Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What has EASA actually done for us?

Or Cobalt wrote:

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.

This is bullsh1t.

Cobalt wrote:

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?

30 hrs block to LAPL, 45hrs block to PPL(A). That translates into roughly 30-35 hours flight time for the PPL(A). May I remind you, that there was no Radio Nav in the german PPL(A) w/o the “CVFR”-Exam (incl. theoretical and flight instruction, in a flying school, with a theoretical and practical skill test, that you weren’t allowed into airspace “C” back then with a bare PPL(A)), that you needed a differences training for flying PA28 if you have only flown C172 before, that you even could have 1000 hrs on a Pitts and still needed the “Einweisung” with an Instructor to fly a Grob 115; that an aerobatic license required a skill test, that you needed twice the annual flight time to keep your license, that this license needed to be issued by the “Bezirksregierung” every two years? You needed almost twice the amount of flight time for the PPL(C) and another license for powered sailplanes, with theoretical exam, rather than just the extention.

So… it has become easier after all.

Cobalt wrote:

these ratings should not be required at all!

I strongly object. For all the three ratings you mentioned. “Self taught” aerobatics has cost many lives, as did unqualified aerotowing instruction or banner ops. for the aerotow, you merely need 5 takeoffs and landings with an FI and 5 under supervision. I have yet to meet a single pilot who thought this was unnecessary training, and we do train a lot of pilots towards this license. It is not hard, nor hard to learn, but especially in aviation, the pilot who thinks he can teach himself everything has a fool for a master.

Cobalt wrote:

BTW – “Registered Facilities” required less paperwork and overhead before EASA abolished then, only to reluctantly reintroduce them as silver-plated DTO later.

We have been an RF, now a non-complex ATO and the amount of necessary paperwork is actually less, as are the conditions for the flight school aircraft. I don’t need to tear up perfectly running engines anymore, I can run everything on condition thanks to EASA. I can make pilot-owner maintenance within the aeroclub without a Part-66 thanks to EASA. I can change our aircraft and instructors within the organisation within half an hour by declaration, rather than having a complicated approval procedure, thanks to EASA. So what are you talking about? If you chose to blow up paperwork and procedures, because you don’t care to read the regs, it isn’t EASAs fault, but yours.

Last Edited by mh at 26 Feb 17:23
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Cobalt wrote:

BTW – “Registered Facilities” required less paperwork and overhead before EASA abolished then, only to reluctantly reintroduce them as silver-plated DTO later.

I don’t see where the silver plating is. My club is still operating its flight school an an RF and when we change to a DTO this spring it will definitely mean less paperwork!
One of the most important changes is that we no longer need approval for every individual aircraft used.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I guess this issue will never be solved. Depending on how much EASA has made local / national regulations easier, or not, the sentiment for or against EASA is strong, or weak. For Germany it has done a lot, that’s for sure. And it has always acted in the interest of the whole community, which means at some point somewhere someone must be unhappy.

For the UK it perhaps hasn’t done a lot, but that’s going to be changed now anyway, isn’t it. After Brexit, everything will be much, much better :)

Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

I think how people see EASA depends very strongly on where they are from and what their experience with the pre-JAR and JAR CAAs was.

TODAY, and that is some years into GA roadmap, Part NCO, ELA1 and 2, I personally and for Switzerland would suggest that EASA has stopped our current FOCA from some significant things they were goldplating over the years while some things which used to be easier are now more difficult. I suppose this is probably true for most countries where there is winners and loosers.

But one thing that I, as a violent EASA opponent a few years ago, have had to realize is that in very many cases JAR and EASA was used by the CAA’s as a very comfortable “big brother” type of reasoning saying “we don’t want to do this to you but JAR forces us”. Well, then came EASA where it was not nitpicking anymore but all or nothing. And as it was truely said, EASA in the beginning was a disaster for GA, but no more. Today, some CAA’s have actually found their pants not only catch fire when their prior lies about who forces whom were exposed, but literally blow up on them.

What we have today in Europe is one common aviation law which all memberstates HAVE to comply with regardless of what other gold plated ideas they have. Where I live this has for instance done away with TBO for private ops, it has done away with loosing licenses and ratings which before were lost totally after some years, it has opened the way to a better and more acessible IR and so on.

It is also remarkable that under JAA and EASA, Europe has certified a lot more new and innovative airplanes than the US under FAA and the whole trouble they have there. Diamond, Aquila, the whole diesel engine industry and so on. It appears that getting through certification for well thought trough projects these days is more likely in Europe than the USA, which is a total reversal of before.

On the negative, it has given justification to airports to mandate handling, to price out GA via either handling or safety taxes, it has at least initially caused a lot of hurt to almost everyone short of airline operations.

All in all we all can gain more from finally getting over the “used to be” and accepting the “now” and seeing how we can use EASA’s powers to our best profit. The people behind the GA roadmap definitly are with us and they do listen. They also are willing to take up goldplating and obstructionism by individual CAAs.

There may be occasional hickups such as the story about Annex II (which goes into a kafkaeske phase now with EASA denying it yet the whole thing can’t have been started as fake news looking who started it) but all in all I’d think on the regulatory base there is a lot of space for improvement but also a lot to be profited from even now.

And we need to be very careful about what our local CAAs and organisations are telling us. Not everything blamed on EASA actually originates there.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Just to put a bit of a UK stance on this

“We have been an RF, now a non-complex ATO and the amount of necessary paperwork is actually less, as are the conditions for the flight school aircraft”

Under the old UK system in the UK you didn’t need any form or organization approval at all. There was no such thing as RTF or ATO.If you were an FI you could teach anything that you were qualified to teach.

Post JAR we then had RTF and FTO. The costs for particularity for FTO went up significantly.

Although the costs haven’t been published yet by the CAA everyone very much expects the fee to be a DTO to be more than the 100 quid that it is to be an RTF. Also the requirements to be DTO are significantly increased with significant indirect costs in the form of additional paperwork and site visits having to be costed.

“I don’t need to tear up perfectly running engines anymore, I can run everything on condition thanks to EASA”

Unfortunately in the UK we cannot do this. We still have to remove perfectly good engines at TBO or years in service. Under the old UK system we could run aircraft engines on condition but sadly at present we cannot take advantage of this.

“I can make pilot-owner maintenance within the aeroclub without a Part-66 thanks to EASA”

Again in the UK we cannot do this.

“I can change our aircraft and instructors within the organization within half an hour by declaration, rather than having a complicated approval procedure, thanks to EASA”

Again under the old UK system there was no requirement to be registered, declared or approved so one simply didn’t have to do any of this in the first place.

So the majority if not all the positive aspects you describe at best take things to what it was under the old UK system. Some of the positives eg engine TBO we are can’t take advantage of and other aspects such as comparing RTF’s to DTO’s we are actually worse off.

Hence the low opinion that a lot of the UK GA community has for EASA.

Last Edited by Bathman at 27 Feb 18:15

the pilot who thinks he can teach himself everything has a fool for a master.

Sure. Like Hermann Geiger who, on the 10th of May 1952, taught himself how to land and take off with his Super Cub HB-OED on the Kander glacier. The pioneer of European mountain flying. What an idiot!

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Specific to the discussion of new ratings, and in particular an ‘aerobatics rating’ I am befuddled by the implication that without a government approved and issued rating a statistically meaningful number of individuals are going to (1) seek no experienced help in learning the basics of aerobatics and then (2) hurt other people in doing so.

Obviously most people worldwide learn aerobatics from others, instructors and/or otherwise, over a long period of largely self-managed risk, and don’t hurt anybody in doing so. The need for an aerobatics rating isn’t based on evidence, I think it’s based on the idea that government approval is necessary to validate learning, or worse that learning is a government orchestrated activity… which I happen to think is (shall we say) an ‘incomplete model’. Real life, and risk management during real learning, is not the same as being a Boy Scout

My limited experience in learning aerobatics so far has been with a friend who has perhaps 30,000 hrs including aerobatics several times a week for decades, former military flight instructor and fighter test pilot, former professional pilot (airline captain) and so on. He has no instructor rating, although he tells me he did once in the 1970s, to make extra money when he was poor, flying military jets for a living as a junior officer. He can and does teach me a lot, but neither of us would waste energy dealing with aerobatic ratings, calling on the radio before assuming unusual attitudes or other similar nonsense that one reads about occasionally but hopefully manages to avoid in normal life.

Same thing with flight schools and prescribed lesson plans, under whatever acronym might be applied this week, instead of instructors teaching primarily students in whatever format happens to attract them. In general, the school structure adds no value… and I believe in the long run this approach will drive European aviation to ultralights, or wherever else rational people can escape.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 28 Feb 03:21

@Silvaire

“He can and does teach me a lot, but neither of us would waste energy dealing with aerobatic ratings, calling on the radio before assuming unusual attitudes "

Calling each turn seems excessive, but at least in busier areas it seems worthwhile to make an occasional call on the local CTAF that you’re maneuvering X miles north of the airport, or talk to flight following. Obviously you don’t have to, but I’ve always found self announcing your presence and general plans on CTAF to be the polite thing to do.

United States

Bathman wrote:

“I can make pilot-owner maintenance within the aeroclub without a Part-66 thanks to EASA”

Again in the UK we cannot do this.

Is this actual EASA regulation, or UK CAA gold plating?

Andreas IOM

I think the specific ban is on all pilot maintenance on any plane used for remunerated training. I reckon you will find this is widespread, for obvious reasons, despite some saying their country does not have it. One recent post reported it for French aeroclub planes too.

It may still be in place for a plane privately owned if used for a CAA examiner checkride. It was when I did mine in 2012, in my tb20.

It would be IMHO mad risk management to allow pilot maintenance on a plane used for open rental, let alone training unrelated people.

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

Back to Top