Since the Auster went to a LAA permit from a CofA, our costs have decreased markedly. We’re always replacing bits because the aircraft is almost 70 years old, and to now be able to use better, safer things without humungous trails of paperwork has resulted in not only a saving from less expensive parts, but parts that don’t constantly break. Our alternator conversion would have been three or four times more expensive on the old CofA regime for example. The cost decrease pays for a lot of fuel.
It’s ironic isn’t it that the US created ICAO but that normally certified light aircraft, whether used commercially or individually, have a fraction of the regulation driven maintenance burden under FAA regs.
I tend to think that once you’re outside of experimental category, creating divisions with multiple types of airworthiness certificates is like doing a deal wih the devil. There is no value added for light aircraft by most of the truly ludicrous protocols of EASA Part M, so there’s no reason I see to have them at all.
Non-CofA aircraft have to get a permission from a lot of places – see e.g. the other thread on getting permissions. That sort of thing ultimately limits the market, which is why – outside the USA – just about all high capability aircraft are CofA types. The non-CofA market is doing very well right now compared to the CofA market but the growth is constrained by the lack of utility.
Yes. That is also what is wrong. The trend is clear (to me at least). We will end up with business jets and microlights exclusively, plus a Cirrus/Cessna every now and then and a few homebuilts. The utility part of aviation is today almost exclusively served by airlines, or if you are filthy rich, by a high end privately owned aircraft – a business jet. The utility value of being able to fly across Europe in a 100-150 knot SEP is zero in 99 of 100 cases. The recreational value is, for some, priceless, and anything is possible also in a homebuilt.
The main problem with ultralight/microlight is that even the recreational value is under heavy constrain with a MTOW of 450 kg. Two persons, some baggage and fuel for a trip is practically impossible within 450 kg when the empty weight is 280-300 kg. This makes microlights a one seater for trips more than 100 NM, if you want to stay within the law. Then there are other constraints, no acro, no night VFR, no IFR, no crossing of larger waters. I have never heard of any major problems flying microlights across Europe though. The main problem with business jets (or twins/turboprops) is of course price and complexity, making them unavailable for most of us.
We have to be honest too. Unless you have flying for a living, then it is for recreational purposes. Any utility we put into it, “going places”, is simply excuses to go flying. This doesn’t mean a small private airplane cannot be used for utility, it only means it is extremely seldom the most practical, fastest or most cost effective means of transportation when you leave the recreational part out of the equation.
The only way today if you want to do some real recreational flying including acro, including a passenger and baggage, IFR (except UK and Germany presumably), in a high performance aircraft, and you have no intentions of being sucked into a completely unnecessary and extremely costly regime of bureaucratic nonsense, is to go experimental/homebuilt. But it doesn’t have to be like this. There is no law of nature that say this is they way things must be. ICAO, EASA, they make sense for commercial public transportation, but no sense for recreational flying.
Why you fly is your business, not governments, so I think any distinction should be between private and commercial as opposed to recreational and commercial. The easiest most rational thing would be to replicate FAA regs for light aircraft, throw away the nonsensical EASA regs and be done with it. ICAO recommendations are applied equally to both and have little to do with over regulation of private aviation in Europe.
Why you fly is your business, not governments, so I think any distinction should be between private and commercial as opposed to recreational and commercial. The easiest most rational thing would be to replicate FAA regs for light aircraft, throw away the nonsensical EASA regs and be done with it. ICAO recommendations are applied equally to both and have little to do with over regulation of private aviation in Europe.
Maybe, or rather commercial and non-commercial use. Private and commercial is what we have today, and is part of the problem in my opinion, since the same regime exist for both more or less with some simplification for private ownership regarding maintenance (at least it used to be, this EASA regime mix it up even more). There is nothing preventing a privately owned aircraft to be used commercially, and that is the main problem right there due to legal implications of commercial operations. FAA regs are not that much better, but I know too little about it. I am an experimental/microlight dude. To be free of EASA and the state CAA is one of the main benefits for microlight. To be free of the EASA regime, only to relate to some specific rules governing experimental classification by the state CAA (that has become rather reasonable here in Norway now after a few years of nonsense, probably influenced by brits? who knows), is one of the main benefits for experimental. From what I hear from the US EAA comrades, over-regulation of GA is also very much true over there.
From what I hear from the US EAA comrades, over-regulation of GA is also very much true over there
It’s always a threat but as you undoubtedly know, the EAA had some very visionary people in the 50s. They negotiated with what must’ve been equally visionary people in government at that time to set up the current Experimental Amateur Built category which runs with an absolute bare minimum of regulation. If that hadn’t happened, It’s hard to imagine how much GA would have suffered, and not just technically: for example many of the businesses that design, make and/or sell parts for certified aircraft get started making them for the E-AB, then once the volume is there they can start to absorb the costs of operating as a supplier for certified aircraft. There’s no reason Europe couldn’t do the same thing regionally, not nationally. ICAO doesn’t make law or prevent that in any way.
FAA regs are not that much better, but I know too little about it. I am an experimental/microlight dude.
My aircraft are FAA certified and as I’ve described here often, the constraints on how I maintain and operate them are fairly reasonable, whether for my own use or if used for hire. Independent A&Ps, No ridiculous CAMO concept, no paperwork required for parts etc.
Speaking of early EAA activity, yesterday we had an air show locally (I am back in the US) and I ran into a youngish couple with a Tailwind homebuilt I hadn’t seen before. They’d just bought it on the other side of the country for $24K and a couple of weeks ago he’d gone over to get it, then flown it about about 2500 miles home. It was originally built by the best known serial builder of the type, nicely constructed and cruises at 160 mph or more on an O-290. Not bad for a homebuilt designed 60 years ago! After the air show they hopped in and flew it a couple of hundred miles home for dinner. It was really nice to see Steve Wittman’s 1950s ‘fast, far, cheap’ tradition continuing 
Having been in both camps, FAA regs are only slightly “easier” than EASA regs.
When JAA started up, they took the FARs and copied/pasted them into JARs, often without even changing the paragraph numbering.
But then they gold plated most of it, of which the biggest bit is the need to use an organisation (rather than an individual) for certification work. That immediately multiplies costs by 2x to 5×. It does create a lot of business for the certification companies though 
And now with EASA having recruited heavily from the Part 21 companies, the same old gravy train carries on. These gravy trains are the most powerful movers in the world. Money talks…
Anybody who thinks the FAA is easy ought to establish contact with some of the knuckleheads who work in the FSDOs. In the USA, owners and installers who certify Major alterations stick with a non-knucklehead FSDO inspector in the same way that pilots stick with the same AME
But then they gold plated most of it, of which the biggest bit is the need to use an organisation (rather than an individual) for certification work. That immediately multiplies costs by 2x to 5×. It does create a lot of business for the certification companies though And now with EASA having recruited heavily from the Part 21 companies, the same old gravy train carries on. These gravy trains are the most powerful movers in the world. Money talks…
Yes, money forcibly extracted from people who made it and receive nothing of value in return. OK if you’re a bureaucrat who functions within the 21st century version of the European ruling elite. Unfortunately they aren’t actually money makers, they are money spenders, parasites who think the world owes them a living due to some innate superiority that we have yet to see…
“No, the majority of GA pilots aren’t white old guys”.
The photo speaks volumes.
[URL fixed]
Those photos are always like that. But they are photos of attendees at old established aviation gatherings, so they will show only those who repeatedly go to old established aviation gatherings. I recall reading in one of the US mags that the average age at Oshkosh is something like 65.
Most pilots who actually fly to places almost never go to those events and I am sure that’s equally true in the USA and in Europe. It’s certainly true looking at the many pilots I am regularly in touch with.
