I think what that misses is the entire legal framework under which one can fly with just a PPL and a certified aircraft. If you want to feel like you’re the only person in the sky and do whatever, have as few restrictions to your activity and as few costs as possible, then yeah certified aircraft are certainly not interesting. And yeah the ATM is annoying to you. And yeah airport regs are overbearing and too expensive.
I am different though. I prefer the very legal framework that you dislike so much. I truly do. I don’t mind studying the ICAO Annexes, or EASA regs. In fact I’m amazed that this framework exists and works so well between so many countries. I like that I can just overfly another country and just land anywhere I want. I like controlled airspace the most and absolutely enjoy talking to ATC and conduct a flight as professionally as possible. I prefer well organized and regulated airports and am willing to pay for that. I like well regulated maintenance and am willing to pay for that. All of that I see as a marvelous system that I am privileged to partake in and use to my own advantage. I mean I dislike to throw money out the window just as the next guy but if I wanted to save money I would have never started flying.
I mean, technically, owning a certified aircraft puts you on equal footing with a 747. I mean how crazy is that. 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, it’s truly awesome and I do it quite often. It’s next level flying. It’s more challenging, more serious and more professional. It requires more of you and your machine. But also gives you more. If flying ULs was all I could do, I’d quite flying.
All of that I see as a marvelous system that I am privileged to partake in and use to my own advantage.
What you seemingly fail to recognize is that all the benefits of flying you describe and enjoy have nothing to do with the burdensome ‘system’…. Other than that in the narrow case you describe (with certified and IFR aircraft) the burdensome system in Europe hasn’t yet removed the natural benefits of owning and flying virtually any plane.
The only exception, where the system can actually make things possible versus removing natural benefits, is on the ground: meaning organizing and funding plentiful airports with good runways, no fees and available fuel. The system (s) in Europe have failed in that regard, while simultaneously removing consumer value in other areas like airspace design.
Owning and flying a light plane does not have to be anything like flying a 747. For example, private planes operating under FAR Part 91, and their private pilots can fly anywhere in the world without that level of BS in relation to their maintaining their planes and certificates, notwithstanding poorly planned and executed local airspace in many areas that motivates them not to do so.
LeSving wrote:
The problem for a PPL is to get the IFR rating, which is mostly due to the way EASA has organized instruction with requirements for an ATO. Running an ATO for anything but sausage factory commercial licenses is not viable anywhere but the most densely populated areas in Europe. Perhaps not even there? There are no ATOs in Norway that will do private PPL, because it cannot be done without losing money, or upping the price to unacceptable levels anyway.
That is indeed a problem.
Imho the access to the IR in Europe has always been a major issue. There is no reason you need an ATO with heaven knows what to do an IR. You need to learn the theory, do the exam and then fly a couple of hours until you can take a check. Like in the US. My hope is that Basic IR will change that, for 90% of the PPL population it would be enough.
Nevertheless, here I would have plenty of access to ATO’s who would be happy to redo my IR with them. The major problem is time.
LeSving wrote:
UL and 600 kg must also be explained a bit more. There’s much more to it than meets the eye at first sight. This is from the explanation of the new regs from the CAA.
For me, the whole UL vs certified (and experimental) is a classical “divide and conquer” issue. This also is obvious in gallois situation: he foregoes certified airplanes because he does not want to bother with the Medical Class II, which is also a major reason people give up or move to UL.
I am sorry, but the whole UL vs certified is b.s. Both are airplanes. Both are equally dependent on a fit pilot. Both are equally dependent on proper maintenance. There is NO difference in principle on the pre-conditions for a safe operation of either. The only difference is on paper and in politics.
It has been a goal of quite a few stakeholders in aviation for decades to eradicate GA from all but grass and small GA strips and clearly the UL movement is one way to do that, as per definition they are banned from most larger airports, banned from flying in CAS in many places and have other restrictions. As 2 seaters they are no serious travel machines, so they don’t pollute the precious airspace the airlines and the military want for themselves.
GA has become virulently exclusive within each group, fighting each other instead of putting an end to this madness by throwing the whole concept away for good and redefine the risks involved with a simple distinction between commercial and non-commercial operation, if needed with a limit of 2 tons MTOW and maybe 4 or 6 seats.
Below that, self declared medical or basic medical (you can drive a car, you can fly a plane), a common license based on the UL requirements rather than todays overloaded PPL and take on board the part nco provisions for flying IFR and night: The PIC is responsible to verify if he can fly what he needs to fly or not. End of the story. For particular cases there can be minimum equipment requirements such as 8.33, ADS-B out and Mode S in order to insure compatibility to ATC requirements, but that is about it.
And while we are at it: Put it into LAW that any and all airports and airfields with civil aviation movements are PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE which excludes banning any form of traffic. Cap total taxes an airport may charge to any airplane at 5% of it’s MTOW and put the hurdles for PPR sky high, so whoever wants to limit access to their airport/airfield needs to have a REAL GOOD case which as a final word is being decided by the CAA with a possibility of appeal to EASA itself.
Now that will never happen, i am perfectly clear, because everyone is watching his own garden enviously and with smirks towards the other groups. And you may get your vision one day, that GA is reduced to ULs out of small grass strips earlier than you think. But make no mistake, once certified aviation is gone, the UL world will be the next target. So why the hell not work together and finally get some sense into aviation.
Now that would revive GA like nothing else.
Silvaire wrote:
What you seemingly fail to recognize is that all the benefits of flying you describe and enjoy have nothing to do with the burdensome ‘system’
I do fail to recognize that, you are absolutely correct.
Sigh…. There is no demonstrated benefit to restricting certain types of operations or aircraft to national operations, or creating pointlessly complex airspace structures that have been proved unnecessary. It is just dumb, unless you as a government agency or employee are simply trying to maintain power over people and maintain your own ‘relevance’.
I think if you were to fly where everything works well and long distance travel by aircraft is done with a fraction of the procedural nonsense, and with far fewer zero-value gate keepers, you’d probably learn something about their value added.
I had large jets holding short for me when I was a student pilot flying a then 56-year old 65 HP 82-knot cruise speed plane with one handheld radio only, no transponder and no electrical system. Nobody including me, the jet pilot or anybody else thought it was a big deal, it’s just how an airport works to facilitate the 600 varied movements a day that occur at my base to this day. And I had plenty of similar situations too, when flying to uncontrolled airports as a student. No drama was present or warranted and nobody feels special.
Silvaire wrote:
Owning and flying a light plane does not have to be anything like flying a 747. For example, private planes operating under FAR Part 91, and their private pilots can fly anywhere in the world without that level of BS in relation to their maintaining their planes and certificates, notwithstanding poorly planned and executed local airspace in many areas that motivates them not to do so.
Like I said, you disavow the legal framework because what it offers is of no interest to you. Yes sure, I too would like the European framework to more closely mirror the US one (but only in some areas). But if I understand you correctly, you don’t want any part of that. Well that’s just unrealistic. Of course society will outweigh the desires of a small minority and like I said I can’t believe we have what we have in aviation. Especially how the world is today, to have this much cooperation and standardization is just, like I said, marvelous. And @Mooney_Driver is absolutely correct. You fail to see how valuable this framework is to us and how much it offers to us GA participants. And the CAT stakeholders would absolutely just love to implement some changes that would change that to our detriment. 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.
If you think there will be less CAT activity, less desire to optimize and squeeze out the last drop of efficiency out of big airports, if you think the airspace will be less complex in the future, I’m sorry to break it to you, but that is just delusional. Not fighting for this framework means that you will eventually become a second class citizen, at the whims of CAT, under even more restrictions and facing even more barriers. Not something I’d be willingly working towards.
Silvaire wrote:
I had large jets holding short for me when I was a student pilot flying a 65 HP plane with one handheld radio only, no transponder and no electrical system. Nobody including me, the jet pilot or anybody else thought it was a big deal
Those days are clearly long gone. Wishing we can back to that is delusional and I apologize for that kind of harsh language, but it just is.
hazek wrote:
It’s next level flying. It’s more challenging, more serious and more professional.
hallelujah!
hazek wrote:
I am different though. I prefer the very legal framework that you dislike so much. I truly do. I don’t mind studying the ICAO Annexes, or EASA regs. In fact I’m amazed that this framework exists and works so well between so many countries. I like that I can just overfly another country and just land anywhere I want.
I am the same. I have few if any qualms with EASA in it’s current state and even less with ICAO. The freedoms you quote are the base of ICAO’s mission, beyond Europe, indeed world wide. The amazing trip by the terbangs we’ve been watching would not have been possible without the ICAO charter and it’s framework.
hazek wrote:
I prefer well organized and regulated airports and am willing to pay for that.
Within reason yes. Where it stops for me is if airports misuse the regulation with “stay away” charges and slottery which makes use of the airport unattractive or prohibitive. And that unfortunately is something we have been seeing developing in Europe at a very unhealthy rate.
hazek wrote:
I mean, technically, owning a certified aircraft puts you on equal footing with a 747. I mean how crazy is that.
It depends how you look at that. In terms of the regulatory framework, it is obvious that running an airliner requires different regulation than running a Piper 28, even though it took some time for EASA to make that happen in a meaningful way. But in recent years, with part NCO, ELA and ML we have indeed seen massive steps in that direction. Not anywhere close to the freedoms the FAA provides, but nevertheless, owning a small plane in Europe has become easier again. Not as easy as it could be, but bearable.
Silvaire wrote:
There is no demonstrated benefit to restricting certain types of operations or aircraft to national operations, or creating pointlessly complex airspace structures where other areas have proved it unnecessary. It is just dumb, unless you as a government agency or employee are simply trying to maintain power over people and maintain your own ‘relevance’
It really has to do with a perceived fight for space and for capacity, bundled with a sense of entitlement and in many cases a general dislike for small airplane. Frustratingly, this also involves aviation insiders who are in the position to make such decisions. It is this “keep out” strategy which has lead to handling traps and outpricing as well as slot mania. The argument goes that one 737 pais as much as 100 GA planes so the GA planes are a) not worth the effort, b) not worth the capacity and c) generally a nuissance which should be squatted on the wall like a unnerving insect.
Of course there is no benefit. The airport makes less money but hates the small planes enough to ignore that, the airport will annoy a small community of people who will no longer support it or vote for it, as there is nothing left for them. But more importantly: The airport refuses to offer it’s reason for existence by denying access to a small but important part of the flying public, forcing them onto lesser and worse equipped airfields and thereby also provoking recurring incidents and accidents when people are denied IFR and night facilities. Some of the perpetrators in this “game” actually don’t care or even welcome such accidents as “there is one less of those idiots” for them to care about.
Silvaire wrote:
Nobody including me thought it was a big deal, it’s just how an airport works to facilitate 600 varied movements a day, as occurs at my base to this day.
That is a difference in attitude in the US vs many European places. I’ve seen it happen a lot of times on my former homebase that ATC would feel the necessity to explain to airliners why a small airplane was allowed to go before them like “I have not got your release yet” or “Your slot starts in 3 minutes only” and similar explanations, because they fear reports and hassle by the airliner crews. Again, divide and conquer works really well in Europe.
The move to UL in Europe is similar than what happens in the US with the move to experimental. It is so popular for the primary reason that it allows escaping the rulework of “certified” regulation. Nothing else.
Those days are clearly long gone.
Not at all, or even close, and the movement in Europe needs to be towards more of the same, not less. You’re not being harsh, simply ignorant of the world at large.
I flew that plane in exactly the same way, in the same places, until I sold it in 2019. And there is absolutely no restriction on what is similarly done today. This is at a class D controlled airport within the Mode C/ADS-B veil of the two adjacent Class B airports. There is no transponder requirement in US Class D airspace, none in the veil if the plane has no engine driven electrical system, and no installed radio requirement of any kind anywhere. Any hand held that works is fine.
A while back a guy in an Aircam (a Breezy style aircraft with no cabin) was doing touch and goes in front of my hangar, meaning on our main 6000 ft runway. It was fun to watch a Gulfstream (a G IV I think) sneak in between his landings. By the time the jet had taxied back on the parallel and was ready to cross the runway to parking the Aircam had made two more circuits. He extended downwind to let the jet cross, but that was the only impact.
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.
