Peter wrote:
I don’t think this is generally real
At least in the UK, I do. And I spend many hours and days of my life discussing these matters directly with both the UK CAA and Industry.
They don’t always get it right, and, even when they do, middle management often then overinterpret the regulations to make them disproportionate again (this is something that I discuss with senior CAA management very often), and there are not sufficient resources to change everything as soon as both CAA and Industry would like, but there is a definite and strongly held intention at senior and governmental levels to make regulation proportionate and reasonable.
In my experience the UK CAA is used as a beacon both in other, smaller, NAAs, and in EASA to show them the way towards lighter, proportionate regulation. There are some regimes which definitely prefer the highly regulated route – no prizes for guessing which they are – but the Zeitgeist* is towards proportionality.
* (It’s ironic to use the language of the more proscriptive regimes 
)
Everybody loses out. If the CAA were doing their job they would have
Timothy wrote:
In my experience the UK CAA is used as a beacon both in other, smaller, NAAs, and in EASA to show them the way towards lighter, proportionate regulation.
That’s hardly necessary is it when FAA pilots and aircraft are common all over Europe, including the UK, and for very good reason. Some examples of how the UK CAA could show the world how to regulate aviation would be of interest, I can think of one – the former IMC rating.
Although I think most things are better managed at the local level, some things can only be properly regulated on a larger geographic scale. European aviation and frequency allocation fall into that category, and regulation should be done at that level, with one aircraft registration and one pilot registry for the region. Same for frequency allocation. That would among other things eliminate the need for the European 8.33 fiasco, obviously at the expense of those who live off the many national regulatory agencies.
I have both EASA and FAA licences and, while each has its better and less good points, I generally prefer the EASA regime.
Again, what examples could you provide of how the UK CAA has influenced the EASA regime, to better FAA regulation of pilots and aircraft overall? You don’t see a lot of people flying EU registered aircraft on EASA licenses in the US, funnily enough, so I’m curious, particularly in regard to how the UK’s “beacon” has contributed to this EASA achievement.
I have both EASA and FAA licences and, while each has its better and less good points, I generally prefer the EASA regime.
I would like to see examples.
I can think of some EASA advantages but they are pretty obscure medical ones e.g. post-stent, where the FAA requires a second angiogram for a Class 1 or 2, and the whole FAA Special Issuance scene is a big mess with very few European AMEs knowing how to navigate it; consequently many have found it much easier to get an EASA medical simply because their AME is on “home ground” there, reports don’t need translating to English, etc. However we probably should have a new thread on FAA v. EASA regulation comparison in that case. It would be a good one.
Also I find it hard to see who the winners are in these oddball cases, which is the point of this thread. The winners on medical stuff might to be the AMEs (and they do have a powerful lobby; I recall talking to one at a conference) but they get extra work only in limited circumstances. The biggest beneficiaries in the more complicated medical situations are the consultants who do their stuff as expensive private work for 3 or 4 figures at a time, and I doubt these people are lobbying the national CAAs. OTOH any medical lobbying will be done discreetly because of the obvious and bad-looking self-serving aspect.
Peter wrote:
I would like to see examples.
I think the main one, which has been discussed here before, is the lighter regime on cost sharing of private pilots.
Timothy wrote:
In my experience the UK CAA is used as a beacon both in other, smaller, NAAs, and in EASA to show them the way towards lighter, proportionate regulation
I don’t know if the UK is seen as a beacon (I really have no idea, but I would guess they are seen at least as much more “cooperative” than some others on these issues). What I do know, is that the Norwegian CAA (LT) has cooperated with the UK on several “proportionate” things. The one I can remember on the top of my head is simpler currency regulations for flying (landing) with floats. Straight by the (EASA) book, the currency regulations were way overboard, but is now OK (I don’t remember the details).
Peter wrote:
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.
There’s actually a term for this: regulatory capture
Here’s another one. From here we have EASA CRD 2015-08 ( PDF ) which says
.
and there are similar or identical comments from other trade bodies e.g. from FNAM (which includes GIPAG!)
.
Federation / Trade Association for Air Transport, gathering the following members:
· CSTA: French Airlines Professional Union (incl. Air France)
· SNEH: French Helicopters Operators Professional Union
· CSAE: French Handling Operators Professional Union
· GIPAG: French General Aviation Operators Professional Union
.
What I find funny is that these objections are so shamelessly self serving 
If I was writing them I would at least try to dress them up a bit.
