Originally Posted by
Equivocal
. EASA appears to be an organisation that believes that rules make things safe; ergo, more rules equals more safe. This is easy to spot simply by reference to the Easy Access guides published by EASA, usually running to hundreds of pages of detailed rules to be followed. Some of these rules provide for flexibility and rely on service providers/operators establishing working methods to complement the rules. In truth, the rule frameworks are often pretty good, but are often let down by poor implementation and weak oversight by competent authorities.
EASA well explained in a few words. Yes , the problem is not EASA , it is the States who decides on implementation . EASA is not an accident investigation agency , it only makes rules , and the States have individually to implement them . The ( common ) training syllabus is made by EASA but the numbers of hours to train and later maintain the licenses is up to the States. And some are failing . Changing that will be difficult , Think Hungary for instance. or even France if you want an ATC example.
On pilot training and MPL, I was very skeptical when the scheme was devised, but I have to admit it works well if it is applied as it was designed for, Again EASA offered the rules to do it , but it is for the airlines to decide how to make it work. The Lufthansa group heavily relies on MPLs and from what I hear it is a success.
What some low cost airlines are dong with Pay to fly or PP2F, and atypical contracts is the flip side of the coin .