In that case Cirruses should be cheaper as thanks to the chute the probability of the numbnut’s family suing for civil tort is quasi nil.
Nobody has ever found any evidence that product liability features as a significant factor in the accounts of any company in GA. I recall someone once finding one US company which was spending a few % of revenue on insurance, which is irrelevant given the huge gross margins (c. 80%).
Unfortunately I agree that certified GA has nowhere to go, but at the same time I don’t think uncertified GA is of much help in Europe because it has always been there as an option yet has attracted only a certain finite following. Even if there were no foreign-flight issues, ultimately everybody is screwed by the lack of airports in the right places (lack of utility value; most people get fed up with flying A-to-A, or doing the same burger run). Farm strips don’t offer anything special to uncertified GA (you can fly a C182, or an RV, from “anywhere”) and in general they are tight as the proverbial when it comes to welcoming yet another plane which will help annoy the neighbours, so aren’t an option for most pilots.
So I think GA will always exist at some level, even if in decades to come it shrinks to the farm strips and such, following a collapse in the “proper” airfield facilities. That’s about the worst-case scenario. And ICAO certified planes will always be able to fly internationally.
Peter wrote:
Mainly for those who almost never leave their home country, and are OK with day VFR
The ECAC proposal/agreement has nothing to do with VFR vs IFR (not mentioned, irrelevant). The only thing it concerns is free crossing of the borders with homebuilt aircraft, ie without any prior permission. As such, it works almost everywhere, as of this summer even in Belgium from what I have heard. This year, a similar proposal also came into effect for vintage aircraft.
Silvaire wrote:
to me the obvious solution is for EU countries to agree to a single Experimental category covering their territory
Logically – yes. But it will never happen, and if it should happen, it would be more of a nightmare than a blessing IMO. The only way forward is ECAC and pilots in each country standing up for their rights, and standing up for common sense.
As such, it works almost everywhere
No it doesn’t…
nothing to do with VFR vs IFR
That’s mostly done with airspace regulations and/or Permit limitations…
This isn’t the USA.
European countries cannot agree to a single experimental category covering the whole of Europe because that would be international law, and as we found out today thanks to LeSving such a thing does not exist.
Peter wrote:
ut at the same time I don’t think uncertified GA is of much help in Europe because it has always been there as an option yet has attracted only a certain finite following
You should fly a bit more on the country side. Un-certified GA is to a surprisingly high degree a “farmer” thing, you find it spread out on the countryside. Certified GA is much more of a city phenomenon. Microlights will naturally have restrictions due to MTOW (this is changing though). Experimental aircraft don’t have any restrictions other than those imposed by medieval local aviation authorities. Some are more medieval than others, hence experimental aircraft are relatively more of a viable option some places than other places.
80-90% of un-certified GA over here is microlights. The country-side vs city certainly does not apply over here unless you want to say that at London City airport, there are more Gulfstreams than Vans RV.
LeSving, is that statement mostly fact or mostly opinion?
What statement?
“All” about it can be found