This is my first post, so don’t be too harsh 
I noticed a few new documents on the GA section of the EASA web site today. The Maintaining your Aircraft leaflet was a very interesting read, and will hopefully help cut down on cost some owners.
There is also a timeline (which is long in some cases) for their GA activities
http://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/aviation-domain/general-aviation/general-aviation-road-map
That’s an interesting link, DavidA – thanks for posting it.
Also interesting that they put the IR as a top priority!
so don’t be too harsh
That won’t happen here
I for one will commend EASA for having a Mooney as leaflet illustration.
A group organized by a German pilot magazine did the first GA trip to Bhutan in history. After a Mooney landed, they were asked by the airport staff whether this was the smallest aircraft in the world.
I believe a whole bunch of EASA employees could have asked the same question. The new Director seems to really mean it after the old one was the worst thing that ever happened to GA… I guess nobody misses this person.
Thanks Peter. Did you or anyone have any views on the maintaining your aircraft leaflet at the bottom of the page.
My view is that there is no reason the implementation schedule for ELA2 should be different from ELA1. The other changes are welcome but more details would be needed as to how light Part M light will actually be.
Thanks for the link, DavidA.
Just read the first of the leaflets, the Pilot Licenses and Ratings leaflet. Some of it is a little misleading:
LAPL – it states 25 hrs flight instruction required; should read 30.
LAPL – it states currency requires “once a year, at least one training flight with an instructor”; but the rules says once every 24 months
IR – “You will need to complete 200 hrs of theory and at least 50 hrs of flight instruction” – and then CB-IR: “This applies specifically to those who have an instrument rating issued by a third country”. No, CB-IR applies to anyone, and the requirements are 80 hrs of theory and 40 hrs of flight instruction for pilots without any instrument experience – and you get a full IR.
A little proofreading would have helped. Makes you wonder about the other leaflets.
Well spotted. Totally embarassing.
Even they themselves don’t understand all the overly complex rulemaking junk they have produced over the last years.
Wll, I guess will just “pull” it and then eventually clean it up and publish again. That’s SOP nowadays. ask the UK CAA… 
200 hrs of theory does sound hugely excessive to get instrument rated in a light single. Even 80 hours sounds excessive, when I did my IR in the United States, I’m sure I didn’t do 80 hours of theory.
Maybe they are dumbing down the course to the lowest common denominator.
