Back to the original topic
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).
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.
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.
Michael wrote:
Bullocks !
Well, the way certified GA is blooming with activity I tend to agree
LeSving wrote:
Because certified aircraft only makes sense for commercial operations where they can afford paying for it.
Bullocks !
LeSving wrote:
Because certified aircraft only makes sense for commercial operations where they can afford paying for it.
What???
Because certified aircraft only makes sense for commercial operations where they can afford paying for it.
In that case our wires are so comprehensively crossed that I will leave this topic for now 
Also, regarding microlight, all microlight organisation wan’t to have a little with EASA to do as possible.
Well, that’s a good policy if nearly all of the community flies only locally, or is happy with bilateral agreements for foreign travel.
Peter wrote:
What relevance has “commercial aviation” got toEuroGA
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.
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
