I think it’s correct to say that most pilots think GA is over-regulated.
But when reading some online sites and seeing the lynching which accident / incident pilots get from the residents there, especially from the self proclaimed sky-gods, one might be happy that we are regulated by the present regulators and not by pilots!
I experienced the same, even if not connected to a (fatal) accident. I can remember some discussion about flight instructors and that they should at least have a CPL/IR, for instance.
I think it’s easy to call for rules, if they don’t effect ones own aviation or freedoms. One has to remember, that there are more ways to become happy in aviation. I think there are just two non-debatable rules in aviation:
1.) Don’t hit anything
2.) Don’t be a jerk
The rest is debatable and should be open for discussion. If the rule makes sense, it’s cool to follow anyway. If it doesn’t – the heck, out with it.
Cheers,
A good and valid question, but almost impossible to answer. GA spans everything from a powered parachute to the corporate A319. A multitude of different rules apply and every effort undertaken so far to standardise those has resulted in more and more complicated rules…
An examiner I know well once told me his basic rule for letting a candidate pass: “The family test”. Would I let my wife and children fly with this guy on his next flight? If yes, he gets his signature. Look around your airfield, watch other pilots do their thing and keep asking yourself: Would I let my family fly with this guy? If yes, why? If no, why not? (A game we commercial pilots can play for hours while we sit around and wait for passengers … not many pass “my” family test)
You will find (at least I did) that not the rules are the problem but the total lack of supervision. Where are the frightening ramp inspectors when you need them? We would need a lot less rules if there was a way to ensure that those at least get observed.
I meant to say light GA i.e. up to say a TBM.
You will find (at least I did) that not the rules are the problem but the total lack of supervision.
There is certainly an argument for going the US route i.e. having (e.g.) a much more accessible IR and then enforcing illegal IFR. But this will never happen in Europe, where job creation / job and business protection / etc rule the scene, and in a tacit acknowledgement of that we have almost no ramp enforcement.
and in a tacit acknowledgement of that we have almost no ramp enforcement.
Here in Germany there is no tacit acknowledgement. It is simply lack of manpower. German LBA is desperately looking for staff, right now they have 200 job vacancies. Mind you, they even have the funds to pay all these people but nobody applies.
German LBA is desperately looking for staff, right now they have 200 job vacancies.
While at the same time they have lost the biggest part of their authority to EASA. Wasn’t this supposed to allow member states to do less? I got ramp checked 4 times in Germany: twice in EDDS (Stuttgart, they seem to have somebody on site for this job), once in EDDC (Dresden) and my favorite at EDPA during a large fly-in. 100 ramp checks in one afternoon, that was the quota for the whole year…
Peter,
overregulation is a fact and it is the biggest threat aviation (not only GA) has ever seen since mankind took to the skies over 300 years ago.
The question as to “how much regulation is good” can be done to death (maybe we reach 500 on this one?)
I’d like to rephrase it and ask “how much regulation is necessary” as a best case scenario and “how much regulation can GA survive” as the realistic question.
The necessity for regulation depends on various things. Primarily, regulation is useful in the sense of setting valid and durable standards by which aviation related people may work, may rely on (over a reasonable period of time) and can understand and support. Regulation should be based world wide on ICAO and allow only minimal deviation from ICAO’s rules of the air, certification rules and change process. Regulation should serve the regulated, not suffocate them. The purpose of regulatory bodies is to facilitate, not to hinder.
Whereas today’s situation is concerned, I’d submit the thesis that the current level of regulation has severely injured GA world wide and is threatening to become fatal in some areas. Overregulation exists in all aspects of aviation regulation these days, whereas I would identify the following as the most damaging to GA (non conclusive list)
First and foremost: The latent insecurity, constant change, constant fear of new restrictions, rules, regulations which will make investment, licenses and property obsolete.
- Mainteinace requirements (TBO/TBR/paperpushing/declaring recommendations as mandiatory, refusal to mutually acknowledge STC’s)
- Licensing requirements (unreasonable theoretical ballast to achieve a license, uinreasonable and disrciminatory medical requirements)
- Operational requirements (unnecessary paperwork for the simplest operational changes, overreaction to incidents/accidents, e.t.c.
when reading some online sites and seeing the lynching which accident / incident pilots get from the residents there, especially from the self proclaimed sky-gods, one might be happy that we are regulated by the present regulators and not by pilots!
That is one of the most frustrating aspects of it all. And I think it is a European thing too. I don’t see such stuff on US Forums, or not to that extent anyhow.
One comes to conclude that the average European aviation forum poster is willing to go to extreme lenghts to restrict anyone out of their jobs, properties and livelyhoods just to make a point, to answer to a whim caused by some intellectual indigestion and generally destroy the whole sandpit rather than backing down on issues.
It is indeed scary to see some of the “demands” for immediate regulation I’ve come across in recent months… just a few examples…
- psychological profiling and qualification by thorough psychological assessment for anyone applying for a pilots license.
- banning of private ownership of coorporate aircraft to prevent “undue pressure” exercised by owners on air crews…
- banning of n-reg ops (representative of all foreign registered airplanes including T7, M e.t.c) in order to stop “circumnavigation of the EU law” by the evil aviators.
- demanding traffic circuits to be flown at precision approach tolerances
- introduce lifetime limits on airframes of 10/15/20 years…
and many more.
Most of them are pure provocations on the part of some sorry individuals who need their frustrations vented. Quite a few are proposed by former wannabe pilots who think that if they could not get their dreamjob nobody else should. Even more are posted by folks who pretend to be pilots but are not. And some really mean it. Trouble is, all of it is read and immediately taken on board by some of our elected or unelected “officials” and proposed into law “by public demand”.
I agree with you Peter, Europeans do have a uncanny talent for shooting themselfs in their collective feet with heavy artillery.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure aviation safety. Rules themselves have little impact on safety, but help to provide a safe environment in which aviation can operate. The regulation must be sensible and most importantly “acheiveable” to do this it must make sense to those it applies to and to those who apply it. Good regulation should become a culture of good and safe practice, once referred to as common sense. The current blame culture where accidents don’t exist and we only have incidents, means we can find someone who can be blamed for any event if you go far enough down the food chain, this has one purpose, to remove responsibility and blame from those further up the chain, managers and poluiticians. It also provides a good feed chain for lawyers.
It is interesting to note that the UK CAA closed down its GA department on financial grounds, it covered a huge area but its only income was from display authorisations, so it was largely financed from the proffits made by flight crew licensing. Now the new managers at the CAA have dismantled the entire organisation, alienated most of the technical staff and in a response to increasing cost and bureauracracy at the FCL level have reinstated the GA department to reduce the burdens on GA, most of which come from the CAA itself!
The European regulation has doubled the burden on a small flying club which has operated safely for many years and eroded its profitability so that to survive it must increase its cost to GA as a whole. The same regulation reduces the minimum experience leve of Instructors of Instructors and Examiners by 80%; think what effect that will have on the “my family test”
Lest we forget the objectives of the new regulation as charged by the EU include:
Cost Efficient Regulation and avoid Duplication
Level Playing Field
So far they have failed miserably! The rule maker; the politicians; the regulators have all failed to display due “Competence” but as nobody has defined what competence is, it is hardly surprising.
(Stuttgart, they seem to have somebody on site for this job)
Yes, he is from the local aviation authority (Regierungspräsidium Suttgart). Quite competent and reasonable guy, I know him since many years. The LBA outpost at EDDS (technical station) is currently closed (AFAIK) due to lack of staff.
I believe that it is absolutely necessary to have rules which enable/simplify aviators life. An example of this would be the semicircular rule or signs on the taxiways. These have to be agreed once and then adhered to. No problem.
Equally necessary are the technical rules like maximal continuous power, oil quality, max gross, etc. Those are given by the manufacturers technicians. That’s easy.
Some rules would be set by the insurance companies which should be competing for clients on the free market. The key word here is ‘competing’. That would keep them from being too strict and/or greedy.
That would be enough. For neither of those sets of rules any politician/bureaucrat/government employee is necessary. Decent people will adhere to natural and logical rules, because they know that it is the way to go and more convenient at the end of the day. Less decent ones will either start to adhere or become marginalized by the community.
What we really don’t need is a bureaucrat inventing rules, enforcing them for the so called ‘public good’. If human beings are really so bad at voluntary cooperation and rules, where is the guarantee that the bureaucrat will be better?
Let’s take the issue of certification for example. Certification indeed is not something really necessary and planes would be falling from the sky without the wise old men at the CAA. Designers doing their job – designing things – would be much better at innovation if not restricted by those government employees. We all would enjoy things like modern engines, modern airframes, avionics with all the bells and whistles and all of that for a reasonable price due to competition on a free market. Certification only serves as a good excuse for the manufacturers if they produce crap, provide jobs for the well connected guys and a false ‘good feeling’ for those who think that a piece of paper with a rubber stamp on it is going to save the world.
Miroc
