying is almost always done VFR, from take off to landing, and it’s nothing more “utility” than commercial bush flying.
I have always looked at GA in exactly the same way is I look at boating. Utterly impractical as transportation for shopping or work or anything “useful”, but great for lots of other stuff. Stuff that cannot be done with any other means. It is also great for traveling, but makes no sense as a transportation vehicle unless the travelling itself is the major objective, or at least one major objective. There are lots of people in Norway who live at places where they are dependent on a boat to get anywhere, but they do this because they chose to, not because they have to. There are even some living at places that only can be reached by the air, at least in the summer (skidoo in the winter), and have their own little strip, or helicopter. They live like this parts of the year, or all year round. The strange thing is, “normal” people “need” at least a 35 feet long boat with 3-400 hp (the bigger the better) to have enough “utility” (sail boats excluded), while those people on deserted islands/fjords or far away mountain places get by with a small open boat or a motorized kite and achieve 10x the “utility factor” with their vehicles. It’s a way of life.
What you describe as utility, seems to be the same thing as what in boating is called the “3 feet sickness”. No matter how large your boat is, you always want it to be 3 feet longer, because that will increase the “utility” in one way or the other (2 more beds, larger shower, more kitchen space, tolerate rougher sea and so on). The more utility, the more “useful” your vehicle becomes. The point is, the vehicle isn’t used for anything “useful” in the first place, so more utility does not increase the actual usefulness other than as an academic exercise or as a kind of potential (it can be used for this and that, much better than all those with less “utility”). Therefore we have a market that is flooded with old certified GA kind of airplanes with outdated avionics, 2 redundant seats, way overweight, uneconomical etc because people would rather have a fit for purpose and modern VFR machine; microlight and LSA. How often is the average C-172 used to it’s full “utility potential”? Never. A microlight is almost always used to it’s full potential which is to fly 1 person from A to B, VFR anywhere in Europe, or 2 persons with 2-3 hours operational range, and it does this with none of the bureaucracy, none of the maintenance costs or fuzz. 40-50 year old dinosaurs cannot compete with this, no matter how much perceived (or “real”) utility is put on the table. Microlights have their own “3 feet sickness” in the form of increasing complexity (retracts, CS prop, Rotax i, fancy glass and so on) which drives up costs, but that is beside the point. It’s the “3 feet sickness” that ultimately drives the technology forward, it’s the direction that counts.
I understand some people actually need the utility. But, they are flying around IFR in Cirruses or DAs in any case, so what is the problem? Is not that Cirrus or Diamond have a problem of supplying for the demand. Obviously the demand is very small for that special utility they deliver, at the cost they deliver it. Maybe what people actually want is a lighter and easier going IFR machine, a two seater with simple and easy maintenance and low cost, with high performance, one that can land everywhere, an RV-4, 7, 8, 9,14 ?
A microlight is almost always used to it’s full potential which is to fly 1 person from A to B, VFR anywhere in Europe, or 2 persons with 2-3 hours operational range, and it does this with none of the bureaucracy
That isn’t actually true, LeSving… but we have done this many times e.g. here
Whether there is enforcement is another debate (there isn’t any, as far as anyone has openly reported, but almost nobody will report getting busted for something) but that’s like saying “I steal for a living; it’s great and I have never had any problems”.
I personally happen to know of several awful situations some people have got themselves into, tearing their hair out in the process of trying to solve them, AFAIK never actually solving them, restricting their flying to a fraction of what they originally planned (to keep a low profile and minimise the chances of an accident), never talking about it openly of course, and here on EuroGA with about 1000 readers a day we do have a responsibility to not write stuff which is going to cause somebody to spend €XX,XXX on a plane thinking they can do YYYYY with it legitimately.
This applies not just to ultralights but all homebuilts too. These planes can deliver a lot of bang for the buck and fulfil many peoples’ mission profiles but it is simply wrong you can fly them unrestricted, as you posted.
I think that’s a very honest description, and I agree completely. Except for some very few specialists who mostly have a professional flying background and who do hardcore IFR flights all the time, “utility” is not a factor. I can see that Stephan has a real mission for which an airplane is good to have, and Jason too.
GA pilots love to rationalize the aquisition of these toys with “utility” when in reality it always takes longer, costs x times more and is limited by weather most of the time. An airline ticket to any city in Europe many times costs about the same as the landing and handling fees for an SEP.
We fly because we love to fly, and for me that is reason enough.
I am aware that I could travel for free for two years only from the Frequent Flyer Miles I collected. But I prefer to monitor the weather for day and put € 800 of fuel into the plane. Inside Europe nobody needs a private airplane to get anywhere.
And, really, for the long flights almost all of our planes are two seaters.
I did like Le Sving’s utility description and agree that GA is in reasonable health if you include the microlight community, but this point has been made before. Perhaps a European map can be shown with those EU countries that do require permission, eg Austria, Belgium, etc. There seem to be plenty of long distance microlight flights, including round the world efforts, but possibly with the necessary paperwork in place.
I noticed for example Austria has higher third party limits on insurance than the EU minima, so there are some more subtle bureaucratic gotchas out there.
The best aircraft handling thread had several votes for the Tecnam P2002, which includes a nice kit built retractable version.
LeSving wrote:
When I wake up in the morning, I can take my bicycle down to the airport, buy a ticket, fly and eat lunch anywhere in Europe and get back to ride my bicycle home for dinner in the evening.
I live 3 minutes from a major international airport but it would not be that straightforward. But yes, for argument’s sake you can, IF there are flights to where you want to go and they have vacant seats when you arrive at the airport to buy a ticket (which might prove difficult, as most airlines today sell internet only)
My primary day destinations are not easily reachable like that and I have found that buying a day return ticket for those is often more expensive for one guy than flying the plane there and back, when of course I can take up to 3 people along. The moment there are two or three of us, it gets even cheaper to fly myself. And moreover, I have a rather safe guarantee that I have a seat on my own plane 
LeSving wrote:
I have always looked at GA in exactly the same way is I look at boating. Utterly impractical as transportation for shopping or work or anything “useful”, but great for lots of other stuff
Especcially in Scandinavia I might think that quite a lot of people actually depend on their boats to go shopping? Or go to their vaccation blockhouses on those lovely islands?
I reckon what you are trying to point out here is that for what YOU use GA for, it has little or no utility factor. I reckon that is very individual. My standard day trip goes from Zürich to Salzburg and back, as I have business and friends there, and the utility to be able to do that in a day AND mostly cheaper and faster than with the airlines makes quite a difference to me, even if I am weather restricted. But since I can do these trips pretty much unannounced, the utility still stands.
Last year I took the plane to the AOPA general assembly at Neuchatel. It was scheduled for 2pm. Door to door times were 1-50 on the way down, 1-20 on the way up with 50 minutes flight time each way. I left the house at 10-45 and was back at 17-00 lt with 3-35 on the ground in Neuchatel. Total trip time of 6-15.
Had I had to do the same by car, it would have taken at least 5 hours driving time (both ways) so a total trip time of 8-35. By train, 9-35. In both cases, I would simply not have gone.
A couple more I have done recently:
Zürich Lausanne: 50 min flight time, 1:05 block. With the car? 3 hours one way.
Zürich Salzburg: 1:25 flight time, 1:40 block (average). With the car? 6 hours one way.
Zürich Speyer: 50 Min flight time, 1:20 block. By car? about 3 hours one way.
Zürich Egelsbach: 1:10 flight, 1:30 block, By car, 5 hours one way. Train? Longer.
All of these destinations have busses or local trains right at the airport or (Speyer) are in walking distance to the city.
For me, that IS utility. True, it is not the same reliability as the car or the airline, but it does make trips like that possible which otherwise you’d either not undertake or take 2 days minimum to complete. GA makes these trips possible to places I would probably not have done otherwise.
LeSving wrote:
What you describe as utility, seems to be the same thing as what in boating is called the “3 feet sickness”. No matter how large your boat is, you always want it to be 3 feet longer, because that will increase the “utility” in one way or the othe
In my case, I am perfectly happy right now, thanks. I got a 150 kt airplane which I can afford and which does what I need it to do reliably and comfortably. But I see what you mean. To achieve a dispatch reliability near an airliner you realistically need a FIKI twin. Whether you NEED the reliability of an airliner is the other question. And also that reliability is not always there… you might want to ask those Eurowings pax which were left sitting in the Dom Rep for 4 days recently or the LH pax who got stuck with another strike.
LeSving wrote:
I understand some people actually need the utility. But, they are flying around IFR in Cirruses or DAs in any case, so what is the problem?
The problem is that exactly that requirement is not met by either the microlight nor experimental cathegory in Europe due to restrictions placed onto them by the regulators in various key player countries. This leaves very expensive certified airplanes and equipment or affordable 50 year old airframes which get updated for that task. What GA would however need is affordable new airplanes in the same way we have affordable cars.
LeSving wrote:
Maybe what people actually want is a lighter and easier going IFR machine, a two seater with simple and easy maintenance and low cost, with high performance, one that can land everywhere
Funny you mention it. I think that is what the M10J might end up offering. 170 kts on 5 gph Diesel, 3 seats, 1000 NM range, G1000 full IFR. We’ll have to wait for the pricing though…
I’ll tell you again: I’d be the first to be happy if the VFR day restriction would fall for experimentals in ALL of Europe and the areas around it. But that is not the case. For me, all those artificial restrictions are just one way of the regulators trying to keep GA small. So getting rid of as many of those as possible would be one goal where ALL aviation associations might find a worthy cause.
LeSving wrote:
same way is I look at boating. Utterly impractical as transportation
You can’t take a boat from Nevada to any other state or country. Dependent on your ‘hassle factor’ just about any aircraft can be taken long distances and be used pretty much any way desired.
USFlyer wrote:
You can’t take a boat from California to any other state or country.
The folks at Ensenada Bay will be surprised to hear about that
There’s just no reason to separate going places in a plane from having fun, or vice versa. Just do it, all of it, in any plane you want. Utility is flying to visit friends for the weekend, go to the beach, see the top of a mountain and an endless number of other things. If you and the plane both like it, do a loop and roll on the way home to break the monotony.
USFlyer wrote:
You can’t take a boat from California to any other state or country.
Really? What happens if you sail north to Oregon? Will the US Coast Guard fire at you?
