boscomantico wrote:
Wow! I hope this is history by now? Otherwise, I would guess many (of the remaining) aircraft on EC register would change statge of regsitry…
Thankfully the authority reversed course
Antonio wrote:
please keep adding examples!
Another is the requirement for a certified aircraft to be ‘supported’ with non approved technical information by a third party company that owns the type certificate. The more rational approach is to require that the plane be maintained by its owner in compliance with the government TC, TCDS, derivative documents and government ADs but not to dictate how he does it, nor the necessity for a private third party organization to be involved – particularly when empowered by government to write law that directs the owner’s money their way, via mandatory service bulletins etc.
The requirement for EASA Form 1 paperwork to install used, airworthy parts has also proved to subtract value for the owner, and goes hand in hand with the requirement for private third party organizations to generate the paperwork.
Jujupilote wrote:
This thread reminds me, that european GA can’t lobby for anything because we can’t agree on something to lobby for
Oh, to the opposite! I think we can agree on many things to lobby for.
The only thing I am allergic to is that some pilots always declare everything they don’t like to a “safety hazard” or even “major safety hazard”.
We don’t get Avgas for free? Major safety hazard as we fly less when we have to pay money for it and low flight time is a safety hazard!
We have to pay for the Burger at the airfield? Major safety hazard as it forces us to fly hypoglycemic!
We are penalized when we brake the law? Major safety hazard as only pilots can judge pilots (and judges can’t be pilots)
Sorry, but we present ourselves to the general public as ridiculous if we always claim that everything we want is due to safety. It’s not.
We want less bureaucracy because we hate it, not because it’s unsafe.
We want airfields that are open 24h because it is convenient not because it’s a safety issue.
We want not to pay for airfields because we want to safe money, not because it is a safety issue.
If I want to pay less taxes, I lobby for less taxes – not pretending I do it because it safes the government the hassle to collect the taxes for me.
So let’s lobby together for the things we like – not for things we pretend not doing for us but for safety! General public (and the authorities) are not stupid!
Malibuflyer wrote:
So let’s lobby together for the things we like – not for things we pretend not doing for us but for safety! General public (and the authorities) are not stupid!
If they are so unsophisticated as to believe that extreme bureaucracy and elaborate government approval processes make us safer and enhance our well being, not the converse, they clearly are uninformed (I’ll not judge their native intelligence) or have never been exposed to anything else.
I was talking first principles. Safety enhancement by increased process and bureaucracy is much like tax collection: if you do too much, the net gain of revenue versus cost of collection reverses. Basic stuff.
I am however pretty sure that you’d be better off under FAA aviation regulations, and not coincidentally they are better matched to first principles.
My way of life now that you’ve brought it up is basically international. In my household we have three citizenships, houses in two countries, substantial income in two currencies, immediate family in four countries. Does that sound like a “bubble” to you? How about you @gallois?
There’s a song by Lee Greenwood that this thread reminds me of.
@Silvaire well my wife and I both hold dual citizenship, I have worked in over 100 countries including the USA. I used to be fluent in 6 languages but would now say I am reduced to probably 2 for lack of use of the others. I have German, British and Spanish relatives plus soon an Italian. My neighbour was originally Portuguese before he became a Czech (ex wife and son) and finally French Citizen . He was an electrician and plumber, spoke 8 languages including Russian, Polish and Arabic, I don’t consider that or him dumb or idiotic even though his politics would be the total opposite to what yours appear to be.
@gallois and @Silvaire I believe you are talking the same thing but in different ways. Yes there are cultural differences but fortunately, when it come to aviation , even more aviation safety, culture should not be allowed to play a leading role.
I also disagree that it is a matter of what we like or do not like. It is a matter of basic freedoms.
If safe GA travel becomes completely impractical it is adamant to forbidding it entirely.
This is an increasing social trend (beyond GA) that we must stop (at least within GA). There is an increasing number of studies clearly stating the negative safety impact of overregulation. I partly attended last week’s APROCTA (Spanish ATCO professional Asdociation) Seminar also attended by Eurocontrol and this was identified as one of the major safety threats connected to a lot of the currently open Swiss cheese holes. And this was in the context of commercial aviation, with the attendance and presenters mostly composed of ATPL’s , ATCO’s, lawyers, managers and judges from all of Europe. We all know very well that GA’s fragility in this respect is much worse than commercial aviation, so I can assure you the safety impact is much higher.
It is a bad enough cultural thing that we are getting increasingly accustomed as a society to have a procedure or a rule for everything so we no longer have to exercise our brain, our judgement, or risk deciding anything. Maybe good for some governments or even some large companies, but bad for our species as a whole, and putting us more and more in the hands of AI and rulers, making us more and more assimilated to non-rational animals.
Less reaching but with a more immediate impact and perhaps worse still is that we let that situation impact the safety of GA flights as we have already done. This is not a theory: I am speaking of actual safety events triggered by regulation that disregarded the actual safety impact, through will, negligence, political or social complacency or simple ignorance, but that is a different matter.
We are simply growing increasingly tolerant of and dormant with such situation and I would like to wake the community up.
We have to be careful with the part of our community who has little respect for rules in general and who if anything only hurt this cause. Such general disregard for ruling has nothing to do with what we are bringing up here. Fortunately, I think those are minority in this forum and it is part of our job to hopefully jointly illustrate one another on the benefits of regulation and compliance, but also speak up openly when we genuinely believe or even experience a negative impact.
Again, this is not a matter of likes, it is a matter of basic freedom, of maintaining our humanity and common sense in cockpits, shops, airports , ATC and elsewhere in GA: we will simply not survive if we can’t do that. Even if we can , it will be difficult. I genuinely believe it is a matter of survival (of GA, but also beyond GA).
A couple of references:
“Trapping Safety into Rules” is a very insightful book by an Airbus engineer and a Sociology professor of the UNiversity of Geneva, with collaboration by some other remarkable professionals. The title is self-descriptive
The social dilemma is a documentary including some of the top present or past executives of the IT industry about this increasing complacency with the lack of human judgement and human involvement in decision making. Not directly related but illustrating a far more reaching but very similar problem
Antonio wrote:
It is a bad enough cultural thing that we are getting increasingly accustomed as a society to have a procedure or a rule for everything so we no longer have to exercise our brain, our judgement, or risk deciding anything. Maybe good for some governments or even some large companies, but bad for our species as a whole, and putting us more and more in the hands of AI and rulers, making us more and more assimilated to non-rational animals.
Exactly.
And it is a worldwide phenomenon. The reason that the FAA system of aviation regulation is better (and it is) is because (1) it was based on a basic philosophy that promotes personal rights and (very much so) responsibilities and (2) it was created a long time ago. I’m not at all sure that it would be as rational if created in the US today. Rationality in US aircraft regulation has not been on the upswing for the last 40-50 years, but most of it is older than that. Nowadays many of the FAA regulators are as childlike as any you would find elsewhere.
