He commented that the USA has a better GA safety record than ?? Does that really apply to the UK? I thought we had a most enviable safety record in GA compared to many.
I wonder if whoever uploaded this had permission from Flyer to do so… 
While Ky shows himself as a supporter of light GA (which is good), he doesn’t fully understand how regulations and airspace structure interact… He is talking about introducing something like the IMC rating, which obviously doesn’t make much sense because an IMCR would essentially be a full IR, in most parts of Europe. It also wouldn’t be less expensive / time consuming to get than a full IR, since 90% of the challenges of IFR flying are in flying approaches and departures.
The highlight for me:
I wouldn’t be surprised to see automatic approval for STCs from countries for which there’s a BASA within the next year
Mr Ky sounds good, but these people are very good at turning on the charm. Eric Sivel was just as charming and just as pro-GA and pro-IMC-Rating; I spoke to him for an hour or two face to face in a cafe in London a few years ago. That was after he spoke to ~100 people at a conference, prefixing some stuff with “don’t tell anybody otherwise I will get into trouble”. Remember these are not politicans elected for a 4 year term; they are very skilled long-term operators, working in a machine (the EU) which has the “process” totally polished over decades. Remember also that Sivel has a PPL too, but you have to read pilot forums (specifically UK, German and French ones) for less than 5 minutes to realise that the most vicious regulators of GA would be pilots themselves!
So we need to see actual results.
I guess we will get some good results, but they will be as much due to the near-meltdown of the EU (triggered by Greece) and due to good work done by some GA reps behind the scenes, as due to any new person at EASA.
Blanket acceptance of US STCs has thus far been done only by Australia. EASA Part 21 companies would (in general terms) hate it because it would wipe out much of their business – IF it was implemented simply and directly i.e. in both words and spirit. UK’s acceptance of US STCs for Annex 2 is a nice gesture but is no more than allowing somebody to fly in clouds while wearing pink underpants (no possible compliance control).
Blanket acceptance of US STCs would fly in the face of so much that EASA (which is packed with ex Part 21 company employees, sometimes of an astonishing arrogance, especially some Brits) has been doing for the past decade. For example if a Skytec high speed starter motor is STCd for an IO540-C4 then it can be installed in any plane with an IO540-C4 – even if some relay downstream cannot carry the current (for long). The FAA assumes that somebody downstream has a brain and will take care of that. EASA however assumes that nobody downstream has a brain and requires the STC design package to include the whole aircraft. I can see their point in this case, but where do you draw the line on the level of field expertise which you should reasonably assume is in place?
So, as I say, talk is cheap… I give this guy credit for his line of drift but we need to see results.
We need to see useful results, not practically useless symbolic gestures like accepting FAA STC data (not the STC itself) towards EASA STC applications as the current BASA allows – a system which just channels more customer money to the bigger companies who use a friendly DER to produce an 8110 package, which the customer is charged 2000 quid for, and which the (Part 21) company then uses to get an EASA STC, which they then sell repeatedly to any number of European installers. The world’s second oldest activity, perhaps?
I’d give Mr Ky a lot of benefit of doubt. He comes across as someone who sincerely wants to reform EASA and is pretty open about some stuff which with previous EASA directors would have been the opposite. It should also not be forgotten that it was the French drive (in combination with the efforts of AOPA and several national CAA’s) which brought the competence based IR as the first sign of a change of heart within EASA towards GA.
Interesting: When queried about the “lack of enthusiasm” by e.g. Germany to implement the new IR he states that they are launching an infringement procedure against Germany. Maybe that is why all of a sudden some schools now got approval just before Xmas?
Interesting also what he has to say about Part M and how openly he states his take on some of the legislation, as well as the fact that he had internal opposition to some of the stuff he proposed.
The STC reckognition would mean nothing else than going back to pre-EASA status, at least in several countries such as Switzerland, which did accept US STC’s until forced not to by EASA. It would be a major change in policy and a huge step in the right direction. Equally, a rework of part M for GA is more than necessary.
Frankly, the question in my mind is not so much if Mr Ky is sincere, I believe he is and he really wants GA to receive a framework of rules it can live by. The question is, will he be able to do this without rising sufficient opposition to risk getting himself thrown out. If not, I would think there is a fairly good chance that reason may overcome bureaucratic wet dreams. I think the biggest challenge will be to deal with renitent NAA’s, particularly those who have been instrumental in getting us into this mess in the first place.
Yes, I agree with your last para.
Switzerland used to accept FAA STCs directly and unconditionally?
That should mean, for example, that you could put a Jetprop, or a King Katmai C182 conversion, on the Swiss reg.
There are three jetprops on the Swiss registry.
Peter,
yes, used to, not since EASA though. (I believe even under JAA they stopped, but not sure when, was during my time out from flying sometimes).
There are several Jetprops on Swiss register, also there are several Silver Eagles and heavily modified Mooneys.
(http://www.honeymooney.com as an example)
In the article there are great words on the basis for regulation being safety assessment. He seems to say that if something doesn’t improve safety they won’t do it. He also seems to suggest the FAA regime produces better safety results.
How do those ideas tie in with the need for European FAA IR holders to get an EASA IR to fly their FAA registered aircraft?
If Mr Ky had real bottle they would scrap the whole EASA 3rd country rule set, or allow seamless transfer of FAA to EASA qualifications.
I suspect things have gone too far for the former to happen, and the latter is a bit radical for the training industry.
I still like the things I’m hearing though. EASA could turn out to be good news for GA, and Patrick Ky seems to have sound and sincere intentions.
