Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What has EASA actually done for us?

I became a Jodel DR1050 syndicate member at the start of 1990, when it was on a DGAC C of A, administered by the UK CAA. When EASA took over, we were moved to Annex (2 which became 1). There was immediately a huge drop in annual expense.
God save Eeee Aaaa SA. Long live Eeee Aaaa SA.

Last Edited by Maoraigh at 07 Feb 21:31
Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom
I’m quite happy with the current mix of European/National rules for UL-s.. I can fly the UL with my LAPL, instruct in UL without going through ATO based training, fly 1000nm north (nordkapp) or south (croatia) with just one permit (for Norway or Lithuania),both very easy to get.. And my UL hours count for SEP and vice versa.. Serious IFR in Savannah is too crazy anyway.
EETU, Estonia

I’m quite happy with the current mix of European/National rules for UL-s.. I can fly the UL with my LAPL, instruct in UL without going through ATO based training, fly 1000nm north (nordkapp) or south (croatia) with just one permit (for Norway or Lithuania),both very easy to get.. And my UL hours count for SEP and vice versa.. Serious IFR in Savannah is too crazy anyway.

Agree

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I became a Jodel DR1050 syndicate member at the start of 1990, when it was on a DGAC C of A, administered by the UK CAA. When EASA took over, we were moved to Annex (2 which became 1). There was immediately a huge drop in annual expense.
God save Eeee Aaaa SA. Long live Eeee Aaaa SA.

Let’s see, they removed your property rights associated with having bought a certified aircraft, while simultaneously convincing you it was a good thing by enforcing a ridiculously difficult and expensive burden to maintain and operate property for which those rights would be retained.

The other less manipulative and equally safe option for EASA would have been to reduce the inappropriate burden they impose for owners to maintain their certified aircraft. But I guess that would have meant reducing their own power over everybody who owns a certified aircraft, a definite non starter. Better to divide and conquer.

My first question to them would have been how much they were planning to pay you in compensation? I would love to see what would happen in the US if FAA proposed such a thing for e.g. older certified aircraft that don’t have commercial ‘support organizations’. People and their lawyers would go nuts.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 08 Feb 15:42

absolutely @ Silvaire.
On the positive side, the self nomination and birth of EASA has led to accrued sale figures of petroleum jelly, aka vaseline, thereby perpetuating a long tradition we had with our individual NAAs. Had I realised what that would lead to, I’d have massively invested in stock from companies selling the stuff.

Dan
ain't the Destination, but the Journey
LSZF, Switzerland

I can see a lot of good things which EASA has made better for us – but after having an own plane in the usa a long time ago, I must admit, that Europe still has a lot to learn from there.
Anyway; 50 years ago I could not even start my flight school before being 17 old – my son started at 15, flew solo soon after turning 16 and is now waiting for 17 to get the licence. Some years ago any nut for your plane had to be more or less “airplane quality” (the only difference being the price) as today in privat easa planes we can pretty much use even car parts in not critical cases. In many ways having an own plane in Finland used to be simply too expensive for “normal” people, but now I often say “if you have 10 000 euros, one uses it for a car, another one for a horse, somebody for a boat, I for an airplane”. Well, I did pay 11 000 for my plane but still you get the idea. And maintaining it does take some money – still much less than ages ago.
Some years ago they even took the blood test out from the biannual medical after realizing that it was simply stupid waste of money. Like the hole test is actually – my experience is that the medical for a car licence is stricter, so why do we have to pay for the aviation check?

So at least in my country flying is now much easier than before but yes, EASA could do much better by changing the medical to a car med, removing the annual maintenance (use only 100 h + inspection), making the night flight course to a couple of hours like in the us, removing requirement for an expensive theory course etc many other things. Most probably all those things will one by one very slowly turn like they are in the states, which happens to have a longer and wider experience about flying – but may not happen in my life time.
My 5 cents. Anyone agree?

EFFO EFHV, Finland

@LeSving, your post is the proof of what I’ve been saying.

An airplane is an airplane. Period. Per definition, a heavier than air vehicle with a powerplant. THAT and nothing else is an airplane.

Every single UL up to an A380 qualifies for that description. And all of us which fly them are pilots flying airplanes.

Within light GA for non commercial purposes and within the usual privileges of private flying, this goes from an UL to twins up to 5.7 tons.

Let’s take the analogy of cars. With a normal drivers license for private privileges you can drive ANY car up to 3.5 tons all over Europe.

So why are we insisting to let authorities split our airplanes into groups and then play those groups against each other? Because that is exactly what is happening. And the major reason why people escape to uncertified and experimental is that the certification criteria for certified airplanes are too close to the A380 than to a motorized delta glider.

How to get around that?

By changing the criteria. What ever flies non commercial, flies in one category of certification, whatever flies commercial has to fly under pretty much what we have today. One set of rules, one set of licenses for all of Europe or preferrably even under the umbrella of ICAO without the possibility of national authorities gold plating it.

It’s not about making ULs fly with the same rules certified airplanes have today, rather the opposite. If it’s non commercial, it can fly with the same engines, the same instruments and the same rules, with the possibility of certain privileges requiring higher qualification such as passenger carrying or IR.

Throwing away the certification criteria which has bancrupted every single US manufacturer and many others over the years at least once, getting the airplanes into price ranges normal persons can afford and stop pretending a certified airplane has to fulfill so much more criteria which experimentals fly just as safely with.

And in order to make that work on a whole continent, you need ONE regulatory body to take care of it. Not 20, otherwise they WILL screw each other over as they do now.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

And in order to make that work on a whole continent, you need ONE regulatory body to take care of it. Not 20, otherwise they WILL screw each other over as they do now.

More than that is needed, much more. Clearly all CAAs “work”. EASA also “works”. But, to have for instance an experimental category that works as well as in the USA, but unified in all of EASA, the EASA experimental regulations would have to be at least as good as the US regulations. That would never happen for the same reasons that certified airplanes are much better in the USA than in EASA. The UL category works well today mostly because it is NOT EASA. The same goes for the experimental category. We have an EASA UL, it’s called LSA, and it’s wasted money for anyone involved with it compared to real (non EASA) UL.

I agree we would be better off with FAA regs all over EASA, but that will never happen. We would have EASA regs all over EASA.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

An airplane is an airplane. Period. Per definition, a heavier than air vehicle with a powerplant. THAT and nothing else is an airplane.

Yes, but I am not talking about definitions. Aren’t gliders also airplanes?

Last Edited by LeSving at 08 Feb 22:44
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top