LeSving wrote:
very soon basic training will be allowed in non-certified aircraft (probably already is in the UK?
Ab-initio PPL training in Annex II aircraft was introduced by the UK CAA in December 2015, provided that the student is an owner or part owner of the aircraft (up to 20 can share ownership). If training for an EASA licence, then this must be done through an ATO or RTF (Registered Training Facility).
You can do that in an ancient Cessna in a club, if you can stand all the patronizing nonsense and “club requirements”, and can withstand the urge to get a nice cheap microlight that you are fully in charge over and can fly when and how much you want.
That’s actually a very expensive solution, and involves spending more than I’d personally want to spend on a plane. Current production numbers don’t reveal that there are large numbers of existing certified aircraft flying in the hands of private owners, and many of those people think they’re chosen the best, most cost effective solution.
It sounds like EASA is slowly loosening their reigns on maintenance of certified aircraft, even they having realized that the CAMO, Maintenance Organization, Mandatory Service Bulletin etc concept is totally wacko for a small, individually owned and operated plane. That situation appears to be moving closer to US practice, not withstanding ongoing craziness like declared maintenance programs for individual aircraft. If I were in Europe I’d choose the same as I have in the US, in my case on N-register regardless of based country, but the draconian maintenance laws are seemingly changing for the better even on European registers. Why ignore it? Why not take advantage of it?
BTW, all the hangars at my US base are full, and all of the over 700 planes at the airport are owned by someone. There are a lot of Experimentals but most are certified aircraft, owned and flown by individuals who love them, and each will someday pass again to a willing buyer. Obviously none of them are “dying”, and the fact that they aren’t dying is a major factor in holding down demand for new aircraft production. As in many other things the world as a whole will probably not be following Norway in abandoning its GA fleet.
Silvaire wrote:
As in many other things the world as a whole will probably not be following Norway in abandoning its GA fleet.
Maybe not 
(what are these many other things you have in mind btw?) But in the end it is inevitable, it’s just a question of time. The influx of new non certified as well as new certified will make the old ones disappear, one after the other. Sentimentalism isn’t enough to keep a viable GA, not by a long shot. Sentimentalism is for old men, 50+, not the younger generations. They are still selling factory new Pipers and Cessnas, looking exactly as they did 50-60 years ago, performing exactly as they did 50-60 yeas ago, with the same engine they used 50-60 years ago, the only difference is the price. They are so expensive that no one wants them, or can afford them, except training facilities and clubs (which also are training facilities)
Through the 60s and 70s the number of sold certified GA aircraft were 10-15 k per year. Over a 20 year period this is 200-300k aircraft. From 1980 to today, the average was around 1000 per yer, making it a total of 30-40k in the last 35 years. The huge wave of aircraft from the 60s and 70s won’t last forever. The future of GA cannot be based on these aircraft. You cannot seriously mean that.
LeSving wrote:
The huge wave of aircraft from the 60s and 70s won’t last forever. The future of GA cannot be based on these aircraft.
You’re free to pick one person’s future. Others will pick their own, individually, based on their own circumstances. Planes of the 40s and onward were built to last, and huge numbers were indeed built. The US drives the GA market, and lasting is what large accumulated numbers of planes are doing in the US because individuals choose to own and maintain them. There is no committee forcing people’s ownership decisions. As some planes get crashed or abused, people’s interests in aviation evolve, and available technologies evolve, the numbers are held stable by low volume production of both certified and homebuilt types. Its a fairly stable situation, and I don’t see any problem for GA other than European politics – which is a perpetual problem. At least EASA maintenance regs for light aircraft are becoming more reasonable and I ask again, why ignore it? Why not encourage people to take advantage of it? A rising tide floats all boats, all ways of owning and flying planes are good.
In the US, certified GA is just cruising along, adapting as required. People are enjoying nice planes for the price of a car, either factory built or kit built, and either way that’s a good thing. As more factory built planes are needed, they’ll get built. My observation is that old guys with plenty of cash will be the customers for those new planes, and younger will people fly and maintain older planes. That’s fine, the new planes will eventually depreciate to relative affordability, and the old guy’s children probably didn’t need the inheritance anyway
LeSving wrote:
Archie wrote: And GA is dying because of a whole lot of other factors than EASA. It’s dying all around the world. At least in FAA land it is too. And in CASA land.This has to be specified, because GA is NOT dying. Traditional, certified GA is dying. Or even more precise: private ownership of certified aircraft is dying.
FAA predicts continued GA decline Piston fleet contracts sharply in 20-year outlook
But you are right to state that other reports say otherwise.
LeSving wrote:
In the grand scheme of things, what has EASA done for us? EASA has done one thing, the have marginalized themselves out of GA, They are hardly relevant at all.
So, EASA is a good thing even for you then.
Some of these 40 year old 172 types are being reconditioned for the training market.
http://redhawk.redbirdflight.com
As there is 35,000 of them (guesstimate from the circa 45,000 built), these high utility, and with an excellent safety record, birds may be a major factor in GA for a few more decades.
A type’s safety record may be a factor for its longevity.
Have you seen the price though?
We provide the airframe:
$249,000
You provide the airframe:
$209,000
I can’t find an up-to-date price list, but in 2012 a brand new G1000 172 cost $274,900 – so the prices above are nuts.
LeSving wrote:
Sentimentalism is for old men, 50+, not the younger generations
Speak for yourself. I was in my 20s when I bought my first vintage aircraft! I wasn’t the only one, either.
In many instances of course, it’s because most of us who bought into an aircraft in our 20s, it was all we could afford – but at the same time, most of us were pretty sentimental about the aircraft we bought. Mine was named “Lusty Betty”…
That indeed is BS. It’s viable only with some of the airframes (M,N,P), includes a Conti Diesel (that I could understand), a totally unnecessary G500, an awful paint job and a too expensive GTN650.
If you want a very capable club / rental / training aircraft get a 172 up to model H, install nice interior, new paint job, Trig Com and XPDR, VOR and basic GPS and you’ll have a very capable and durbable 3+1-seater for less than 70k€.
Silvaire wrote:
The US drives the GA market
The US drove the GA market. From what you write there is no market left, just recycling, like the cars on Cuba. There is nothing good about that except if you go into severe sentimental mode and close your eyes for everything else around you. The only reason for such situations to happen is a broken/dead market. Aircraft that where affordable (as new) for a whole bunch of people in the 60s and 70s, stopped being affordable for the same group in the 80s. The reasons for that can be many, but it has something to do with distribution of wealth in a society, and some change in regulations. People adapt though, they adapt to whatever situation they get into, whether it’s a broken market or a broken aviation authority, or both. If you think this adaption is a sign of “american freedom”, you must be very confused. The exact same thing happened to cars in communist Cuba.
In Norway, a typical 60s or 70s Cessna/Piper is impossible to sell (and people do want to get rid of them). They stay outside rotting, because no one wants them. The best ones get sold outside Norway. People purchase a microlight, experimental or helicopter instead. An old Annex II also works, but it has to be older than the 60/70 generation of aircraft. An individual is left with the choice of maintaining an old Cessna under a dysfunctional EASA regime, or maintaining a brand new microlight under no regime whatsoever. A microlight is a completely free thing here, there are no authority breathing down your neck. They take off and land in 100m and cruises faster and longer than a Cessna, and got all the newest cockpit gadgets, or you can mount them yourself. The LSA in the US is in many ways broken, but in a different way certified aircraft is broken here. Way too much restrictions in performance. The only thing that fits are naturally slow airplanes like a Cub, or artificially slowed down European microlights (microlights that in Europe have CS props and retracts and cruises 20-30% faster). Artificially de-tuned aircraft, are not all that appealing to most pilots, especially not when the price is like a “real thing”. People want the “real thing”.
Archie wrote:
But you are right to state that other reports say otherwise.
Looked at that report, and it’s about commercial GA and how it will continue to increase the turbine fleet in the USA. I don’t see how that is relevant to European private ownership of light airplanes.
Archie wrote:
So, EASA is a good thing even for you then.
Of course not. EASA is what it is. It was never meant to be an authority for private GA. It has just evolved into it by adopting airline-type regulations and concepts regarding maintenance and airworthiness to light airplanes. Private GA would have everything to gain by having an EASA that governed all GA, microlight, Annex II and experimental included, with the same regulations all over Europe. It’s just that it cannot be this draconian over-regulated nonsense it is today.
