And we wonder why GA doesn‘t flourish in Europe like in the US… 27 countries in Europe and none has this kind of government support for GA!
The mindset in the US is quite different from Europe. FAA funding seems to come from commercial aviation which then subsidises and promotes GA activity at the local level. In Europe, and especially the UK, GA is being actively squeezed out with the result that training and replenishment of new pilots/engineers/ATC becomes more restricted. Good for short term profits, bad for long term strategy.
Was there anything in particular in the FAA bill that caught your attention?
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024/5/senate-overwhelmingly-approves-faa-reauthorization-act
1) A 5 year plan with $105 billion funding. This allows better medium term strategic planning, stability and better value for money.
2) Recruit 3,000 ATC staff and increase training capacity (including use of better ATC simulators)
3) Increased oversight of foreign FAA registered maintenance facilities (not sure how this might affect N-Reg GA in Europe)
4) $4Billion per year to improve airport facilities, including at smaller airports.
5) Improve cabin crew self-defence training to handle unruly passengers!
DavidC wrote:
The mindset in the US is quite different from Europe. FAA funding seems to come from commercial aviation which then subsidises and promotes GA activity at the local level. In Europe, and especially the UK, GA is being actively squeezed out with the result that training and replenishment of new pilots/engineers/ATC becomes more restricted.
Actually, it is in reverse for the UK, comparing to the US – pilots (i.e. IR tests fees) subside the commercial sectors (i.e. UAS etc) – see the video from the Flying Reporter.
Mostly bla bla IMO, PR by AOPA. The ones(s) pulling the water is EAA. There’s no way GA will flourish in Europe like it does in the USA due to weather alone. Florida, Texas and California has more GA than the rest of the USA combined. 300+ sunny days per year certainly helps, as well as the population in those states, and average income.
For Scandinavia, the only relevant comparison, is Alaska and possibly Canada. While the general GA-environment certainly could be better here, it’s really not all that different from Alaska/Canada. Very similar to Canada. There’s more GA per capita in Canada than the USA. The main difference is that Alaska/Canada is an enormous area with very few people per square km, thus the utility of GA is significantly higher.
It’s important to work with the authorities instead of just complaining. Also, it’s important to support what actually is working well, and lots of GA in Europe does.
DavidC wrote:
he mindset in the US is quite different from Europe.
That sums it up nicely.
Years ago, when for a while I was doing tech support for a forum frequented by Republicans, I always thought they are over the top when they call Europe’s politics “socialism”. Well, compared to some of the freedoms the US have and their attitude towards defending those freedoms, by now I wonder whether it was so absurd as I initially thought. The trend in many countries in Europe is certainly going towards more government control and a lot less freedom, particularly for GA.
LeSving wrote:
Mostly bla bla IMO, PR by AOPA. The ones(s) pulling the water is EAA. There’s no way GA will flourish in Europe like it does in the USA due to weather alone. Florida, Texas and California has more GA than the rest of the USA combined. 300+ sunny days per year certainly helps, as well as the population in those states, and average income.
Sorry that is sour grape b.s.
The main reason GA is so restricted and gets more and more banned and hampered has nothing to do with weather. It has exactly got to do with the fact that the US have a very strong AVIATION lobby, the GA part of which being AOPA first and foremost supported by and supporting others such as EAA on eye level. Most aviation interest groups there pool their resources together when fighting issues, of which there are many. The big difference is they manage to get stuff done and they have a weight in Congress and with the FAA.
Add to that, the FAA there also has a very different understanding of GA and it’s importance than most national CAA’s here, for whom GA is naught but a nuissance.
IMHO the only ones in Europe who were making an effort to at least save what’s left of GA were the EASA GA roadmap folks. IMHO this was a chance missed, if AOPA, the national Aeroclubs and the Roadmap guys could have made a difference… but seeing how fractured everything is, it is actually a wonder that they achieved what they did, which were quite some significant steps pro GA such as Part NCO, ELA, FCL and other stuff, but it still does not chance the general attitude which allows critical infrastructure airports to outprice GA, which allows the massive ressentiments and restrictions GA is faced with here.
Not to mention a lot of organisations in Europe which appear to be moving into the direction of Fawlty Towers: “Let’s get rid of the customers so we can do our job right”.
Frankly, if I were young again and had the chances I had then, if I still thought GA was a worthwile thing to do, I’d strongly consider emigration to the US or Canada.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Years ago, when for a while I was doing tech support for a forum frequented by Republicans, I always thought they are over the top when they call Europe’s politics “socialism”. Well, compared to some of the freedoms the US have and their attitude towards defending those freedoms, by now I wonder whether it was so absurd as I initially thought. The trend in many countries in Europe is certainly going towards more government control and a lot less freedom, particularly for GA.
The irony is that it is the US that applies “socialism” to GA financing while Europe applies “hard capitalism”.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The irony is that it is the US that applies “socialism” to GA financing while Europe applies “hard capitalism”.
Indeed.
Included in the FAA reauthorization bill is an expansion of Basic Med, where the maximum weight of the aircraft one can pilot with Basic Med goes from 6000 pounds to 12500 pounds and increasing the maximum number of seats to 7.
The irony is that it is the US that applies “socialism” to GA financing while Europe applies “hard capitalism”
As mentioned in another post what might seem ironic from the European view of the US is not in reality ironic when viewed from the perspective of how the US actually runs. The US federal government has enumerated (defined and thereby limited) duties so as to prevent government from screwing up people’s rights to live individual lives freely, cooperate however they choose and do business without excess interference etc. but those enumerated federal duties include a mandate to regulate interstate commerce, so as to prevent the kind of chaos of which European GA infrastructure is a pretty good example, and interstate commerce very much includes regulation and infrastructure for aviation. This setup is by design, not luck, and is embedded in the US Constitution.
Actually, it is in reverse for the UK, comparing to the US – pilots (i.e. IR tests fees) subside the commercial sectors
That is also generally true in the US. The US ATC infrastructure that was designed for the airlines and isn’t used by most GA is subsidized by taxes on AVGAS. You can look at the financial infighting issue however you like but what best promotes the interests of the country is when there is a system of airports from which almost everybody benefits, just like the system of roads, and that basic and rational aviation infrastructure is funded by everybody who pays taxes.
Greetings from Porto Vecchio, Corsica. I believe it’s something like eight years since I posted from here before. Time flies. A friend of mine flew down here today so we can rendezvous tomorrow. An airborne lap of the island would be interesting.
Silvaire wrote:
As mentioned in another post what might seem ironic from the European view of the US is not in reality ironic when viewed from the perspective of how the US actually runs. The US federal government has enumerated (defined and thereby limited) duties so as to prevent government from screwing up people’s rights to live individual lives freely, cooperate however they choose and do business without excess interference etc. but those enumerated federal duties include a mandate to regulate interstate commerce, so as to prevent the kind of chaos of which European GA infrastructure is a pretty good example, and interstate commerce very much includes regulation and infrastructure for aviation. This setup is by design, not luck, and is embedded in the US Constitution.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing – on the contrary. But this kind of reallocation of funds is by many called “socialism”.
