Yes I was being harsh, because I think it's time that someone calls "Halt" to EASA's mindless expansion for the sake of expansion, partly by calling a spade a spade.
The move to change EASA's name - and presumably purpose - to allow it to plunge into areas unconnected with safety (which can only be economic) fills me with horror. We can expect the same standards of expertise and professional competence, or rather lack of it, to be applied in a new European Union Aviation Agency, which will, let me guess, simply employ all the ex-EASA staff, probably with a pay increase.
a number of so called subject matter experts (policy officers) are in fact not necessarily experts in the subjects that they currently hold responsibility for.
appalling standard of knowledge among its staff, to say nothing of the bumbling amateurism and zero presentational skills with which these affairs are run.
I think we're both saying the same thing, but your version in more, errr, measured. My version stems from the 150 hours or so (I just worked it out) that I have spent undergoing death by Powerpoint, in fractured English, delivered by people with almost no understanding of the Regulation they are proposing.
The worst example, out of many contenders, was a Rule Making Officer (or some-such) introducing the Airports regulation to a workshop a few years ago, who, when asked whether the 800m limitation used was the length of the tarmac end-to-end, or one of the declared distances, did not understand the question. It quickly became apparent that he did not know what was meant by a "declared distance"; when the questioner tried to help by asking if the 800m was, for example, the TORA, he had to ask a platform colleague what a TORA is, over an open microphone. His previous employer was the UK CAA, by the way.