Not to mention what the Lizard People allow on TV which is yet another thing.
Drain the swamp!
I will move all this stuff to the politics thread when I get time.
Dont bother.
But how on earth can you discuss this title without getting into regulations which are derived from politics?. Actually most of your regulations that make Europe so different and therefore difficult for GA is done under the guise of safety which usually have a political bent. So people will comment on it and sometimes go off on a tangent as happened when one member said they are used to paying for services they receive here in Europe and implying that we in the US dont.
The problem is that some people don’t know when to stop, and some see it as a chance to post vile personal stuff.
The mod is then left with 2 options: delete (and risk another sh1tstorm behind the scenes) or move it to that thread (which seems to have been a very successful strategy).
I have already stated many times that politics as it relates to aviation is fine to discuss. Of course most aviation-regulatory stuff is political.
C210_Flyer wrote:
But how on earth can you discuss this title without getting into regulations which are derived from politics?.
Generally the problems (at least in my experience) are not from “big politics” (i.e. government, local or national or super-national) but things imposed by airfield operators. The regulations put out by EASA and the UK CAA are generally far less restrictive than some of the crap privately run airfields impose, e.g. absurdly short opening hours, bureaucratic processes if you want to operate outside of those hours, mandatory handling and even little things like having to wear yellow jackets and the likes. None of that comes from national or European aviation regulation but from the airfields themselves that seem hell bent on deterring the very business that keeps them afloat.
alioth wrote:
None of that comes from national or European aviation regulation but from the airfields themselves that seem hell bent on deterring the very business that keeps them afloat.
Quite a few of them are under a stranglehold by local anti noise groups. In the 1980ties and 90ties many airfields made the mistake of believing in honesty within those groups and agreed to this kind of concessions they now can’t ever get rid of just to shut them up. It works in some instances but there are many examples where despite strict anti noise rules the groups will carry on the fight to close them anyhow, often supported by local politicians who are desparately trying to show “they are doing something” which will only miff a very small part of the (re)electorship but look good on the resume. As long as “having forced closure of the local airfield” still is regarded as an accomplishment, this won’t change.
Now that you bring it up you are correct. It seems it has a lot to do with the airport management itself. From the Landing fees, to the handling fees, to the opening hours all are related to the airport mismanagement. The overall structure is not bad when it relates to ATC or EASA.
So the answer is to make airports part of the EU transportation infrastructure and since the many airports have a propensity to make decisions which adversely affect the use of their airports have to give then guidelines to follow. Like small children who cant manage by themselves they must be held by the hand to make it work. There are a few exceptions of course. Bled comes to mind and Portoroz, LHPR.
Im looking for expanded hours of Op without fire trucks, medics, police tower (unicom personnel) standing by when they are open driving up the cost thereby giving greater utility.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Im looking for expanded hours of Op without fire trucks, medics, police tower (unicom personnel) standing by when they are open driving up the cost thereby giving greater utility.
This is another one where AOPA is trying to get some sanity into the equation. There was a note in the latst IAOPA newsletter about EU rescue and firefighting regulation causing problems.
http://www.iaopa.eu/contentServlet/iaopa-europe-enews-july-2017
BTW, and perhaps this is for another thread, has anyone tried to use the GA-Desk for registering national conflicts with EASA regs, or misapplication of such?
alioth wrote:
Generally the problems (at least in my experience) are not from “big politics” (i.e. government, local or national or super-national) but things imposed by airfield operators.
True and I do agree that they create 75% of the nonsense that makes flying here so impractical and expensive. However that is the 75% the other 25% portion has to do with the insane amount of tax on fuel and aircraft products and services. The govt kisses up to to business travel while totally screwing the private owner. I need to fly to Munich and back the beginning of Sept. My girlfriend and I will then depart for a Mediterranean Holiday a cruise. I would be leaving the plane at EDMA. She thinks its impractical to take the plane due to the costs compared to Lufthansa. 165 Euros round trip for LH compared to 1500 Euros to take my plane not including landing and parking. For which I can throw on another 100Euros to that price. Out of the 300 Euro flight the first hour consists of 186 Euros for gas. Almost 1/2 the cost of the flight. Mind you most of that cost is tax on the gas. Ok its not a fair comparison Wood class which over the years the seats have developed more and larger splinters compared to Uber first class with a sheepskin covered reclinable seat. But still a 10x difference in price! In the US for my state to be competitive with other states there was no sales tax on Parts and Labor with aircraft bills giving a 8 3/4% savings. Here it costs 19% on Labor and parts. The fuel while still having tax on it was priced at 1/2 what they sell it for here. Fly to Serbia to see that Gas can be sold for 1 Euro and they still make a profit per Liter and not 2.45Euro/Lt.
I fly in any case cause I want to and can afford it but many people cant dump that kind of money around and its tempting to just go commercial. Especially if the spouse has a big say in the expenses. So the practical German is telling me to just take Lufthansa and Im very tempted.
The above content was for informational purposes only and not to be used for life’s Navigation.
Well, Munich is probably the worst example of the kind. I avoid flying there because it is more than obvious that Munich hates GA and wants them away.
Things like it however work well enough elsewhere. I know a guy who regularly uses Memmingen as a departure point for business flights and others, they are a base for cheap flights. He flies out there with his airplane and back after he returns. Mostly the destinations he uses are such which are not available from ZRH easily and would need multiple transit stops, so for him it works out just fine. I suppose you can do similar things in places like Hamburg or Hannover, Paderborn e.t.c. where GA is still accepted.
