Silvaire wrote:
The reason that the FAA system of aviation regulation is better (and it is)
This may be arguable for some, but there is no doubt that a system which attains similar safety levels with much more simplicity and lower intrinsic costs is better
Antonio wrote:
In 20 years I have been flying at Son Bonet, LESB, there have been several accidents on our island with aircraft flying into or out-of the airfield. Other than a couple gear-up landings with very minor consequences from the fire brigade point of view, (no fire, no personal casualties, no spilt fuel…) not a single time has one of those accidents occurred within the airfield perimeter, and hence the local (non-airport) fire brigade had to be called-in. The airport fire brigade made no practical difference. That does not mean there could not be an accident (hopefully not) where they could be of use, it is just that the risk is statistically low, and the pilot/operator should be the one to assess that risk, in the context of the remaining risks and benefits affecting his flight.
Yes, thank you for furthering my point. An airport fire brigade is usually limited to acting within the airport perimeter. Most crashes take place outside the airport perimeter, so a person on the airport is not necessary better placed to phone emergency services in case of a crash than any random Joe 5 km from the runway who coincidentally witnessed an aircraft crashing.
Arguably, a guy with a radio who knows an aircraft is approaching through R/T, might realize sooner that there has been a crash and alert 112. But that additional safety margin is slim, imho, in any scenario short of full ATC with Radar and a professional airport fire-brigade on standby. Which is not what we’re talking about here.
The US seems to do well without such “safety provisions”, and it would be wise for us Europeans to recognise this as one of the few things the US is doing better than us and emulate them accordingly.
Antonio wrote:
There is an increasing number of studies clearly stating the negative safety impact of overregulation
So nothing to worry about: Without any doubt, actual numbers clearly show that safety in GA has greatly increased during the last 30 years. Therefore obviously regulation must have gone down significantly…
MedEwok wrote:
But that additional safety margin is slim
From “it is a safety risk that the airport closes when no-one is there” to “the added safety of someone being there is slim” is an almost 180 deg. turn in argumentation.
“We jeopardize safety” is a completely different point from “The added safety might not be worth it …”
MedEwok wrote:
The US seems to do well without such “safety provisions”, and it would be wise for us Europeans to recognise this as one of the few things the US is doing better than us and emulate them accordingly.
It has been discussed so many times: We would completely kill European GA (and also CAT) as we know its by imposing FAA rules.
CPL requirement for glider instructors? ATPL for airline pilots on both seats? Not to mention draconic measures for violating restricted airspaces that have been established only after you took of so that you really couldn’t know about them. Or mandatory formal rehab for pilots that have been caught driving under influence (in a car!).
Whoever really thinks that FAA regulations are so much better should ask himself, why AOPA in the US is so actively advertising its pilot legal support while this is almost unknown in Europe.
And now – as always – there is a high probability this discussion gets. “Yes, I didn’t mean implementing all FAA rules – just the ones I like – but obviously there is no way of knowing what the safety impact of only some of these rules will be”. The US systems works as a whole – and that by the way does not only include aviation regulation in an narrower sense but also general legal principles: One of the reasons manufacturers might do less stupid things even without strict regulation is the implicit limitations imposed by extreme liability risks.
Antonio wrote:
Again, this is not a matter of likes, it is a matter … of maintaining our humanity
That is exactly of what I mean by we are making our own requests ridiculous in front of the public: Opening hours of airports is a matter of humanity! Really? So I can go for the noble price on peace if I manage to have my local airfield open 24h ?
Malibuflyer wrote:
Plus the ICAO rule that there should be someone at an airport who can call for help if you happen to crash on the runway actually makes some sense
Could you cite that ICAO rule? The German law requiring someone at the airport is not an ICAO rule.
As already mentioned, there are rules applicable to certain airport categories such as the requirement for firefighting services for commercial operations. Certainly, airports need to have the infrastructure appropriate for their category and the airport category should be selected to correspond to the desired/expected traffic. However, there are hundreds of airports in Europe and North America without any presence required and they operate perfectly fine for General Aviation. Quite a few airports in Europe have infrastructure overkill, either because they are large commercial airport wanna-be’s or a national authority requires commercial airport operating facilities above and beyond the needs of GA even when there are no commercial operations.
chflyer wrote:
Could you cite that ICAO rule?
Annex 14 Chapter 9.2
Yes, there are airports that do not have such provisions, but they are deviating from ICAO rules. The German law is formally not an ICAO rule, obviously, but implementing such ICAO rule.
Even the AOPA finally acknowledges that the challenge of the German “Flugleiter” is not a German speciality but only that Germany takes an ICAO rule seriously that others don’t … https://aopa.de/2020/08/21/wichtiger-schritt-in-richtung-fliegen-ohne-flugleiter/ (sorry for the quote in German)
Clearly not! Not a single line in the basic regulation says, that it is legal to take a design that is approved for 450/475 kg on wheels, mount floats under it and w/o any additional tests/certification is certified for 495kg. Basic regulation says, that you can apply for 495kg certification – but you need to prove the feasibility.
Then you are very misinformed. The basic regulation say that:
Annex 1 planes, microlights are not certified aircraft. “Prove feasibility for certification” In your dreams perhaps.
None of the manufacturers of these planes you are talking about that are “designed for 600kg since long ago” but due to former limitations were only able to certified them to 472,5kg
They are NOT certified! Annex 1 planes have nothing to do with EASA, other than EASA specifies which aircraft comes in the Annex 1 category. All Annex 1 planes are operated within national regulations. Microlights have different definitions and weights different places around the world.
Pre 2002-2003 there were no common regs about MTOW in Europe. Some countries had a microlight category with some arbitrary regulation. Others had none. Microlights were sold all over the world though, mostly as kits, build as experimental homebuild, and had to be designed accordingly. Typically this was some place between 500 and 600 kg.
Then came the EASA 450/472/495 definition, and a bit later the US 600 kg, LSA. In Europe you could register US LSA in some interim category for some time, until CS-LSA came into effect (also with 600 kg MTOW). Only about a year ago, EASA made it possible to also increasy the MTOW of microlights to 600 kg.
Yes, there are airports that do not have such provisions, but they are deviating from ICAO rules. The German law is formally not an ICAO rule, obviously, but implementing such ICAO rule.
A rule set decades ago by a bunch of well fed self job justifying old farts, for a different purpose (public transport). Yes of course; great idea. Must implement it immediately!
Like I said above, around the world these things tend to map onto specific cultures. Compliance is a very “cultural thing”, varying widely even within Europe.
LeSving wrote:
They are NOT certified!
Don’t know about Norway, but in Germany of course they are certified. They are just not EASA-certified because they are Annex 1. They are certified to national standards – and have a TCDS like document (in Germany “Gerätekennblatt”) stating their MTOW that must not exceeded.
As previously mentioned further up the thread, there are ICAO standards and recommendations. Standards use the word “shall” and recommendations the word “should”. Recommendations are just that, and are not mandatory. One needs to be very careful when interpreting these. Annex 14 Chapter 9.2 concerns rescue and firefighting and talks about facilities at an airport and I can’t find anywhere that all airports, regardless of category, require on-site personnel. Most of the discussion is around infrastructure not personnel.
The Annex also addresses Certified Aerodromes. There is nothing that prevents operation of non-certified aerodromes under ICAO Standards and Recommendations, nor operation of aircraft at aerodromes that do not conform to the Standards and Recommended Practices. Annex 14 Foreword and Chapter 1 have some interesting comments in this regard. The highlighting is mine.
Foreward:
“1.— Material comprising the Annex proper:
a) Standards and Recommended Practices adopted by the Council under the provisions of the Convention. They
are defined as follows:
Standard: Any specification for physical characteristics, configuration, matériel, performance, personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as necessary for the safety or regularity of international air navigation and to which Contracting States will conform in accordance with the Convention; in the event of impossibility of compliance, notification to the Council is compulsory under Article 38.
Recommended Practice: Any specification for physical characteristics, configuration, matériel, performance, personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as desirable in the interest of safety, regularity or efficiency of international air navigation, and to which Contracting States will endeavour to conform in accordance with the Convention.”
“The following editorial practice has been followed in the writing of specifications: for Standards the operative verb “shall” is used, and for Recommended Practices the operative verb “should” is used.”
Chapter 1. General
“Introductory Note.— This Annex contains Standards and Recommended Practices (specifications) that prescribe the physical characteristics and obstacle limitation surfaces to be provided for at aerodromes, and certain facilities and technical services normally provided at an aerodrome. It also contains specifications dealing with obstacles outside those limitation surfaces. It is not intended that these specifications limit or regulate the operation of an aircraft.”
Don’t know about Norway, but in Germany of course they are certified. They are just not EASA-certified because they are Annex 1. They are certified to national standards – and have a TCDS like document (in Germany “Gerätekennblatt”) stating their MTOW that must not exceeded.
This has nothing to do with certified aircraft. In Norway experimental aircraft received a certificate of airworthiness (CoA). Not a single component in an experimental aircraft must be certified.
Don’t confuse certificates with certified. A third party can issue certificates to show compliance with whatever you want to show compliance with, for instance fuzzy terms as airworthiness. This does not mean certified in aviation terms. Certified in aviation terms only has meaning in relation to ICAO.
