If there is something which indicates an upward trend in annual hours, that would be amazing.
Well, let me me positive and give you a glimmer of hope. New aircraft are being delivered (or finished at home). A large share (majority?) have Rotax or UL Power engines. The owner has known fixed costs. Remain the variable costs. These are nice and low with these kind of aircraft, think fuel and simplified maintenance. So the owner is wise enough to fly a lot!
LeSving wrote:
If every strip and all of ATC were government founded, this thread would probably not exist. That will never happen in the foreseeable future, and not without a communist revolution or something
That is exactly what the problem regarding airfields/airports are. NO, having a clear europe wide legislation which makes it abundantly and without loopholes clear that any airport is part of I N F A S T R U C T U R E and therefore has to accomodate A L L traffic with conditions which reflect their size and possibilities, that is not Communism. That is a simple infrastructure legislation which finally would make it clear that aviation is part of the transport network with equal conditions to road and rail.
In particular road traffic is the reasonable comparison. NO country could get away with outpricing certain roads for most private participants. NO country could get away with PPR booking for roads, tunnels or similar stuff. Yes, I am aware that some green wet dreams include exactly those kinds of scenarios and yes I am aware of e.g. London which has basically banned private traffic, but they are (so far) insular solutions and far in between.
Roads and most railways are government built and funded, while some are under private ownership. No, it does not mean all airfields need to be government funded but they can get some subsidies if they are part of the infrastructure. The main thing however would be to and make it clear that whoever wishes to run an airport is part of the national transport infrastructure and their fees and usage is determined by ONE rule for all, which makes it brutally clear that outpricing, banning, e.t.c. will have MASSIVE consequences, we might see some airports disapear but most will simply relent and open up their facilities, particularly if it means getting some government compensation as I understand quite a lot of US airports do for providing that service.
At the same time, EASA should finally put a stop to slottery, as it presents a safety risk particularly for small GA. At the very least, GA needs to get the same conditions as CAT where slots are concerned, in as so far as that yes, you may need a slot but if you are delayed for operational or safety reasons you will in any case be accepted. Airports which let their facilities go empty and still impose slots need to be massively punished for such behaviour. At the same time, opening hours such as in fashion in some parts of Southern Europe should be killed, maybe by exempting them from having to provide a full personal cover for any traffic below 2T.
Also AOE and cross border rules need to be made similar to other branches of traffic, in particular within the Schengen and EU area. countries which disregard either need to be punished, e.g. Greece which is an EU and Schengen member but still insists on customs clearance.
And finally, compulsory handling for GA below 2t should be abolished by law or at the very least limited to an amount which covers the guarding of the exits to the tarmac. Again, this needs to be loophole free, otherwise airports will be very inventive to make people dependent on the handling sharks yet again. One way to do that would be to include mandiatory safety training (one hour online) for all PPL’s which then gives them the right to self-handle their passengers for up to 6 seat airplanes without airports being able to impose their job creation schemes.
For “serious” GA, that is people who fly to travel, not to do 100$ burger runs, would take away 90% of the hassle currently experienced.
In EASA itself, at least with the roadmap folks, you’d run in open doors. The problem is that EASA has far less power than it needs to push this through and that states still have far too much power in a supposedly unified European aviation legislation. For Silvaire in particular, the FAA DOES have all those powers in most aspects, such as that for the whole US the rules regarding operation of airports are pretty much set in stone and the FAA can come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on people who violate that, hence it is rarely done. Appart from the fact that, yes, the attitude is different.
Dan wrote:
All whilst feeding the fat law makers in Brussels.
Fat law makers in Brussels are the same fat law makers that sit in each European country’s government. Country governments rarely oppose to Brussels initiatives because they are part of developing these initiatives and when they oppose that’s driven exclusively with private interests presented as country interest.
You can’t just expect your interests to be considered, you have to be vigilant in promoting your interests so that all points of view are considered in law making. It’s an active process, otherwise rot sets in.
It occurs to me that were I flying and owning in
Europe, given what’s at stake I would see it as a good investment to contribute say €15K a year to GA lobbying efforts. Even a few hundred people doing that could make a difference to the issues that @Mooney_Driver details. Those who can afford to do that need to realize that divide and conquer will eventually conquer them too.
Money is for sure the issue, but money spent to buy your way around fundamental legal and regulatory problems would be more frustrating to spend than money spent solving those problems.
Peter wrote:
there are as many private communities as there are pilots, especially in the UL scene Europe is quite “every man for himself” whereas the US has an “AOPA” which represents everybody and thus gets a lot more funding.
This isn’t correct. The UL scene in Europe is rather strange, or odd perhaps, compared with other stuff, but there are some logic behind it. One important center is AERO Friedrichshafen. AERO and UL grew hand in hand from the very beginning, at a tremendous rate in the 80s and 90s. Very similar to Oshkosh/EAA and the kit industry. A very strong focus on technology and technology development. Today there are several international organizations.
EMF is one such organization. It regularly gives out this updated document.
EMF is part of the larger Europe Air Sports which in turn is affiliated with the global FAI. EAS has lots of member organizations, both from countries and international ones (EMF for instance). In Norway we have NLF as part of EAS and FAI. The objective of EAS is:
EAS supports a European regulatory environment that is proportionate to the complexity of aircraft and the nature of flight operation. A minimal amount of regulation to ensure flight safety, access to airspace, free movement and efficient and cost-effective organisation for operations, are of paramount importance for air sports to survive and thrive.
We believe that the developing European regulatory framework for civil aviation should allow for the continuation of all flying activities which are currently possible under national legislation.
How big a voice EAS is, I don’t know, but something is working there.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
That is a simple infrastructure legislation which finally would make it clear that aviation is part of the transport network with equal conditions to road and rail.
Most of GA in Europe don’t want to be part of the transport network anyway. If I wanted to do transport, I would become a truck/bus driver or, well – airline pilot. I have never had any such ambitions. Besides, this is really not the problem. The problem is to facilitate activity that is NOT transport oriented at it’s core. The situation is not black or white though, and status is not black or white either.
I have explained further up (or several pages ago 
) how I see this. The main problem is that the “habitat” that used to exist to support “traditional” GA is largely gone. Other “habitats” have grown up in it’s place, but rather different from the old ones in many aspects. In the air, no problems as I see it.
In essence this is no different than what has been going on in boating. A few hundred years ago this was the only way to travel, also privately in small sail boats. Today it is all recreation except in a few exceptional cases. But, the infrastructure for this recreation is created and maintained by private individuals and small local groups of people. In boating, even the rescue facilities (rescue boats mostly) are paid for/operated by private individuals and ideal organizations. Lots of voluntary work goes into this. The governments could certainly sponsor parts of this, create rules and regulations that make life easier (not harder). EASA makes life harder, and the reason is they focus on transport. Only outside of EASA (Annex I) has life become easier. There wouldn’t be much left of GA today without Annex I.
I don’t think we disagree really. Our main problem is perhaps that we are so few?
EAS is the Experimental Aviation of Switzerland, proof in the pudding here EAS
One more association is the EFLEVA
And another one… oh wait…
This stuff demonstrates the fragility of the European GA system: fragmentation. Dozens of groups, clubs, associations, etc. Some of those fighting each others, instead of showing unity, and engage in real fighting against the system, bureaucrats, fees, restrictions.
Tell you what guys… we’re doomed 
And I sure do hate politics.
Dan wrote:
EAS is the Experimental Aviation of Switzerland
But that’s another EAS. A good example of the stupidity of acronyms
The systems is fragile perhaps, but only because we are truly fragmented: languages, countries, even acronyms As long as we keep flying, we are not dead. I must say as Tom Cruise: Maybe [we are doomed], but not today If you think about it, fighter pilots and airline pilots really are doomed, and very literally. We cannot be doomed, we only have to fly
