What has EASA actually done for us?

mh wrote:

of course you need additional training to safely perform aerobatics, night flying, water landings or IFR flights. He who teaches himself has a fool for a master.

That’s a bit trite, and doesn’t explain how we all managed perfectly well to spin our poor old Cessna 150s for years without a fancy EASA “rating”.

As for water landings, well done if you found an instructor in Germany to show you, but you have to admit that it’s not complicated. Just put the main wheels on the lake or river and keep the tail up. Just like a wheel landing on an icy runway or packed snow, but don’t reduce the power. No one needs “training” for that.

Another example, where an instructor is completely useless, is learning to lift the tail with the brakes. Again, it’s not complicated, but if you get it wrong there’s nothing an instructor can do to keep the rubber side down.

LeSving wrote:

This is all nice and cozy, but what has this to do with EASA?

LeSving, again, is it not true that recent EASA regulations on light aircraft maintenance have much reduced the formerly ridiculous procedures and organizational overheads? Why should that not encourage people to own long lasting, well built practical aircraft at reasonable prices?

@Jacko
Some might have been successful – but I doubt that a person in their right mind will spin an airplane without some instruction first. I did the German aerobatic course, and I would say it makes a lot of sense to learn it before you do it.

Beneficial instruction and regulated licensing are two different things, often conflated by Germans

That’s just a clichée. Although there are no strict regulations for aerobatics in the USA, there’s just as many fields of life where a German would not give up his freedom to live like an American. Examples upon request ;-)

The “regulated licensing” consists of 5 hours minimum of aerobatic instruction and a check flight. It’s also only a rating and not a licence.

Flyer59 wrote:

That’s just a clichée

In a discussion of EASA regulations, I think it’s relevant that EASA regulations match the cliche very closely, it drives many Europeans crazy, and even when knowing that, Germans commenting specifically on the EASA regime still don’t distinguish between following common sense and following regulated procedure.

So where’s common sense when it’s (one example) the Seaplane Rating. Why do you have to do that one? Or IFR. What’s the regulation good for? Why can UK pilots fly in IMC without a flightplan and you can’t? And to how many countries can a US pilot fly without a flightplan and without calling on the radio when crossing the border? I, as a German, can do that to 4 foreign countries.

(Why aren’t you allowed to drive 160 mph on a empty highway through the desert? Because I can do that, in the center of Europe, even without a desert :-)).

Peter, if I had to file flight plans, I wouldn’t fly. That’s nothing but a personal point of view, but it’s true.

@Silvaire
But you have to file a flight plan if you want to go to Canade, Mexico, the Bahamas … anywwhere. And I don’t have to file one if I go from any German Airport to any uncontrolled one in CZ, Austria, Belgium, Poland. So I guess we could conclude there’s a lot of freedom for German pilots, unknown to Americans.

Other example where I wouldn’t really “free” in America: I know at least 5 US pilots now who hate flying IFR, because their every movement and flight data is recorded – and published everywhere – including their radio. One pretty well known US pilot I know has not flwon IFR for five years now becasue of this “total control by big brother” (as he, not me, calls it all the time).

What I want to say: It is not very helpful to always portray Germans as victims of regulation. VFR flying in Germany – and in many parts of Europe – is almost as free (with the exception of landing fees) as it is in America. If your plane is D-registered you can even have a maintenance program approved by the LBA that gives you similar freedom as you enjoy it in the US.