Maybe we are all doomed unless we follow @Aart’s example and buy one of those 250kt ULs with no transponder.
Well folks, it took a while but it looks as if @Peter has seen the light. Nice weight saving too leaving out the TXP, but then again you may want to use that weight budget by covering your plane with some magic radar-absorbing paint in case there are any evil primary radars around.
Standing by for a very nice TB20GT for sale.
LeSving wrote:
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.
With that argument, you’d have to argue all those who drive their cars and bikes for fun don’t want to use public roads. So where would they drive? The point is, that everyone uses infrastrucure, the purpose being beside the point. What we need is a solid base protecting our airfields and airports and guarantee the use of them for all aviation, not just some branches of it.
LeSving wrote:
EASA makes life harder, and the reason is they focus on transport.
That depends hugely which country you are based at. Maybe in Scandinavia that may be true. In most of Europe, EASA has finally laid a ground rule network, which stops CAA’s gold plating GA and demanding airline like equipment and operation for anyone who wishes to fly further than the next airstrip. I’d say, without EASA’s part NCO and ELA, GA would be even smaller if not extinct in some places.
Annex 1 is not the answer. See what happened to the whole historical airplane scene after the Ju Air crash. They got grounded with totally baseless accusations, hassled out of existence by regulators who wish to protect their jobs more than serve aviation. This has happened to several branches of aviation, done to them by national CAA’s because they lacked the protection of EASA.
Dan wrote:
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.
Exactly. And not only groups, clubs, associations, but in general: UL vs Experimental vs gliders vs certified aviation vs airliners vs military and so on. Which, imho, is a clearly intentional division of aviation in those undergroups in order to rule easy. Divide and conquer.
Peter wrote:
Like the old joke about four pilots → four forums → four splinter groups.
Or ask advice and get 10 opinions 8 of which off topic.
As a follow on from a email correspondence I had with @Ibra and another EuroGA follower here are some photos of the variety of aircraft we had at our open day at the end of April that I thought might be on topic for this thread.
@Mooney_Driver in this area we just want to fly for pleasure. We do not want to be put under a transport infrastructure umbrella. The fact that we can use our aircraft for transport to foreign land is just a bonus.
In March we hosted an Aerodej for the boutique when more than 75 aircraft arriving from all parts of France. Mix of ULM, homebuilt and certified.
FFA last year recorded over 40,000 pilot members with over 1/2 million hours flown for the first time
FFPLUM has over 16000 pilot members and growing fast. At present there is no way of knowing how many hours are flown in ULMs as pilots do not need to record their hours.
The RSA also has a membership in the thousands.
All three organisations feed into the European Sports Association and as @LeSving writes this group feeds into EASA.
So no we do not want the restrictions and costs that go with being transport infrastructure.
172driver wrote:
When I learned to fly here in L.A. in 1998, I paid $35/hr for a PA28 (wet) and $20/hr for the instructor
That was unusually cheap even back then. In Texas we were paying at least twice that for a PA28 in the same time period. The cheapest wet rate we had was a C150 for about $50/hr.
For some reason it only uploaded one photo in the last post so another try. Different epochs.
Nice types to display on sunny day, I imagine in 2050, one can exhibit an Archer2 ou MooneyJ as “lovely vintages”? 
The majority of vintages need lot of love, dedication, money, time and effort than certified new types…it’s not for everyone, definitely not for those who give up in 2nd year of PPL !
need as in she needs 
gallois wrote:
@Mooney_Driver in this area we just want to fly for pleasure. We do not want to be put under a transport infrastructure umbrella. The fact that we can use our aircraft for transport to foreign land is just a bonus.
Well, I use my car often for fun and for short distances, hence I do not need most of the road network and other public infrastructure. However, if roads were under the same umbrella of regulation as airfields are, where it’s individual owners can decide to outprice anyone whom they don’t want on their infrastructure, most probably you’d no longer be able to use a large quantity of motorways or even local roads, once local owners decide they only want trucks or commercial vehicles. Take away the infrastructure of roads and and you will end up having the same kind of trouble every time you walk to your letterbox.
Today, in too many politicians view, anything which is fun or just there for the purpose of fun is worth eliminating or at least using as a political target to hurt because there are other things they can’t touch. And politicians NEED enemies to fight in order to be able to point fingers at targets of opportunity. Currently, with the way airfields in particular are looked at, they are a target.
That you only use your plane for fun is not the issue!! The issue is, that your airfield therefore goes under entertainment and recreational facility, none of which have any form of importance whatsoever for the infrastructure plan of any country. Entertainment and recreation are neither human rights nor are they vital for the economy. Infrastructure is vital for the economy and the right of free movement using that infrastructure is a right not many will be willing to give up easily.
Airports on the other hand are looked at as commercial enterprises which must maximize profit and therefore are given carte blanche to do it any way they please. Imagine motorways being used in this way. they would (and are) levy taxes on heavy road vehicles and would clearly only want those, as the normal cars do not bring in enough to be interesting. Of course, the example lacks as there are way too many of them, but that is nevertheless the principle. Large airports today wish to outprice and throw out GA because they are not financially interesting. However, as INFRASTRUCTURE, this distinction is illegal!
If airfields and airports are regarded as national infrastructure and therefore MUST accomodate all sorts of traffic, but on the other hand have the protection of the law above them, they stop being places which are constantly contested, which can outprice or evict just about anyone they don’t like and who are forced to be open to the flying public. That means, no more outpricing by artificially levying handling, landing fees, e.t.c. at prices which are clearly designed to oust people. Being part of infrastructure PROTECTS airports from all sorts of mischief but also PROTECTS its users!
Infrastructure also include bicycle lanes, walkways, waterways and even hiking paths. Imagine any of those being used the way airports are. You’d pay for using each and every one of those, you’d be forced to pay huge fees to enter a popular hike and you’d end up being banned from most of the attractive places to go. This may well include your favorite hike or daily run. That is what we are facing at airports these days, a fully intentional threat of extinction. Airfields per se are under threat from property sharks, green lobbies, housing and industrial developments and tell me what else. They need protection from all of this. And the only way I see it is to make them part of infrastructure.
I’m sorry @Mooney_Driver but we’ll have to agree to disagree.
In France most motorways are toll roads, the dreaded péage. If you use them you pay and they are operated commercially with some costing a great deal more than others. However, I can also decide to pay nothing and use departmental or regional roads. They both get me to the same place but I am restricted differently on each eg speed limits.
In the air I can fly to one of many infrastructure airports and pay landing and parking fees and any other fees set by the management or I can go to a nearby aerodrome which is treated as a sport’s stadium (sic) and usually pay a very small landing fee or nothing at all. I am free to decide which suits me best and I for one like it that way. I fly to Quimper and pay €3.25 landing fee. La Rochelle approx €10 (I think it went up to that recently) both are served by a small number of CAT. I can choose to go to the Ile d’Yeu not a CAT destination (therefore non infrastructure) but a popular leisure destination with GA in summer and pay an exhorbitant €16.50 landing and parking fee. Or I can go to Fontenay le Comte, visit the Marais Poitevin or take a boat on the Venise Vert and pay absolutely nothing for landing and parking and a quick call to the town hall will get me permission (if I wasn’t based there) to use the GNSS approach. Why on earth would I want to swap that for yellow vests, security gates, training to get a CIME card in order to escort my passengers to the plane, opening hours, handling agents etc etc which all goes with infrastructure rather than sports and leisure.
In France we have a minister for sport and a minister for transport and they have equal status under the same department as the DGAC comes under.
And one for @Silvaire. Interestingly is that it had to go to the USA and be reimported home.
Awesome We have I think three TB30s at my base now. Unfortunately for those who might like one the US prices have risen a lot. They were cheap for a while but avionics upgrades and getting established in the market have pushed the prices up to near SF 260 level.
Interesting story about export and re-import, I think I understand how that might need to happen legally.
@Mooney_Driver there are a lot of people resident in e.g. Italy who cannot afford to use the Autostrade regularly. It’s a ridiculous situation.
