An expensive and a bureaucratic quagmire.

[unmanned transport]

In the US, Canada and Australia it is your right to be able to fly. No roads in some places!
In Europe it is a privilege to be able to fly.

What people sometimes forget is the small size of this place. (British Isles)
The British isles are a small land mass at around 95,000 sq miles (give or take), California, one state alone is over 160,000 sq miles, almost twice the size.

We are saddled with needless over regulation, needless bureaucracy, excessive taxes to pay for a whole host of irrelevant things and sadly,
we are now one of the most expensive highly taxed countries in the world and a country which has eroded away its freedoms through that big brother state mindset.
The government is too much in our lives and it appears that Socialism rules us.

My local airfield is Shoreham, and I have had a number of flights there now with instructors to help build my confidence of flying in the British isles,
and during these flights I have had a few touch & go's and have had to stomach the £8.72 each time I put my wheels on the tarmac, or indeed grass.
In the US I could do as many tough & go's as I liked and didn't have pay any extra costs for this. In a 2 hour lesson I could nail 15 landings easily and this is partcularly good at perfecting the all important landing phase of the flight. Also, if my approach looked unstable or I wanted to practice very important go arounds I could do this too and wouldn't have to worry about extra costs.

Whilst thinking about this, I decided that instead of doing touch and go's I would merely do circuit practice at Shoreham and instead substitute the touch and go for go arounds each time and avoid the extra cost. However, having looked at the Shoreham airport website I've realised that even a go around is subject to the £8.72 charge. Staggering!!

I question how many unstable approaches and consequently how may bad and potentially dangerous landings occur in the British isles because of not wanting to pay the 'approach charge'.
I argue that this does not allow a pilot to fly safely and relaxed, and I was taught that if any part of the approach is not right you should instigate a go around. I believe this is good and safe airmanship and that people should not be forced into making landings.
It also means that during the training phase you are restricted on your approach and landing practice because of the additional costs associated with this.
Take my 2 hour, 15 landing scenario: 15 x 8.72 = £130.8 just for landing. Lot's of dosh!!

I consider flying somewhere new now, having paid £22 to land C152s at Biggin in the past!

Redhill airfield charges.
Charges - Redhill Aerodrome (http://www.redhillaerodrome.com/index.php/pilot-information/charges)

Popham membership is £125/year covering landings.
A quick google tells me at Popham I could get a C150 share for £2k, then £55/month and £35/hr - so at a sensible minimum of 30 hrs per year, renting at Shoreham would be £4,200, and a share would be ~£3,830 for your first year, and £1,830 for the second and subsequent years (with every chance of getting your £2k back one day).

We live in the British isles and we can land outside of the published operating hours (with prior permission) if we pay an extra £100 or so for the privilege!

Don't even mention the cost of fuel.......................I will......
Avgas at around £2 a litre has really taken the shine off flying!

Took a Citation into Norwich for a few hours last week. The aircraft owner got a bill for about £400 to land and be handled there and thats not a major airport. It does make you wonder how anyone can afford to fly in the UK or for that matter how the airports and their sub industries can manage to survive over here.

Durham Tees, the landing fee was fixed at £24.99. Compare that to Doncaster and Humberside - both £44 for a PA28 for landing, then there's handling at Donny too....

Cranfield, England Landing Fees.

I paid landing fees of about £30 quid (US $50) for a light single and nearly £50 (USD 83) for a twin.

When I last enquired about landing fees at Cranfield they quoted me £37 (USD 62) + VAT for a PA28.
I've recently done an IMC hold and ILS approach (during my IMC flight test!) at Cranfield - didn't land - and was charged £20 (USD 33) + VAT.

I was last there in June last year and I remember paying about £30 (USD 50) in a C152.

I paid £41 (USD 68) for the pleasure of landing at Durham tees valley recently, bloody daylight robbery!

For a PA28 it was around £40 (USD 67) weekdays

Being charged for exam sign-off!
Hi there,
Please can someone advise me, I am considering changing flight schools,
I have been informed by the CFI at my current flight school that the last four ground exams I passed have not been signed off and that they will charge me to have them signed off.
Is this normal practice?
I find this totally incredible as I assummed not only that each exam passed would be signed off after being taken.
The CFI then told me that their usual practice is to wait until the student complete's the PPL course and then they get them all signed off,any advice I would be most grateful for, thanks,

Have you paid the CAA fee to the school for each of the exams you've taken thus far?
If yes, then the school have recorded the pass on behalf of the CAA, else what have you paid a CAA fee for?

The only "sign off" you need is the record of exams on your licence application (CAA form SRG1105) and there's already a fee for that application (£181 - (USD 301) see CAA Scheme of Charges, Personnel Licensing, 28 January 2011), not a secondary fee for signing bits of it.

Could anyone please tell me what the EuroNav charges would be on something like a TBM 700 currently....
A TBM is about £50-£100 (USD 83-166) per hour.

[Whopity]

Have you paid the CAA fee to the school for each of the exams you've taken thus far?The CAA exam fee only applies to examinations taken at Examination Centres administered by the CAA. Anything charged at a Flying School is of their making. The CAA charge the examiner for the priviledge of being an examiner so they are covering their costs and time.I have been informed by the CFI at my current flight school that the last four ground exams I passed have not been signed off and that they will charge me to have them signed off.The school may make a charge for examinations but this should be published in their list of charges. An examiner has the responsibility to sign for an examination once complete. If they follow CAA guidance, all charges should be made prior to tests not after. CAA guidance used to be that examiners should not charge for signing documents for revalidation, most do not so simply boycott those that do.

[IO540]

What you are describing is basically the result of GA in Europe being privatised and not subsidised by the general taxpayer as a transport infrastructure which is what the USA does.

There isn't anything one can do about it, but yes it is crap.

However this

Took a Citation into Norwich for a few hours last week. The aircraft owner got a bill for about £400 to land and be handled there and thats not a major airport. It does make you wonder how anyone can afford to fly in the UK or for that matter how the airports and their sub industries can manage to survive over here.

is wholly self inflicted by the owners of these planes, most of whom couldn't care less what they pay, and this has given rise to silly prices like that. Add to that inept airport management (pretty well the standard in much of Europe) which "likes jets and doesn't like pistons" and you get all the airports which have priced GA out while happily charging £400 a pop to jet owners who pay it without a blink.

IMHO, if jet owners decided to become strategic on this, we would see big changes at airports, which would probably consider killing the "mandatory handling" system which has become so common. But this will never happen all the time enough people want to pay £5000 for a spot of shopping at Cannes.

Cranfield's charges are plain silly; they have decided that the schools there make them enough money and they don't want anybody else going there.

[BEagle]

The CFI then told me that their usual practice is to wait until the student complete's the PPL course and then they get them all signed off,any advice I would be most grateful for, thanks,

That's ridiculous. When the Examiner (and no-one else) marks and debriefs you on a PPL exam, if you pass he/she must sign as such on your PPL Application Form SRG1105 rather than waiting weeks or months until you actually apply for your licence.

Lazy schools with slack administration often pay little attention to this requirement; you should insist that the Examiner does so.

Everything must have been completed before the Skill Test; if the Examiner checks the application form and finds that your exams haven't been 'signed-off', he/she has every right to take your fee and terminate the Skill Test there and then!

[IO540]

I wonder why the OP has disabled his PMs?

[B4aeros]

In the US, Canada and Australia it is your right to be able to fly. No roads in some places!
In Europe it is a privilege to be able to fly.
This sort of drivel is posted by people who actually think it makes them seem clever. It doesn't. You pay for lessons, fly a syllabus, pass the ground exams & pass a flight test - the process is the same in all those countries.

Shoreham Airport has strict noise abatement rules:
Shoreham Airport has a local agreement with West Sussex County Council (under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act) which among other things sets limits on:
- Total annual air traffic movements (75,000 max excluding emergency services)
- Touch and Go movements (22,000 max within the overall total of 75,000)
- The number of heavy aircraft (ie in excess of 15000lbs) using the airfield in any one year.
- The hours and types of operation.and their charges are deliberately high to keep annual movements within their limits. They do not charge for genuine go arounds or baulked approaches.

You are a hobby flyer. Assuming you are a grown up, there is no good reason why anyone else should subsidise your hobby, least of all the taxpayer. Airfield fees are how you pay for the infrastructure you use. You have a choice, if you don't think an airfield is worth the money, don't use it.

[TWR]

there is no good reason why anyone else should subsidise your hobby, least of all the taxpayer

1. Government doesn't seem to have a problem with subsidizing other hobbies.
"Sports" for a starter... :yuk:

2. If they won't spend a penny on aviation, I don't see why I should continue to pay
those ridiculously high fuel taxes. :=

[flyems]

You are a hobby flyer. Assuming you are a grown up, there is no good reason why anyone else should subsidise your hobby, least of all the taxpayer. Airfield fees are how you pay for the infrastructure you use. You have a choice, if you don't think an airfield is worth the money, don't use it.

Hobby flier I might be, I restate my previous posting...

I refuse to keep on apologising for my hobby and what it costs me, I dislike the money that flows from my back pocket to benefits, but I am told that it's my punishment for being successful!! I also sign a cheque for HMRC from my company on a monthly basis which irks me considering the inability of the powers that be to spend it responsibly...

My comments in a previous posting remain topical....



Quote:
It gets me going when some suggest that all I am doing in this country is to pillage and rob the economy and those people that do not partake of one of my passions…

‘Millionaire pilots’ invariably contribute the following items to keep this economy afloat, including but not limited to:

1. PAYE in HUGE chunks, because they are either employed, or employers,
2. Tax on fuel for their vehicle(s),
3. Road tax for their vehicle(s),
4. Create employment in aviation,
5. Council tax in HUGE chunks for their residences, because I cannot imagine many of them, if any, in benefit housing,
6. Huge chunks of VAT for equipment, training, etc, etc,
7. Taxes on aviation fuel.


Taxes should not be punitive, should not be tweaked and adjusted to reflect my income/asset base/activities etc, it should be levied equally to those that partake, or could potentially partake of the benefits provided by those taxes.

Alternately people with other expensive hobbies, i.e. photography, parenthood, car racing, etc etc should be subjected to the same persecution....



It seems acceptable to 'subsidise' activities through taxes, GA is not one of them...

[The500man]

In the US I could do as many tough & go's as I liked and didn't have pay any extra costs for this.If you are successful and rich, then there probably isn't a country on Earth you couldn't move to.

If you are successful and rich, move to the US and save yourself having to pay those circuit fees.

Whatever you do, don't go to live in the US if you are poor! (Even if you could!)

[Pilot DAR]

I have to agree with B4aeros to a large degree. Running and airport involves a lot of cost, a lot of lost opportunity for the value of the land, and often involves negotiation with the neighbours. All of that will result in a cost, which should be borne by the user. I really do not want Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer paying for my "hobby", as they could then influence the terms, and, they'll want me to pay for theirs.

I have posted before that once you've bought the land, made the runway, and built the hanger, landing fees will sound cheap by comparison.

[IO540]

‘Millionaire pilots’ invariably contribute the following items to keep this economy afloat, including but not limited to:

1. PAYE in HUGE chunks, because they are either employed, or employers,
2. Tax on fuel for their vehicle(s),
3. Road tax for their vehicle(s),
4. Create employment in aviation,
5. Council tax in HUGE chunks for their residences, because I cannot imagine many of them, if any, in benefit housing,
6. Huge chunks of VAT for equipment, training, etc, etc,
7. Taxes on aviation fuel.

How true. I have a very small business but it (and me) pays enough taxes to send every kid in my village to school.

[Pilot DAR]

pays enough taxes to send every kid in my village to school.

Well, yes, but IO, it is a rather small village!

[IO540]

OK; he's a windup.

Well spotted :ok:

[Pace]

10540

There is probably a lot of googling, cutting and pasting going on in this forum :ok:

How many check their answers first by googling away and edit the professional answers to look as if all that knowledge comes from the posters superior intellect?

If someone has already said what you want to say why not save a lot of time and effort by putting together bits and pieces from articles you like?

At least the guy must have liked the comments I made which is flattering as I usually write a load of drivel :E

Pace

[HighFlyer75]

I have to admit to being a bit baffled by this thread. At a stretch I can maybe understand why people with no flight experience might come on here and post things they have found on google so that they can sound like they know their stuff and boost their ego. But just word for word copying someone elses complaint/opinion, what is the point? What possible jollies can someone get from that?

[Pilot DAR]

I usually write a load of drivel. This sort of drivel is posted by people who actually think it makes them seem clever. I can maybe understand why people with no flight experience might come on here and post things. plagiarizing other people's threads from older posts and passing them off as his own work.........

Hey this copying is great! I don't have to think to post!

And to think, a PPRuNer was banned for being offensive, I wonder what the penalty for gross plagarizm is?

[Pilot DAR]

Thought....is Guppy back! - reincarnated

We'll be wondering that, at every odd post! The phantom of PPRuNe!

[Aerials]

No! Guppy didn't need to plagarize other folk's posts, I always thought that his posts were all original material from him - and I miss them! Come back Guppy!!

[proudprivate]

I find the idea of GA being a "hobby" slightly bizarre. Yes, there are recreational pilots, just as there are people who drive Lotuses and Ferraris on sunny Sundays. But GA as a whole is no more the province of "hobbyists" than driving a car....


:D Well said ! Unfortunately a lot of people in Belgium (or Europe) don't seem to grasp that. I remember being slightly irritated when one of the standard Belgian syllabi writes "A two-blade propellor is common for a sports aircraft", completely ignoring private flying as a means of transport.

Indeed, it is like saying that all non-lorry or bus drivers are "hobbyists". I suddenly get this great EASA inspired road safety idea : as Europe wants to halve the number of road accidents by 2020, why don't we just introduce a ban on private car usage ? Actually, we don't ban it, we just require potential drivers to sit 7 ludicrous exams and charge £20K for the license issuing. Road safety guaranteed !

[Pilot DAR]

Well, if ever there was a thread worthy of drifting, it's gotta be this one!

Sport planes: Is personal flying from place to place, or just "around" to the pilot's satisfaction a sport? Is driving a car with a removable roof and stripes on a public road a sport? I know that my car is not insured if I drive it in "sporting events", so I'm certain it's not a sports car (I doubt that many diesel station wagons would be anyway!). I have noticed that most TV advertisments for cars, which show them being driven, have a warning at the bottom of the sreen which says something like "professional driver, closed course", so I wonder if I could buy that car, and drive it on a public road anyway.

I do loop and roll my plane, as well as use it of long distance flying, but aside from possible air traffic control interest, nobody judges or scores my flying, so I doubt either personal aerobatics, or cross country flight is a sport.

I do see a lot of trucks labled "OFF ROAD" on public roads, I've always wonder how that is allowed!

I can see the wisdom of the 7 exams and 20K for driving licensing. We'd have only the very best, most serious people driving, and the income would cover highway costs excellently!

If someone would like to have flying as a hobby, that's perfectly fine with me, as long as they take it as serioulsy as those of us who work in the aviation industry. But, as long as businesses struggle to make a go of it with a few two seat trainers, and John Travolta flies a B707 around for a hobby, I don't think "hobby" and aircraft size should be associated with each other.

[mad_jock]

H'mm Belgium and driving standards :p

The difference between the US geography and GA and European is like poo and cheese. There are small areas of the US around major hubs which come near it but the rest is like flying in the North of scotland apart from the fact you get a radar service.

The simple fact is that GA does interact with commercial aircraft all the time in europe. The GA pilots have to be several steps up from your example of standard car drivers.

Personally I would have all car drivers doing a test every 5 years. And pro drivers one every 2 years even though that would mean a whole heap of effort for me and loosing my C+E license. But then again I haven't driven a 44tonner for 5 years now and I know in myself it wouldn't be safe.

The level of FAA training is just as variable as JAR training you get some gooduns and you get some bad. I have seen some shockers both FAA and JAR and thats both private pilots and commercial.

Alot of folk don't have an issue with the status quo just now until we read about people like Robert Weaver who would never be able to operate the way he does if he wasn't able to use the FAA and N-reg to side step the European system.

I really don't want to see the likes of PACE and IO not to be allowed to continue doing what they are doing. But the current stituation cannot be allowed to continue. I will admit the method of stopping the previous practises is flawed and also the method of bring the changes in is barbaric and is self defeating to what it is trying to achieve.

I have no doudt they will do it though. It makes no difference to me personally one way or the other.

Personally I would have removed the dispensation for airways charges for lights (none training) and also made VFR pay them for crossing FIR boundarys. With also an additional fee for none EU reg aircraft flying internally in the EU. Would have solved the majority of issues within a few years by simply making all users pay the cost of maintaining the european ATS infrastructure.

[proudprivate]

This thread was obviously started by a sciolist; I recommend he/she should be banned from the forum.

I merely wanted to react to the misconception of so many who see private flying as "recreational", or a "hobby", as opposed to a genuine means of private travel (for business, personal or other reasons).



I can see the wisdom of the 7 exams and 20K for driving licensing. We'd have only the very best, most serious people driving, and the income would cover highway costs excellently!


If you see the "wisdom" in that, I take it you never had a course in or read a book about economics. The point I'm trying to make is that, whilst some regulation is useful or even necessary, it has to be balanced with economic concerns and civil liberties. Their is a tendency of civil servants, fuelled by self-aggrandissement, to overregulate while abusing a safety argument. As such, the comparison with cars was ironic and meant to expose this abuse of argument.


I don't think "hobby" and aircraft size should be associated with each other.

Who on earth made that association ? What we want is to be allowed to fly from A to B at FL100-ish in a PA28-180 or similar, under IFR, and get family, friends and business associates there and back, safe and sound.



But, as long as businesses struggle to make a go of it with a few two seat trainers...


so we need protectionist regulation to subsidize the inefficient European flight training scene ? Maybe I'm missing the point you are trying to make, but shouldn't the main concern be that we get as many future pilots (professional and other) trained as the market can optimally sustain ? Doesn't the solution therefore lie in assuring the competencies of the trainer, whilst removing all unneccesary barriers to entry ? But I confess I'm struggling to grasp the idea behind your last paragraph.

PP.

[IO540]

Alot of folk don't have an issue with the status quo just now until we read about people like Robert Weaver who would never be able to operate the way he does if he wasn't able to use the FAA and N-reg to side step the European system.Come off it, MJ.

I know nothing about RW but if I was going to fly totally off the books, with a plane which has no CofA, has never been maintained, has forged logbooks, I have a forged logbook, no license, no medical, no insurance, my choices would be:

a) G-reg (no EU country has the right to inspect its VAT status, and the UK CAA don't do ramp checks), or

b) N-reg (potentially gets turned over anywhere in Europe, and if the UK office of the FAA get to hear of some dodgy stuff they will drive down and take a look, and plenty of people hate N-regs and are likely to spill the beans)

What do you think I would go for? G-reg every time.

Reading the AAIB reports, the most notable recently totally-duff-paperwork case is that totally fatal one of a bloke doing amateur aeros and killing himself and passengers, who had basically no valid paperwork, no maintenance, and had forged big chunks of his pilot logbook. He was G-reg. The only N-reg one I can think of was Graham Hill in ~ 1976 whose CofA was invalid because it was deregistered from N and never registered anywhere else, and I am 99% sure GH (not short of money) was unaware. IMHO the most likely explanation was that somebody requested an FAA Export CofA to be done, the FAA de-registered the aircraft (as they might do in that case) but the UK end was not on top of things.

But the current stituation cannot be allowed to continueWhy not?

Personally I would have removed the dispensation for airways charges for lights (none training) and also made VFR pay them for crossing FIR boundarys. With also an additional fee for none EU reg aircraft flying internally in the EU. Would have solved the majority of issues within a few years by simply making all users pay the cost of maintaining the european ATS infrastructure. 28th Jun 2011 12:15The very slight problem with that is that now the powers to be would have to deliver a service guarantee to VFR traffic, which is somewhat in excess of their ICAO obligations ;) It's also barmy to do route charges to VFR traffic - how would you work it out?

[proudprivate]

The simple fact is that GA does interact with commercial aircraft all the time in europe.


That is simply not true. Light GA (sub 2 Tonnes) generally avoids the big airfields and happily trods along at sub FL120 without a big bird in sight. Also, for take offs and landings, we generally get scheduled behind any commercial trafic, and I don't mind that, but the "interaction" or "clogging of airways" simply isn't there.


Personally I would have all car drivers doing a test every 5 years. And pro drivers one every 2 years even though that would mean a whole heap of effort for me and loosing my C+E license. But then again I haven't driven a 44tonner for 5 years now and I know in myself it wouldn't be safe.


Ok so you also didn't pick up an Economics course at St. Andrews. Too bad. Although you do get an intuitive hint of it, by pointing out that it "would mean a whole heap of effort".


Alot of folk don't have an issue with the status quo just now until we read about people like Robert Weaver who would never be able to operate the way he does if he wasn't able to use the FAA and N-reg to side step the European system.


You don't need EASA / Commission to lie to parliament to do something about Robert Weaver. The Police arresting him would be a good start. Also, assuming only half of what is being told in the ferry thread is true, the CAA would have of plenty of ways to stop Mr Weaver. Verification of Address and a quick exchange with the FAA would do the trick. The other license issues that are being mentioned can easily be verified on the ramp.

I also don't think that Mr Weaver is representative in any sort of way for the N-reg scene in Europe.


Personally I would have removed the dispensation for airways charges for lights (none training) and also made VFR pay them for crossing FIR boundarys. With also an additional fee for none EU reg aircraft flying internally in the EU. Would have solved the majority of issues within a few years by simply making all users pay the cost of maintaining the european ATS infrastructure.


I think we should then raise the question of cost-efficiency. As the routing charges in Europe are being used to fund 2/3 of the 107 million EASA budget, you might intuitively come up with a few suggestions.

Mad Jock, you're sounding like one of those frustrated underpaid public transport bus drivers that hate cars. Banning cars has far more devastating effects on the economy than the minute employment possibilities increase for bus drivers.

[mad_jock]

The VFR you have to have a a flight plan to cross international FIR boundarys. Do it off that.

Have a search for a ferry bad experence on pprune for Weavers background.

You don't need a service to be liable for having the privilege of being allowed to fly. You have used the ATS system for crossing and by default you have access to the emergency services which they provide even if you don't use them.

Why not?

Because you living in europe and you are european if you like it or not. If you don't like it do what alot of us do a go somewhere else. Then realise thats its not quite as bad as we thought and then come back again.

I think quite a few bikers would like to have an american chopper with no front brakes and a suicide clutch and ride around without a helmit on. Stick a Arizona plate on, should they be allowed to ride it around europe?

[IO540]

Have a search for a ferry bad experence on PPRuNe for Weavers background.I couldn't care less. I know many N-reg owner-pilots and every one of them is 100% legit, and a very careful pilot too. I know of some walter mitties (don't we all) but they are invariably flying G-regs.

Because you living in europe and you are european if you like it or not. If you don't like it do what alot of us do a go somewhere else. Then realise thats its not quite as bad as we thought and then come back again. You need to drag yourself into the latter part of the 20th century. This is aviation, which is an inherently international activity, and civilised countries are supposed to behave in an open manner. I know it's the 21st c. now but it's better to do things one small step at a time otherwise the wheels might come off.

I think quite a few bikers would like to have an american chopper with no front brakes and a suicide clutch and ride around without a helmit on. Stick a Arizona plate on, should they be allowed to ride it around europe?

The main reason they can't (beyond X months) is because a) they would not pay road tax and b) they would evade speeding tickets.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

Are you saying that when you get into a detailed technical argument that you don't check your facts are correct?
Where I would agree with you is there is a facility for highlighting which I always use if I refer to another's post.
Passing off someone else's writing as your own is a bit ???
But I for one am not upset or insulted that he used my writings.
Flattered that he thought they were good enough to use!

Pace

[mad_jock]

Nah was never a bus driver, well held the ticket for it but always stuck to lorrys. But yes I am a bus driver now.

And my economics is that of any Mechanical engineer very simple.

Yes it would be an effort but if it got half the useless bastards off the road that we have now I would be happy to put that effort in.

You do get involved in CAT. A sub 2 ton aircraft takes up a slot in the flow control for CAT aircraft, it also takes that slot for a huge amount of time at 120knots compared to 300knts plus. You use more reasources but don't pay for it. Each sector is only allowed a certain number of aircraft under an ATCO's control at any one time.

[mad_jock]

You might not care less but alot of us do care about folk bypassing the legal system in the community we live in. And it doesn't matter how safe we are as individuals we still have to conform. If you want to predominately own and fly a N reg on an FAA ticket do it in the USA. If you want to live and fly in europe do it on a european reg with a european ticket. Just because its easier/ costs less, you (or for that matter 1000's of other pilots) think its better than the european reg/ticket is neither here nor there.

If a US citizen wants to visit europe with their N reg stay for a bit and then go home they are more than welcome.

And loopholes have been part of history for years and so has closing them.

The method this time has been dirty but still that doesn't mean it shouldn't be closed.

And the chopper wouldn't be allowed on the public highway because it doesn't conform to local law for safety standards, which also applys to not wearing a lid.

6 Months after arriving in most european country's you need to get a local driving license (unless you have one from another memeber state) which to be honest would be more than acceptable rule for pilots licenses as well.

[IO540]

I thought you were a pilot, MJ, flying somebody around.

Never knew you were a bus driver.

[proudprivate]

You do get involved in CAT. A sub 2 ton aircraft takes up a slot in the flow control for CAT aircraft, it also takes that slot for a huge amount of time at 120knots compared to 300knts plus. You use more reasources but don't pay for it. Each sector is only allowed a certain number of aircraft under an ATCO's control at any one time.


Mad Jock, I think you are in vain searching for an argument here.

Have you ever talked to people actively involved in ATC (those knowledgeable, competent and friendly people from Brussels Departure for instance) or ATC design (at Eurocontrol) ?

Then you would realise there is NO resource issue. Except at take-off or landing (and even then) all those hours at 120kts TAS are at flight levels where nobody from the CAT scene ever comes. And in the rare event there is a traffic issue, they will route you out well in advance on a significant detour.

The only real interference is there when we target a destination that is still somewhat affordable for light GA yet also has relatively busy CAT traffic. But then we are already paying medium highish landing and parking fees for that, as it is TWR who is handling the CAT / Light GA conflict. And we understand when we are put into a hold for scheduling; And we give it everything we have until 1-1.5 mile final; And we study the taxiway plan well in advance; And we say "thank you" to Ground before we switch off.


But I'm honestly a bit sick and tired of uninformed people like yourselves spreading nonsensical myths around like

- Light (N-reg) GA is clogging the airways (MJ here and now)
- (Light) N-reg GA is badly maintained (that seems to be Mr Patrick Goudou's favourite. The words he uses are "poubelles volantes". As with all EASA output, without a hint of statistical evidence. Go to Cordoba airport for example, and have a look at the registration number on the wrecks and on the shiny, well maintained aircraft)
- Light N-reg GA is performed by incompetent pilots (another good one. I guess that explains the 1:20+ accident per flown hour ratio between N-reg and JAA-reg in Europe)

Instead of whining, it would be a good idea to do some proper thinking about how we can improve air safety in Europe, while promoting the transportation of goods and persons at minimal regulatory cost. But hey, that's just a mission statement I read somewhere.


I thought you were a pilot, MJ, flying somebody around.


IO, Mad Jock is of course a member of our beloved Community. In the past, to make ends meet, as so many sub 1000 hours professional pilots not overjoyed by the prospect of flight duty in a Sand Pit or in a Central China mountenous area, he also drove lorries around the UK. That is where he picked up his mean and unforgiving streak.

[mad_jock]

I am quite happy in my argument that european citizens who are domicile and resident in europe should not be able to opt out of the european system because they don't like it.

To be honest I don't know why anyone actually argues about all the other things like congestion, maint and the rest.

The bottom line is your european not american, you want to fly in europe you have to have an european ticket. If you don't like it become an american citizen and fly a N reg and own your aircraft properly and not through some trust to allow you to bypass the US regulations on ownership.

And yes I have spoken to ATC types. Both enroute and terminal. Choke points are increasing and if it wasn't for the down turn in CAT due to fuel price and economic issues we would be stuffed. There may not be such an issue in some european countries but there is in the UK.

IO I was driving lorrys for years before becoming a pilot. In fact I was driving them when I was 17 had to wait 4 years before I could drive a civi one. And I could fix them as well, hence having the bus and track license as well. The TA before the wall came down was good fun.

The bus driver bit was just a bit of banter ;)

[proudprivate]

Choke points are increasing and if it wasn't for the down turn in CAT due to fuel price and economic issues we would be stuffed. There may not be such an issue in some european countries but there is in the UK.


I would think the solution for congestion - if it existed at all - would be technological enhancement (like the are trying with SESAR, and like the Americans are doing with NextGen GPS and derived systems) as opposed to banning people from flying.

Coming to "the European License" issue : what a great idea. Unfortunately at present Europe seems incapable of coming up with a reasonable uniform proposal. Which is the same reason why the idea of a single airspace with uniform European rules (with Eurocontrol in the driver's seat) also failed in the late 1970's on stubborness and petty nationalism (mostly by the French, although some other Member States were also pretty active at derailing the project).

We are now faced with a dogs breakfast, a true regulatory mishap, that needs corrective action, fast. The solution is straightforward, though : make a European Licensing System that is LESS cumbersome, LESS restrictive and CHEAPER than the American one, whilst maintaining ICAO standards.

THEN our trainers will compete from a better vantage point, and consumers will benefit from an accessible private aviation scene. Furthermore, our airlines would find it easier to recruit.

So I agree with you, a European License would be much better. But let's take away the reasons why people are on the N-reg (or VP-reg or M-reg) first please.

[Pace]

Mad Jock

All this stupid terratorialism is rubbish! Why should we have European licences ? Flying knows no boundaries! All licences worldwide should be to an acceptable world wide standard.
The fact is whether you or EASA or any other flag waving pilots want such boundaries needs will determine no barriers between licences.
As China demands more experienced pilots and developing third world countries do too there is predicted to be a shortage of experienced pilots on both sides of the pond.
Couple that with the drying up of new pilots affording to come in at the bottom and there will be a major shortage.
That in turn will force bi lateral agreements to recognize each others licences and then all this willy and flag waving can go to the bin where it all belongs.

Pace

[mad_jock]

Doesn't suprise me to be honest Silvaire1.

And I must admit I before I visited such a US state I would have been very pro similar laws on cars. Then I went to Brittania FTO and drove the old red death machine. Brakes were dodgy, engine mount had gone, opposing corners suspension was also gone. It would still do 80 on the freeway though if someone was stupid enough to try. Came to the conclusion the MOT wasn't such a bad idea after all.

I have never said the EASA system is better, it would be a fair reason to have my medical removed.

There is never going to be a shortage of pilots. The local effects of expansion will be temporay with expats being brought in the train locals up and then they will be reduced. There may well be shortages of experenced Captains and training staff but that will be it.

There may well be a drying up on new pilots in europe but there will be a huge increase in the localities that are expanding. But even a drying up will go no where near a shortage. Last year in the UK there was 1290 CPL's issued with only 630 type ratings and some of them will be second ratings.

And flying doesn't know boundarys but if you stay inside a boundary and now the whole of europe is considered a single entity you have to comply with the local rules and not use a loophole to opt out.

I am fully in favour of supporting a reasonable set of rules in europe for european pilots and if they are based on the FAA system so be it. I am not in favour though of a group of pilots who are exactly the same as me and the rest of us (pilots) who trained in the european system haviing an opt out that the rest of us have to put up with.

[IO540]

What a load of nonsense, MJ, but I don't think many people are going to bother writing yet more reams to argue with you.

Policy should be made on the basis of safety data and there is NO safety data for what is going on in Europe now. This garbage is a purely political decree; an anti American private project for the most part, run by a few bent individuals in the EU.

Hopefully they are now getting a taste of their own medicine from the French who are old experts at this kind of thing.

[mad_jock]

This garbage is a purely political decree; an anti American private project for the most part, run by a few bent individuals in the EU

A whole load more than a few but they won't engage with you. And the simple fact is that your trying to step round the laws and regulations of sovergien states using a loophole which requires yet another loophole in the state which you are using as your vehicle. Your fighting against the whole principle of states and there citizens and democratic rule.

I am fully in favour in what the french will more than likely do. Which will be to change the rules which apply in Europe. Won't change the fact in the slightest that the N reg loophole will be shut.

The only thing I can see that will save the current situation as is, is the whole of the EU collapsing back to a common market.

[Katamarino]

IO540, I think MJ is now so locked into his "I've got myself stuck in this crappy system, so I want to drag everyone else down to my own level" attitude that any further discussion there is pointless ;)

[mad_jock]

nope I am not locked in, I can go and fly on my other two licenses which I had to aquire for flying in other bits of the world.

Funny enough I wasn't allowed to just ignore the fact that I was living in a different country and carry on regardless. In fact a JAR licenses is very very transferable these days. Most places it just an airlaw exam because the locals have used the JAR theory as a model for there own licensing. Coupled with the fact they also know if they are based on FAA theory its such a piece of piss for JAR pilots that its a waste of time even making them sit the exams. The JAR license is becoming quite the license of choice and pretty much bullet proofs you where ever you go.

I like many others when deciding my training route had the choice of which direction I could go.

It really was quite a simple choice when I looked at.
1. Were I was likely to get work
2. What license I would require to work in that region
3. The likely hood of this situation occuring which in 2000 I could see the writing on the wall with JAR.
4. It cost me 35k in 2002 for CPL/IR and FI which was only $6k more than going the FAA way before adding conversion to JAR. which alot of that would get eaten up in travel costs and HOTAC.
5. I could get a JAR class 1 medical.
6. The JAR theory wasn't outside my grasp by a long way. In fact looking back it was far easier than I predicted.

So for me personally its not a crappy system, far from it in fact.

[Katamarino]

So, with the exception of "because that's how I think the rules should be, and look, thats how cars do it", what reason do you have for wanting N-Reg banned? I've not seen a single logical reason from you based on any kind of facts; but perhaps I've missed some gem somewhere. Airplanes are not cars, and it's pointless to try and compare the two systems.

Currently, N-Reg is entirey legal, and it works. What was the problem, again, other than a desire to make life difficult for other people? Remembering that this forum is for private pilots who have no need to learn about the systems of a Boeing 737 to fly IFR; I too have done both JAA and FAA theory exams, and found the JAA to be the same material wrapped in a thick blanket of worthless tripe.

[mad_jock]

N reg is only available due to a legal loopholes. One of which in the States which allows you to trust an aircraft for ownership and one in alot of european countries which allowed you to operate. This loophole was historical after the second world war and also before the european community was formed.

This is now getting closed from the european end. Its been in the offing for years but now they are doing something about it. They should have done it earlier before so many pilots took advantage of it.

Your a victim of your own success getting folk to come away from the local licensing. No sovergien state is going to let a growing number of citizens stick there fingers up at the laws and procedures of that state.

Just like thousands of loopholes in the past which have benifited the minority of people they are closing the door. Yes it will cause monetry hardship for those that took advantage of the loophole. But as with all loopholes its part of the gamble you take when you decided to go down that path.

The pro's and cons of what you have been doing compared to what you are going to be made to do don't really come into it.

I am all in favour of sensible IR training and also the scope for private IR flight. The continued use of a loophole to get that is the wrong way of doing it.

And the more that I fly the more I see the benefit of the theory knowledge that I learned. I haven't even sat in a 737 simulator let alone a 737 cockpit. And out of my time I have only ever had a autopilot for less than a quarter of it..

You are getting a world wide rating to fly in controlled airspace in reference to instruments. Its valid for the most technologically advanced aircraft down to the most decrepid heaps of ****e on the planet. Some of the knowledge isn't required for flying around the relatively well resourced lands of europe, but its bloody handy when you fly outside the EU.

The 737 is used as a generic complex aircraft type, they could have just have easily used a modern TP. Its just exposing the student to the systems involved in a complex glass cockpit. If you look in a PC 12 which is well within the reach of PPL's that can afford it, its cockpit is in someways more advanced than alot of commercial aircraft.

Just because the knowledge is outside your use doesn't mean its worthless to have it.

[Pace]

Mad Jock

These were such big legal loopholes that it took longer than the EEC has been in existence to close ?
In most walks of life established practice gains legal rights in it's own right.
Thousands of innocent pilots will be hard hit for doing nothing wrong and using FAA licences which are equally as good or statistically better than anything EASA churns out.
The whole thing is sickening and sadly if it goes through ( I have heard that EASA have hit legal problems) pilots will die because these pilots will be forced to attempt to fly VFR when they shouldn't ( human nature)
I am surprised and stunned at your insular views!

Pace

[proudprivate]

a desire to make life difficult for other people


That pretty much sums up what Mad Jock is after. Petty protectionism to cater to
- his employment as a CPL in the UK
- his little bit on the side as an instructor
irrespective of the devastating blow to General Aviation (not just N-reg) and associated businesses (airports / maintenance / insurance / tourism) this will infer.

I can't judge his flying from his writing, but as far as attitude and verbal reasoning capability goes, I think he is utterly unfit as an instructor, which is probably why he is craving for all sorts of protectionist measures, the dafter and more bothersome the better.

As a good Scottish version of Onslow (although Onslow is better at spelling), he also doesn't seem to care about the fabric of European Democracy that is at stake here. Katamarino, I don't think you've missed a gem here, except of course the references to his N-reg flying former boss, his de-icing adventures, his dodgy tax past and the pearls of wisdom he picked up at the age of 17 while smearing the Cummins of his Leyland.

The guy just isn't cutting the mustard. I certainly wouldn't employ him.

I'm not going to bother to comment about his loophole nonsense, the dozens of PC12's flown by underqualified PPL/IR's or his references to outside of EU flying. The line of thought seems to be addled by whiskey.

[Katamarino]

Thanks MJ for confirming that your arguement does indeed amount to "It shouldn't be like this ... because I say so" :ok: You do not have a single concrete, sensible reason for closing what you have unilaterally decided are "loopholes". If Europe wants to introduce a more accessible IR and maintenance regime, then let them do it NOW, instead of banning the only sensible option and leaving us with nothing.

I have (as a number of forumites can confirm) a little experience flying into some of the stranger parts of the world, Africa included, and can safely say that knowledge of the systems of an advanced turboprop would have been about as useful as being able to knit. Maybe you can give us a few examples of situations you've experienced, flying in a private capacity, where this information has proved to be as invaluable as you claim?

[mad_jock]

I don't work in europe sorry!

And just because I don't agree with your view that the N reg should be allowed to remain means that I get personally slandered. Its quite all right I can live without a job from proudpilot. And none of my students have had an accident yet.

Mind you this does seem to be par for the norm with the way things are going. Anyone that is pro its stoppage is bent, other motives, or its petty protectionism.

I will not gain one little bit of advantage by the N reg going in europe. Not even a penny. Nor will affect any jobs I would choose to apply for in Europe.

I haven't any private flying examples because I am not a private pilot.

What is it you lot want? a clear forum so that you can tell everyone including the media that there is an unilateral agreement that N reg should stay? Which because of the reasons I have out lined it will not in its current form.

And I don't see them as innocent pilots, you knew the risks of a change in the rules for over 10 years now. I agree the method of the whole thing leaves alot to be desired but that doesn't change the fact that the situation should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.

Is this it from now on? any mention of N reg and any nae sayers will get battered into the ground titled satans against safety, murderers of private pilots, bankrupters of familys.

It looks good I will grant you, does it aid your cause? Proberly not.

[englishal]

There are always going to be cowboys around, but IMHO there are far less N reg cowboys than G reg ones (I've seen people bolt a new prop on after a prop strike and not tell anyone - on the G reg!!). We can't afford to be for the reasons IO pointed out before.

Also most N reg pilots in Euroland are better qualified, and probably a high proportion of them have an IR.

No reason to restrict N reg's at all IMHO.

[Katamarino]

MJ, if you had a single coherent argument for the ban, then maybe you wouldn't receive such a harsh reception. As it is, you come into the Private Flying forum, tell the N-Reg brigades that they are all evil idiots and need to be punished (although you can't back it up with a single logical point), and are surprised when you receive a harsh reception?

You're just trolling at this point, surely?

Given that you are not a private pilot, how can you possibly comment on the applicability of the JAA IR syllabus to a private pilot?

I'm amazed you don't appear to understand how ridiculous your posts seem; but maybe if you could understand, you wouldn't be making them.

I don't fly an N-Reg in Europe, by the way.

[mad_jock]

In europe its proberly more to do with the fact that to have the gumption and the intelligence to use the loophole you arn't your average ppl pilot in the first place.

As for the quals if you going to go to all the effort of setting up a trust to get round the ownership laws to take advantage of the loophole you might as well go the whole hog. Anyway its more of a two fingers to the system if you can do something that the majority of the locals can't.

[mad_jock]

You might not think its coherent because its not what you want to hear. The many times more JAR/local caa license holders might find it coherent and also quiet a number of none aviation savy politicians.

I got my IR on a PPL. The skill set I use flying commercial IR is exactly the same as that used by a PPL IR. The rules regulations and procedures are the same. In my book there is no difference between a commercial pilot operating in class A airspace and a Private. The rating allows you to operate anywhere in the world in a very broad range of hardware. The majority of the theory is not aircraft type linked. There is a need for a reduced IR as I have already stated.

And its not going to be a ban. Pilots who are not resident in the EU can continue to fly N reg for visiting international traffic with full rights as per ICAO annex. Its only locals who have taken advantage of the loop holes who will be stopped using that loophole.

But please crack with your opinions of my personal and professional standards and the fact that if someone disagrees with your view they are incoherent and trolling.

[IO540]

I haven't any private flying examples because I am not a private pilot.

Says it all.

[Katamarino]

Give us some examples from your lofty commercial world then, that apply equally to both private and commercial.

Still waiting for a reason for banning N-Reg that doesn't amount to "because I say so", too. It has been a legal, accepted practice for decades; just because you have decided that it's an immoral loophole doesn't magically make it so.

I say again, give us ONE reason for banning N-Reg that is actually based on something concrete like flight safety, rather than some nebulous comparison with enthusiast motorcycles, and perhaps people will take you seriously.

[Pace]

Mad Jock

EASA went to great pains and expense to prove a safety case!
They found none comparing JAA to FAA.

Infact in some cases they found the opposite.

A recent study showed FAA part 135 ops to have a better safety record than the equivalent AOC ops much to the surprise of the CAA.

Regulations should be about safety.Find a safety hole and plug it with education and regulations.
EASA regulate for regulations sake. They are a regulatory body. Less regulations doesn't equal the health of their own emloyment!

Really the whole thing is pure terratorialsm. There should be one worldwide standard so that pilots can move and work wherever they are required not this ludicrous and expensive nonsense.

Most of us are reasonable and sensible people. Show us something which makes sense and we support it,
The trouble with this lot is that it is nonsense and expensive nonsense at that!

And I don't see them as innocent pilots, you knew the risks of a change in the rules for over 10 years now. I agree the method of the whole thing leaves alot to be desired but that doesn't change the fact that the situation should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.

Mad Jock!!!

should never have been allowed to occur in the first place

What is this? Gestapo Europe ? Why do you think 67000 pilots went N reg in the first place? At any time in the past 30 plus years JAA EASA or whatever could have asked WHY???? and done something about it!

They could have asked why and then put into place something so attractive that no one would have been tempted towards N reg.

Isnt that the normal way in a free society? If your competition does better you compete not beat your customers into compliance with your will!

Dont blame the pilots but blame JAA or EASA for failing the pilots they are supposed to represent! That is the truth of the matter.

Pace

[youngskywalker]

Jock - as a fellow Aberdonian you are starting to embarrass me! Have you been drinking in the 'Grill' all afternoon?! Please tell me you have as I can then forgive your incoherent rants! :E

[Squeegee Longtail]

I can quite legally, and without any debate, keep my yacht (or any other vessel) on any Flag (read register) and travel to and stay at any country in the world. I can keep it there for as long as I like, maintain it to my Flag State standard (all internationally recognised through IMO), employ crew from any country (as long as they hold internationally recognised licenses), and there is no issue.
The UK mainland (Red Ensign) started overregulating some time back and hey presto lost 99% of ships from their register, not because people were being underhand or trying to avoid running a good operation, but because it was regulation for regulations sake. Other Flag States are all complying with IMO standards, but are more accommodating to commercial operators.
The UK Flag State (MCA) have shot themselves in the foot.

Ships are like aircraft, ie. they travel internationally. Instead of IMO standards, read ICAO. Why is there such a load of cr@p being spoken from MJ and others about if you are European, you have to only register/license in Euroland? ICAO is a worldwide, internationally agreed standard.
Shipping is a very old establishment who have their international movement house in order. It is long overdue that aviation did the same. Get the system and regulation workable (that means practical - like the FAA), and people won't have to look elsewhere. Don't let Euro idiots do to aviation what the MCA did to UK shipping.

[Pace]

Jock

Jumping into your shoes I can well see where you are coming from! Certain sectors of the JAA brigade have always looked down on FAA ratings.

It was almost a snob thing JAA is world class and anything less is inferior.
To a certain extent from the land of plenty came the fact that if you had plenty of dough you could literally buy what you wanted.

Many FAA Licences were regarded with suspicion.

Those times are long gone and both sets of licences are equal in the pilots they produce and to statistical scrutiny.

Hence why EASA publicly stated that they would extend the deadline from 2012 to 2014.
Not to get rid of N reg but to allow time for s bi lateral agreement on FCL with the USA.

Your statements about loopholes and all this was bound to happen doesnt hold true if EASA are to believed.
We have to take EASA at their word otherwise they are indeed a bunch of crooks.

As they have stated their intentions I see no reason why any of this anti FAA licences for European pilots will ever come about!

2014 will become 2016 then 2018 etc.

Their goal is a bilateral agreement and that is only right.

As I have stated before China and third world developing countries are forecast to mop up the supply of experienced pilots.

The huge costs of flight training and the world recession means that new pilots are not coming in at the bottom.

By 2014 to 2015 there is forecast to be a mass shortage.
Need will demand the cross border acceptance of ICAO licences otherwise airlines will be sitting on the ground with no crew in Euroland and the USA.

So step into the modern world and realise that your not supporting an EASA highland football club get rid of the terratoriaslism and work to getting one common acceptable licencing system worldwide.

Pace

[mad_jock]

Do you really think there will be a Billateral agreement with the USA? I don't because there is nothing in it for the USA. And to be honest there mentality is that everyone else does as they want not the other way round. It doesn't really matter what the US intelligent multinational savy political types think, the majority of the US political types truely believe its there job to dictate the deal. And they don't give two hoots about none citizens rights and getting screwed over by their own goverments. Example of which is the extradition treaty which basically means if the US wants someone we have to hand them over. If we want someone from the US tough.

Personally I would pin my hopes on Greece bring the euro down.

The N reg loophole getting stopped has been on the cards before JAR started.

The pilot shortage myth comes from the predicted production of Boeing. There is a shortage of training staff and CAptains while local supply sorts itself out. Once the expansion slows the expats will get booted out. Its already started in India. In europe we are over supplied by double if not triple the amount of jobs for new starts.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Flight%20Crew%20Licensing%20Transactions%20April%202009%20to %20March%202010.pdf

CPL issue is double that of ratings issue (and some of them will be second or even third types).

And if there is such a shortage as you say there shouldn't be a problem for all the displaced N reg commercial pilots in the EU getting work in these developing markets. But hang on you don't want to work in ****eholes like the rest of us either, do you. You want to take advantage of the quality of life that you get in europe.

And as I have said time and time again its the principle of opting out of the local system because you don't like it. It doesn't matter that the system you are using is way superior to the local system (yes i know you going to pick up on that). You live/work/operate in a state you follow that states local laws and if you use a loophole to get round the local laws and it gets shut, well thats the gamble you took when you used it.

Yes they will extend the time and proberly for another year after 2014. But in the end it will happen because its taking the piss out of the Governing States ability to govern there own country and citizens, politicians can't let that happen. The fact that a group of countries have bound themselves together towards a group policy makes life very hard for you because it blocks you from using international agreements until you are outside that zone.

The 67000 FAA pilots bit, where do they get that number from?

Thats more than the combined working commercial pilots in the EU. I presume I am counted in that number as well even though I only used the ticket for 6 months. Realistically how many actually fly N reg actively? How many N reg airframes are based in Europe? Would 100 be a fair count for the UK?

Anyway its 2500 pilots per member state which to a political type is a drop in the ocean when it comes to pissing voters off with reform.

Instead of putting effort in to trying to retain the current loophole status you would be better putting in all your efforts into getting the system in the country that you live and work in to be the best you can get it. It won't go the way you want it, but you will just have to try and work it so it doesn go the way they want it either. I never thought to say it but support the frogs its by far the most likely way your going to get a half way house.

[Fuji Abound]

Mad Jock

Ideology and reality rarely make good bed fellas.

Ideologically I have every sympathy with Pace. Here we have a gentleman who the State has allowed to conduct himself in a certain way for a very long time. Evidentially there is no safety case that the State was wrong to do so.

In reality there are many examples of States recognising professional qualifications obtained else where. Ideologically as (if) we move towards a global village cross recognition will increase, as will the ability of the labour force to work any where in the world. The politicians at the moment can’t decide whether this is a good thing or not.

In reality the State has decided to out law the status quo for political reasons be they trade bargaining or be they an ideology that the changes will lead to greater control of their citizens and a better lined public purse.

As I said this thread is a perfect example of why I guess if politics could be set aside we would all agree it makes perfect sense to bilaterally recognise qualifications as long as we are satisfied they are of an equivalent standard to our own (or at least meet the accepted international standard), and why I suspect many of us would have a great deal of sympathy with the ideal that if the State has allowed a certain practise then there is an onus on the State to produce compelling evidence as to why that practice should “all of a sudden” be made illegal.

The dichotomy of your views is understandable because you debate ideology and reality and are therefore very unlikely to find a happy medium. That seems to me to so often be a truism of politics; you should not fall out in consequence or allow the debate to become personal because I don’t think either of you is right and neither of you are wrong.

If I had to take sides I still struggle with the Sate interfering in an area in which with the State’s blessing they have allowed this practice to continue for so long and now seek to make changes without demonstrating any good reason for the changes other than a vague reliance on greater control of their citizens. The extra revenue argument is nonsense because other ways could be found of “taxing” N reg. pilots and aircraft if that is what you wish to do.

Legally we have a long history of not applying legislation retrospectively and while this is not truly retrospective legislation it comes very close for those who are already operating at N reg aircraft in Europe.

[mad_jock]

Thats fair comment fuji.

I too have sympathy with the affected folk. Still doesn't change my opnion though that the current situation is wrong and needs changed. I also agree as well that our system needs changed.

And to be fair this has been in the offing for at least 10 years. I got warned by a FAA and UK licnesed pilot that it was going to changed in the future and that was in 2002. I was told to choose the license where I would be going to work, so for me without the ability to work in the US it was a simple choice to do JAR.

Personally I would have gone on the taxing option as well. Within a few years it would have been uneconomic to have one and it would have died a natural death. You never know they might start down that route in tandem it would be daft of them not to.

[IO540]

I got warned by a FAA and UK licnesed pilot that it was going to changed in the future and that was in 2002

Which pub was that in?

[mad_jock]

It was in PIK apron actually he was very kind enough to show 3 of us around his N reg 747 freighter. He had moved to the US after getting married to a US national.

[IO540]

Clearly an authority on international aviation :ok:

Have you still got his email address? I want to ask him a few insider questions. In complete confidence of course.

[mad_jock]

Never had it, but he wasn't the only one over my training period. But the others you could call bias because they were in the flight training industry in the UK.

He had 2 years to go at the time and was more than happy he was retiring. And why wouldn't he be an authority? He was flying round the world once a month. Been in the industry for 35 years.

You not honestly trying to say that it was only him and 3 PPL pukes that could see the writing on the wall 10 years ago?

The first I heard about the N reg and the political manoeverings was in 1999 when I started looking at going commercial and I was reading about the transition from UK/CAA licenses to JAR licenses. Its always been on the cards since I started flying.

[Pace]

Mad Jock

The big boys have already got work arounds so it will be business as usual as far as they are concerned and unlikely to effect my licences.
If you mean writing on the wall that has been the case for before 2002 and failed at every attempt.

But you are really missing the point. We are supposed to be a free society open to market forces.
Surely in any free society the mmarket rules?

If we both own pubs on opposite sides of the street mine is full and yours is empty what do you do?
Your answer is to call in the heavy mob or find legal technicalities to get me shut down.
Is it not better to look at your own pub, look at mine and make yours better and more attractive so you can knock me out of business that way?

Your way is the heavy mob way!

None of us in the UK voted to be part of a Euro Sate governed by Brussels!
But we are!
When the Uk pumps more Millions of Euros to prop up the Euro dont forget that! Thank god we never joined the Euro or we would all be out with begging caps by now.

Mad Jock you so want to foillow and obey every dot from EASA please tell me one good bit of legislation from them which will improve the health of aviation in Europe?

I am not talking n reg!

I know Easy jet pilots who are already shuddering at the medical changes coming into force.

Pace

[mad_jock]

If you were open with a US liquer license in the UK, to right I would get you shut down on technicalities.

Well if I was trolling I would say getting rid of the N reg loophole so that everyone was working towards the same goal with our own set of regulations. I will but it will tongue in cheek.

We arn't going to change each others opinions and I am sincerly glad that the big boys have worked something out so you can continue flying.

[Pace]

Mad Jack

No hard feelings! I so nearly went the JAA way but opted N as it was cheaper, Easier and most jets were foreign reg.
I have a friend who has both! The funny thing is he has never had call to use his JAA licences on Jets all his work being on the FAA.
Sadly I also missed the paper conversions through places like southern Ireland.
Some of those southern Ireland converted pilots who now hold shiny JAA licences through no effort of their own are usually the worst at downing N reg and waiving their "Ill gotten" JAA as if they are superior beings.

Even holding JAA i would not be too smug as EASA are like a Cancer devouring aviation FAA and JAA. There we have a common enemy not a friend of European pilots.

Pace

[proudprivate]

Silvaire, I think you are hitting the nail on the head. Most Civil Aviation Authorities, although certainly not clueless, have little more to contribute to aviation safety than the FAA.

In addition, petty political debates and sovereignty issues have made true European integration in aviation a farce. As a result, aviation regulation in Europe becomes thwarted by side issues (a bit comparable to the amendments to the TARP) and focus on the essence is lost. The failure of making a single simplified airspace across Europe is the most painful example of this.

Also, a lot of civil servants look upon general aviation with a misguided envy ("those rich people and their private planes"; as opposed to "Heiko, Reiner, Simone und Günther vom Flugverein"), which adds to a tendency to overregulate.

Finally, from what I pick up a lot of civil servants (at the Commission and the UK CAA alike), relations with the US have recently soured up, in part caused by the inability of Europe to speak with one voice (giving the Americans the impression that we are a couple of Nutters), in part by some protectionist measures regarding airplane maintenance.

Protectionist measures are of all times. I recall a 1960's story about a Belgian Company with a French subsidiary wishing to operate a few converted 707-freighters (not sure about the type, could have been constellations or something else) on the N-register. A discussion was going on about with Aviation Authority would do the technical supervision. The FAA claimed its bit, the BdL insisted on Belgian maintenance standards and of course the SGACC did on-site inspections when the aircraft touched down at the French hub. Operational costs soared and the company folded.

The morale is : protectionism kills jobs. If the US is doing something silly then Europe should
- talk it through with the US; failing that (because they don't take you seriously in aviation because of a painful history of inconsistencies as described above)
- file a complaint at WTO level; failing that (because of some bogus safety arguments put forward by the US to circumvent WTO rules)
- retaliate in a proportionate, commensurate and efficient manner.

It is this last thing that is so bad. It is disproportionate, it hurts other people than the ones you should aim for, and it is an inefficient negotiation tool.

In addition, because of the blatant violations of the democratic process to achieve it, it puts into question the role of European Institutions that, if functioning properly, could be beneficial to the European Citizens, even when taking into account their high cost base.

What we see now is
- A Transport Commissioner (Kallas) that is clueless about the issues at hand, lying to parliament and citizens alike. The irony is that most likely he does it inadvertently, because he can't be bothered to see through the fake stories his administration are cooking up for him.
- A European Commission Transport Director (Baldwin) and one of his heads of department (Seebohm) lying to a parliamentary committee
- Petty fighting between a European Aviation Safety Committee and its adminstrative counterpart at the Commission, leading to substandard legislation of which the consequenses have not been thought through
- An EASA general director (Goudou) showing open disdain for parliament; admitting to not having considered the impact of his proposals; and then having the gall to ask for more money for his agency.

I think we should bin what is on the table; and pick up the thread again by

- postponing all deadlines linked to this nonsense (suspension of article 70 of the BR is a must)
- define and agree on roles for each administrative and enforcement entity
(abolishing the Aviation Safety Directorate at the Commission, integrating it into EASA is a not unreasonable idea, but of course not the only possibility)
- consider divesting a number of administrative and rulemaking roles at the National Civil Aviation Authorities where costs can easily be saved.
- de-regulate and reduce paperwork wherever possible; synchronise regulatory requirements that burden pilots (medicals / flight reviews / language proficiency checks / etc...) and scrutinise each carefully for their necessity, formulating proposals aimed at simplifying the life of the pilot and promoting aviation as a whole.
- increase resources for physical enforcement and accident investigation at the National level; ground planes and fine pilots that mock essential safety regulations (flying without a annual inspection, without a valid medical, etc...)
- take initiatives to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of flight training : development of training materials at cost, with a focus on air law; centralize the exam developement and provide for a large representative sample of the question database to be available to the general public; work with FTO's, RTF's and instructors with the aim of making flight training as efficient as possible, tailored to each pilot's needs
- overall, make flying available to the general public, so as to optimise airport and ATC infrastructure and to promote business and leasure travel across Europe. And design an aviation training and flying set up that can compete on its merits with the US and other countries.


Just a thought.

[mad_jock]

My spelling has always been ****e.

And I wouldn't have a problem if we went lock stock and barrel over, I wouldn't like the FTL schemes though. Although to be honest I don't think most of europe could afford or even contiplate the mindset change to go back to such a vast infrastructure of a goverment deptment to deal with purely aviation. Biggest change would be the fact that the goverment would pay instead of the industry.

JAR is spreading, Middle East has gone apart from Saudi which is because of the aramco N reg fleet I presume. Its even making its way into africa :uhoh:

Quite a few of the Asian CAA's have taken the theory syllabus and exams.

Alot of the commonwealth are in the process.

Personally I think that has more to do with US forgien policy than anything about quality of system. Alot of the world feels that the US has to much power over them anyway hence, all this rubbish about having a second GPS system and not being allowed to use the current one in certain situations. The fact that if the yanks want to stop its use they will anyway doesn't seem to register.

I'd also agree that the US would want to impose its terms on any agreement - that's only natural when you're working from the assumption that your way is better

Yep which is why I think the loophole will be shut in the not so distant future. They have had a shot at it a few times in the last 10-15 years this time they can't afford to fail again from a political point of view.

[IO540]

Quite a few of the Asian CAA's have taken the theory syllabus and exams.That will make for a fantastic improvement in aviation safety allright :ugh:

About 95% of the theory is irrelevant garbage.

The only reason they are using the CAA exam papers is because there is nothing else around, and the UK CAA has weeded out the worst of the JAA question bank.

Anyway, according to the FTOs, cheating in the ATPL exams is rife in the Far East. Some of them write the whole question bank on the back of an airway chart.

Same with foreign students in UK universities, where massive plagiarism in coursework is the default position.

Yep which is why I think the loophole will be shut in the not so distant future. They have had a shot at it a few times in the last 10-15 years this time they can't afford to fail again from a political point of view.

MJ - get real and stop posting this utter drivel. You really do write like a bus driver who is prob99 a trade union convenor as well.

Under ICAO, planes can fly around the place freely. The only possible control over planes (airframes) is a long term parking ban i.e. evicting a plane after it is parked in Country X for Y months continuously. Where is the supervision and enforcement framework for such a cock and bull policy going to come from? What about a plane stuck in some hangar waiting for parts? OK, hangared planes will be exempt :) :)

And so on, and so on.

It's unworkable, which is why the French and the Brits gave up on it as soon as somebody with more than 2 braincells took it out of the hands of the DfT Arts graduates and took a look at implementation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation) (there's a good word; I've referenced it for your convenience) and spotted the obvious work-arounds, and dropped it like a hot potato.

What EASA has proposed (dual pilot papers) is the only workable version, and even that will work only because of pilot self-policing via mandatory insurance requirements. Anybody who wants to ignore it will never be picked up, because "operator residence" is objectively unverifiable (especially if the pilot has done some fairly obvious things).

[mad_jock]

poudpilot I don't have a problem with your suggestions.

But the postponing all deadlines linked to this nonsense (suspension of article 70 of the BR is a must)

Won't happen there has been 10-15 years of build up behind this it started with JAR. They will get it through by hook and crook.

The other changes although would be good would require a complete change in philosophy to aviation in the EU with a federal mandate with large Goverment funding. The politicians could never sell, what is in europe an elitist activity to the population when there are so many larger issues in the community which require the resources.

The only hope you have got is the Greek's and others who are on a knife edge at the moment pulling the whole lot down.

Yep IO they also fiddle there log books, you can buy a type rating on what ever you like, maybe why there is such a movement to have the conversions requirments that we have. To be honest I don't think that many would have an issue with FAA converts, its the other ICAO licenses that the issue is with.

[proudprivate]

The only hope you have got is the Greek's...


Timeo Danaos et dona acquirentes :)

The only hope I'm having is the Transport Committee of the European Parliament, which is not overjoyed by being abused by "them" and "their" hidden agenda


Same with foreign students in UK universities, where massive plagiarism in coursework is the default position.


That's true. Although I hated it when all the locals copied my homework assignments, I was too timid to object.

[Pilot DAR]

As I am safely and very appreciatively based in Canada, I seem to be insulated from what would appear to be a regulatory schmozzle in Europe. Happily, I have no experience, and no comment on that. However one theme strikes me:

Alot of the world feels that the US has to much power over them anyway hence, all this rubbish about having a second GPS system and not being allowed to use the current one in certain situations.

Perhaps there's a jab at the US in there somewhere, I'm not sure. However, I think that those who (by their free choice) purchase, use, borrow, pirate technology which the US has made available should not be whining about it, beyond expecting to get what they've paid for. Any nation can undertake to put in place their own GPS system if they feel they don't like the one that's available for use now. How much do the civilian users of the US GPS system pay for using it?

Though I do not seek to diminish the many contributions to aiviation, and it's technologies from all the other nations over the year, no one can deny that the US is the nation of origin of a great proportion of the small airplane fleet. Though I'm sure the manufacturers of the US aircraft are generally happy to sell them overseas, I don't think it's right for a person from another nation to buy a US aircraft, and then complain about US domination in the industry.

Yes, the people of the US have figured out how to maintain and operate aircraft generally safely, and cost effectively. I don't think anyone should feel burdened by the FAA continuing to "regulate" that, if they choose to not fly within the US system....

[IO540]

Very true :ok:

There is a strong undercurrent of dislike of the USA in the "intellectual" circles in Europe. These people have watched the John Wayne films, and the more recent media trash coming out of the USA, and think that Europe is somehow morally superior.

This is especially prevalent in the EU governing circles, and it is the main driver behind the current policy.

There isn't anything one can do about it. The EU "central European government" scene is strongly self selecting by character profile and motivation. Most of the people going to Brussels go there for the expense gravy train, but sadly many politicians at all levels have a chip on both shoulders which doesn't help with enhancing their forward vision :)

To date, cooler heads have always prevailed in the end and hopefully the same will happen this time.

[mad_jock]

Perhaps there's a jab at the US in there somewhere

Far from it, infact it was a jab at folk reinventing the wheel and pissing loads of money up the wall while they are it.

[Pilot DAR]

Far from it, infact it was a jab at folk reinventing the wheel

I'm happy to hear. When I consider the immense wealth of technical wisdom available to me for free, from information which originated out of FAA work, it will be a long time before I'm unappreciative of it. That's not to say it's perfect, but it's there, and it is what I think is the best path forward to create, maintian and operate aircraft safely, and cost effectively.

I am happily oblivious as to what EASA or the JAA (whoever each is) do, as what ever it seems to be, the end result is that work seems to find it's way to me in Canada from Europe! Those few techincal interactions with EASA engineering staff I have had, have left me feeling that they were not at all familiar with the GA aircraft types we were modifying. I don't know how they added any value for their participation....

[BillieBob]

Now, if someone could only Photoshop a ring of stars on the frog's belly, it'd be entirely accurate.

[IO540]

There are many 3rd World countries that do similar things.

In Thailand you get the same stuff, which manifests itself through you having to wait for longer for the permission to fly to certain places, or through having to pay bigger bribes to officials. Eventually the owner "gets the message" and transfers the plane to the local registry.

But the more civilised parts of Europe rose above this stuff some decades ago. Even EASA has not (yet) proposed anything like that.

I am sure Mexico makes you enter and exit via a Port of Entry. Every country in the world does (Schengen excepted). But what happens if you over-stayed? Obviously, in Mexico, it means a bigger backhander.

But it is also a smaller issue in Mexico, because most pilots there can pop up to the USA, and break the 180-day limit that way. Does Mexico have a mandatory minimum "time away" also? If it did, the wealthier operators would still solve it easily by renting/leasing a plane from the USA and rotating it. For example, if you had a 180/180 rule then you just swap your jet every 180 days with an operator in the USA; I am sure any leasing company will be delighted to assist with that ;) The 2004/2005 French/UK proposals would have been equally solved by doing a swap every 90 days, so somewhere out there would need to be a fleet of four planes. Obviously this is not practical for a small private GA owner.