It seems EASA is issuing the usual platitudes, but doing a great disservice to European aviation safety. Look at some of the recent EASA track record:
1) Part M maintenance fiasco, causing vastly increased costs with zero safety benefit
2) major EASA PAN OPS proposal document on commercial regulations NPA 2009-02 that British Airways Flight Operations stated was "in its entirety unfit for the purpose for which it is intended and must be withdrawn and reconsidered" [but of course EASA did not do this - they did some amendments as sops to critics, but nevertheless ploughing on with a document with hundreds of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and poor suggestions]
3) aircraft certifications where EASA requires certification on individual model types, increasing costs of manufacturers enormously and also restricting available effective market for equipment
4) mechanic certifications required on specific airplane types, increasing costs and reducing availability of mechanics for less common types
5) suggesting (also in NPA 2009-02) that small helicopters should fit self-inflating floats for over-water flight as this "increased safety" and would be "at little cost". However, of course in reality, fitting self-inflating floats means
worse safety as more time over water and more strain on the engines of small helicopters like R22s - where you couldn't even fit these, the cost on other small helicopters would be £50k or more each and wouldn't be certifiable anyway
6) threatening/planning regulations that will affect badly some balloon pilots
7) half-baked plans to require
PR-NAV in controlled airspace below FL 95 - at great certification cost. Approach-approved RNAV is accurate to 0.3nm;
PR-NAV requires 1nm accuracy, but approach-approved RNAV would not be enough - you would have to pay £1,000s to get
PR-NAV certification as well
8) putting forward regulations for commercial cabin crew to have vastly increased medicals [at substantial cost], just in case a member of a cabin crew has a heart attack at exactly the time that an airliner has an accident and cannot help passengers disembark - really, what are the chances?
9) the enormous costs for regulatory response and compliance being heaped not only on GA but on commercial airlines. These additional regulations are not enhancing safety one bit. Commercial operators have to make a profit - additional regulatory costs are spiralling and something has to give. I know at least one regional airline in Europe that has taken the tough decision to scale back a bit on discretionary pilot training, delay some non-essential maintenance etc. - and these are things that REALLY could affect safety.
10) and of course the N-reg / IR issue
In each of the above cases (and many other areas)
EASA are reducing safety and increasing costs.
Plus, perhaps worst of all, EASA is saying "safety is their priority" but
a) ignoring the fact that European GA accident rates are much higher than the US and elsewhere and EASA are doing nothing constructive about this
b) and EASA are only adding regulations that will likely worsen the situation, with no justification or meaningful data and RIAs (Regulatory Impact Assessments) that are a joke.
I have written to Brian Simpson, Mike Nattrass and Jacqueline Foster (MEPs on Transport Committee) and Theresa Villiers MP (Department for Transport) pointing out what a failing organisation EASA is, giving some of the above examples.
I urge all of you to write to these and other MEPs and MPs - it is only if they receive many letters informing them of the ineptitude of EASA and the havoc EASA is wreaking on European aviation that they may do something about it. Pick your own area where EASA are negatively impacting you and write to the MEPs / MPs about it.