Entweder man geht mit der Zeit oder man geht mit der Zeit...
Exactly my consideration at the time, in which case you won't have to bother with me anymore.
Well, if you prefer to be surprised by all this stuff, be my guest. Yea, I can shut up about it like too many others do and then let them run into the same kind of surprises like I just got when re-confirming some data regarding updating my aircraft.
cooler heads prevail and it all doesn't turn out too bad.
And why, pray, do you think that is so? Not because they are cooler heads but because finally some exponents of GA changed their oh so considerate speak by an octave or so and started fighting.
Of course we can just all wait and see. We did that for too long and see where it's gotten us.
So what will you ... ahhhmmm ... DO ?
MooneyDriver,
what do you mean "where it's gotten us"? I tell you where it "got us": To incredibly well equipped airplanes that are safer than ever before. It got us to GPS IFR approaches with virtual glide slopes (you rather fly a beacon approach in the Alps?), to Glass Cockpits with features a Lufthansa pilot could only dream about only 20 years ago, it got us to digital autopilots that fly us through bad weather with precisicon unknown 10 years ago. It got us to planes like the SR22, Mooney Acclaim, DA42 or TBM850. It got us to systems like RocketRoute and SkyDemon and to iPhone apps that show us aviation weather whereever we are ...
I really like most of that, although i don't need all of it. But there is no way back.
8.33 is necessary. IFR flying in small planes without a decent autopilot should be prohibited, And of course you cannot fly a WAAS approach without WAAS. And if you want all those little airports actually have IFR approaches, you will need it anway.
A slight correction...
8.33 is necessary only due to European NAA politics - unwilling to co-operate cross-border on frequency allocation. There is an IAOPA doc online somewhere which comprehensively debunks the need for 8.33. The USA doesn't need 8.33 for the same reason.
You don't need a W box for an LNAV GPS approach. Only for LPV or LNAV+V.
8.33 is mandatory now for IFR in CAS, and we can't change that, but I would like to see the argument for mandating W for all IFR (which currently equates to IFR in CAS in Germany which bans IFR OCAS anyway), or even for LNAV-only GPS approaches. An approach approved non-W IFR GPS already meets the accuracy and integrity standard for (in effect) RNP 0.3.
The fact Garmin are dropping support for non W boxes is just a commercial decision, long in the pipeline...
Yes, of course I know W for LPV, but that's actually the future. For what you GET the price is probably not too high. I think I will upgrade my 430s to WAAS ...
Alexis,
what do you mean "where it's gotten us"?
It has gotten us into a situation where we have a totally overregulated environment which stifle just the things you are afterwards quoting. Surely, you do not suggest that EASA's regulation mania had ANYTHING to do with things like the development of the airframes you quote and all that? On the opposite.
Today, new technology widely available in the US is not available here or if so then only with tremendous bureaucratic and monetary effort. Are you aware that in the US, you have things like a Approved Model List for a new avionic whereas you have to certify each model separately for an STC in Europe??? The Cirrus as well as the Corvalis/Columbia Series as well as Mooney Acclaim/Ovation had to wait for a LONG time for European certification before they were graciously allowed to fly here. And even today, a lot of innovative products and type certificates can't be used in Europe thanks to this condition.
We all here were conditioned to never rise our voices against all this in order "not to put in jeopardy" what we were still allowed to do. Only very recently have people like IAOPA risen up against this and managed to be heard. Only very recently has it happened that EASA member states have started to revolt openly (France) and others have shown their displeasure.
That is what I mean. I am all for new technology as long as it makes sense and as long as it is not used to exthort our sour earned money from us. And as long as it is not simple gameplay against GA.
Peter,
8.33 is mandatory now for IFR in CAS, and we can't change that, but I would like to see the argument for mandating W for all IFR (which currently equates to IFR in CAS in Germany which bans IFR OCAS anyway), or even for LNAV-only GPS approaches. An approach approved non-W IFR GPS already meets the accuracy and integrity standard for (in effect) RNP 0.3.
I agree. And many airplanes are 8.33 capable with their GNS430 or 530 or similar boxes or can easily fit a 3rd radio which is. Why, pray, however is it necessary to rule that you need TWIN 8.33 boxes? Redundancy? With the same logic, they could say "ban single engine IFR". I am aware that there have been voices for exactly that too. Not because of "safety", the all around killer argument, but because it suits certain people.
On the WAAS front, it appears that this whole bit is a unlayed egg which has both elements of one of the usual uninformed and maximal counterproductive EASA rulemaking game as well as some commercial element, by which a little bird with a "G" on the back told EASA that they would withdraw support for the non - WAAS units and possibly take them of the approved model list for IFR as they are no longer supported. Honi soit qui mal y pense but it might well be that someone tries to by this way sell a whole truckload of upgrades on our expense.
It has gotten us into a situation where we have a totally overregulated environment
Well said!!
I don't understand why a plane or a radio certified by the FAA should automatically be certified by EASA. I think it's a normal process. "Regulation mania" is just a word, I don't see that anything in Europe is so much more regulated than in the USA. Of course mistakes happen, and there is overregulation in some fields, but I guess we don't have to be so hysterical about it.
One example: I have a friend in California, he would like to buy a UNIMOG truck from my company. That's a high tech product that fulfills all European standards. But there is NO CHANCE to get a truck like this registered in the USA, because it is not "certified". And you bet that it's about 500 percent better than any comparable US truck.
One more time: What do YOU DO against the regulation you don't like, except talking about it here? What more do you do than us?
I don't understand why a plane or a radio certified by the FAA should automatically be certified by EASA.
ICAO provides for acceptance of Type Certificates, at least for private ops, in the airspace of Contracting States.
Also the recent US-EU treaty provides for mutual acceptance of design data, AIUI. Not final approvals, just the data used to get them.
FAA 337 Field Approvals are also supposed to be acceptable to EASA though I am sure the rearguard actions are being planned as we speak on that one. Maybe they will restrict it to 337s which use an STC as the Approved Data...
