Silvaire wrote:
What I mean is that when you divide up aviation into two separate regulatory regimes
I said no such thing. Certification is only a industry construct to “assure” components are produced according to some standard. What I’m saying is simply that commercial aviation has real benefits of keeping that standard high, and has the money to pay for it. Private GA has no such benefits, the opposite is true.
commercial aviation has real benefits of keeping that standard high
What relevance has “commercial aviation” got to
??
Certification is only a industry construct to “assure” components are produced according to some standard
Component and airframe certification is only a part of it. The ICAO treaty was signed to enable flight across national borders, and lots of other stuff which one could not otherwise do. An aircraft without an ICAO compliant CofA does not get these privileges unless the country concerned
Why do I have to write this really basic stuff over and over? Everybody who did a PPL should have learnt about ICAO.
Peter wrote:
The ICAO treaty was signed to enable flight across national borders, and lots of other stuff which one could not otherwise do.
OTOH this ICAO treaty is not really necessary for border crossing. One could (provided one is willing) easily put that on another basis, like implementation of the ECAC-agreement, which then includes the non certified aviation – at least in Europe (which is the case already in many countries).
BTW same applies for the EIR, which is a great thing and AFAIK also not ICAO compliant.
LeSving wrote:
Certification is relevant for commercial operations, but not for private.
I don’t really agree. I don’t think most pilots want to be test pilots (dream about it, maybe). And even fewer are actually qualified. I agree that we need simpler certification, but I still want certification. I want some independent body to look over a design and judge its airworthiness. Before I stick my neck out. This is done even in the UL world AFAIK (by LAA or equivalent).
@Silvaire The issue here in Europe really is that that part of aviation is regulated on national level. That’s the loss. But the relaxed regime is attractive. The only other bigger issue I’m aware of is IFR. Around here, IR was seen to some degree as business of professional pilots. This is changing, but it won’t happen overnight. I’m not really aware of the rest, but as I wrote, it depends on the country. However, I don’t think putting them under EASA is the best solution. You could create a counterpart to EASA that would be all about light and sport aviation. That would solve the biggest issue in my view – fragmentation. They wouldn’t have to deal with heavy transports and EASA could leave to them LSAs, VLAs, gliders, the lightweight CS23, etc. With some cooperation (like recognition of EASA licences). EASA is currently moving in the right direction, I would say, but it’ll take time and they’re not interested in Annex II machines anyway (which is why there is Annex II). Being under one authority doesn’t guarantee anything anyway.
Peter wrote:
the CB IR is thus marked on most holders’ licenses (not German ones, IIRC?) in order to prevent them qualifying for the HPA qualification without doing some extra work.
If they wanted shorter theory, there had to be a price. Frankly, HPA isn’t relevant for most private pilots. I don’t think there is a piston machine that qualifies. And even a few turboprops are not HPA. Silly thing is that we now have three levels of theory you can use to get an IR. And nothing really changed, you need HPA course even with the older “full” IR theory – the only way around that is ATPL theory. PS: If you want HPA, the routes (CB-IR+HPA and IR+HPA) should be about equivalent (everything that was removed to create CB-IR should have been moved to HPA with credit for those with the older IR theory).
OTOH this ICAO treaty is not really necessary for border crossing. One could (provided one is willing) easily put that on another basis, like implementation of the ECAC-agreement, which then includes the non certified aviation – at least in Europe (which is the case already in many countries).
That’s true, in theory, if say you wanted just a treaty within the EU for example. Then one could not fly to Switzerland, Norway, or any of the eastern countries which are non-EU currently, without applying for a permit, or there might be airport-PPR situations, etc.
But we have what we have, and non-ICAO-CofA aircraft are not “EASA aircraft” and are thus left to national regulation, which will see very slow, or zero, progress. Remember that there are loads of vested interests working against improving non-ICAO-CofA privileges, and the EU cannot do anything about this. There is no EU-wide body driving the process, so anything in this area is left to agreements between individual CAAs.
HPA isn’t relevant for most private pilots.
True, but it illustrates how one can get caught, if one goes for some “sub standard” qualification. This sort of thing unfortunately divides GA among (a) those who just want to fly locally, or say just UK-France, and (b) those who want to fly further. There is enough in-fighting within GA already… Go to any big meeting and you hear lots of stuff from “VFR groups” saying that some IFR group sold them down the river, etc, etc.
Peter wrote:
That’s true, in theory, if say you wanted just a treaty within the EU for example. Then one could not fly to Switzerland, Norway, or any of the eastern countries which are non-EU currently, without applying for a permit, or there might be airport-PPR situations, etc.
Even today that isn’t a problem for Switzerland, Norway and most of the eastern countries.
Peter wrote:
But we have what we have
And that isn’t too bad 
The “problem” with this stuff is that, yes, “everything” is “possible”. But it needs extra effort, and this has a big corrosive effect on activity.
If for example one compares the US scene with the European scene, there isn’t a single “killer factor”. A European individual who is well funded and highly motivated can do everything in Europe that is possible in the USA. But most people are not in that category… and if you want stuff like unhindered overflight anywhere to anywhere and IFR, it’s possible only with a CofA plane.
If you set up FR24 alerts on various CofA types, and various non-CofA types, and just watch the movement patterns over say 6 months, you get quite an eye opener! There is zero doubt in my mind that the various hassles concerning permits do put a big damper on activity, and especially on the types of flights made. You also see some obviously illegal IFR movements by non-CofA types Rather more sadly you see quite a bit of activity which is obviously somebody trying to stay below the radar, so to speak.
This discussion will always be seen as potentially divisive, because someone who e.g. only ever flies within the UK, and maybe pops over to France here and there, will say why the hell should he pay the regulatory price of needing a CofA plane for training or revalidations (this seems to have been fixed in the last few days in the UK), or needing a CofA plane for exercising IMCR privileges (because a G-reg non-CofA is – like most ECAC homebuilts – limited to VFR only on its permit).
This is where the USA wins hands down because US AOPA covers the whole of GA, but just the VFR bits which the UK AOPA gets involved in.
Peter wrote:
What relevance has “commercial aviation” got to EuroGA certified aircraft??
This thread, like a few others before, shows once again that “GA” (= “general aviation” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_aviation) does not seem to have the same meaning for everybody. For quite a few polits it rather seems to mean “private flying” exclusively. Therefore these (as far as I am concerned: unnecessary) subdivisions into commercial/non-commercial, certified/non-certified, simple/HPA, VFR/IFR, etc. categories. In reality (my reality at least) there is no clear subdivision and quite a few pilots fly in more than one of these categories.
Peter wrote:
True, but it illustrates how one can get caught, if one goes for some “sub standard” qualification.
Caught? The only way to get caught by this is already having the old HPA without IR and then deciding to go CB-IR route with the shorter theory because someone tells you it’s the same, it’s the “full” IR. Well, tough luck. Fortunately, I don’t think many people would go for HPA before IR. And they might be able to get credit when doing HPA for the second time.
Just be glad they even created the HPA course. If someone has aspiration to go this high, I still think ATPL theory is an interesting option. CPL part is the most useless one (for private pilots), but who knows, maybe you’ll decide to do a bit of instructing later on and then it becomes useful. Silly is the exam mess if you ever want to upgrade. And there is no credit towards theory hours for HPA.
But it needs extra effort, and this has a big corrosive effect on activity.
Life under EASA is not that easy either, the difficulties are just elsewhere (costs, paperwork, etc.). And you’re rewarded with some privileges for putting up with it.
if you want stuff like unhindered overflight anywhere to anywhere and IFR, it’s possible only with a CofA plane.
CofA doesn’t necessarily mean EASA is involved. You can have an Annex II machine with CofA. UK has this option. It seems to me sometimes that you’re mixing these things together.
Peter wrote:
There is zero doubt in my mind that the various hassles concerning permits do put a big damper on activity, and especially on the types of flights made.
Peter, for me I can say, that my low cost homebuilt enables me, to fly a lot more, plus most VFR-flights to the adjacent (German view) European countries are a non -event (I have done that several times).
I’ll get the EIR in a few years for sure and if I’m not allowed to go for a (planned) IFR-flight (however I wouldn’t hesitate to ask for an IFR-pickup in my homebuilt, if I’m confronted with nasty weather), I’ll take the club’s Archer (I can even rent a TB 20 NG at my homebase 
) – so what. In conclusion I have my own aircraft for most missions and can take another for a few, that I couldn’t do with my own. But altogether I fly more
