EASA has made it possible for me to get an IR – with the new CBIR and removing the requirement to have a night rating.
EU on the other hand has forced the member states to tax fuel and played a part when we lost the Danish system where airplanes, parts, service etc was VAT free. These single two items has made flying a lot more expensive.
Bleriot wrote:
In Switzerland we see a steady drop in the PPL numbers that began already in the 90s.
The reduction in glider pilots is pretty drastic as well…!
2010 – 2,617
2015 – 1,715
It is fair to say that for some countries, which had particularly bad regulators (Switzerland, some of the Scandinavian countries, and perhaps Germany) EASA was helpful.
But everybody else lost out.
While I am happy for some of our brethren who live in under draconian regimes such as the Swiss – where the police enforces public holidays – getting some relief, the vast majority is worse off.
Also, the previous state is not the benchmark. The FAA definitely has a BETTER commercial safety record, and at least the equivalent private flying safety record.
They have none of the nonsense we have to put up with here. With three items – “Aircraft Single-Engine Land”, “Aircraft Multi-Engine Land” and “Instrument (Aircraft)” – you can fly everything but jets. You can maintain and modify an aircraft without organisational programs with a minimum of mandatory items applying your judgement, as long as it passes its annual.
All stricter regulations are part of regulations specific to commercial operations.
EASA equivalent: Dozens of type ratings for multi engine turbines, dozens of “class” ratings for single engine turbines which are type ratings in all but name, a handful of add on ratings (glider tow, aerobatics, mountain); and regulations around them that make all of them expensive and hard to obtain. CAMO, Org approvals, etc.
This is, unfortunately, beyond repair. Hopefully we will see continuous tweaks that will make it easier, such as the CB-IR route, or the quite sensible Part NCO and the non-application of Part NCC to twin turboprops, but it won’t go where it should be, with ELA2 rules being applied to all sub-5700kg non-jet aircraft, and it will take ages.
EASA was the very embodiment of the EU, a bunch of national authorities got around a table all with their own unique regulations and insisted on keeping them, they then consulted Airbus just to make sure that the requirements fitted with one of the biggest companies in the European industry and tha is how we got the total mess that we are now trying to unravel.
Only when those running EASA realised that their regulatory regime was killing GA and likely to put a few of them out of work did things start to change and from what was a very cynical position I now see a few moves towards a common sense and more proportional stance, CS-STAN & crossover IR renewal being two examples.
The EASA change towards a more proportional style of regulation is a real breath of fresh air and is leaving those in the industry who are responsible for safety related tasks far more time to deal with the day to day inspection & rectification of problems rather than the paperwork issues that EASA was obsessed with at the beginning.
The trend within EASA is moving towards a product focused quality system that keeps safety affordable, this is in stark contrast to the UK military airworthiness system that is process focused and unaffordable to anyone excepting the military who just get the taxpayer to foot the bill for a system that struggles to be as safe as EASA at twenty times the price.
It is frequently stated that the UK CAA take high fees for the approval of ATOs.
Since I know a couple of people who have ATO’s I could’t believe they could afford 5 figure sums a year, so I looked at the CAAs schedule of charges.
It’s HERE
Whilst the approval and re-validation costs for commercial licences and type ratings are substantial, it seems to me that the costs for the approval and re-validation of PPL courses and ratings associated (INCLUDING CBIR) are not.
I reckon that according to Section 7.1.2 (Table 30) on page 17 the initial approval for an ATO, if you use the template manuals supplied by the CAA, is between £509 and £2470, and the annual renewal thereafter is £100/year
This covers all the ratings in Table 35 on page 21, and includes every Single Engine rating I can think of, that could be put on a PPL
EASA was the very embodiment of the EU, a bunch of national authorities got around a table all with their own unique regulations and insisted on keeping them, they then consulted Airbus just to make sure that the requirements fitted with one of the biggest companies in the European industry and tha is how we got the total mess that we are now trying to unravel.
EASA was originally set up to become a certification authority for Airbus.
That is the equivalent of looking at the charge sheet for a major airport, concluding that the landing fee is only 20 pounds… and then finding out that you forgot about approach fees, parking charges, departure charges, noise surcharges and passenger security fees – and that is before mandatory handling.
The template manual only covers PPL and LAPL. Everything else needs additional approval.
As soon it goes into multi engine and IR, you can add 5k per year.
Of course, you can go for PPL + CB-IR without a sim, but that really limits the school to a small subset of students.
Peter wrote:
EASA was originally set up to become a certification authority for Airbus.
Yes, it is rather strange the whole thing, from Wikipedia:
The JAA started as the Joint Airworthiness Authorities in 1970. Originally, its objectives were only to produce common certification codes for large aeroplanes and for engines in order to meet the needs of European industry and international consortia (e.g., Airbus). After 1987 its work was extended to operations, maintenance, licensing and certification/design standards for all classes of aircraft.
The adoption of the Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU) and the subsequent establishment of the EASA created a Europe-wide regulatory authority which has absorbed most functions of the JAA
In my opinion there is no longer any point on
a) doing a traditional IRand
b) Having the Simm approved. And that’s for all IR candidates regardless if they are a PPL or CPL holder.
By the time you pay the fees associated with an approved simm the hourly rate 160 pounds per hour.
Its far more cost effective to get an independent IRI and get 30 hours IFR time. Then hit the unapproved simm (one near to me is 50 quid an hour with IRR/IRE) to get upto test speed. Finally go to an CBIR approved ATO and do the final 10 hours there.
From here
One husband (LBA) beat up his wife (German aircraft owners in particular) more than others did, but EASA still doesn’t deserve credit for beating them up less.
And pre-JAR, I obtained a perfectly useful German PPL-A in 35 hours and change, and could use it to fly across Europe. How long does that take now, remind me?
The saddest thing is that you think it is great that for some ratings a DTO is enough… these ratings should not be required at all! They did not exist pre-JAR in many countries. Not did pseudo-typeratings for turboprops, differences training etc.
BTW – “Registered Facilities” required less paperwork and overhead before EASA abolished then, only to reluctantly reintroduce them as silver-plated DTO later.
About the only thing that universally got easier is the route to the IR – but even that, in some countries, was easier before JAR came in.
