The absolute worst things in GA

I once had the fuel pump blocked by an FI who had left his plane there when switching students

Upon reflection, the worst thing of GA is the internal wars and all too common selfishness.

here in USA an airport manager who is not a pilot and sees the GA as a source of revenue without end.

magyarflyer wrote:

here in USA an airport manager who is not a pilot and sees the GA as a source of revenue without end.

That can be very bad but at the same time he wants to keep those customers. Many airports do not see small GA as any source of income at all and just want to get rid of it. Now I do not know which one is better

Rwy20 wrote:

. An airline captain gets hit at night at a large airport by a service vehicle, so we need to wear hi-viz jackets everywhere in daytime on every grass strip?

Do we really need to wear them on every grass strip? In Switzerland we surely don’t. Zurich mandates them and I believe some others do, but smaller places like Speck don’t. However, many pilots choose to wear them while on the tarmac out of their own choice. It is also highly recommended to wear one if e.g. you have a car breakdown on a dark road or motorway, but again it is afaik not mandated.

Rwy20 wrote:

Similarly, a small jet overruns the runway in Samedan, and all piston aircraft pilots (and not the jet ones!) have to do a theory quiz every two years as a result of that.

Have to add that all the accidents which prompted the “we have to do something” reaction in the form of that quiz and requalification happened to biz jets, not one to my knowledge to small GA. However, Samedan has been trying to outprice small GA for years so it is only logical that they would target them as well.

Rwy20 wrote:

Or, a pilot buys an old plane with corroded engine, loses power on take-off (again in Samedan) and as a result, everyone has to pull their cylinders at TBO?

That accident happened at Saanen, LSGK, not Samedan. The location (and altitude) had probably very little influence on this. This case however is indeed a very bad example how a TSB would bully the authority into “doing something”. It has to be stressed that the STSB actually “recommended” that any airplane should have to be maintained to the standards of commercial airplanes, therefore banning any “on condition” operation and imposing calendar limits e.t.c. on privately operated planes. The FOCA reacted at the time with a technical bulletin demanding the pulling of cylinders e.t.c. at certain intervals to inspect camshaft and tappets as far as I remember. This was before EASA published the ELA1 rules, which permit on condition operation explicitly. The consequences were a lot of grounded airplane and one accident which people who know the airplane and (deceased) pilot in question blame on that maintenance action a few weeks before.

While the measures taken by the FOCA are inappropriate and contra EASA’s GA roadmap, the real scandal in this case is different however. The airplane in question was imported into Switzerland from Germany with a 30 year old never overhauled engine and was, in this condition, given a HB-registration. However, regulation at the time said clearly that ANY airplane imported and newly registered had to fulfill time and calendar TBO on all components. Hence, this plane should never have been registered here without overhaul of engine and prop at least. This was the first hole in the cheese.

The 2nd one was that after purchase, the airplane stood for almost a year before the accident flight. It is quite probable that the engine (which had about 1100 hours since new but was about 30 years old) was not corroded when it was imported and inspected but the damage was done by letting it sit outside for a full year. The 3rd hole was that at the departure prior to the accident flight (from Altenrhein to Saanen), the engine was observed to backfire and create very unusual noise, which would have prompted most pilots to cancel their flight and investigate. However, the pilot had time pressure (4th hole) because his passengers he was to pick up at Saanen had to catch a plane from Zurich. Therefore he also ignored the backfiring and “strange engine noises” which bystanders also noticed at Saanen prior to the departure. The engine did not produce enough power to safely get the airplane into a climb out and the flight crashed shortly behind the airfield boundary, collided with obstacles and burst into flames. All on board were killed. The pilot was a commander with a large Swiss airline on the Jumbolino series and well known and liked. He also owned a Cessna (182?) based at Sitterdorf in addition to the Piper Lance lost.

To sum up: The Swiss TSB issued a safety recommendation to treat any airplane as if it was used commercially with regard to TBO on the basis of a case of obvious lack of oversight, broken rules and very bad airmanship. The report did NOT even mention the fact that the TBO’s were then compulsory on import, which would have precluded this plane getting a Swiss registration without and overhaul.

Yes, I agree, this example (unfortunately not the only one in recent years) show the very worst of anti GA movement a) by a TSB who appears to think it is their job to make rules and, due to the very misguided rulemaking by a former transport minister has to open their whole investigation to courts of law, countermanding Annex 13 and b) by a CAA who feels bullied regularly into reacting to the safety recommendations by implementing them to the letter (which they actually did not do in this case but which might have been better as such a ruling would have been countermanded by EASA’s ELA rules). The same TSB and the unfortunate ministry ruling has also caused some rather well known cases brought against ATCO’s and pilots and basically undone any attempt at just culture.

Silvaire wrote:

The description is PR mush. I think its a government paid flying club that does some search and rescue. As a taxpayer I’d rather the funding be eliminated,

There’s an organisation of the same name in the UK but at least we don’t pay for it.

It’s literally a bunch of self-appointed blokes who make themselves badges and call themselves ‘chief pilot’ and the like. They attempt to offer (free) aerial services of one sort or another to various authorities, but these days I believe the take-up is pretty low as there’s a general aversion to utilising any unofficial resource.

As far as the US goes, I don’t think there is a “worst thing”. GA flying in the US is a thoroughly agreeable pastime, with (at least around here) no major annoyances. Of course it costs a fortune, but you knew that when you signed up. Mx problems can be annoying, but again you knew that when you signed up if you bought your own. If I started again I would rent from a local club which has an excellent selection of very nice recent aircraft. But my plane and I now are like an old married couple, and we get along very well.

US pilots like to moan about the FAA, but compared to any other xAA they are a bunch of saints. Airport managers can be a nuisance but rarely more.

Now Europe, that’s a whole ‘nother story. My impression is that absolutely everyone is out to get small plane GA, whether it’s officious jobsworth airport managers, or Eurocontrol, or EASA, or the guy who cuts the grass in the next field, or just about everyone. I guess I’ll find out when I move back (f ever, given the current circumstances).

Graham wrote:

It’s literally a bunch of self-appointed blokes who make themselves badges and call themselves ‘chief pilot’ and the like

Amateur radio has a subsection that’s essentially the same crowd, who really get into the “emergency communications” and end up doing things like installing light bars on their cars and going around in high viz vests. It seems more common in the US than here. They are nicknamed “whackers”.

In the UK at least, embracing and even demanding more red tape than there already is… People wanting to be nannied by the state even more than they already are instead of just using common sense and good judgement.

I think it’s just people get browbeaten so much by jobsworths, they get flipped around from “if it’s not explicitly allowed, it’s prohibited” mindset.

Unfortunately aviation is a magnet for jobsworths, absolutely irresistable to them, lots of impeneterable rules they can enforce how they like and almost no one will question them, and it leads to everyone else being slightly suspicious of “is reasonable thing A allowed?” because they’ve not heard of a rule allowing it.

Case in point: when they relaxed the COVID restrictions about flying here, immediately someone with a microlight not at Ronaldsway asked “Does this allow us to fly too? I want to see something in writing”. I replied to him – if it’s not explicitly disallowed, then it absolutely is allowed – don’t be so nervous about it! Go fly and keep current! The current COVID rules from the Isle of Man are just a couple of paragraphs.