I beg to differ.
Very interesting – they’ve invented their own little version of VAT. Rust never sleeps. 
I’m surprised those areas didn’t face a revolution when they tried to sneak in sales taxes on some areas of labor! In California I can imagine that government would do everything it can to put fabrication businesses under, but South Dakota?! They must be nuts. Anyway and FWIW I’ve never experienced such a thing in 40 years, including extensive business within those two states.
Perhaps in those areas its like sales tax on items bought in a different US state, where sales tax is theoretically due but in actuality is only paid when the vendor can be strong armed by having interests in the customer’s state as well as the state where the item is sold. Obviously hardly anybody actually pays sales tax on items shipped from a different US state, and likewise I’ve certainly never before heard of anybody paying (US) state sales tax on fabrication labor. That’s really offensive and I’d buy in a different state before I’d pay it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
Then list them, without looking at the tax rate, in order of countries that you would actually like to live in.
Rather odd how most threads here degrades into one of IFR, twin or turbine discussion. And now world wide taxation statistics…
Back to topic. It seems to me that GA is getting increasingly professionalized relatively speaking. Microlights are taking over the recreational part. What is needed to stop this is to clearly divide between commercial and non-commercial aircraft. From what I can see EASA mix it up even more. Aircraft should be certified to some “commercial” code or to “non-commercial” code. Non-commercial rated aircraft should be let loose from a strict EASA regime. For a non commercial aircraft there are no valid arguments for type certifications or maintenance organisations or any bureaucracy whatsoever. The only (semi) valid argument I can see is a minimum standard of initial airworthiness and a minimum standard to maintain that initial airworthiness. For commercially rated aircraft the situation is very different because the “mission” of an aircraft used for commercial purposes is very different (someone is paying to get someone or something from point A to point B in one piece).
We have a similar situation for boats in Norway. Recreational vessels (small and large up to 24 m think? ) have only basic initial requirements regarding technical aspects when built and sold by a manufacturer. There are no requirements whatsoever for homebuilt vessels, historical vessels (old and replicas), any vessels used for competition etc etc. But the minute the vessel is used for public passenger transport of some kind, a whole set of rather strict rules and regulation starts to apply. If every boat was to follow the rules for commercial transport, there would be very few boats here. Today there are as many boats as there are families here, at least along the coast. This system has shown to work and everybody are happy.
Annex II (to some degree), homebuilt and microlights are non commercial. This is where all recreational GA will end up unless the authorities wakes up. Having the same standards (for all practical purposes) for commercial aircraft and recreational aircraft makes no sense.
Rather odd how most threads here degrades into one of IFR, twin or turbine discussion
Why don’t you start threads on interesting GA topics, LeSving?
Why don’t you start threads on interesting GA topics, LeSving?
You probably got a point in there somewhere, but I have no reason to complain about the topics.
LeSving
What is needed to stop this is to clearly divide between commercial and non-commercial aircraft. From what I can see EASA mix it up even more. Aircraft should be certified to some “commercial” code or to “non-commercial” code. Non-commercial rated aircraft should be let loose from a strict EASA regime.
Indeed. And they should be let to fly with more owner/operator responsibility for how and what they wish to fly with.
The only (semi) valid argument I can see is a minimum standard of initial airworthiness and a minimum standard to maintain that initial airworthiness
Yes.
Add to that additional steps in relation to size, number of seats and weight.
There is not much reasons why we can’t fly <2t airplanes with 4 seats in any regime we carry equipment for without gold-plated certifications, re-certifications, re-examinations and all that. A non-TSO radio and VOR/ILS receiver does the exactly same thing than a TSO’d one and is enough for private ops. Likewise, it is absurd in some instances if you see “non certified” airplanes equipped like an Airbus for a fraction of the price we pay to exchange one radio.
Has it occurred to any of the regulators that flights like Lindbergh’^s atlantic crossing today would be impossible alone for regulation reasons? Most of the really groundbreaking aviaiton historical flights could not be done today, thê planes would not be certified and cost prohibitive.
I don’t disagree about way over the top regulation of private GA, but it isn’t the fault of the national CAAs.
It is due to ICAO requirements. And ICAO is what enables you to depart say the UK, fly across France, Belgium, Lux, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania (no kidding), all the way to Greece. No questions asked, no permissions required for overflight or landing. It is only when you leave the civilised lands and go into say Africa that you need all that stuff – because they signed up to ICAO but then fully exercise the national soveregnity provision which makes it worth little. But even then you don’t need a permission for the aircraft type to fly there.
And you can do it VFR or IFR.
Without ICAO, GA would never be allowed to exist in most of Europe, IMHO.
The national CAAs just tend to gold plate everything
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.
If there was a pan-European regime under which you could re-categorise a CofA aircraft as non-CofA, most people would do it immediately. Especially if you could fly IFR as well. It would be a bombshell, which is why even the USA makes it not worthwhile in most cases.
If non-CofA types (e.g. homebuilts) could fly pan-Europe without permissions (a move which would be easy to do in principle and would not involve EASA) that would be great too, but for some reason (presumably undermining the CofA maintenance licensing/oversight business) the authorities don’t want to allow it.
Also I think many people don’t fully appreciate the division of operating costs in aircraft ownership. Fuel is of course the biggest direct cost today, but the principal money saving on a non-CofA type is owner maintenance which is so good because you can do the work yourself but this is good only if
The saving on equipment is of course nice too but does not form a large part of ownership costs. For example a certified RSA fuel servo is about $3k (overhauled) while an Experimental one is about $2k. On avionics the difference is bigger but how often do you do that?
I do (or participate in) maintenance, and usually do it with an A&P/IA, but we have to do it like this. Options for doing it in a hangar tend to be “highly variable”. Now imagine when it’s raining and/or windy…… your “homebuilt savings” are not as attractive anymore!
Consequently, the owners who can and want to do that and who find it meets their requirements are (like those who tinker with old cars) mostly already doing it, so any big growth in the non-CofA market would cause maintenance to spill over to the CAMO scene, and the operating cost savings would be lost. If you take an RV to a CAMO it will cost you just the same as if you take another CofA aircraft with similar make-up to a CAMO. Only the firm would not make anywhere near as much on parts supplied…
And the national CAAs would lose a lot of income.
So this isn’t going to happen.
We are just paying a high regulatory price for our flying freedoms.
Peter, the level of maintenance for an RV is really a lot less than for most certified types as a result of simplicity. And FWIW most RV owners of my acquaintance are synched closely with their planes and don’t actually do annuals per se, they do continuous inspection/maintenance with an additional quickie annual inspection + sign-off, which if they are the builder is done by themselves under the FAA regs with no additional oversight. If somebody else built the plane then its not the owner but an A&P for E-AB annuals, however not an IA.
If you think about it, the concept of an annual inspection while not a bad one is often carried way too far for privately owned aircraft. I think its a carryover from military practice… i.e. polish boots and buttons every morning and don’t ask questions (my grandfather was a career sergeant major!) I think that’s the reason its so overdone in Europe particularly, with its stronger tradition of military aviation and group ownership than aircraft as individual property. That plus EASA regulations which seemingly don’t recognize the concept of ‘aircraft as private property’ as ideologically ‘correct’.
I’ve not known anybody with an RV or similar to take it to a shop for maintenance, except I suppose for avionics installation in some cases. There’s not enough maintenance work involved for owners to typically go in that direction. They are strong, simple little machines as well as having excellent performance.
PS working outside sucks, especially in bad weather, and I think that remains the key issue: there’s obviously a demand for hangars, and I suppose equally obviously some governmental restriction on the market meeting that demand.
I think that’s the reason its so overdone in Europe particularly, with its stronger tradition of military aviation and group ownership than aircraft as individual property.
Hmm, those requirements all stem from ICAO and Germany was not involved in the foundation of ICAO. So you brought this all onto us!
That plus EASA regulations which seemingly don’t recognize the concept of ‘aircraft as private property’ as ideologically ‘correct’.
Their problem is that an Airbus 380 and a Cessna 150 are treated like variants of the same. Part M is the perfect example of that. If they’re serious about their new GA mandate, then they will further separate GA aircraft from the commercial lot. It can only get better…
Didn’t the UK CAA used to have Public and Private CofA categories doing exactly what is mentioned above, but EASA put an end to it?
With the main difference being IFR, what is the issue with non CofA about ? Are all the overflight issues raised with Permits really a problem? There is a list on the LAA website showing standing permissions obtained. There are a few technicalities to sort out regarding Spain and Belgium. One of those can be easily avoided by flying around it. But for most pilots there is no difference between the two regimes, in terms of where and when they can fly. Most don’t have an IR and can’t fly at night anyway because the infrastructure is closed anyway.
Having an ongoing want to buy my own I am following things very closely and as far as I can tell the money saved under non CofA far outweighs the slight embuggerance of a bit of extra paperwork on the few flights a year that would be required.
