Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What has EASA actually done for us?

Jacko wrote:

NCO.OP.100 Use of aerodromes and operating sites
The pilot-in-command shall only use aerodromes and operating sites that are adequate for the type of aircraft and operation concerned.
Gosh, thank God for those clever EASA rule-makers; I don’t suppose any of us would have thought of that…

Do you really prefer it to the FAA version?

§91.103 Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include—
(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:
(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and
(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature

So in the EASA version, I can look at the 4000 m runway, look at my Piper Cub and say “OK, that looks adequate”. Under Part 91, I have to be familiar with the TODR and TODA, even if the latter vastly exceeds the former.

I’m always shocked by how anti EASA/EU UK GA pilots are.
I thought the idea of a common standard set of rules applicable all over EU countries should make things easier for pilots right?
Isn’t that what EASA is all about? Some of you will argue that it’s not doing what is supposed to do. But really how is not being part of it going to make things better?

Maybe the fact that most UK GA pilots hate EASA has nothing to do with being a pilot and has all to do with this:

I am sure that’s a factor, Geekyflyer, because of the pilot population demographics but, to be fair to the oldies (I am 59 BTW) you have e.g. this

The ageing pilot population is driven by many factors but basically you have to be an anally obscessive self flaggellating masochist to get anywhere useful up the GA regulatory / mission capability food chain

The USA is not much better on the pilot age (they say the average age at Oshkosh goes up a year every year, though that could just be the types what like that sort of event) but at least it is a lot easier over there to get into GA to start with and get value out of it.

EASA could have swept away a lot of stuff e.g. the need for a ground school FTO to do any post-PPL exams and the need for a “professional” FTO to do any of the training. Had it been made possible to do say an IR at your local PPL school, all the other crap which still confines the IR to the real masochists (e.g. the need for hotel stays, the reluctance of most schools to train in customer aircraft) would fall away. But I guess “politics is the art of the possible” so the FTO lobby made damn sure this would not happen. Same as the AME lobby blocks any attempt to significantly change any of “Part MED”. It’s just sad to see how much hassle even just the FTO requirement for sitting for the mandatory classroom time for the bloody written exams causes people. Everybody I know totally hates it.

EASA is going the right way now, finally, but there is still a long way to go to make real improvements to the daily scene we see.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

I don’t know what to say. The German regulations may have become better, but none of this is true anywhere else.

Do you know the situation in each and every EASA member state to make such a bold statement? I can certainly say that situation for light GA in Hungary has really improved since the EASA rules came in. Almost all the nonsense come from national regulations in areas where there’s no central regulation.
Many stakeholders in general aviation tend to blame EASA for all the rules they don’t like, but are surprised when I point out the exact source of a particular piece of sh*t and it is almost never the European regulation, but either its national implementation, a national rule or something completely different (like an overreacting manufacturer).

Hajdúszoboszló LHHO

@bookworm, yes the US version is more verbose, and in the absence of flight manual performance data, it means just as little. But my point is, why do NAAs feel obliged to write such twaddle?

Do they really need a stick to beat every pilot who misjudges a landing or take-off?
https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2014/f-qt140227/pdf/f-qt140227.pdf


Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

JnsV wrote:

Do you know the situation in each and every EASA member state to make such a bold statement?

No. But I have seen certified light private GA disappearing over the last 20-30 years, and this is only accelerating. During the last 10-15 years, the majority is simply gone, vanished. When I got my PPL in 1992, there where 3 healthy schools at my air field. Today it’s only the club left. At the moment not even the school at the club is functioning, lacking a, by EASA regulations, a chief training instructor (or whatever the english term is). 25 Years ago there where no such thing, a single trainer could educate PPLs all the way without all this unnecessary and destructive organisational crap.

LeSving wrote:

No. But I have seen certified light private GA disappearing over the last 20-30 years, and this is only accelerating. During the last 10-15 years, the majority is simply gone, vanished. When I got my PPL in 1992, there where 3 healthy schools at my air field. Today it’s only the club left. At the moment not even the school at the club is functioning, lacking a, by EASA regulations, a chief training instructor (or whatever the english term is). 25 Years ago there where no such thing, a single trainer could educate PPLs all the way without all this unnecessary and destructive organisational crap.

I am sad to see what you write, but it still does not prove what you say, i.e. that EASA has brought negative changes in all of its member states except for Germany. In fact, it has bought positive changes in (possibly many) other countries as well, and if some NAAs would not be as backwards thinking as they are, the “consensus” could have been even better. And if regulations were unified all over the continent, it would be highly beneficial for all of us making cross-border flights. Even in my relatively inefficient, slow trainer I can reach more than 20 countries non-stop. In most of them, I could easily get into trouble by just looking at a chart and trying to fly the way I do in Hungary. Unified airspace structure and rules could only help GA.

Hajdúszoboszló LHHO

Slightly an aside, electoral turnout amongst younger voters was around 64%, not 36%. The 36% figure was based on turnout for the previous general election.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high.

EGCW

JnsV wrote:

Unified airspace structure and rules could only help GA.

I agree with the airspace structure bit. But as Peter and others points out again and again, to fly across Europe with anything that remotely resembles a pleasant experience, requires IFR rating due to airspace mess and general ignorance from ATC. EASA has no jurisdiction over airspaces, so the largest obstacle for cross country (or inter country or whatever) is not part of this “unification”. Seriously, when IFR rating is required (requiring a rating costing 10-20k + an IFR machine at 150k minimum, and this is on top of the PPL itself at 10+k), then all other cross border “obstacles” becomes just silly little things, not even worth mentioning.

It’s the general unification of Europe, the fall of the old Warsaw pact, Schengen, EU, ECAC with the free homebuilt travelling agreement, and first and foremost ICAO that has made inter country flying easier. EASA, by unifying part FCL, has not contributed to the above. I mean, SERA and part NCO, are not even in effect many places, and those parts will not change airspace structures, nor will they educate ignorant ATC. 2/3 of all private light GA aircraft in Europe is either Annex II, experimental homebuilt or microlight. These aircraft and/or licenses are not even part of EASA jurisdiction. Germany and UK won’t even let experimental homebuilt fly IFR, and judging by what I read here, the consensus on this board is that this is how it “should be”, at least not without “special approval”.

I have in general no idea how regulations have evolved in former east block countries, former countries with dictatorship essentially. I only know how things have evolved where I live. When I got my PPL in 1992, the rules were simple. I could fly an aircraft, MTOW 7500 kg, VFR, and I could bring with all the passengers I wanted, and we could all share the cost. There where no airspaces in effect at that time, only control zones, no airspace infringement (the word didn’t exist), no need for transponder. Local, free-lance mechanics could fix any light aircraft, and local free-lance instructors could educate any PPL. The regulations were all placed nicely in paper in the club house, in a few holders, and they were orderly arranged, easy to find, easy to read, easy to understand. Then came JAR and EASA, and regulations has become a complete mess. It is literally impossible to print it out on paper and place it nicely in holders in orderly fashion. Then came all this certified organisation crap for every little thing, and it has been going down from there. Having a PPL and a EASA certified aircraft and living outside the heart of Germany, is no longer a viable option. Microlights are very viable, but have their restrictions. The only other options are experimental homebuilt or a nice old Annex II, and, due to the way commercial GA has evolved, helicopters. Helicopters has become a good option, but they are complicated and expensive, and far from everyone’s cup of tea.

You could say that certified light private GA would be going down nonetheless, as it has in the US. That is probably true, but EASA has done nothing but putting gasoline on that fire. There is no doubt in my mind. I also believe it is way too late to fix. The future belongs to experimental and microlight, things that are viable and live outside of EASA.

Last Edited by LeSving at 17 Jul 08:11

Germany and UK won’t even let experimental homebuilt fly IFR, and judging by what I read here, the consensus on this board is that this is how it “should be”, at least not without “special approval”.

No idea where you get that from… quote the opposite I would say. We would all like a US-like Exp category, VFR and IFR, Euro-wide…

local free-lance instructors could educate any PPL

In the UK, too. Some 30 years ago, a PPL could get some sort of FI rating and teach the PPL, totally freelance, away from any school structure. That is a key part of the much more vigorous US scene. But that ended long before JAA got going c. 1999.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top