Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Netherlands introducing new measures to block non-domestic Annex 1, and IFR in them

LeSving wrote:

As the very least, EASA could encourage a bit more cooperation and a bit more tolerance instead of the opposite.

If you translate “Annex I” by “All aircraft for which EASA is not responsible” (and that is very close to the actual definition), it becomes a tautology that EASA doesn’t care about Annex I.

Germany

Peter wrote:

not in the interest of any CAA (they lose some or all oversight, which makes them naturally nervous)

How they are handled is different from country to country and also different for different kind of aircraft within each country. For one country to keep track on all the differences in all other countries is probably way too much too ask? I mean talking to the local CAA, and chances are high you get in contact with someone with no clue what is going on in their own country, much less so any other country.

So naturally each country will “protect” its airspace because they have more than enough dealing with their own regulations and regimes. This is where EASA can make a huge difference. One way is an EASA wide “LAA” (just to mention something people here are somewhat familiar with ). In some regions of Europe this is the standard of how ULs are handled, if not set in stone, then at least de facto. But, it’s not the only way. Some aircraft are directly under the local CAA. For other CAAs to put restrictions on these aircraft is pretty ridiculous to start with. Too many small kings around. EASA can certainly make a difference here – if they wanted to.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

The problem is that “Annex 1” is

  • not in the interest of any CAA (they lose some or all oversight, which makes them naturally nervous)
  • not in the interest of the maintenance industry (which loses a lot of business, notably the margin on the more lucrative “parts with aviation paperwork”)
  • not in the interest of anybody who believes airspace should be for professional pilots only (basically, most of the bodies who own/control the air in Europe)
  • not in the interest of anybody who loves CONTROL (basically almost everybody in aviation)

We have Annex 1 for very good reasons but that doesn’t mean all the policymakers have to like it. In the UK it is quite a stable solution (because the LAA is very “close” to the CAA, you have a full inspector inspection every year which keeps the CAA happy as a principle, the LAA uses “interesting methods” to prevent G-regs being based abroad, and types which the LAA can’t handle e.g. a Spitfire are on a permit from the CAA) but many other registries don’t have that close oversight, which is of course better for the owners, enables some of them (notably PH) being based all over the place, but it is provocative. It’s like N-reg in the certified sphere: provocative, Brussels had done all it can to harrass the owners, but ultimately it remains.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I completely agree. But, the things you mention is no reason for EASA to not make such a “regulation” or whatever one should call it. After all, they do make regulations en mass, like no one else. It’s the lack of focus on GA that is the problem. EASA has it’s focus on airlines and the airline industry, and a little bit on GA, but only as far as there is some “factory production” going on. That EASA GA Roadmap really says it all.

Most EASA countries have perfectly OK working “Annex I regimes”, but they seem to forget they are all EASA countries. As the very least, EASA could encourage a bit more cooperation and a bit more tolerance instead of the opposite.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

@LeSving you seem to forget that EASA is not some sort of all powerful disparate body but is in fact made up of 29(or whatever it is) EU and non EU member states who all get a say in what regulations should be put in place and how. Not only that, even if a course of action suitable to all can be agreed within EASA, NAA’s can seek derogations if that course of action is not suitable to an individual country.
Even if all that is approved, if it needs a change to National laws it then has to be agreed within the European Parliament.
And then there are the lobbyists.
From my experience of having to make decisions in committees it is rarely easy.

France

LeSving wrote:

My point was simply to mention different certification specifications, and say it is no problem for EASA to create one more….

Lots of national “regimes” of non certified aircraft already operate on a similar principle. There are no reasons why these principles, or a similar principle could not be adapted EASA wide. The problem is with EASA…

A agree with you in principle, but I think that the problem is not with EASA but with the individual EU member states. My understanding is that the lack of standards for Annex I aircraft at the EU level is because it was impossible to reach an agreement — just like the increase in UL MTOM to 600 kg couldn’t be agreed on so it had to be left to the individual state to decide.

In the US it was firmly established a long time ago that aviation is a federal matter only and that states have no say in how it is regulated.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

You are winding yourself up in minute technicalities A_A There are specs for design, fabrication and maintenance. They are all there to “assure” airworthiness of specific certified aircraft. An owner, a pilot has to adhere to all of them (directly or indirectly), it doesn’t matter which. What I am saying is EASA could do something similar for non certified aircraft. All it takes is really some sort of minimum standard for the “competent authority” for how to handle them. A kind of “certification” of the “competent authority” if you like. Going into detailed technical certification matter makes little sense, because the aircraft we are talking about are not certified.

My point was simply to mention different certification specifications, and say it is no problem for EASA to create one more. It would have to be different than the usual EASA regulations which concerns factory built aircraft only. This is the core problem related to this thread. There is no EASA “approved” method of assuring airworthiness of non certified aircraft, only national. ECAC started ages ago, but ECAC cannot implement regulations. Today it may seem as if the national authorities are implementing their own regulations harder than before and creating new regulation that are stricter than before, at least regarding foreign aircraft. And the little cooperation that once was (during ECAC some 30-40 years ago) has withered away.

Lots of national “regimes” of non certified aircraft already operate on a similar principle. There are no reasons why these principles, or a similar principle could not be adapted EASA wide. The problem is with EASA. It’s exclusively an authority for pilots flying factory built (EASA) certified aircraft. It’s not an authority for GA pilots in “EASA land” on the same level as for instance the FAA, not even close.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

The same thing for practical purposes.

Not at all!

Lots of aircraft are designed according to CS-LSA, but are built and used as UL for instance, or sold as kits.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with ELA1/2.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

ELA 1 and 2 are not certification categories/standards but categories for continuing airworthiness (maintenance/modification).

The same thing for practical purposes. Lots of aircraft are designed according to CS-LSA, but are built and used as UL for instance, or sold as kits.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

There is no such thing as “full EASA airworthiness”. EASA has several standards (CS-LSA, VLA, ELA1,2 etc). Mostly bureaucratic nonsense, but one more shouldn’t be too difficult to create.

If an aircraft is designed according to a certification standard then it is, if you want to put it that way, “fully airworthy”. All countries have different standards, e.g. for light GA and transport category.

ELA 1 and 2 are not certification categories/standards but categories for continuing airworthiness (maintenance/modification).

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 11 Jul 07:38
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
38 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top