Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Restrictive regulation - we know who the losers are, but who are the winners?

In my business – electronics – it’s obvious who the winners are at each stage. Ban lead in solder, and solder goes up from £5/reel (some Chinese 60/40 with common flux) to £60/reel (Japanese SAC305 with an exotic flux). Reduce RF emissions, and test labs rub their hands, renting out facilities at £1000/day. Trade publications fill up with adverts for compliance related products and services…

The perhaps more interesting Q is: to what extent are the beneficiaries pushing the regulation, or even responsible for it from the start? Many years ago I briefly served on a British Standards committee and it was obvious what the esteemed persons around the table were doing.

How about general aviation?

Let’s start with the 8.33 dictat. Who are the winners?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Let’s start with the 8.33 dictat. Who are the winners?

Garmin.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Peter wrote:

Let’s start with the 8.33 dictat. Who are the winners?

Those holding national service jobs planning frequency allocations for their own small geographic area, adjoining several other similarly controlled and staffed small geographic areas.

You could argue that we are all the winners, as we won’t have to listen in the middle of the UK to breakthrough from a club airfield in the middle of France. Or, at least, the chances will be reduced by 75%.

It will be possible to have higher powered, longer range transmitters.

More airfields will be able to have more services (Tower and Approach, and ATIS, for example.)

We also find that it’s easier to get a temporary frequency for an event, less congestion and much more.

There is a big financial and administrative cost, for sure, and it is debatable whether the costs are justified by the results, but nonetheless the benefits are really quite obvious.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Timothy wrote:

More airfields will be able to have more services (Tower and Approach, and ATIS, for example.)

It’s a shame this won’t happen in the UK; Ofcom have increased spectrum licensing costs for aviation by an order of magnitude (for no good reason other than they can) so if anything, UK airfields will be reducing radio services :-(
Peter wrote:

How about general aviation?

Since the CAA is (or at least was) expected to make a 6% profit, they have a perverse incentive for adding needless procedure which attracts fees.

Andreas IOM

Another example is the requirement to use Operational Suitability Data, OSD. OSD contain minimum training requirements for aircraft which require type ratings. Starting in December this year, OSD will become mandatory for ATOs. The winners, as far as I can tell, are the aircraft manufactures and FSTD operators. Some OSDs have very weird or high requirements and don’t take into account that a “student” might be a 15’000h oil rig pilot transitioning to the next type. If the OSD says you need 10h in the simulator, you must do it. I heard from ATOs who lost all their type rating business because of OSD requirements.

I personally think it should be part of the EASA rulemaking tasks to look at the benefits vs. costs and to have a close look on where the money would go.

ArcticChiller wrote:

it should be part of the EASA rulemaking tasks to look at the benefits vs. costs

I thought that that was what was meant by “Proportionate regulation” and was already a binding principle. Am I wrong?

EGKB Biggin Hill

8.33, Mode S, ADS-B, all drive installation business.

Why is ELA2 not here yet? Industry pressure, I am sure, because a lot of maintenance business will be lost to freelancers working in owners’ hangars.

The non-acceptance of FAA STCs is IMHO wholly industry-driven.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Wait for the next generation of radios. Digital, so you need only a few frequencies, no more overlapping transmissions.
On the other hand a reduced ATC would be good on route. Free flight and self-separating would help to reduce frequencies used.

EGBE - Coventry

That’s not going to ever happen… AM VHF voice is with us for ever Well, for many more years I am sure.

I thought that that was what was meant by “Proportionate regulation” and was already a binding principle. Am I wrong?

I don’t think this is generally real… these things are done mostly to make it look like something is happening.

EASA itself suffers from a lot of industry pressure, due to having recruited many ex EASA 21 people. I have this confirmed by insiders.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
23 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top