hazek wrote:
And if you never had a 747 be told to hold short so you can land and then you get to flare just in front of them you should try that sometimes
That’s the mindset we need in GA in order to have more big airports closed for GA.
Regarding that “system” I think it’s totally necessary here in Europe to organize the big business. I always regard these airspaces like they’re there to keep big idio** not looking out the window from all the rest. Better they stay there and all the rest of the air is for me.
Well, we need ICAO to give us the international flying privileges we have.
In a single country, if it is big enough and has enough “citizen rights” (like the US) this framework is not needed, but – in the GA context – no other country is anywhere near that big, or big enough.
Unfortunately much of GA is dog-eat-dog so the community is divided, into those who want international privileges, and whose who want deregulation even if it shafts the others. This issue has always been there… the national CAAs fortunately resist such a crude tradeoff and this is just as well when you look at who spends the most money on fuel, maintenance and the other supporting infrastructure for GA, which would otherwise collapse to grass strips (as it already nearly has in some places in Europe).
If it wasn’t for ICAO, few places in Europe would allow GA. I reckon the UK, Germany, France, a few others maybe. The entire ex commie bloc, no way. Spain and Italy, no.
UdoR wrote:
That’s the mindset we need in GA in order to have more big airports closed for GA.
That was not my point at all. I never spoke about wanting to be treated equally to a 747. In fact I always clear the centerline asap to free up the runway for CAT ops, and ATC for sure lets me orbit sometimes for more than 10min or as long as necessary if there’s a lot of CAT traffic that needs to get in or out. But sometimes, on occasion it does happen that I’m on final, ATC maybe misjudged things just a tad and a big 747 has to hold short for me to land because in that scenario obviously they wont send me around. So please don’t put words in my mouth.
Silvaire wrote:
What I think is present in Europe is a subset of pilots and ground personnel who are basically uptight because they lack relevant experience in a mixed traffic environment and don’t understand the difference between competence and theatrical ‘professionalism’ that adds no actual value.
I take it you’ve never flown in Europe. The big problem in Europe is that PPLs aren’t trained to mix with the ‘big boys’ and quite frankly, hearing some (actually – most) spamcan drivers in Europe makes you cringe. I honestly felt sorry for ATC on more than one occasion. It’s a Catch-22 situation: as most training in Europe happens at small, uncontrolled fields, pilots are never exposed to the bigger airports and ATC. If / when they then dare to venture into busy airspace, they usually blunder, don’t understand ATC instructions and mess up the system. Little wonder nobody in the CAT / ATC world likes them. Btw, it’s likely the same here in the US for people who learned to fly somewhere in the rural Midwest.
I take it you’ve never flown in Europe.
I have flown in Europe, for example to Aero at Friedrichshafen which is a pretty good example of pointless procedure and over management. However none of what you highlight alters the fundamental problem, just as it has little bearing on how things operate (well) at mixed-use airports in the midwestern US. People adapt quickly given a chance, and an over-complex theatrical airspace ‘system’ is unnecessary, while removing value for from what should be a whole slew of useful aircraft that could otherwise be used for practical purposes, long distance under VFR, with or without ATC.
The idea that somehow GA aircraft should scatter like flies or not land every time a large jet appears on the scene is a product of inappropriate training, not necessity, and the training that would remove the barrier is a fraction of the ‘training’ that keeps it in place. The main practical issue is the bad airspace design along with silly procedures for international flights that don’t apply to any other international travel in Schengen Europe.
172driver wrote:
as most training in Europe happens at small, uncontrolled fields, pilots are never exposed to the bigger airports and ATC
There’s no black and white but many shades of grey. I did my instrument training on a small, uncontrolled field, but I visited most of the international airports in Germany in my training. Only have to admit that taxiing there gets a bit nasty.
Goal should be to be proficient enough to go to just any airport without disturbing no one.
By the way, I found clearances on the big airports always a lot easier than when departing a small airfield, because you get the clearance when airborne. That workload is significantly higher. To the contrary, obtaining clearance on ground or delivery frequency, preparing everything with any patience one needs, is peanuts.
Maybe you refer to ab initio training and not instrument training. However even for microlight pilots flights to controlled airports are a requirement in the training syllabus.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Both are airplanes
I agree, but try to convince EASA of that 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Both are equally dependent on proper maintenance
Yes, but proper maintenance does not equal a corrupt system that exclusively benefits organizations doing that maintenance. Or as often is the case, don’t do proper maintenance at all, but only enough to cover their backs, meaning filling out the right forms.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And you may get your vision one day
LOL what exactly do you think my vision is? Are you sure I have any vision at all?
The culprit is that EASA makes regulations and we have to live with them. We have to live with them because we have no choice. The problem is, the only ones who like these regulations, are those who for some odd reason wants to imitate a 747 captain. The regulations are made for 747 captain wannabees, and those who can afford the required equipment, training, time and money.
This is a tiny little niche of GA pilots. Most have no urge whatsoever to become anything like a 747 captain. Well, Sully was an exception, but he was an exception in several ways, and he didn’t fly 747s I know a few “Sullys”, but I also know a few of the “other kind”. The funny thing is, thinking about it, I actually know lots of “Sullys” and they all fly GA (in addition to their professional job as captains) with the main purpose of NOT flying like a 747 captain They fly ULs or preferably an experimental. If imitating a 747 captain means flying in the spare time like the “Sully type” 747 captain flies in his spare time, then I’m all for it
It’s a hobby, it has to be fun, interesting, inspiring. It’s usually immensely fun, but EASA does not help in that respect. It’s almost only outside of EASA you can spread your wings so to speak. We can probably agree that it doesn’t have to be like that, but EASA itself has made Annex I for this particular purpose. This is clear as ice. Is this good or bad? I’m not 100% sure, but I tend towards this being a good thing. Realistically I cannot see EASA making every national aviation authority come to an agreement about stuff like homebuilding, experimentals, old military aircraft and so on. It’s just not possible. The cultural differences alone are way too large. The EASA wide GA regime we have is perhaps a little miracle, and would probably never be possible if Annex 1 did not exist.
Sooner or later it doesn’t matter. Certified aircraft for personal use is soon a thing of the past. This will mostly happen thanks to ULs as a jumping platform, and good old USA with their MOSAIC regime. National aircraft will take over more and more. EASA could of course do something here, like creating their own “big UL class”, but I’m not aware of anything today. In 10-20 years it will all be changed.
LeSving wrote:
Certified aircraft for personal use is soon a thing of the past. This will mostly happen thanks to ULs as a jumping platform, and good old USA with their MOSAIC regime.
From the way you write that, it sounds like you’re including the US in that assessment. If so, I can assure you that it precisely zero chance of becoming fact. MOSAIC’s biggest effect will be to open up four seat certified aircraft to pilots with no medical certification. UL aircraft are a tiny fraction of GA in the US, they’re around if you look closely but almost unnoticeable. Homebuilts are obviously a much bigger factor but relatively few people have shown an interest in building four-seat and up homebuilts. The RV-10 is the only one built in any numbers. Meanwhile four seat aircraft are really the mainstream, if you wanted to stretch to identify a mainstream in a very diverse scene. Individuals don’t buy new ones in any quantity except for Cirrus because they don’t have to do so. There’s almost enough to go around already, and those buying new make up the numbers, buying new because they want new. No other reason.
Silvaire wrote:
If so, I can assure you that it precisely zero chance of becoming fact
Afraid of being Eurofied I have read a bit about the MOSAIC thing. The “biggest thing” is very subjective. According to Vans the biggest thing is factory produced “experimentals” or “big LSA” or whatever one shall describe it, with increased performance. According to the press, there are several “big things” including licenses and aircraft. For Europe, both manufacturers and pilots, it will exclusively be “big LSA” and the possibilities and opportunities that brings. Everything else being very much irrelevant. Existing Cessnas will experience a boost, but they won’t last forever, and this effect will certainly not benefit Cessnas in Europe, other than a big jump in prices selling them to the USA. That will be a short lived affair in any case, as the production of certified aircraft will almost stop eventually.
It will be interesting years ahead.
hazek wrote:
And instead of seeing the value and working to change the system in your favor, you’re willingly exiting and thereby relegating yourself to an ever smaller piece of the pie, willingly accepting restrictions calling them freedom, in the hope of regaining something completely unrealistic given our society and technological advancement.
I missed this earlier but find it perplexing when directed to me, which it was. Again, you have seemingly never flown outside of a dysfunctional environment and have accepted its irrational features, restrictions and complexities as necessary for its function, when they aren’t. I fly from an ATC controlled airport with 600 movements a day in the busiest GA airspace in the world, accepting no restrictions and going wherever I want to go. In doing so I have no need to file flight plans, very little need for ATC outside of terminal areas, no issues with flying to urban airports or rural airports 24 hours a day, no issues with uncontrolled operation up to the 17,000 ft ceiling of my plane, no issues with fuel availability and so on. Good local weather helps, but this is mainly because the ‘system’ doesn’t remove my ability to utilize the capabilities of my plane, not because I am extra compliant with what the system doesn’t actually need and as a result doesn’t ask for. Nothing is expected to change in that regard, because its functional system that works without excluding any aircraft that one might wish to operate, including Experimentals going anywhere needed, under IFR if they wish.
The division and artificial choices related to owning and flying light aircraft in Europe are the product of regulatory incompetence, not the societies “technological advancement”, unless of course you think the proper purpose of advanced technology is to remove freedom and opportunity from the majority of people.
Peter wrote:
If it wasn’t for ICAO, few places in Europe would allow GA. I reckon the UK, Germany, France, a few others maybe. The entire ex commie bloc, no way. Spain and Italy, no.
I think you’re right but one would hope that the light would come on over time, not go out over time and that the limited rights for international GA accorded by ICAO acceptance would be a only a baseline to opening and unifying the airspace and cross-border structure across Europe in a rational way. That’s what GA really needs, for ‘everyman’ and every plane.
