What has EASA actually done for us?

alioth wrote:

Speak for yourself. I was in my 20s when I bought my first vintage aircraft! I wasn’t the only one, either.

I also had ownership in an old Cub (long before I turned 50 ) I have nothing against old planes. It is more that when a completely broken market resulting in people recycling 40-60 year old planes, somehow is presented as a good thing or simply as “thing should be”, that’s when sentimentalism has gone bananas. It’s OK to be optimist and take advantage of any opportunities a peculiar situation presents, but that doesn’t mean the situation itself is good. The situation is a dead market, and that is not good for GA. In Europe we have at least a very viable microlight market, even though it is not everyone’s cup of tea. More microlights are sold in Europe than any other airplane category world wide. The Rotax 912 are produced in more numbers than any other piston engine for small aircraft. Compared with this, the US GA scene is Cuba

Peter wrote:

SR22 sales in the US are?

I had a smiley behind it , but since you asked. It is, according to GAMA, statistically 66.7% of 128 which is 85. There are about 175,000 private pilots in the US. This means 0.049% of all private pilots got themselves a SR22 last year, or one of every 2059 private pilots. In Europe there are 90-100k? private pilots (PPL). 11.7% was sold in Europe, which is 14. So in Europe 0.014% of PPL holders got a new SR22, statistically seen, or one of every 7143 private pilot. So a PPL holder in the US has 3.5 times higher possibility of getting a new SR22 than in Europe Of course, non of this means those Cirruses actually got purchased by private individuals, or by some GA company or training facility.

I have already presented the number of new certified GA airplanes in the US vs Europe. It is 5.85 (66.7/11.4), showing GA has a better life in the US than Europe. But taking into account the larger number of PPL holders in the US, the actual “improvement” for each pilot (regarding new certified aircraft) is only about 3.5 statistically speaking.

Taking all new aircraft sold/hombuilt US vs Europe
US: 660+1500 = 2160
Europe: 2500 + 800 + 117 = 3417
Then taking into account PPL holders, the number of new aircraft per PPL holder will be:
US: 1.23% or one of 81 PPL holder each year.
Europe: 3.4% or one of 29 PPL holders each year.

Clearly the GA scene in Europe is newer, fresher, more vital, free and fun than in the US. However, none of this is thanks to EASA. Using the same “analysis” on EASA certified aircraft only, and Europe is a bleak, barren landscape indeed.

2015 figures from www.gama.aero – I daresay I am not the only one who could find that?

Cirrus Aircraft
Cirrus SR20 31
Cirrus SR22 128
Cirrus SR22T 142
Cirrus SRV 0
Totals: 301

I guess he wants the total number sold in the US, not only last years sales. Well, that’s hard to say, the data aren’t that detailed. But when summing all the years and looking at the percentage of piston GA sold in the US on average (about 60%, and assuming this is valid for Cirrus), this should be around 4232*0.6 = 2540. The same number in Europe is around 633. They have been selling SR22s since 2001. How many are left, considering all the ones that have popped is another matter.

Obviously, the GA market at this point is not focused on new production aircraft sales, even in the US where its an ongoing, relatively healthy activity. I maintain that it doesn’t matter – new production aircraft are no longer the core of the activity. The car hobby is much the same, a great many people spend their free time and discretionary cash on older cars and home based activity, very few people’s spare time and money revolves around new factory production cars. That wasn’t true 50 years ago either, and in both cases the reason is that there weren’t so many interesting and available choices.

The chances of the average US pilot buying a new 120K microlight are close to zero, because there are better choices. The only incentive there is for older pilots to fly without a medical exam. Otherwise, based on logic and resulting sales, building an RV (for its performance) or flying and maintaining an older production aircraft (when there are so many nice one available) both make better financial sense for most people. People making those choices and spending that money are the GA market.

I think one of the nice things about GA is that the real GA market is not much driven by fashion or irrational drama.

Silvaire wrote:

The chances of the average US pilot buying a new 120K microlight are close to zero, because there are better choices

These things are a bit strange, same with boats. People start out with a simple one at 10k or below. then advances in steps to some expensive and “hot” thing before relaxing to some nice and easy thing when passing 65-70 or thereabout. Few starts by purchasing a microlight at 120k or more (but they exist). The majority of microlights cost around 50k new for a standard, brand new one with equal performance to a C-172, only STOL. A nice used one is 2/3 that price. At 10k you get a nice, but oldish Kitfox type of aircraft with a Rotax 912. It’s only for the very best, all carbon, all glass, Rotax iS, Retract, CS prop, that you pay 120k. People do this because they are “into it” and a certified old Cessna has since long gone far out of the picture.

The people I know who have something like a Kitfox have it as a second plane, or third plane. A friend of mine and his wife until recently had an early seventies C182 as their utility plane, plus an RV7, plus a Kitfox. He built the latter two. Now they’ve sold the Kitfox, bought a PA-12 and are currently selling the RV. They decided to scale back and the PA-12 is the one that does the most for them.

Another friend and his family have a 1960s Bonanza as their practical plane plus a Jungmann and a factory built RV-12. His dad is worried about his medical so stopped renewing and bought the RV-12.

Its not an ‘either or’ thing, and new microlight type aircraft are a supplement within the US market, often bought by people with a lot of money in the budget and very often a medical issue. Its not a revolutionary development, just one component in the greater GA market. As is Cirrus and the like.

LeSving, In your dreams… You’d have to negotiate hard to even get a C42 for 50k new – and no microlight performs like a C172 in respect to payload. And to most people I know the option of payload (i.e. cruising with two people or a family with kids and bags while being able to fill the tanks) is important.

LeSving, your rants about certified GA is just the cause for the decline of GA in your area. I have found that even in Germany at airports where pilots tell lies about aircraft ownership or capabilities instead of showing possibilities and beauty (i.e. exactly what you try to do in almost any thread on EuroGA), new pilots stay away, and places who promote aviation are thriving with sold out hangars and social active clubs. This disproportion is even visible between aero clubs at the same airfield, where one club has almost 50 new students and the other one trying to keep their instructors current. There is a whole new scene of young pilots – from Cessna drivers to glider pilots and they do their share in promoting aviation – with a much more upbeat message than it could be read here. They often don’t meet at silver-hair-gatherings but often enough inherit infrastructures, planes, visions and clubs. They do communicate via social media, use wingly and co and take their friends on tour.

In Germany the pilot population is growing and that is despite the LBA and EASA. In many countries EASA has opened possibilities that haven’t been there since the invention of aviation, because it opened regulations for private GA. Noone sais it is a perfect (or even close to perfect) system and there is much more work to do for Mr. Ky and his team. But the overwhelming problems some regions face in terms of infrastructure and pilot population is self made and in many parts based on unproductive beefing about something that doesn’t affect the individual in the first place (and of which he has no clue whatsoever).

Maintenance cost in remote areas should just differ from central European prices by possible higher shipment costs and you can opt to make it much more complicated and expensive than necessary. But it is possible to set up a club with 480€ flat fee per year and 105€ per hour wet for a Cessna 172 or 120€ per hour wet for an Archer II in High-Price Germany. Despite LBA and EASA.

But the thread is called “What has EASA actually done for us”. The answer is unifying the airspace, opening it for many Europeans and