just like the EU is a scapegoat for UK issues prompting certain people to vote in favour of the Brexit.
Rather more than “certain people” voted OUT, and quite a number on here did too, but with the treatment all these people are getting from their social circle / friends (getting shunned is pretty well assured) and especially with the really vile attacks on social media (unfriended on FB in bulk is reportedly normal – a reason for suicide these days, surely) most of them are lying low nowadays 
This incidentally also makes it rather difficult to do any research post-facto…
One has to remember that several European countries are outside the EU and always have been, yet they have not met the fate widely forecast for the UK by other EU countries: vapourised, melted down, collapsed, ended up with their populations queuing up at soup kitchens, etc. These countries seem to like the flexibility, otherwise – like a cohabiting couple – they could so easily formalise the situation.
That’s my 2£ for today
I need to defend us VFR lot here a bit
VFR is great. I have been VFR as far as I have been IFR (Shoreham to Crete).
@Jacko of course you need additional training to safely perform aerobatics, night flying, water landings or IFR flights. He who teaches himself has a fool for a master.
@LeSving: How many VFR tours through Europe (Not a 100NM burger run with a state border inbetween) have you attempted in the past – let’s say 5 years – to conclude the impossibility of such an undertaking?
EASA has failed at every level. I can’t think of anything that is better than under the old UK CAA.
What worries me most is I have not seen one shred of evidence, or one audit even to show that the changes have made any difference to safety.
An example;
Under the UK system you had to have 3 diopters of less of astigmatism to hold a class one medical, EASA changed this to 2 diopters (FAA have requirement as all)
This change has denied numerous people that I know off from being able to undertake a commercial pilot career. Yet I have never seen any evidence to show improved safety with the new requirements. In fact I have never seen any evidence stating that any of the changes made by EASA have made any benefit to safety.
Its a Joke
@Patrick
you are absolutely right. I was flying Europe VFR for 17 years (many flights to CZ, Croatia, France, a couple to Greece, Sweden, Spain, UK, Italy, Netherlands) altogether maybe 100 flights abroad … and NEVER did I have a problem. Ok, once in Italy I was forced to fly 1000 ft AGL, or the Greek parking permissions, stuff like that, but that was it. Now I fly IFR mostly, and that is more simple, but has nothing to do with the registration. Of course, it takes a while to understand Italian and French Airspace and VFR charts, but first it is always pretty simple in real life and second: EASA is not responsible for that.
ATC was very supportive on almost all of my flights, actually I can’t remember one instance where I got into trouble. No, there was one: when I busted the Salzburg CTR some years ago. I called them, excused myself and got a lecture, but I guess I deserved that one. And once I was denied a circle (for photos) in the Mediterranean. I could not really understand them well (;-)), so after calling “say again” three times I had already finished my circle. Those were my “problems” 1996 to 2013.
The number of GA airplanes has not changed much in Germany over the last ten years. It’s about 150 less SEPs and MEPs, but more SETs and Motorgliders. (2015 numbers).
Aviathor wrote:
You totally lost me. Why do you bring SERA and NCO up if they are not the problem?
They are irrelevant, in the context!!! of inter-country travelling with a light private aircraft, that’s all. Hence EASA has done nothing of importance in that respect. SERA and NCO are after all what governs how we fly and operate light aircraft. They are not the problem (not counting the messy writing), but they are no solution either, they are just regulations, same as before, different wrapping.
Aviathor wrote:
The “decline” of PPL/Light GA was a big tale among the old folks already back in 1995, and that was before JAA and long before EASA. At that time Luftfartsverket was in charge, and according to the old geezers things were already very bad.
Well, things are “always” bad today and was better before according to lots of people. It wasn’t perfect before either, but private GA was indeed viable, there were lots of aircraft around, lots of schools (3 at ENVA alone), lots of mechanics. Already in 1995 microlights had started to come with zero bureaucracy, Rotax 912 etc. An alternative existed, and this makes people view the status quo in slightly different manner.
Patrick wrote:
I’m waiting for the day that I can agree with one of your bold, generic statements
It wasn’t my “bold generic statement”, just the impression you get when reading this board and take it at face value (see context above). But you prove my point, things are “OK” even without SERA and NCO to unify regulations. These things are irrelevant. People have flown homebuilts all over Europe long before EASA, and this is thanks to one single sentence from ECAC. When one single sentence from ECAC can make non-ICAO aircraft built by amateurs fly unrestricted across 99% of Europe, one would believe that a complete reorganization and unification of every single regulation would do something more, and something better than to destroy the very sector the regulations are meant to regulate.
Flyer59 wrote:
EASA is not responsible for that.
And I had the feeling, that it’s only in Germany, that ALWAYS someone has to be responsible 
I only can agree, that VFR border crossing and flying in other european countries is a non-event in practice (especially with tools like Skydemon).
From my point of view EASA is on a good way now (I admit – it was not always the case and there’s always room for further improvements). I can fly without too much hassle, which showes proof (for me), that the situation isn’t too bad. The annoying ZÜP in Germany, which comes to mind in this context is a national burden and has also nothing to to with the EASA, like it is often/mostely rather a national problem to implement european rules. I much appreciate the easier entry for the IR and will take advantage of that within the next years.
I have been critical of EASA from the outset but I admit I have had to change my mind in some aspects since the change of leadership a few years ago. Also I believe, we have been misled by our CAA’s as well as some of our local lobby organisations as to some aspects of EASA and their implications.
First of all I have to say, without JAA and possibly now EASA, it would be likely that I would not have regained my license in 2009 after the 10 year hiatus.
Previously, after a 10 year inactivity, in Switzerland your license was toilet paper. Gone with the flush so to speak, it would have meant to start almost from scratch. Thanks to JAR this did not happen, where licenses were now treated as lifetime achievements like a university degree or a professional diploma. To reactivate a rating (SEP) was comparatively easy, to get the whole license new with theory and all, I don’t think I would have bothered.
Recently I found out that EASA also indirectly saved my medical. Before, each CAA and each AME had his own ideas on what was tolerable and what not. EASA did away with some of the pet grounding reasons invented by the medicos and set clear limits in others. The Swiss tried to implement a BMI30 limit for all pilots, EASA Part M stopped them by defining BMI <35 for Class 2.
In recent times, EASA has tried several times to stop gold plating by national CAA’s but has not always been successful. Particularly in Germany and Switzerland, the CAA’s seem to resist any kind of slack EASA is willing to give GA and are obviously frustrated by the fact that their own authority in rulemaking is curtailed.
I must say that looking at the arguments and outright lies used in the BREXIT campaign has opened my eyes to something in that regard. We have heard over and over here in our CAA’s that what they are doing in terms of gold plating and imposing airline like documentation e.t.c. for GA is because of EASA. Now that EASA has changed quite a bit of that, it appears that while it might have been EASA imposed originally, they did not really mind and now resist going the other way. Similarily, I seem to see that quite a few nation states within the EU or within EU bilateral agreement status use the EU as an excuse to explain why they impose unpopular rulemaking and laws. I see that as one of the major factors why the Brexit actually happened, people were conned into believing that the EU was at fault for everything UK governments in the last several years have done. Well, it was responsible for some, but not for all, not by far.
Now, the situation has changed and CAA’s get into a problem explaining why they want to keep the gold plating they have done, while EASA doesn’t. And I do see some parallels again: Once Britain will have left the EU, the subsequent governments will have huge problems explaining why all the problems they have blamed on the EU are still there….
I am and remain critical of the EU and EASA alike, but I start becoming more critical of the national authorities obvious reluctance to follow the rulemaking agreed upon on an European level. It’s either or: Either we do want a europe wide aviation rule making, licensing and so on, or we do not. Anything in between will just cause confusion and cost money.
Peter wrote:
It is easy to see why microlights will be very popular in a relatively self contained flying community, from which it is a long way to go anywhere
Which is THE big fault with EASA. They act and make regulations as if the whole of Europe is a small flat dot in central Germany with an abundance of schools and maintenance facilities. The NVFR regulations shows this all too well, and also the EIR for that matter. Both are equally useless here, but the NVFR (as is by EASA) is in fact physically and operationally impossible (no way to take off or land). This is changed now in Norway, and the minima is the same as day VFR when visibility is 10km and the ceiling is min 2000 feet.
I see that as one of the major factors why the Brexit actually happened, people were conned into believing that the EU was at fault for everything UK governments in the last several years have done
That’s not actually the case when one looks at peoples’ main reasons for voting OUT. For example a big reason was immigration (and various aspects of that e.g. job losses at home) and the UK in the EU has absolutely zero control over that… short of (under EU law) making it uniform to all and massively downgrading it but that would impoverish millions of people who have over decades become dependent on them (which is a whole other debate; the UK is not exactly the only place with millions of poor people). So nothing is as simple as it looks, and bear in mind media bias… Keeping this to aviation (and there is the Brexit thread) I don’t think that featured in many aviation peoples’ voting decision, except that probably all those who were shafted by the EASA FCL N-reg attack did vote OUT… and I am sure it would be exactly the same if say Germany held a referendum Obviously, absolutely nobody is going to hold a referendum now because it would prob90 finish the EU.
Ultimately every national CAA which is packed with well paid jobs will do all they can to frustrate EASA. The UK CAA has not only lost many of those nice jobs but also has been pretty good at implementing EASA stuff. Look for example as their absolutely total implementation of the new cost sharing concession which has been openly used for what comes as close to public transport as one can possibly get. In the past such a thing would have amounted to chucking a hand grenade into CAA House. So I am fairly optimistic about aviation regulation in the UK in the future, but largely because the CAA has some pro-GA people in it now (and same as EASA actually).
As Bathman says, Part MED is a big failed opportunity. I don’t know why but I guess the AME lobby made bloody sure of it. However airline unions play a role there; they are always trying to keep up the barriers to entry for obvious reasons and that spills into the private use of the IR and anything to do with Class 1 medicals.
EASA I think is a bit of a mixed bag. It has been getting better in recent years, such as all the ELA1 stuff, but for too long it seemed too ignorant of what GA actually did and had very negative effects. We nearly lost our nation’s only flight school because of all the FTO stuff that EASA was going to impose – it would make our small GA flight school unprofitable with all the extra (needless) burden it would have imposed. Fortunately, they pulled back on that (but for how long?) Similarly, in gliding – the BGA had a sensible and safe system that worked well. EASA came in with size 12 jackboots and changed it for the worse. Again, they’ve postponed and pulled back on many of the major damaging things they were going to do, but it was needless to have done them in the first place. Gliding should have been left entirely alone (just like Annex 2 has been left entirely alone).
But I think EASA is probably the least of the problems facing GA. From the point of the British Isles, the big issues that I see which make people give up flying have nothing to do with EASA. Things like:
In the above cases, in somewhere like the USA, no one gives a damn if the FBO is closed. The airport keeps on operating just fine without requiring pilots fill out a ream of paperwork just because the admin office is closed when you want to fly.
Add to that the UK-specific problem of having to give an absurdly long 12 hours notice to go flying to NI/Eire/Isle of Man/CI.
I didn’t become a pilot because I enjoy filling out reams of paperwork. All these things above make flying anywhere needlessly awkward, and you really need to be a bit obsessed with flying to put up with this kind of thing. Less obsessed people who would otherwise enjoy flying and be an asset to the community just give up.
Of course flying into small grass airfields is often easy because you just call the owner and then you can pretty much arrive any time during daylight hours. But farm strips/small club strips aren’t usually close to anything useful like a train station, bus stop, hire car business etc. Even in my annex-2 aircraft, I generally fly places because I want to actually go to that place, not just visit the airfield.
So even if EASA simply photocopied the whole of 14 CFR from the US and resisted any temptation to gold plate, and the national CAAs also resist the temptation to gold plate, we’d still be stuck with these problems that bother me far more than EASA currently does.
