Michael wrote:
Bullocks !
Well, the way certified GA is blooming with activity I tend to agree 
I think a point here is that there is nothing technical preventing EASA from creating experimental and microlight categories that are independent from all local regulations, and can be used throughout all of EASA land.
I think there would be fierce resistance from all the “non certified” bodies because they would see it as a Trojan horse for EASA’s takeover of all of what is sometimes loosely called “sports flying” (homebuilts, ultralights, etc).
It’s funny how EASA has in some quarters gone from universally hated to, ahem, not entirely universally hated It took the recognition that most of the national CAAs have been running some pretty cynical gravy trains.
Rwy20 wrote:
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?
Yes. However, it should still be a single course, HPA, it just now has two parts, IFR and VFR. If you have the older and longer IR theory, you should get a credit for it and do only the VFR part, like it was before when there was no IFR part. As I wrote, nothing has changed. You need both parts and it doesn’t matter whether you get them separately (older IR + older HPA) or not (CB-IR + new HPA).
Silvaire wrote:
If you delegate regulation of ‘Annex II’ aircraft to a non-CAA organization as well, that helps reduce political visibility.
They are already there, at least for the most part, and have been for a long time. As for a “hassle-free” movement, an ICAO compliant CofA will do that and even an Annex II machine can have it (since individual states are members of ICAO).
Back to the original topic
