Peter wrote:
I have found solutions but that doesn’t stop me writing about it, in the hope that somebody out there finds it useful
That is fine, but all my working life I found that the most useful thing someone who points out a problem can do is to offer solutions at the same time. We all have no difficulty listing all the problems we face in GA, but just listing them isn’t a whole lot of use to fellow pilots who come here looking for help …. i.e. solutions. 
Mine is called “N-reg” 
Otherwise, the best solution to most ground issues is: your own hangar.
It might appear that a black hat personality type is just pointlessly negative, but they seem to do best in the long run
Well for giving such a solution you have to have a problem in the first place. Nah, rather than being hostage to some DER or other individual, I very much prefer the European organisation based approach. Most of the “issues” are OWT anyway, same as in the article.
I never had any problem buying parts from APS or Sandelvig or Spruce, Glapinc or wherever. Sure, if you act like a dick, you will be treated like a dick, but that is true even if you buy a dishwasher.
And I pretty much like having tested parts at the critical places in my aircraft, rather than relying on Obi Aerospace. A Form 1 is in many places a life saver.
It would be great to know how a Form 1 is a life saver. It is just a traceability document. It says nothing about the suitability of that part for any installation, or how old or rotten the part might be.
This morning I was clearing up some paperwork and went through something like 20 documents for the shipment of some 30 circuit breakers I bought (the 3 in the above link were among them) from an EASA145 company. The funny thing is… not one of them has a serial or batch number on it, referenced to the document It’s all a charade. You just pick the part out of a box in the stores and photocopy whichever form covers the quantity you took out, on a FIFO basis. Great stuff; everybody is happy. The end user just pays 1.5x more.
But you are right that as time goes on and avionics become more standardised (Garmin or Garmin or Gamin, mainly, and small individual instruments are increasingly replaced by combined-function stuff) and come with an EASA AML STC, European mod certification is no longer the issue it was say 10 years ago.
Great article I happened to do it ass backwards and read the comments before the article so I had a different perspective on things. Yes I see his point. Its amazing how many excuses you guys give out.
I can agree that most of the pilots are involved with club flying. Anything with more than 4 owners in my opinion is a club. Its certainly understandable since as I was told by one of the esteemed members that flying ones airplane is more a sport in Europe and not meant for transportation since there are such good Public transports available. With hobby in mind, mostly do local VFR flying, why would you need a real transportation tool in that case? Its cheaper to just join a club and share the expense. That makes sense to me.
So with that in mind, the fees come into play. If you can afford such a hobby you can afford to pay.
Never ran into the CAMO issue before so cant comment other than I get parts from the states and either bring it in myself or ask friends to bring me a gift. Larger parts I ship by container company and bite the VAT bullet 29% Hungary. Regarding my maintenance shop I ask them to charge me their markup if they install a certified part for me this way they are not out the money. So far it has worked out well.
I do have to say for us propeller types its frustrating when you pay 100% more for taxes on a unit of fuel. Thereby causing the cost of a flight to become 50% more than in the US and that value is if your with N Reg. I pity my fellow airmen who are on an European Registration who when I walk into a shop and see 1/2 of a 210 disassembled because of a “Mandatory” Service Bulletin that we Part91 guys dont have to comply with if N Reg. Talk about expense.
Garrett has published another article on flying in Europe, in the last US AOPA magazine.
I think it is very accurate. He goes to great length to describe the convoluted process of getting an EASA PPL, due to this issue which he judged could affect him despite him being an American who is, presumably, not permanently based in Europe.
The medical especially needs to be done by the same country as the license issue, and this creates great problems in some countries where AMEs with the right attitude are rare.
There are Americans and there are Americans. AOPA is one part. I sometimes have a hard time understanding what exactly they are trying to achieve, other than expressing some kind of “1960-1970 white American upper class attitude”. Then there is EAA, filled with people focused on enjoying flying and spreading the joy of flying, all aspects of it, world wide.
AOPA is very much a wide focus government lobbying organization, and a good one. That means their image is carefully controlled to appear inclusive and professional to US politicians and Federal Government employees. Whatever impact that may have on homebuilders in Norway probably isn’t foremost in their minds
EAA is equally political but more from a narrower, grass roots flying point of view. That image flies well for certain issues and they tend to work that angle in representing their membership. Meanwhile, EAA does a very good job of getting people interested in aviation with Young Eagles etc. The two organizations cooperate usefully and share a large fraction of their membership.
US AOPA plays a significant role in keeping GA working together and pulling in the same direction.
This is a big contrast to Europe where GA mostly likes to tear itself apart – where gliding hates power flying, VFR pilots hate IFR pilots, homebuilders hate certified aircraft flyers… ok this is putting it in extreme language but you get my drift. Their respective organisations mostly avoid working with each other. It is I am allright Jack – all the way to the graveyard. Your comment, LeSving, about white Americans versus EAA is an illustration of this. US AOPA represents the whole lot and they have the $$$ resources to do it well.
Your comment, LeSving, about white Americans versus EAA is an illustration of this
He he. It depends on the eyes that views. In Norway we have one single organization that encompasses all private flying activities. From RC to flying IFR in F-104 Starfighters. It’s called NLF. NLF is also the competent authority for gliding, in EASA terms, and the “competent authority” for microlight in national terms. It consists of several sub organisations. Representatives get together every year on a “Ting” discussing and deciding stuff, exactly as we have organised things for thousand years here.
We also have FAI, AOPA, EAA, EAS and whatever other international or European organisation people want to join, if NLF is not already a member.
AOPA is an international organization, at least it tries to be sometimes. This article is an international article, but it’s pure nonsense. How is that article supposed to help AOPA internationally or help them gain international members? I have been a member of EAA for ages, and I have never seen any article written by them using such a tone and angle. This cannot be entirely coincidental. EAA is a much more American organisation than AOPA.
It’s no big deal for me. “My” organisation is NLF (implicitly also FAI), then EAA. I fly UL, PPL, aerobatics, even gliders from time to time. I’m rather heavy into homebuilding, experimental. Several people in my local club sees UL as nonsense, but I’m definitely not one of those. IMO it’s articles like the one here that causes this. There is a whole bunch more PPL only pilots that see UL as nonsense than UL only pilots that see PPL as nonsense. Most people though have a practical approach, or are in a process of gaining it. what works in any situation is OK.
