alioth wrote:
appealing to ICAO rules will often bring up inappropriate and overbearing rules
I find ICAO ruling in general quite reasonable. I am more preoccupied by their implementation by each country (continent in the case of EASA). In the above example, there are very few exceptions (if any, I dont recall) to ICAO ruling in FAA regulations for maintenance on Part 91 operations and pre-ELA EASA was compliant too. However, the approach could not have been more different from the POV being discussed here.
Interestingly enough, despite the overwhelming difference in such two rulings, with pre-ELA EASA having been much more burdensome than FAA on alleged safety grounds, there is no statistical evidence that any relevant GA safety benefits EASA vs FAA have been brought in the period 2003-2016 . Whichever benefits there were, had been overshadowed by the decreased utilization and general safety-decreasing diversion of resources towards EASA compliance.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Plus the ICAO rule that there should be someone at an airport who can call for help if you happen to crash on the runway actually makes some sense – the safety issue is more the pilots who are not willing to pay the price for it (don’t know about LESB but on most field I know you can make the person stay at the airport longer if you pay for it).
Do you have a reference to this rule? AFAIK the only countries in Europe that enforces such a rule are Germany and Austria (?). Anecdotally, the German rule is from the 1930s and for entirely different reasons than flight safety.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Sorry, but that is a very bad example – and actually harms the case more than it helps:
I disagree. It is a very good example. it shows how authorities impose restrictions for safety reasons which are real, but much less of a hazard that other situations that the restrictions force pilots into.
Another example of this is how expanded controlled airspace force VFR flights into narrow area with a concentration of uncontrolled aircraft. (England has lots of susch cases.)
Given that the FAA has allowed overlay GPS approaches for decades and EASA hasn’t, even though no airline in their right mind would allow an NDB approach to be flown with an NDB (they fly them on the FMS), tells me the safety management of EASA has some serious flaws.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The safety issues is some pilots attitude to commence flights of which they know they can’t perform safely.
I think safety is not as binary as it seems, it’s different to make a call YES/NO for flight while at home than at the runway holding point when you were delayed by OPS and things start going not according to plan 
The YES/NO on safety is highly theoretical, for example having to PPR will make a huge difference to safety options and decision making, perhaps not be an issue for “1000h PPL” (he does not give a toss what AD managers think of “NO PPR” show up) but that “bureaucracy” will get “100h PPL” under the rug !
Same for financial barriers: landing fee or flying without CAPS, in theory your life has no price 
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you have a reference to this rule?
Annex 14 Part 9.2
It is a rule, not a recommendation. As with any ICAO rule obviously states can deviate (ICAO has no governing power) and in this case many do – but that doesn’t change the nature of being a rule.
@Ibra are you arguing for or against ppr?
Is there really an EASA rule that says you cannot take off from an airfield without the presence of the fire brigade other than under LVP?
The lack of overlay approaches I can understand but who creates the overlay and pays for it? And wasn’t the position in much of Europe one of we are getting rid of NDB’s anyway and replacing them with RNAV approaches, we are not even going to insist they are flown for an IFR test or check ride
In the meantime NDB’s still exist in some places and can be flown by the people with ADF’s and want to fly them.
The only problem I really see when an RNAV or ILS approach uses the NDB for the missed.
But from this forum it seem that this regulation is widely ignored either by carrying an NDB aboard to keep legal and flying the missed on GPS or simply using the GPS anyway, thus breaking regulations. In which case perhaps the regulation should be scrapped as it serves no useful purpose, safety or otherwise.
gallois wrote:
s there really an EASA rule that says you cannot take off from an airfield without the presence of the fire brigade other than under LVP?
It is not an EASA but an ICAO rule – and to be precise it is not a person of the fire brigade but a person that could call the fire brigade in case of an accident.
Antonio wrote:
The problem is that there are so many things you know before your flight that restrict it, that on an ever increasing number of occasions/routes, the flight becomes impractical.
The flight you show in the picture is perfectly doable – with the right plane with the right equipment. alioth wrote:
people – particularly at the light end of the private aviation scene, who can see perfectly well the scale of regulation shouldn’t be much greater than it is for private cars – will start to disrespect the rules and the rule making process, and will begin to deviate from the ones they see as “nonsense”.
I would argue it’s not “people”, it’s some people – and those are very loudly claiming that “everybody do it” to justify their behavior. It’s the same with tax avoidance in many countries: Only few really do it but they loudly claim that everybody is doing it because you just can’t bear the taxes.
In addition the attitude you describe – esp. in relation to cars – often comes from people who have actually no clue about certification rules for cars! Try to find an aftermarket autopilot for a car or a “primary drive display” – it is impossible because you would never get it certified! Ensuring environmental compliance for a car is more complex (and more expensive) than certifying a whole plane. The problem with airplane certification rules is not the price/complexity by itself but it is that we as pilot community simply refuse to buy a factory new plane every five years. If Cessna would sell as many planes as Volkswagen sells cars every year. nobody would talk about certification complexity/cost.
If I would look for “regulation induced safety issues” I would more look at things like:
- Airspace structures that force to fly below safe altitude for extended time because there is no legal way to fly higher from a certain airfield
- Maintenance rules that force us to rip apart perfectly fine engines at given time periods
- VFR flight corridors/routes/procedures that are defined by arbitrary GPS locations and not visible landmarks – thus forcing pilots to use uncertified toys instead of watching out
- Allowing pilots to talk “funny national languages” on frequencies that are used by international pilots preventing them from getting a mental picture of traffic
Malibuflyer wrote:
often comes from people who have actually no clue about certification rules for cars!
Forgive me, but this thread seems to not be about certification rules, but operating rules.
The automotive equivalent of needing a person on the airfield, for instance, just in case you crash – would be to require marshalls along any road in a rural area and close the road when no marshalls are available, just in case you crash your car.
in theory your life has no price
I’m guessing that was tongue in cheek, but it is self-evidently untrue. In the words of Ben Franklin, they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
As civil engineers, we must put a price on human life. We can make our operations and works safer (for instance to resist a trillion year wind event), but then society couldn’t afford our products. Other professions like doctors, surgeons and gunmakers make similar calculations.
Again, as civil engineers we routinely balance one person’s risk against another’s. If we close a railroad so that we can repair it safely, we may cause dangerous overcrowding on other parts of the network and other modes of transport.
