There is a big “what has EASA done for us” thread here
But comparing EASA to FAA, I can’t really think of anything either where EASA does it better for Europe based owners than FAA does it for US based owners.
There are issues specific to European based ops where – predictably – EASA is easier than FAA, e.g. the already mentioned issues with medicals caused by lack of AME Special Issuance expertise here in Europe, or the difficulty of doing Field Approvals for a European based plane. Plus, for some, getting BFRs and IPCs done in Europe, never mind an initial FAA checkride… These factors do add up to make EASA reg more attractive today as an ab initio route, for most aircraft owners.
If you discuss maintenance or installation issues EASA v. FAA, the debates tend to descend into anarchy as soon as some avionics installers arrive, as in e.g. this one which contains some really disingenuous posts (but most readers won’t realise it).
Back on the topic, there are “regulatory winners” in all walks of life but the European GA scene has more of them than most, since basically everybody except the aircraft owner benefits from more / tighter regulation 
Well, until the active aircraft population shrinks to the point where the companies trying to make money out of them start to go bust…
I also am not able to think about an EASA regulatory advantage. You just have to have a typical ATC exchange with the American controllers at Lakenheath to illustrate this. You call up, they answer with a squawk code and MATZ penetration approved, if they need your life history they presumably ask for it, but in several decades of transiting their area the service is concise, safe (plenty of traffic awareness input) and practical.
In the same vein, despite the USA having important GA communities (ie in the thousands) in areas hostile to GA (Alaska, Western mountainous regions, tornado alley, etc), they persist in having a superior GA safety record. If this is due to more practical, real life training, superior infrastructure, or regulatory philosophy is unclear.
Timothy wrote:
I generally prefer the EASA regime.
I would also like to know why?
I cant think of a single aspect of EASA’s regime (where it is different from the FAA’s regime) that is better?
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
