EASA to kill general aviation

[ThePilotMan]

With the recent changes in the rules that EASA have brought about with making Registered Training facilities redundant now, forcing all small schools to pay extortionate fees to become a ATO ultimately bankrupting all grass root level flying is this the nail in the coffin for General Aviation?

[Whopity]

Actually its not EASA forcing anyone to pay extortionate fees, that's an own goal!

[Duckeggblue]

So " Who watches the Watchmen" ?
Presumably, to be a Competent Authority, certain standards of service and staffing must have been mandated (and must be demostrated to somebody) in order to justify the charges?
Where are these standards written?
If the service falls below these standards, who can we complain to - and do we still have to pay if they don't meet their targets?
If any FTO/ATO falls below acceptable levels with regard to staffing, timely responses, major errors etc etc it is deemed not fit for purpose and it is not allowed to continue. Are the same rules applied to the CAA?

[BillieBob]

So " Who watches the Watchmen" ?NobodyPresumably, to be a Competent Authority, certain standards of service and staffing must have been mandatedNoIf the service falls below these standards, who can we complain toNobodyAre the same rules applied to the CAA? No

[A and C]

EASA is a typical EU sponsored organization, un democratic, unaccountable, unaffordable and run entirely for the benifit of those in EASA without any thought for those trying to make a living in GA.

Abother vote for UKIP here !

[Sam Rutherford]

I disagree with the blanket criticism of EASA :oh:

There are elements of the plan which are positive.

I'll go hide behind a wall now...

Fly safe, Sam.

[Steve6443]

EASA is a typical EU sponsored organization, un democratic, unaccountable, unaffordable and run entirely for the benifit of those in EASA without any thought for those trying to make a living in GA.

Abother vote for UKIP here !

I'd vote for UKIP as well, if they had a branch open here in Germany... perhaps I should start my own.....:cool:

[Justiciar]

There are elements of the plan which are positive.

Which are ................................ ?:ooh:

[sapperkenno]

The positive elements would be a more pragmatic approach to converting existing ICAO Pilot licences/certificates and ratings to their EASA equivalent, something it seems they are trying, but struggling to do, because the various CAAs around Europe have vested interests in making people spend money on compulsory theory training and examinations.
There are quite a few positive ideas kicking about, and quite a lot of the major screw ups are due to the various CAAs sticking their noses in and messing up the original EASA ideas.

[UV]

Presumably, to be a Competent Authority, certain standards of service and staffing must have been mandated

If the service falls below these standards, who can we complain to

You could try here!
Home - CAA Complaints (http://caa-complaints.co.uk/?gclid=CKWX8-bsmrcCFWbKtAodBnUAcA)

[Justiciar]

The positive elements would be a more pragmatic approach to converting existing ICAO Pilot licences/certificates and ratings to their EASA equivalent, something it seems they are trying, but struggling to do, because the various CAAs around Europe have vested interests in making people spend money on compulsory theory training and examinations.

The conversion route of itself, not to mention the huge unwieldy EASA structure is a huge solution looking for a problem. On the basis that Europe shoud be trusting its NAAs just as it is prepared to trust each other's judicial systems (somewhat misguidedly I think) then the simple solution would have been mutual recognition of national licences across Europe, perhaps subject to compliance with minimum requirements, just as aircraft on national registries are accepted internationally, thanks to ICAO. That in fact seems to be what EASA have been trying to do regarding recognition of FAA licences via a bilateral agreement. You don't need an involved and complex new licensing system to achieve that. Europe continually tries to reinvent the wheel at vast cost, then finding that the traditional round one we have lived with for decaades actually works well! While it does this it imposes huge costs on everyone associated with aviation, drives individuals out of the sport and businesses to the wall because their economic model becomes unviable.

[flybymike]

That is a very amateurish looking website although I do recognise many of the complaints made.
All we need now is something similar for EASA.

[HyFlyer]

There is nothing positive about EASA...

NOTHING..................!!!!!!

[172driver]

I don't know how many on this forum follow the AF447 thread over in R&N, but if anyone is under any illusion that EASA has anything to do with aviation safety, then you should read this post (http://www.pprune.org/7846311-post1150.html) and the following four or five. Scary, to put it mildly :eek:

Sorry, I don't know how to link into another thread on Pprune. The link above brings up only one post, a statement in French, if you want to read an English synopsis and the follow-on posts, then click on the 'AF447 report out' link in the top right corner.

[DB6]

I refer the honourable gentlemen to my thread from 2007:

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/298917-genuinely-baffled-why-f-k-we-europe.html

I rest my case.

[Contacttower]

How are other EU states finding the EASA process? Good? Bad? Terrible? Indifferent? :confused:

Whatever the answer is I can't help but think we in the UK, or perhaps more accurately our CAA, are making much more of a meal of the EASA process and causing people a lot more pain and suffering than is going on in other European countries.

In short are we, to a certain extent, using EASA as a stick to beat ourselves with?

Is the CAA not making the mistake, as government bodies so often seem to do with European regulation in the country, of taking interpretation a bit too literally and getting knickers in a twist over minor details, I'm thinking in particular of the new rules for flight school regulation and perhaps also fare paying passengers on historic aircraft...

Could we actually take a more 'French' approach to things and just relax a bit?

Obviously issues like the retention of the IMC rating do make the British perspective different, that I don't dispute, but in terms of other areas on regulation are we actually making life harder for ourselves than it needs to be...?

[abgd]

The last time I was in France I bought a flying magazine and there was a very positive article about EASA and the new licences.

Just went on a day-trip to the European Parliament's visitors centre, which seemed about the funnest thing I could think of to do in Brussels. I am an European. It makes sense to me that, as a continent, we have some-form of union. What I saw that day wasn't it.

[Pegpilot]

I know of a recent importer of an Eastern European built glider that has to sell it again because - and get this - there is no EASA approved modification to install imperial instrumentation. Bonkers ? You betcha.....

[StrateandLevel]

European
Aviation
Shyster
Association.

Not an ICAO signatory
Not ICAO compliant, despite it being one of the EU objectives!
So, why doesn't ICAO cease to recognise EASA licences and only recognise those of ICAO Member States?
Problem solved.

[AdamFrisch]

A lot of people forget some of the benefits. Not only the commonality in licensing (does anyone remember what a hassle and how costly that used to be?). But there are tons of mainly Eastern European aircraft, happily flying in the UK, whose type certificate got grandfathered in. Types you could never ever have flown, owned or been able to use before. Yak's, Let's, Sukhoi's, Antonov's, PZL's, Aero's etc. But not only Eastern ones: Auster's, Miles's and all the old quirky British ones if you live somewhere else but the UK, as well.

A dream future would be that FAA and EASA give up licensing/certification to ICAO so that we have one type certification and one licensing body worldwide. Never gonna happen, but that would be the ideal solution.

[Panama Jack]

Rather than trying to re-invent a thoretically better wheel, there was another option that was working quite well. But then the Europeans chased all the N-registered bug smashers out.

Better the devil you know. No saying what an ICAO with licensing authority would look like. If the cost of ICAO publications is a guide, though, "affordable" isn't the first word to come to mind.

[Captain Singh]

NPPL(SSEA) is being replaced by LAPL. I seriously do not understand the process they have adopted.

I only fly 3 axis microlights. I was planning to get SSEA rating but it seems like better to wait until the changes come into force in 2015(?).

Like most EU wide initiatives, it seems that this was a good idea before it got to the politicians. I see similar issues in my day job (oil&gas) where EU wide initiatives are in good intentions but the legislation that we see is extremely biased.

[Prop swinger]

NPPL(SSEA) is being replaced by LAPL. I seriously do not understand the process they have adopted.

I only fly 3 axis microlights. I was planning to get SSEA rating but it seems like better to wait until the changes come into force in 2015(?).

Like most EU wide initiatives, it seems that this was a good idea before it got to the politicians. I see similar issues in my day job (oil&gas) where EU wide initiatives are in good intentions but the legislation that we see is extremely biased.
The changes came into effect in April 2012, although there is a 3 year transition period.

Your NPPL(M) is recognised by the NPPL group & can have an SSEA added with a greatly reduced training requirement. An NPPL(SSEA) can be converted to an EASA LAPL(A) until April 2015.

You will still be able to add an SSEA to your NPPL after April 2015 but it will only be valid within UK airspace & on non-EASA aircraft. If you want an EASA LAPL(A) after April 8, 2015 you will be treated as a total noob & expected to start from scratch.

[xrayalpha]

But, fortunately, after all the EASA hassles, the only flying schools left will be microlight ones!

[Cathar]

European
Aviation
Shyster
Association.

Not an ICAO signatory

Nor is the CAA a signatory to the Chicago Convention. Only States can contract to the Convention.

Not ICAO compliant, despite it being one of the EU objectives!

Can you explain in what way EASA is not complying with the requirements of the Chicago Convention?

So, why doesn't ICAO cease to recognise EASA licences and only recognise those of ICAO Member States?
Problem solved.

ICAO does not recognise licences, it only establishes the standards which must be met in order for the licence holder to enjoy the rights granted under the Convention. EASA does not issue licences, it only establishes the licensing standards for EU Member States. The licences themselves are issued by the competent authorities of the EU Member States which are all ICAO members. This is entirely consistent with the requirements of the Convention. I am not sure what problem would be solved if third countries were to refuse to recognise licences issued in accordance with the EASA implementing rules.

[freedomoftheair]

Buy a N reg aircraft or put your aircraft through a FAA Trust company on the N register. Some of the big guys are doing that. There are many N numbered private jets flying around in Europe. Cessna 150s too. The FAA is for everyone.

[fireflybob]

With the debacle of EASA and all the ramifications of increased, burdensome and unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense not to mention increased costs I wonder how many people will simply throw in the towel and give up on GA?

I know of at least one very gifted and experienced examiner who told me he was giving up a few years ago because he could not stomach any more of this nonsense.

I suggest that apart from seeing quite a few clubs giving up on training we are going to see a drain of well qualified, experienced and seasoned instructors/examiners from GA - a sad loss to the industry.

[StrateandLevel]

Nor is the CAA a signatory to the Chicago Convention. Only States can contract to the Convention. Never suggested it was, but the CAA represents a State that is a signatory, EASA does not represent any signatory!

Can you explain in what way EASA is not complying with the requirements of the Chicago Convention?It fails to recognise ICAO licences issued by member States and insists that the holders have to change to an EASA licence!

There are numerous cases of loss of privileges to those licence holders with increased costs and inane bureaucracy. Many will simply give up and the PPL industry will be decimated. All to keep a few low grade lawyers employed.

[Cathar]

Never suggested it was, but the CAA represents a State that is a signatory, EASA does not represent any signatory!


EASA represents 27 signatories to the Chicago Convention (the EU Member States) which have adopted legislation appointing it to carry out certain functions on their behalf. Regional cooperation on aviation safety regulation is encouraged by ICAO and their are similar arrangements elswhere in the world, eg the Eastern Caribbean Civil Aviation Authority.

It fails to recognise ICAO licences issued by member States and insists that the holders have to change to an EASA licence!


The Convention only requires States to permit aircraft registered in other contracting States to make flights across their across their territory and to make non traffic stops. The Convention does not grant the right to base an aircraft registered in one contracting State in the territory of another contracting State. It also gives contrating States the right to refuse to recognise foreign licences issued to its citizens.

The EU legislation on pilot licensing does not require EASA licences for the pilots of aircraft exercising rights granted under the Convention. What the legislation does is to require EU residents who operate aircraft in the EU to have a licence issued/validated in accordance with EU requirements. This is consistent with the requirements of the Convention as such pilots are not exercising rights granted by the Convention.

[StrateandLevel]

There speaks a lawyer
What the legislation does is to require EU residents who operate aircraft in the EU to have a licence issued/validated in accordance with EU requirements.And this is the bit that is screwing GA, the training industry and every pilot in the UK with increased costs and beauracracy contrary to the EU Objective:(c) to promote cost-efficiency in the regulatory and certification
processes and to avoid duplication at national and
European level; All licences are being duplicated at a significant cost to the holder. There is no level playing field at PPL level because each State still issues its own interpretation designed to preserve their National methodology and theoretical exams, which vary in content, complexity and number of questions. The only level point is the label on the licence, a paper sticker would have have acheived the same outcome! Yet again this shows no compliance with another EU objective:(f) to provide a level playing field for all actors in the internal
aviation market.

In fact there is no requirement for the recreational side of aviation to be included at all, all States comply with ICAO recommendations, so why the need for such a tranche of beauracracy that contributes nothing of a positive nature to the status quo?

The EU requirements are deeply flawed, with no perceived safety benefit, whilst having a markedly detrimental effect on cost-efficiency. The AMC contains vast amounts of material this is unqualified, unquantified and therefore totally meaningless for setting a level standard. The syllabus material is largely impossible to adhere to because of its lack of any measurable standards. At its daftest point, where some standards are defined, the PPL issue flight test standard is not the same as the class rating revalidation standard! Only a totally misinformed and unqualified person could have produced such inconsistent rubbish!

[Marchettiman]

I concur with StrateandLevel's very eloquent summary, and only suggest he should have added GA aircraft owners to his list of those afflicted by the EU's (i.e.EASA's) unaccountability and self serving appetite for over-regulation. The fiasco of the part M aircraft maintenance regulation would be laughable if it didn't have such serious financial consequences for all aircraft owners, for no safety benefit whatsoever.

And why do we pay the CAA to toe the EASA line to the nth degree as though they are an agency of an occupying power instead of what it once was, a world leading professional, effective and pragmatic air safety regulatory authority?

I have to say that I object to being classified as an "EU resident" and not as a British subject. Imagine the outcry if car owners residing in the UK suddenly had to buy new driving licences, have their existing drivers privileges Europeanised (which means restricted) and generally abide by a new set of road regulations dreamt up by a bunch of uncontrollable rule makers in Brussels. Maybe we would we have Annexe 2 cars that could be driven on the left and Euro cars that have to be driven on the right?

PPRune readers may understand why I shall change my lifelong political allegiances at our next Euro elections, and at the General Election. EASA has made me understand what all this EU stuff really means for us.

[Captain Singh]

Thanks! So, basically it is worth adding SSEA rating now, and convert later.
Sorry for my ignorance on the subject, but will LAPL(A) be treated as PPL(A), and valid for Microlights as well? I am very confused by the whole EASA transition thing. :ugh:

[Whopity]

The LAPL is effectively a lower level non ICAO PPL so in most cases the difference will be transparent' throughout Europe
and valid for Microlights as well? The Microlight is not an EASA aircraft however; reading the various rules:
FCL.105.A LAPL(A); EASA definitions and ANO Art 50A, there appears to be nothing in law to prevent it.

[Prop swinger]

Thanks! So, basically it is worth adding SSEA rating now, and convert later.
Sorry for my ignorance on the subject, but will LAPL(A) be treated as PPL(A), and valid for Microlights as well? I am very confused by the whole EASA transition thing. :ugh:The CAA will allow you to fly a microlight in the UK on any EASA licence with an SEP rating, subject to microlight training (which obviously you have had.) Hours in a microlight will not count towards the SEP revalidation requirements.

An EASA licence does not supercede an NPPL. An NPPL(M) & (SSEA) will remain valid, you just won't be able to use the NPPL(SSEA) to fly Cessnas/Pipers/any EASA aircraft after 7 April 2015. The LAPL(A) removes that restriction.

[Natstrackalpha]

is this the nail in the coffin for General Aviation?

Yes.

They have also binned the IMC rating.

UKCAA can`t do anything because we are being dictated to by Europe.
The UK Government won`t do anything as it might affect their jobs, and, they are being dictated to by Europe.

IAOPA try and try and might win through if the aviation community and the UK Government give it its support, IAOPA refuse to be dicated to by Europe.

Its up to us. Unless we do a massive demonstration outside No10 Downing Street - I cannot think of anything we can do, as we are all being dictated to by Europe.

In short - the situation is totally f:mad:ed and nobody is doing anything about it (except IAOPA)

[Lone_Ranger]

Self sustaining Bureaucracy is god to the CAA , so faced with an organistion thats even better than itself at generating great reams of meaningless impediments to anyone actually doing something worthwhile....................... well, it just goes all dreamy eyed, bends over and takes it up the .....

The same thing happens at a lower level with the BMAA and LAA, they consistantly gold plate what ever the CAA chucks at em

Its a natural trait of bureaucrats

[xrayalpha]

Prop swinger wrote:

"The CAA will allow you to fly a microlight in the UK on any EASA licence with an SEP rating, subject to microlight training"

Eh, well, if you go to fill in the form to change from a JAR SEP to an EASA SEP, the CAA wants to shaft you for an extra fee to add an NPPL (Microlight) to your licence collection.

I thought your interpretation is correct, but........ the CAA thinks different!

[Prop swinger]

If you ask for an extra licence they will charge you for it, so don't ask.

The CAA will allow you to fly microlights in the UK on an EASA PPL(A) provided you have had suitable training - no extra licence required.

[xrayalpha]

PS,

You don't ask them - they ask you!

See the form!

[Prop swinger]

If you don't want an Annex II only licence, leave that box unchecked.

[b.a. Baracus]

Marchettiman - Hear, hear :D

[proudprivate]

It also gives contrating [sic] States the right to refuse to recognise foreign licences issued to its citizens.


I guess being a Cologne shyster doesn't necessitate the ability to read Annex 1 of the Chicago Convention. It also doesn't preclude an abstinence from making false statements to a gullible audience.

Here's a recommendation for all of you:

1.2.2.2 Recommendation.— A pilot licence issued by a
Contracting State should be rendered valid by other
Contracting States for use in private flights.



In short, EASA has been a big mistake. It is a costly (€ 105 Million/year) self- perpetuating bureaucratic organisation that overall makes a negative contribution to aviation as a whole and to aviation safety in particular. Any proposal to abolish it should be hailed.

[Bob Upanddown]

Buy a N reg aircraft or put your aircraft through a FAA Trust company on the N register. Some of the big guys are doing that. There are many N numbered private jets flying around in Europe. Cessna 150s too. The FAA is for everyone.

That deals with the maintenance side but they have us (which is, no doubt, why it was done thus) on the pilot side. N reg means an FAA pilot license and an EASA pilot licence, with FAA bi-annual and EASA bi-annual, etc., to maintain the validity of the licences. If EASA manage to kill off EU flying schools and, more importantly, the independent instructor/examiners by making everyone work for an ATO, then all pilots are in the same boat where re-validation will become either much more expensive or impossible. My little-used MEP rating will be costing over £1,000 a year to keep because my old free-lance examiner has given up. I think my MEP rating will go the same way.

[Cathar]

Quote:
It also gives contrating [sic] States the right to refuse to recognise foreign licences issued to its citizens.

I guess being a Cologne shyster doesn't necessitate the ability to read Annex 1 of the Chicago Convention. It also doesn't preclude an abstinence from making false statements to a gullible audience.


You appear to be suggesting that I am a "Cologne shyster". I am not sure exactly what a Cologne shyster is but having no connection with Cologne I am fairly sure that I am not one. You also appear to be suggesting that I have made a false statement to a gullible audience. Can you clarify what false statement you believe that I have made?

Here's a recommendation for all of you:

Quote:

1.2.2.2 Recommendation.— A pilot licence issued by a Contracting State should be rendered valid by other Contracting States for use in private flights.

That is indeed a recommendation, but what is your point?