Mandatory cockpit voice recorders for GA - EASA

panel mount GPSs don’t seem to record anything

The 2012 C172SP with G1000 record lots of stuff on one of the SD cards, at least position, altitude, QNH set, frequencies, engine data (EGT, CHT, and so on) and more, once a second, in a CVS file

OTOH the GTN650 doesn’t seem to log anything, and I’ve seen no menu entry to enable something like this.

Why ALWAYS bash EASA?

They make themselves so easy to bash. From my perspective, everything EASA has done has made flying harder, more expensive, and less safe. We used to have a system with gliders (administered by the BGA) that operated well and safely for decades, then EASA came along and destroyed all of that and made gliding needlessly more expensive while doing absolutely nothing to make it safer. EASA goes on about making regulations more proportionate then does the opposite in a big way, for example the new rules around flight instruction (and all they have to do is look across the Atlantic to see a system that works very well with far lower costs and arguably better safety). That’s called “lying”. Things like also increasing the cloud clearances under SERA vastly reducing the opportunities to fly if you own a VFR aircraft in a country where the weather is usually not perfect. Also what they have done with N-reg and foreign licensed pilots. The CAA had a good sense system for validating licenses for day VFR (in other words no paperwork and no costs) and EASA has just gone and destroyed this.

I’ve yet to see EASA improve anything for light GA flying. They’ve made it less affordable and less available. Someone needs to call them out on it in light of their repeated promise to reduce regulatory burden because from where I’m sitting, it’s been a lie.

Aircraft above 5.7 T are not light aircraft. The original article said light GA aircraft (which in pretty much everyone’s view means small single engine aircraft and light twins). EASA mandating this is just barmy.

It is about the upper end of light aircraft, depending on configuration a <5700 kg MTOW Beechcraft King Air 200 could be an example. No piston powered aircraft, no single engine turbine, no non AOC aircraft.

The bottom line however is that the USA is not going to go for this

The FAA has allready regulations in force for these “light aircraft” to carry an CVR. It is about multi engine turbine aircraft below 5700 kg “light aircraft” which are used for commercial passenger transport for six passengers or more.

EASA’s proposal is to do this also for EASA multi engine turbine aircraft below 5700 kg “light aircraft” which fly under an AOC for commercial passenger transport for 9 passengers or more.

The proposed EASA CVR requirements, nor the active FAA CVR requirements are not applicable for non commercial aircraft below 5700 kg, AND not for any piston powered aircraft under EASA or FAA control!?

Why bash EASA? Why always suggest FAA is ALWAYS better? If comparing these two, please keep it fair.

I am not against it someone wants to spend the cash or doing some retrofitting, but cant see any significant benefit in enforcing anything beyond on-board locator beacons.

I used to have more or less the same view, but that view recently changed.

We had a “mishap” by one of the pilots that flies for a charity that I volunteer for. No damage, no injuries to anything other than pride. But it did cause a 737 to go around, and another one had to wait a few extra minutes at the hold.

Not only the authorities were interested in what had happened, but we were too. By coincidence, this flight had a GoPro camera in the cockpit, making a video of both the pilot and his passenger. We also had one of these intercom adapter cables so we had most of the audio. (We did not have the bits where the avionics were switched off, obviously, as the intercom was not working at that time. And as it turned out, those bits would have been helpful too.)

The video was very, very enlightening. It gave us far more insight in what happened on board than from what we had gotten from the pilot and from ATC. And in retrospect, we’ve had a few more “mishaps” in the past where it’s one word against the other, and an audio or preferably video recording would have been very helpful to find out what really happened.

So particularly when whatever happened was the result of pilot error (still the majority of incidents, AFAIK), a CVR or better yet, some sort of video recording, will give you a much better answer to the question “What the xxxx was he thinking?”

Aircraft above 5.7 T are not light aircraft. The original article said light GA aircraft (which in pretty much everyone’s view means small single engine aircraft and light twins). EASA mandating this is just barmy. Sure you might be able to learn the cause of some accidents but if you look at the accident reports the vast majority of GA accidents are repeats of the usual categories of crashes that have been going on for years, and a CVR (certified, and at enormous cost to the aircraft owner) won’t really do much to tell us more than what we already know and will almost certainly be taken advantage of to be used in evidence against a pilot for other things.

The bottom line however is that the USA is not going to go for this…

Why not? They brought us the FDR and CVR for aircraft above 5,7 tons as well. Let’s wait and see, after all they have been recording all our cellphone conversations and E-Mail exchanges since many years, without even telling us…