Why are pilots sometimes so hard on other pilots

Peter wrote:

But wouldn’t it be better if your homebuilt could fly anywhere in “political Europe”, VFR or IFR, no prior permits, etc?

Of course that would be better, but my flights are >95% daytrips <300 NM. If I would fly your profile, I would bother all the time, but for me it’s almost meaningless. If you have a look at the majority of the european privat pilots – how many fly (recreational) from England to Greece nonstop or even own an IR or even cross borders?

Martin wrote:

you need HPA course even with the older “full” IR theory – the only way around that is ATPL theory

Is that really true? I thought the HPA was introduced together with the CB-IR to bridge the gap between the “old” and “new” theory content. Is there maybe a misunderstanding concerning the “VFR” HPA course (which existed before the CB-IR and continues to exist) and the “IFR HPA”, which has become EU law this year?

Rwy20 wrote:

Martin wrote:
you need HPA course even with the older “full” IR theory – the only way around that is ATPL theory
Is that really true? I thought the HPA was introduced together with the CB-IR to bridge the gap between the “old” and “new” theory content. Is there maybe a misunderstanding concerning the “VFR” HPA course (which existed before the CB-IR and continues to exist) and the “IFR HPA”, which has become EU law this year?

Martin is right. But in reality the HPA is only of interest to that very small number of pilots who want Type or Class ratings on Single Pilot High Performance Aircraft and who DON’T have ATPL Theoretical Knowledge. If you want a TR on a Multi Pilot Aircraft you have to have ATPL TK

Neil wrote:

Martin is right.

Look here
local copy

on page 91/92, where it says:

The course will be divided in a VFR and an IFR part, and should cover at least the following items of the aeroplane syllabus to the ATPL(A) level

(g) The applicant who has completed a competency-based modular IR course according to Appendix 6 Aa or EIR course according to FCL.825 needs to complete both VFR and IFR parts of this course.
(h) The applicant who has completed a modular IR course according to Appendix 6 A only needs to complete the VFR part of this course.

They clearly make a distinction between VFR HPA and IFR HPA, and pilots who have done the old IR theory and those that have done the EIR/CBIR theory. So, yes, in a way there is “no way around the HPA except the ATPL”, but if you have done the old IR theory, you don’t have to cover the IFR parts of the HPA course.

But wouldn’t it be better if your homebuilt could fly anywhere in “political Europe”, VFR or IFR, no prior permits, etc? That’s what they have in the USA.

The other side of the same coin is the much lower cost of operating a certified aircraft under US regulations, meaning the divisions between the two types of planes are not unnecessarily magnified from either side of the unnecessary fence. I bought and fly certified aircraft because they were cheaper to buy and for my purposes the same price to operate as an Experimental such as an RV. RVs are very nice but they cost twice as much as my planes, and my Annuals this year were again $200 each plus materials. It seemed more fun to me to have two certified aircraft versus one RV. I’d do most of the work on them either way, but under A&P supervision for the certified planes.

Few who operate an old ‘unsupported’ certified aircraft under FAA rules would be interested in downgrading them to ‘Annex II’, because there is little financial reward for doing so. In Canada (half way to Europe ) they do that under their ‘owner maintenance’ category but people in the US tend to think it would be a dumb thing to do to a proud and useful old plane. Canadian ‘owner maintained’ aircraft can’t fly to the US (or elsewhere) so they have less utility than homebuilts that can cross the same border without issue.

I think downgrading existing certified aircraft to ‘Annex II’ is particularly emblematic of the broader divide and conquer regulatory issue, which can eventually reduce the utility of light aircraft to the point where the ‘nuisance’ of people traveling in their own planes goes away. If you delegate regulation of ‘Annex II’ aircraft to a non-CAA organization as well, that helps reduce political visibility. Much the same as a corporate boss repositioning a loyal subordinate into a fun ‘special projects’ job, to distance himself prior to somebody else putting the loyal subordinate on the street

Peter wrote:

What relevance has “commercial aviation” got to

EuroGA
certified aircraft
??

Because certified aircraft only makes sense for commercial operations where they can afford paying for it.

Peter wrote:

But wouldn’t it be better if your homebuilt could fly anywhere in “political Europe”, VFR or IFR, no prior permits, etc

And what is stopping it today?

Silvaire wrote:

I think downgrading existing certified aircraft to ‘Annex II’ is particularly emblematic of the broader divide and conquer regulatory issue

I don’t think that has anything to do with it. It was simply part of EASA “increase safety” nonsense. Also, regarding microlight, all microlight organisation wan’t to have a little with EASA to do as possible.

LeSving wrote:

Because certified aircraft only makes sense for commercial operations where they can afford paying for it.

What???

LeSving wrote:

Because certified aircraft only makes sense for commercial operations where they can afford paying for it.

Bullocks !