Actually I have read the links, but they don’t provide a single EASA source and I could not find anything about this on the EASA page indicating this ruling on a brief search. Hence my question. Everyone can claim anything EASA has alledgedly said. It’s a sport among a certain group of people. Hence the question for a reliable source.
One of the links posted above is this and in there you see pointers for further research e.g. the IAOPA and the name of one individual there, Nick Wilcock, who is well known in the UK and who I have met and he doesn’t go much for hysteria.
Sure this isn’t EU law, yet. If it was, few would be debating it. It is probably some NPA. EASA churns these out at a huge rate; I am on their mailing list and get them almost daily. Or it is a committee decision, which can potentially get reversed if enough stink gets kicked up at a higher level, which is basically what e.g. post 14 is saying. A google for the exact phrase there gets you this post and there is the poster, so you can PM him and that’s another research avenue.
As is common with EASA (e.g. the anti N-reg moves) they are leaving these pilot-screwing measures until the last moment. It is only about 6 weeks before this measure is to take effect! On past record, it will get delayed (if not abandoned).
It should be abandoned for the UK at least whose air the EU will not control after Brexit. However I suspect there is something else going on there, otherwise we would not be getting this which is completely nuts.
@bookworm might also know more.
Yeah I know you hate Europe and love these apocalyptic news, but still this is not how it works. If you claim EASA would screw pilots over, you need to provide at least some evidence for it. We are currently performing flight training on Annex II aircraft (classic military aircraft) and there is no sign whatsoever that we should not be able to do so. Actually, the ATO of the local DAeC-branch has several homebuilds within the ATO (club-built planes with CoA).
So I don’t believe a minute what is said in blogs who don’t like Europe or sensible European regulations, unless this blog provides his sources. It’s not my task to contact any blogger.
It was commented to me that the great potato head Piper Apache which is now Annex 2 is no longer eligible to use as a MEP trainer for the EASA MEP class rating. I hope this is wrong, not least because the Apache is a lovely aerial conveyance reminiscent of a Humber Super Snipe. Disclosure my original EASA MEP conversion was in a very nice PA-23-160.
I know you hate Europe
MH, this is bullsh1t and I don’t know why you write it. Such an accusation is hardly consistent with my flying and with me being a co-founder of a European pilot forum into which I have sunk a vast amount of my time. Are you, along with a couple of others, still trying to bite bits off EuroGA to avenge a former poster who got banned for posting offensive material? This is really common forum community behaviour (so nobody succeeds at “getting to me” in person, despite their hopes) but it has been about a year now and you and the others should get over it. Everybody knows what the responsibilities of a mod are.
Peter wrote:
Are you, along with a couple of others, still trying to bite bits off EuroGA to avenge a former poster who got banned for posting offensive material?
No, I don’t speak for anyone. That’s beyond the point anyway. Yes, you are founder of a European GA-Forum, who is constantly advocating NReg and FAA Aviation in Europa and with perceived 99% of EASA/Europe related comments being negative, not acknowledging the advances in European aviation / regulation and promoting unsubstantiated claims contra European Aviation Legislation pro national tohowabohu. This is what I conclude/feel reading your posts.
The thing is that these posts are just evocating a “contra Europe” feel if you read “EuroGA”. If there is a hard reference, we should and need to discuss things. But what I see is just from hearsay. And only negative hearsay get’s promoted and positive effective changes aren’t accepted. Is this how you see EuroGA ? … well, I am not willing nor in a position to make demands, but if EuroGA becomes a place of mainly unsubstantiated rumours, IMHO it loses credibility. But that’s just me.
The abusive husband does not deserve credit just for beating the wife a little bit less.
Off into the repository for political stuff we go…
MH if you actually read the thread you will see that I did my usual thing and diligently posted references to the sources. You may not like the message but don’t shoot the messenger just because he is involved in the running of the forum. You asked for sources so I pointed you to some and then you said you can’t be bothered to chase them down. Well, that is not how evidence works. If you want to contradict several sources (all prominent GA bodies) you need to deliver the material which proves them wrong. But at least you could have contacted them instead of saying you aren’t going to.
But actually the current story was started by someone else, not me. He posted a good reference too. You could not even be bothered to ask the poster who wrote this post above.
I criticise any organisation which IMHO deserves it. I have criticised the FAA too. Not everybody likes that and a few people have chucked their toys out of the pram over it and “left” (notwithstanding the fact they they have posted exactly the same stuff themselves 
). But, like I said elsewhere recently, if you want to read totally positive evangelism, read the US Flyer Magazine, or any of the European printed GA publications – all of them have to look after their advertisers.
Your post #30 was a totally uncalled for personal attack.
Are you involved in a business closely related to EASA?
@mh, I think there’s a world of difference between despising an EU institution like EASA for the gratuitous harm it has done to GA, and “hating Europe”. The British have never hated Europe, even when it’s population has seemed to be in the grip of barbaric madness. We are part of Europe. Our fathers couldn’t hate Europe and nor can we, no matter what the provocation. Even when the good people of Hartlepool famously found and hanged a monkey on a ship, they did so because they thought it was a Frenchman, not because it was European…
But please, if you can, help those of us who struggle to see some of EASA’s “advances in European aviation / regulation“ in any positive light:
Why do we need Part-FCL ratings and approved training schools for glider and banner towing, or for aerobatics, or for mountain flying? Where’s the safety case for EASA to regulate these activities which we have been free to learn from our friends and clubs for nearly a century?
And, worst of all, why did EASA fight tooth and nail to extinguish the IMC rating? It can’t be because they wanted some British pilots to die, but it certainly seemed as if they were willing to cause some collateral damage in pusuit of ever stricter and more uniform pan-European regulation.
Come to think of it, how long will it be before we have to pay for a Part-FCL water-skiing rating to clean our bushwheels in Loch Doon? 
Here’s your chance to balance the content of this community-contributed site, MH:
