alioth wrote:
But I think EASA is probably the least of the problems facing GA
That may very well be true, but EASA has done nothing to make things better. They have made rules and regulations that makes things even worse. To me, EASA seems like a gang of academics with no real ties to the real world. They are concerned with “safety”, but has no real data to show for anything. Not regarding what is wrong, and not regarding the things they will do, and not even regarding the things they have done. It’s all an “how many angels can dance on the point of a needle” kind of game, where risk is a measure for how “scary” something feels like.
The number of privately owned EASA type GA aircraft has collapsed with EASA. That is a fact, no matter who or what is the root cause of this. That fact is lost on them. The number of factory new privately owned EASA type aircraft is what? If it’s not zero, than at least that is a good approximation. The exception is some VLA/LSA that are nothing but very expensive two seat microlights with EASA bling (not bad aircraft, some are very nice, that is not the point). This is the reality EASA should face, but they don’t, at least it does not seem like they do.
LeSving wrote:
The number of privately owned EASA type GA aircraft has collapsed with EASA.
Repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true. Perhaps you care to deliver data on your beliefs at least once?
RE gliding: Please state the necessary flight training for the NLF gliding licence. All I could find are the age limits (15 Years to start flight training (EASA: 13) and 17 years to make the license (EASA:16)). For the BGA license you need solo badge, bronze badge and cross country badge to have the same level of privileges to a SPL/LAPL(S). Although the rules are so scattered that I could not make out any minimum requirements. For the LAPL(S) or SPL you need 15 hrs of instruction with 7 hours of that could be done in a touring motor glider. That is ab initio. Let’s see if the NLF really wants to see even less.
RE VFR night: It wasn’t allowed, for instance in the UK. With EASA it is. And it has a real benefit of useability when travelling VFR. Could be more, still, but that’s a national German issue of “Flugleiter” and airport requirements.
RE Maintenaince: Pilot/Owner maintenance wasn’t possible in Germany prior EASA. Now you don’t need any signature but yours to release a 100hrs check.
RE changes: CS-STAN allows changes where even the FAA requires an STC. All national CAAs pre-EASA that I know of wanted some sort of STC-Process for changes, too. Repairs can legally be done according to AC 43-13 no matter of manufacturer approves repair or maintenance manuals. Wasn’t the case for all local CAAs I know of before EASA.
RE repairs: You can now legally repair a broken Cirrus airframe in your living room (if you can do it…). In former days you weren’t allowed to do complex maintenance outside a LTB, at least in Germany.
RE certification: With EASA you have to perform only one certification for complete Europe and not add several additional tests to each local CAA. Furthermore, the EASA grants certain rights to a certified design organisation that have never been possible with many local CAAs.
If you think EASA has to do something if flight training organisations or rental companies or aerodromes treat their customers like a herd of sheep and finance sharks drive down airports to get cheap land, you can’t be serious.
The number of privately owned EASA type GA aircraft has collapsed with EASA
That may be true in Norway but I bet it is for some different reason.
From a periodic look at the wx you have there (there might be 10 chances a year for me to fly to Trondheim and back say 3 days later) it’s obvious that GA (below the level of a TBM) in Norway has to exist within, ahem, a pretty narrow activity profile. It isn’t going to take much of a change to eliminate a lot of it. A bit like if you plant a million fruit trees of all one type, a single bug will kill off the whole lot.
GA is very vulnerable to these things. Close down one airfield (say Plymouth) and while in theory all those previously flying there could drive to Newquay, Exeter, or any of the numerous strips down there, in reality half of them will stop flying because it’s too much bother.
Norway’s prohibition on based N-regs is outrageous and obviously (like Denmark’s) has to be implemented via FUD, and enough random checks (and fines) to keep people nervous. It also happens to slice off the more mission-capable part of the GA community, which was buying a lot of fuel and keeping airfields in business.
What EASA/JAA have done for me specifically is allow me to continue flying on my Norway-issued license with a “foreign” medical, revalidate my ratings and obtain new ones outside of the issuing country with “foreign” instructors or examiners. They also allow me to fly any EASA-registered airplane without any validation of my license.
The best part of EASA was for me the CB-IR.
Although EASA have had to make certain concessions to MS in order to reach an agreement, I do welcome the harmonisation of the legislation across Europe. In my opinion, it contributes to the freedom of movement within the EU as I can now move to any other MS, use local AMEs, instructors and examiners. To those who do not care about mobility and live happily in a valley at the end of a fjord without planning on going anywhere, that is however a moot point.
EASA has also opened up the ground exam options. You can do the classroom in one place and sit the exams elsewhere (though that route is problematic in practice, until you find out how). The old UK CAA system of CAA examiners has been much simplified, too.
But EASA has not done the biggest thing which is to rip control out of the FTO industry and let freelancers do it. Not even at the PPL level.
Peter wrote:
But EASA has not done the biggest thing which is to rip control out of the FTO industry and let freelancers do it. Not even at the PPL level.
The BTO is changing that. And it hasn’t been possible in some MS before EASA, so it will again be one of the benefits. Buth then again setting up our small aero clubs non-complex ATO with ten instructors and eight aircraft took just two working days (and one day for formatting word … ). But we do only instruct for PPL(A), LAPL(A), TMG, VFR night, Aerotow, Banner Tow, Aerobatics and have had a little help by the AOPA.
mh wrote:
Repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true
Judging by the prices of used certified GA vs microlight, I thing its safe to say it’s true all over Europe. A sub €50k C-172/Cerokee type aircraft is dead in the water, unsellable, and they are everywhere.
mh wrote:
Please state the necessary flight training for the NLF gliding licence
NLF gliding is today a “competent authority” according to EASA, just like any national aviation authority. It’s EASA regulations 100%, no more, no less. They became a competent authority last fall, as the first non-governmental entity in Europe, along with the Austrian gliding association.
mh wrote:
RE Maintenaince: Pilot/Owner maintenance wasn’t possible in Germany prior EASA. Now you don’t need any signature but yours to release a 100hrs check.RE changes: CS-STAN allows changes where even the FAA requires an STC. All national CAAs pre-EASA that I know of wanted some sort of STC-Process for changes, too. Repairs can legally be done according to AC 43-13 no matter of manufacturer approves repair or maintenance manuals. Wasn’t the case for all local CAAs I know of before EASA.
RE repairs: You can now legally repair a broken Cirrus airframe in your living room (if you can do it…). In former days you weren’t allowed to do complex maintenance outside a LTB, at least in Germany.
RE certification: With EASA you have to perform only one certification for complete Europe and not add several additional tests to each local CAA. Furthermore, the EASA grants certain rights to a certified design organisation that have never been possible with many local CAAs.
I have seen these things, but I don’t fully understand it. Does this mean a privately owned aircraft has no requirement for an approved maintenance organisation? If Yes, than this is great, and even I may get myself a C-152 (hardly, but still), if No, than it doesn’t change anything. It’s the requirement for an approved maintenance organisation that has made certified private GA impossible (or just too much travelling and cost).
A sub €50k C-172/Cerokee type aircraft is dead in the water, unsellable,
Not true.
and they are everywhere.
That is true, but it’s like houses. There are 1234567 houses like these all over the UK
but they get traded just fine. People who live in them do so because they cannot afford bigger and better etc and 50 other reasons.
Judging by the prices of used certified GA vs microlight, I thing its safe to say it’s true all over Europe. A sub €50k C-172/Cerokee type aircraft is dead in the water, unsellable, and they are everywhere.
Nothing to say about the C172, but it’s only the more sexy ultralights that are in demand. A Rans S-6 or Kitfox will not make 10000€ even with a 4-stroke engine and a bit of avionics.
Peter wrote:
Obviously, absolutely nobody is going to hold a referendum now because it would prob90 finish the EU.
Well, as you say, that is OT, but actually the best course the EU could do in that regard is to take the Brexit as a chance to reform itself to more democratic structures. Personally I regret Britan´s exit as Britan was one of the big three (UK, GER, FRA) and was therefore meant to lead, not leave. Now, I fear the powers that are will only try so much the more to keep the status quo and make it worse. Still, and there is an similarity to EASA vs NAA´s, there are many issues which lead people to vote Brexit which were home made and blamed by various governments on the EU. With JAA and EASA, both of these organisations were and are fundamentally flawed not in idea but with the people who implemented it.
I recall one of the first meetings I attended after the full extent of the overregulation became apparent. One of the attendees was a former FOCA big shot who had been thrown out in the aftermath of the Swissair / Crossair reshuffle. His summary of the then overregulated rulework was one: This is the sum of all gold plating of all the member states. Everyone put in his most restrictive stuff which resulted in the near paralysis of GA in the pre-Ky years.
The GA roadmap and the influence of the people mentioned above have changed a great deal of that and there should be more to come. Unfortunately, there are member states who try to steer in the opposite direction or who simply ignore EASA rulemaking until someone forces them to submit. Other countries, who before had very restrictive GA rules, have also profited from EASA´s standardisation, while others like France or the UK have lost a lot of freedom they previously had, while gaining few advantages.
It is only natural that EASA´s progress is seen very different depending on whether you live in a winner or looser country. For Switzerland and I´d think for Germany as well, the present day EASA has brought much needed relief in many regards. For others, EASA still is rightly seen as an obstacle. Personally, I do hope that the current crew will be allowed to continue on their roadmap for a more reasonable approach to GA.
Very clearly however, the initial implementaton of EASA was a total disaster and has ruined the reputation EASA has with many people for ever. I reckon those who first have seen the wind of change are people who are directly concerned by the overregulation and knee jerk reactions of their NAA´s. As the prime example in this country, the Swiss FOCA has basically abolished “on condition” for any airplane components and to declare any and all service instruction and recommendation as binding law, forcing lots of owners to take very expensive up to ruinous maintenanc actions to satisfy this whim. ELA 1 has done away with this, however, the FOCA actually went as far as to issue legal threats to everyone trying to actually implement self declared maintenance as per ELA1. Clearly, Swiss owners do see EASA´s GA roadmap slightly different than others. German Cessna Owners who were forced to implement the Cessna SID´s or rather give up their airplanes may think similar.
In General, the initiative to standardize and harmonize European air legislation, licencing and ruling has to be seen positive. When I recall what bureaucracy was involved to fly a Spanish airplane with a Swiss license or to transfer e.g. a German PPL to a Swiss one before, there can be no other conclusion.
Obviously, there are things which were negative, some of which were retaliatory measures towards the US (STC issues for instance), others were simple legalese garbage and ignorance. I am however confident that this may change. And I agree with alioth, there are much worse problems around than EASA.
