What has EASA actually done for us?

Alioth,

I do agree with all you say here. Clearly, EASA has had negative impact on airplane value for a while (Cessna SID in Germany for starters and a general sense of doom and gloom elsewhere) but most of the problems GA has are home made either by the national authorities or local authorities. And quite a few of these things were incorrecty blamed on EASA, while local authorities merely misused EASA as a “big brother” to enforce stuff they had wanted to do but could not get away with them.

I do see similar problems like the ones you quote.
- Use of airports: Slots, parking restrictions, prohibitive fees to scare away GA, arbitrary opening hours, restrictive and abusive use of PPR, e.t.c
- Use of airfields: Almost all airfields are privately owned and each owner makes up his own little rule book making operation into these airfields unattractive. Member fees, opening hours, non-availability of hangarage and parking, e.t.c.
- Airspace mess: many countries have a totally chaotic and unpredictable airspace maze which keep a lot of private pilots out. France, Italy, Poland, Belgium come to mind… but there are others.
- Slottery in Eurocontrol vs airport slots: Flying from / to PPR airports IFR with EOBT´s from Eurocontrol is often a quagmire impossible to overcome. If both ends are slot airports, operation may well become impossible if you have to get inbound, outbound and enroute slots all at the same time.
- Customs/Immigration: Schengen nonwithstanding, lots of airfields and airports demand extensive PPR for customs and where necessary immigration. Many airports have lost customs clearance.

In short: European GA is NOT perceived by the authorities as part of traffic infrastructure but as a disturbing rich man´s hobby playground which has no priority over anything at all. Local councils, local and national politicians who need some justification for re-election will go for cheap shots against airports and GA as it will get them votes while annoying a small minority. Airfields and airports are hindered, blocked, curtailed and taxed out of existance or being “let” to operate in ridiculous conditions and widely enouranged not to complain or else.

Is any of this EASA´s fault? I don´t see that. EASA has no influence over small airport kings, over local councils who see billions of euros in housing estates vs cost and deficits of local airports, over national authorities who think their job is covering their arses rather than be service oriented.

If we want aviation to become a bit more than in the US, we need to have the airfields and airports harmonized in the sense that all the local rules and gold plating has to stop. Airports and airfields need to become national infrastructure and must be kept open, serviceable and useable as much as possible. Night flight and IFR approaches should be the rule, not the exception, flying to unattended airports should be normal, not forbiddden, hangarage and parking spots should be available, not artificially made rare, PPR abuse has to be stopped and punished and airports need to get people who want traffic, not socialistic lack economy.

Jan_Olieslagers wrote:

A Rans S-6 or Kitfox will not make 10000€ even with a 4-stroke engine and a bit of avionics.

And what do you think you will get for the typical 1970’ish C-172 VFR trainer in OK working condition? I mean what someone is actually willing to pay, not what the seller think the aircraft is “worth”.

Depending on actual condition, equipment, model and times between 25k and 70k€. Those aircraft are exellent club and charter aircraft that any “Murphy” can fly reasonably safe, comfortable and with good visibility for the pax. PA28 go for a bit less…

LeSving wrote:

A sub €50k C-172/Cerokee type aircraft is dead in the water, unsellable, and they are everywhere.

Totally wrong. The problem with low priced airplanes who could do a very good job is that people who are looking for an economical and affordable airplane are vocally discouraged all over the place. Cost of upkeep, necessary upgrades (8.33/Mode S) are totally exagarated, older airframes described as wreckage and undesirable and money pits which they can be but rarely are, if due diligence such as pre-buy inspections e.t.c. are done.

The main reason why some low price airframes are not sellable is that the sellers have unrealistic ideas about price, have not maintained the airplane for years and often treat potential buyers with indifference or even ignorance. Some are not even capable of putting a decent sales add together. Clearly, airplanes who have been sitting for years, are hopelessly outdated with 1960ties avionics and rotten paint and interior won´t sell. Airplanes which get sold because the engines are run out wonßt sell. Airplanes which have not a single usable radio won´t sell. Airplanes worth 25k announced for 5 years or more for 50k won´t sell. Airplanes who need double as much investment won´t sell.

Well kept airplanes with sound VFR equipment and proper maintenance will sell quite quickly. In recent months I even do see an increase in price. Sales below value have quite disappeared with such airframes. There are plenty of Cherokees, Cessnas, Vintage Mooneys and others around at justifyable prices and in decent condition at this price range.

If you want to sell a plane below 50k fast and at the price you want, it can well pay off to get it into a state where it is truely ready to fly and then ask a fair price. Instead of selling for 10k you can add 8.33, Mode S and sell while the plane still has a few hundred hours of potential and then ask 40k. Planes like that will and do sell.

One factor however which I have had to fight quite often when giving councel to prospective owners is the negative and often unjustified or exagarated comments these people get when they inquire about airplane ownership in the forums. I sometimes find it very annoying when prospective owners are massively discouraged by people who apply their own standards to different missions. Clearly, it is part of this game to tell aspiring buyers our experiences and what to do and what to avoid, but it is totally unproductive for attracting new owners if any and all airplanes they ask about are torn to pieces by the crowd. This does not happen here that much, I hasten to say, but it happens a lot in other places. And it happens a LOT at the local pilot´s gatherings where mostly folks who have never owned, who could never convince the wife or who have business interests in avoiding new owners talk more garbage about ownership in one evening than most politicians in a lifetime.

Statements like that, sub 50k airplanes are unsellable and genrally shagged and worthless wrecks, belong into this cathegory. They are very damaging to GA.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Statements like that, sub 50k airplanes are unsellable and genrally shagged and worthless wrecks, belong into this cathegory. They are very damaging to GA.

Even more so than EASA? Seriously, this is just silliness. An airplane will sell for whatever a purchaser is willing to pay. The “core” value of a oldish C-172 is around 10k, no more than that. Then you can start adding engine, avionics, paint, interior, airframe hours and so on.

LeSving wrote:

Even more so than EASA? Seriously, this is just silliness.

Actually yes.

EASA per se has done a lot of cost increase and stuff, but frankly, people who keep scaring newbies away instead of providing proper information have added to the myth of unaffordable planes more than EASA has done in reality. Especcially now with ELA1 in force and ELA2 coming up.

EASA has done a lot of damage, but in fact, while it made ownership different, it did not make it impossible. But exactly that was the message, a lot of people gave to newbies when they frequent the forums, even today.

But this is not new with EASA, it was so before as well. When I started flying, I was told many times that I did not have the income or social standing (?) to own an airplane, that the costs were prohibitive, the bureaucratic hurdles not possible to overcome unless you had a “lot” of cash e.t.c.

There were stumbling blocks but none of them were that fatal.

I bought my 2nd plane in 2009 and have now owned it through the high season of EASA´s overregulation. Some of these things did cost me money, e.g. the prop revision ordered by the FOCA on calendar time (based on a McCauley Service Bulletin) but it did not make ownership impossible, as many people tried to make me believe. I went about buying my plane while educating myself with professionals, not wannabes and forum experts. I got some good advice, also from people who now frequent here, and I learnt to disregard the panic-mongers.

Since then, I have helped several people find and buy airplanes. All of them are first buyers. All of them had previously thought it impossible for them to own planes, too expensive, too bureaucratic, EASA kills all, the full monty. It´s just not true. Yes, pre-ELA EASA cost money and made a lot of work, but that is not a reason a PPL Pilot of average income can not afford a VFR tourer.

So, as much as EASA has become an excuse for NAAs, it is misused by many “experts” to scare off new owners. And that is indeed worse than anything EASA has ever done. Clearly, EASA needed to be criticized and needs to be criticized and motiated to improve also in the future. But what I see as fatal is that the whole climate went so poisonous in the fora and the press at times, that it gave the impression that GA was a lost cause and not worth fighting for. That is untrue and needs to be stopped with information and education.

In absence of a like button, +1 for what @Mooney_Driver said.

I do advise any student of real ownership possibilities in their budget and all are very happy with what self-proclaimed “experts” here think to be of no value or worthless or impossible to operate…

There does seem to be an absence of tidy basic four seat fixed gear aircraft in reasonable condition. Tidy 172s seem still to be in good demand, and I would suggest hold their value. So some types do enjoy more demand than supply at the moment.

The RV market might be in a similar relatively firm condition?

mh wrote:

I do advise any student of real ownership possibilities in their budget and all are very happy with what self-proclaimed “experts” here think to be of no value or worthless or impossible to operate…

It’s precisely this arrogance that kills EASA. I am perfectly in full understanding that in the densest populated and industrialized area in the world (central Germany and surroundings), a viable certified regime of private airplanes is possible. I mean, it should be possible regardless of how EASA conduct itself, or how regulations are made because of the high concentration of people and wealth. I live in some of the least densely populated areas in the world (while still being industrialized), and I tell you, a viable regime according to EASA is not possible. We do not have enough concentration of people and wealth for each individual to support it. It is not worth it individually, and other alternatives have completely wiped out private ownership of EASA type fixed wing aircraft. If you don’t believe me, you can come and see for yourself, but bring both hands, so you can count all EASA aircraft

Luckily, right now our aviation authority (LT) is very forthcoming and has made these alternatives very good (I hope it lasts, it hasn’t always been like this). We can fly and build any experimental out there, with no restrictions. Its the same with Annex II aircraft (full IFR etc if we want), and microlight owners live happy lives. Helicopters are also a good alternative due to the commercial GA is rather large and is 90% helicopters, as well as ease of landing and operating (private helicopters is piggybacking on commercial operations more or less). The glider people operate on their own, they are their own competent EASA authority. GA is very much alive here, but it is NOT thanks to EASA, it is despite the nonsense from EASA. For some odd reason LT has decided to not allow permanent stay of N-reg aircraft. Maybe just as good, because if they did, there wouldn’t be a single privately owned European registered certified aircraft here. People wouldn’t even bother to take PPL, they would go to the US on a holiday and do it there (this could very well be the very reason for all I know).

The recipe for a viable regime is to be found in the US, and always has. The regime in Norway was very much like that before LT started to look in directions of JAA and EASA (in many ways it still is, regarding experimentals, Annex II and microlights, and also gliders). I simply do not understand why the EASA system has to be different than the US system to start with. It’s more like some childish urge to be different rather than an urge to create something viable based on what works and what doesn’t. It is unbelievably unprofessional in fact. The commercial part (airlines) seems to be doing well though, so it cannot be all bad, but private GA has been left to the morons it seems.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

When I started flying, I was told many times that I did not have the income or social standing (?) to own an airplane

That’s it right there IMO. Central Europe is still about social standing and bickering about social status, and this perception also exists within EASA. Private aircraft, PPL etc is something for the high status “class”. Something for those that can afford to keep FTOs and authorized maintenance organisations alive. It is not something for the common man or woman, not something for the free lance instructor or free lance mechanic, not classy enough? One has to wonder