Frans wrote:
So far as I know, France has quite a few airfields, where pilots can operate lighting by themselves. And I tell you what: In Switzerland, some airfields have even public roads crossing the runway, where the pilot can operate the barriers and traffic lights remotely as well.
Sweden has some licensed airports with airline traffic where PCL is available when the tower is closed.
4,80 euros per minute for a DA40? That sounds like Swiss prices or like a commercial flying school or charter company. In Germany, several aeroclubs are charging around 3 euros per minute for a DA40.
It’s not a commercial ato or charter company. It’s privately owned and chartered out to pay itself, not to generate profit.
Some other prices:
Cirrus SR22 6,7€/min
DA42 8,5€/min
C172 G500Tx, Diesel, 4,32€/min
I pay a little less than that for a DA42, about €7 per minute wet and including things like deicing fluid.
Firstly, you have to realise the EU is not a sovereign nation, it’s a trading and political agreement. EU countries are sovereign states, whereas US states are all part of a single country, with a Federal government, that pre-empts the non-sovereign states.
Silvaire wrote:
Significant altitude, airspace and radio use restrictions on ULM/LSA style aircraft with complex and non-uniform details, even within a single country.
Not solved by EASA adopting the FARs because EASA (the EU) doesn’t regulate those.
Radio licenses required for both pilots and planes.
Not solved by EASA adopting the FARs, because these rules are typically imposed by the communications regulator, and again, it’s done nationally.
Rating expirations and renewals, loss of ratings over time unless actively using them.
Solved by EASA adopting the FARs.
Extra ratings required for night flying, aerobatics etc.
Solved by adopting the FARs, and really needed. Adding all these extra ratings when EASA was formed was silly.
Aerobatics often require elaborate procedures and radio contact.
Not solved by adopting the FARs, as these are imposed by sovereign nations, not EASA. The UK when it was an EASA state for instance did not require “elaborate procedures or radio contact”. I don’t know what countries do require that, if any.
No Experimental airworthiness category, with homebuilt design certification regulated.
Not solved by EASA adopting the FARs as EASA doesn’t regulate here. This is reserved to the sovereign nation states.
Flugleiters required in some areas, airports in many areas cannot be operated without ground staff, leading to issues with night operations.
Not solved by EASA adopting the FARs as EASA doesn’t regulate this. This again is sovereign nations applying their own rules.
Pilot operated lighting is a legal issue.
Not solved by EASA adopting the FARs as EASA doesn’t regulate this. PCL is fine in many cases, and it’s the laws of a sovereign state.
Flying from your own property is generally illegal without approval.
Not solved by EASA adopting the FARs, as EASA does not regulate land use, and in any case, generally untrue.
No A&P engine overhauls, repair station only.
I don’t have a certified plane so I’ve never looked into this, but I believe it’s possible for an EASA66 engineer to rebuild an engine today. Someone can probably put me right on this.
Formal inspection and paperwork procedures required to run an engine or propeller past manufacturers recommended TBO.
Not generally true; certain sovereign states only.
Support organization required to maintain C of A of certified aircraft.
Not true.
Periodic aircraft C of A expiration, more elaborate airworthiness renewal and paperwork procedures than a simple A&P Annual Inspection with logbook entry. Ludicrous CAMO complexity still required for some operations of privately owned light aircraft.
True, and EASA would do well to adopt the FARs for this.
Class D airspace around airports requires a transponder, and it’s generally Mode S, making those airports off limits to simple aircraft.
Not generally true. Again, local procedures imposed by sovereign states that EASA can’t do much about.
8.33 radio airspace requirements
EASA adopting the FARs would not change this. 8.33 was required because frustratingly, the EU seems to only be powerful when it can force through regulations that cause expense/inconvenience to pilots, but seems to be powerless when member states want to keep certain powers to themselves. 8.33 is only required because member states would not turn over frequency allocation to a central European authority and the EU claimed to be powerless to force the issue.
Pop-up IFR considered punishable pilot error, not a valuable tactical tool.
Pop-up IFR was certainly a thing here, back when I used to fly with someone with an IFR-equipped plane we sometimes used it when returning to Ronaldsway and the low cloud had drifted in. Again it seems to be local procedures…
Without a doubt the FAA has the world’s best GA system and there’s no question about that. But the FAA also has the power of the Federal government behind it, and US states aren’t sovereign. Europe has a bunch of squabbling sovereign states in a “club” (the EU), all of them thinking their system is the best, so ultimately whenever you try to harmonize it you always end up with some silly rules because there are hills that some countries are prepared to die on. So for EASA to adopt the FARs and for it to be meaningful, we will need the United States of Europe first, where countries actually give up their sovereignty and the EU becomes the nation.
I don’t see this ever happening.
Silvaire wrote:
I always smile about the concept of US aviation being “subsidized”. It’s equivalent to saying any normal and expected government infrastructure is a subsidy. Not every tax payer uses boat harbors or even roads either.
You mean normal and expected like hospitals? 
I think this is a key issue. There is no such thing as “normal and expected”, yet everything is “normal and expected”. Things slowly changes over time as well, or it could happen in an instant and become the new “normal and expected”.
Silvaire wrote:
Aerobatics often require elaborate procedures and radio contact.
I don’t know where you get this from. If I’m not mistaken, what the (EASA?) regulations say about this is that aerobatics in controlled airspace must be done in accordance with ATC. As for myself, I could always fly 20 minutes to get out of controlled airspace at the altitude I normally fly aerobatics. The alternative is to fly 5 minutes and ask to freely operate up to 5000 feet for instance. Why these TMAs need so much space is another matter though.
Silvaire wrote:
No Experimental airworthiness category, with homebuilt design certification regulated.
What do you mean?
Silvaire wrote:
Flying from your own property is generally illegal without approval.
Around here it’s illegal without approval from the owner. If the owner is yourself, that should be rather easy. On the other hand, we are generally only allowed to operate powered vehicles on “cultivated” land (not exactly correct translation, but close enough). This has nothing to do with aircraft though, and it’s up to the local county administration to draft the exact legal matter. This is to protect wildlife, although some idiots think this can be used to protect their “experience of nature” (which is definitely isn’t)
Silvaire wrote:
Class D airspace around airports requires a transponder, and it’s generally Mode S, making those airports off limits to simple aircraft.
This isn’t correct. It’s all up to ATC to allow/forbid non-transponding aircraft in controlled airspace. This means it depends on the local ATC procedures. Here they have said that if operating on a regular basis, you should have a transponder. Only “one off” flights without transponder will be allowed.
Snoopy wrote:
Some other prices:Interesting list, thanks! An SR22 for 402 euros per hour sounds more reasonable to me, compared to a DA40 for 288 euros per hour in my opinion. Still, a C172 for 260 euros sounds also expensive to me, even with a G500Tx, for a privately owned non-profit aircraft. But maybe prices in Austria are in general a bit higher, compared to Germany?
Cirrus SR22 6,7€/min
DA42 8,5€/min
C172 G500Tx, Diesel, 4,32€/min
Sweden has some licensed airports with airline traffic where PCL is available when the tower is closed.Good to know!
I think you can find lots of excuses for perceived barriers to solving obvious and success limiting problems, or you can solve them.
To me, the concept of adopting the FARs includes eliminating national differences and cross border hassles and goes hand and hand with adjoining, geographically small nations giving up their sovereignty in all aviation regulation. I thought I made that point implicitly, given that the basic concept of the FARs is Federal regulation, but apparently not 
I would agree that it’s necessary and that it’s useful to point it out as a necessity. So do it, or limit the well being and opportunities for everybody involved, forever.
The same is true for radio frequency allocation, or anything else where the impact and utility of the activity very easily and clearly extends far beyond the geographic borders of local government. While the default needs to be the rights of local government over central power, not vice versa, in some limited legal areas and depending on the size of the countries the concept of national regulation is obsolete and cannot reasonably ever be made effective.
@alioth, possibly the most important feature of US government is the preservation of states rights, and the sovereignty of US states. The Constitution lays out explicitly a limited list of areas where the Federal Government is allowed to rule, and interstate commerce is one of them, by design. That’s why the FAA and FARs exist and have authority, by design. It was not an accident of history. As LeSving points out, most other issues were judged to be better regulated at the local level, or left out of government control entirely, but aviation and radio transmission are not among them.
Specifically on the point of a support organization being required to maintain type certification status, which you write is “not true”, this has been discussed many times here, and I believe is correct Europe-wide. Conversely under FAA regs there is no such thing as an ‘orphaned’ type. Perhaps I did not make myself clear in the issue being that an individual non-FAA certified aircraft owner is subject to losing his property rights if a non-governmental third party decides to stop providing TC ‘support’.
@LeSving, Experimental category includes the feature that somebody can design an aircraft and after construction can fly it without any review or approval of the design, as opposed to the quality of construction. Otherwise it’s not an experiment. Government regulation of amateur built aircraft including a design review or approval by anybody including appointed clubs etc is not an Experimental category.
In addition to pointing out which of the features I listed are applicable Europe-wide, I could point out the
countries where some of the features I described exist (e.g. Germany for aerobatics) and some where they don’t, but it would then descend into a discussion of the attributes of one tiny country versus another. When it comes to aviation specifically, who cares? The problem is that there is no rational, universal, reasonable and non-redundant body of regulation and regulators for all light civil aviation, aircraft and airspace across the relatively small European land area, that the FARs would do that well, and that a listed issue exists in any country.
Interesting list, thanks! An SR22 for 402 euros per hour sounds more reasonable to me, compared to a DA40 for 288 euros per hour in my opinion. Still, a C172 for 260 euros sounds also expensive to me, even with a G500Tx, for a privately owned non-profit aircraft. But maybe prices in Austria are in general a bit higher, compared to Germany?
The DA40 is non profit (in the way that the owner calculates the price so as to just break even). It used to be 4,2€/ Minute but just had an engine change.
The C172 is commercial. Prices:
2 POB VFR 3,3€
3+ POB VFR 3,6€
2 POB IFR 4,0€
3+ POB IFR 4,32€
The Cirrus is a „club“ with 250€ yearly fee.
Never mind, others already pointed out what I wrote. Silly me for not catching up. Apologies.
Just updating the thread, 2.6€/L from Total for Avgas starting this month, it was 2.1€/L 3 weeks ago, give it one month or two and I think we are back gliding (or wingly for those who can still afford it)
PS: all thanks to Putin but there is another thread to discuss politics…
