Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What has EASA actually done for us?

mh wrote:

But EASA has not done the biggest thing which is to rip control out of the FTO industry and let freelancers do it. Not even at the PPL level.

The BTO is changing that. And it hasn’t been possible in some MS before EASA, so it will again be one of the benefits. Buth then again setting up our small aero clubs non-complex ATO with ten instructors and eight aircraft took just two working days (and one day for formatting word … ). But we do only instruct for PPL(A), LAPL(A), TMG, VFR night, Aerotow, Banner Tow, Aerobatics and have had a little help by the AOPA.

Well all I can say is that it doesn’t work like that in the UK.

If you want to start up a flying school that offers the PPL (A), LAPL(a) and night then you have to hire an ex CAA manual inspector pay them a couple of thousand pounds for them to write those manuals. These then get submitted to the CAA who will take cica 4 months to approve them. Plus their fee is again a couple of thousand pounds.

You also have to submit manuals for approval to teach Aerotow, Banner Tow and Aerobatics and pay separate fees for all of them. You could of course write these manuals yourself but if you do you can bet your bottom dollar that they CAA will reject them if you do. And as they charge (270 or 330 an hour plus VAT – can’t remember) to look at them its often cheaper to pay some ex CAA manual inspector to do it.

i could go on an on about this topic. The manuals are full of shite and I don’t’ know anyone that every really looks at them. You are also not allowed to submit someone else manual as each one has to be individually written so you know how you are going to teach it.

I used to teach CPL monday to friday at an ATO. Then on the saturday I used to teach at the registered facility next door. so one one day I would be teaching for the CPL in a PA28 at 235 pounds per hour and the next day I would be teaching in the same aircraft at the same airfield and I would even be using the same classroom for ground briefing. But no the rf didn’t have the manuals so could only teach for the only the PPL at 150 pounds per hour.

The whole ATO approval business is a money making, job creating scam.

Somebody please remind what a suitably qualified instructor has to do and pay in FAA land to offer the training for all the licenses and ratings as above.

No no I will tell you its sweat FA.

Last Edited by Bathman at 19 Jul 06:28

Bathman wrote:

If you want to start up a flying school that offers the PPL (A), LAPL(a) and night then you have to hire an ex CAA manual inspector pay them a couple of thousand pounds for them to write those manuals. These then get submitted to the CAA who will take cica 4 months to approve them.

Been there, done that, closed school, sold plane, end of story.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Peter wrote:

Norway’s GA problems are nothing to do with central Europe’s domination of the EU.

It has nothing to do with EASA either. The maintenance regime pre-EASA was not any lighter than it is now. Blaming EASA for Norwegian demographics is ludicrous.

LFPT, LFPN

Peter wrote:

But as I say if GA is going own the plughole in Norway it is nothing to do with EASA. Even if it was killed by over-regulation (which may be true to an extent but for sure it won’t be the only reason, in one of the richest countries in Europe) Norway has only got itself to blame. You will probably find the reason is something to do with the social scene over there. For so many people to throw in the towel, it isn’t going to be due to money.

That is true. But LT didn’t ask for this either. They were simply put in the situation when Norway voted “NO” for EU membership in 1994, and the EEA agreement (EFTA) started soon after. I’m sure LT would much rather be a more direct member of EASA than the way it has turned out. Not so sure it would have made any difference though.

Money or social scene? It is not clear to me what kind of social scene that should be, if that was the case. But does it matter? The situation is what it is, and EASA makes the regulations. The simplest and most obvious answer is often the most correct. You could very well be right though, lots of helicopters here, relatively speaking, and they are not cheap to purchase, operate and maintain. The difference is, it is possible to maintain them due to all the helicopter companies here. Anyway, I’m 100% sure that an FAA system would be infinitely better for GA here. Not only here, but all over the place.

Aviathor wrote:

It has nothing to do with EASA either. The maintenance regime pre-EASA was not any lighter than it is now. Blaming EASA for Norwegian demographics is ludicrous.

You have to define pre-EASA then. It is not that simple to set a date, nor to define maintenance regimes. Approved maintenance organisations and approved schools have existed since way back, but this did not prevent the existence of free lance schools and free lance maintenance. I did my entire theory per mail course, then took the exam at ENVA. Today you can do the theory on the web, but you have to go to Oslo to attend 19 h of classroom lessons in addition. I took flight instructions at “Trønderfly”, what today is the local helicopter company. Two guys there had set up their own little “school” to increase the activity at the company in difficult times (prevent themselves from being sacked is probably more correct). It was cool though, navigation training were done with very nice 6 cylinder, CS, IFR, FI and autopilot travelling machine they normally used for short taxi flying.

The maintenance regime for private aircraft in Norway has, as long as I can remember, been divided in classes, and still is. Class I, II and III. Class I is according to a regime approved by LT (large and complex aircraft). Class II is for most normal EASA aircraft. Class III is for all non EASA aircraft. In addition, airplanes belonging to clubs are maintained in a special club “class”, but essentially it is class II/III. However, the specifics could be different from case to case, depending on the qualifications of the persons in the club (still is). Anyway, class I and II requires yearly check at a certified company, while class III does not. Class III only requires a certified mechanic – or – a person specially authorized by LT. Pre-EASA there were no class III as I can remember, only I and II, and II were essentially what is now class III roughly speaking (maybe it was only called private class with complex and normal? long time ago, hard to remember). All private planes used for private operations were put in class II. In practice they were maintained in authorized companies or by certified mechanics, it didn’t make much difference because there where maintenance companies “all over” back then. What people argued about was that it was so difficult to get special authorization for non certified mechanics (you could maintain an F-16, but not a C-152 for instance, which seemed ridiculous, and similar stuff). It may also be the case that complex aircraft would require a maintenance company rather than just a mechanic. The regime is exactly the same today, only Class III has come for all non-EASA aircraft, while all EASA certified aircraft are put in class II, which requires an authorized maintenance organisation to comply with EASA regulations. Class II is now the EASA class if you will. All Annex II aircraft and experimentals are now in class III. Exactly when things changed, I have no idea, but sometime in the 1990s would be my guess, maybe later, but I would be surprised it was earlier. It could also happen gradually.

Last Edited by LeSving at 19 Jul 10:56

Did a little “research” and it turns out the dark ages for GA started in 1990 when the JARs by JAA was implemented regarding airworthiness and maintenance on a general scale. This is when authorized maintenance organisations, on a general scale with detailed regulations was implemented. JAR, originally only minted and created for large transport aircraft exclusively, as an Airbus initiative in 1970, was extended to all certified aviation, including private GA. That work started in 1987. The way it worked was that each national aviation authority implemented JARs into their own regulations.

JAR was developed further all through the 90s, until EASA took over the whole thing in 2002 and JAA as an organisation was put to sleep, except for some training facilities of some sort. JAA – EASA, same organisation, same people, different names. From 2008 EASA regulations started to be implemented. So the 18 years from 1990 to 2008 was all JAA and JARs, not EASA. From 2008 EASA regulations started to replace the older national/JAR regulations, and we are still in the middle of that process.

In essence, JARs and the continuation by EASA is nothing but a pan European scheme to make sure Airbus Industries will have the best possibility of success against Boeing. It’s a huge lobby endeavor by the European aviation industry. I mean, Airbus Industries initiated the whole thing, and EASA simply took over. It’s therefore rather easy to understand why Airbus and European airline companies have been doing so well.

Peter wrote:

“We are Europeans, not Americans, we need European regulation, not American regulation”

What he actually is saying is “We are Europeans and we need special crafted European regulations for Airbus to succeed”. Well, Airbus has obviously succeeded, and it is way overdue to remove “Airbus regulations” for private GA. Because, it’s equally obvious those regulations are killing private GA. There is nothing about this well oiled system of “authorized” companies that is beneficial for GA. This system is beneficial for Airbus and European airliners, and nothing else.

What has EASA/JAA done for GA? It has sacrificed private GA to create Airbus. Airbus is the sole reason JAA/EASA exist in the first place. There is no other way to view this IMO. And no, I’m not advocating conspiracies This is just business as usual. The biggest and baddest will always set the agenda and tries to create an environment that benefits them and no one else. It’s just that with EASA it seems rather odd, since EASA originally was created, as JAA, by Airbus and not by politicians.

EASA was set up to be a certification agency for Airbus airframes.

Then the politicians saw an opportunity to create a power base…

As EU politicians always do

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

This system is beneficial for Airbus and European airliners, and nothing else.

How are Airbus and Boeing airliners different that EASA regulations favour the former?

And I voted “yes” for the EU in 1994. I’m almost ashamed I have always thought of EASA as a big, very confused and slow bureaucracy, but that it deep down had honest reasons for it existence. That EASA is simply something that “happened” because if it’s convenience as a playground for EU bureaucrats and Airbus lobbyists was way beyond my wildest imagination. But then I’m a simple soul living in a country far north

Noe wrote:

How are Airbus and Boeing airliners different that EASA regulations favour the former?

Essentially the same way as experimental kit manufacturers are able to design much better performance aircraft than the certified ones. Airbus can more or less dictate certification of new materials, new design methods etc. Meaning, they are able to get a more advanced and better performing aircraft certified much faster than others.

How are Airbus and Boeing airliners different that EASA regulations favour the former?

They are not much different but the Europeans could not be seen to accept American certification.

Also there is trade protection. The US will not rush to certify a European plane which competes with their Boeing ones. And vice versa.

Essentially the same way as experimental kit manufacturers are able to design much better performance aircraft than the certified ones.

Not unless they discovered new laws of physics.

They can only aim for different market sectors.

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

Back to Top