EASA death knell for UK gliding - what next?

[astir 8]

Latest act by our masters in Brussels

All gliders imported since September 28th 2003 must be CAA registered (with costs to match no doubt) and by March 2007 all existing gliders are to come under EASA/CAA rules -including presumably all the regulations and costs of licenced engineers, licenced maintenance facilities etc.

(and all said gliders must have a "fireproof" identification plate - anyone ever hear of a glider crashing & burning?)

And in March 2007 all gliders which have been flying for years with BGA approved modifications will then be illegal because the BGA wasn't the original design authority or a national approved authority.

And they havn't even started on glider pilot's licences etc. yet! Is the NPPL next on the hitlist?

See the BGA website for more details.

So something which has worked fine for 70 years is to be stuffed in the name of European unity. How can we get out of this EU sh1t????

[robin]

Have been having a long and tedious correspondence with my MEP on this very subject.

This is part of his latest reply

>>>I think you are really saying you don't like the proposal and how it affects you._ Fair enough._ However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, especially over matters being dealt with in another Committee._ If you still feel strongly, I suggest you take uup the suggestion I made in the final paragraph of my previous communication._ If you just want to have a moan at me, then please consider it done!<<<

Really helpful stuff..................

[Genghis the Engineer]

Have you talked to the BGA?, I understand that they're in the middle of some fairly protracted negotiations about this at a European level.

G

[bluskis]

It may all be simply a matter of National representatives at Brussels trying to get an advantage for their National glider constructors. It usually is the objective in Brussels. Free trade doesn't often come into it if it can be avoided.

I dont fly gliders so I dont know who is the dominant manufacturing country, but I suspect they may be east of the Rhein.
.

[A and C]

The sooner the UK gets wise and kicks all this european ***** into touch the better the EEC is a good idea in theory but the over regulation and goverment interfearance has gone too far.

From an aviation point of veiw lets just tell those buroacratic blood sucking leaches at the EASA to p1SS off and join forces with people who want aircraft of all types to fly.......the FAA.

[Arclite01]

I've read the BGA handout.

I think it is the death knell for the BGA - there is no role for 'Associations' in Europe. The CAA are not interested in gliders or homebuilds but their hands are tied and they must control them under European law.

I think the PFA needs to watch its back also.

Sad - but true.

:( Arc

[MLS-12D]

You have my sympathies. :sad: Pathetic, really. Fireproof plates in gliders, indeed!

Why the UK is in the EC in the first place is something that I can't answer. Leaving aside issues of over-regulation and unnecessary bureaucracy, it amazes me why anyone would imagine that a group of countries that have very different cultures and languages, and have been at war with each other more or less constantly for the past 500+ years, are likely to cooperate in much of anything. :confused:

I well remember when I was a grad student at the LSE and had to pay much higher fees than non-UK EC students ... didn't make sense to me that those from Oz, NZ and Canada, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the UK throughout two world wars, were charged more than citizens of the former Axis powers. :ugh:

Okay, that's my whinge for the day ... sorry to get sidetracked. Good luck in your fight with Brussels. :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

P.S.people who want aircraft of all types to fly.......the FAA. Oh, the irony of this statement! I know that everything is relative, but trust me: the FAA is not the friend of GA. Among other things, just look at all of those ridiculous "temporary flight restrictions" that tie up our friends to the South.

[J.A.F.O.]

BAAAAAAAAASTARDS!!!!!!!!!

Why don't they all p1ss off? We've been able to create our own bureaucratic nightmares and pointless regulations for years and we don't need any Euro bloody shiny ar$ed pen pusher to show us how to do it.

[Rocket2]

At the foot of Terry Slaters letter included in the package he says " we do not have the option of saying no to these rules. This is the European Superstate in Action!" - really Terry? I'd call it good old fashioned communism at it's very worst!

From all the above postings on has to wonder how the CAA will cope - if gliders go on the CAA register, then they are obliged to publish AD's AWN's etc - a 3 yearly C of A will mean star inspections & dare I say it air tests by approved (read paid) test pilots. Then where do we get them serviced - are JAR(EASA) Part 145 (M3) organisations going to be approved? Are current inspectors who are normally very familur with the gliders they service going to be approved under Granfather rights or do we pass C of A over to some unknown? The cost? Let's face it nothing the CAA does for you is ever cheap.

Lastly where do we fly our lovely gliders & obtain our training - oh yes - from approved airfields. You only have to look at the backpeddling that has gone on with the introduction of the JAA PPL & subsequent re-invention of the UK version to see that this sort of crap just doesn't & cannot work.

To all of this what will be achieved? - better safety, more freedom, improved quality? - my gut feeling is none of this.
Enjoy the freedom while it lasts folks!

[astir 8]

Genghis - the BGA is my source of information. I've a nasty suspicion though that they're being over-optimistic e.g. Terry Slater's letter says "we estimate that a significant portion of the BGA fleet may possibly be covered (by Annex II of EASA basic regulation 1592).

I can't see where annex II can cover your average BGA registered glider, and even the genuine vintage gliders would have a problem being defined as "having clear historical relevance related to a) participation in a noteworthy historical event, b) a major step tin the development of aviation or c) a major role played in the armed forces of a Member State"

No doubt gliding instructors will be needing a CPL when those EASA rules come out.

Is the PFA going to be similarly stuffed e.g. by non design authority approved modifications, unapproved instruments, unapproved GPS mounting brackets etc??

[Saab Dastard]

I was just thinking (while my blood was boiling as I read the posts) that if all the aviation enthusiasts, microlighters, balloonists, parachutists, glider pilots, fixed wing and rotary PPLs (sorry if I've missed out any categories) from all around the UK were to get together in Whitehall one Saturday afternoon a couple of months before the next election, it might make a very interesting point in protest against the over-regulation of recreational aviation.

At least we could have a bl00dy good time as well!

SD

[astir 8]

It's very tempting - even half a dozen glider trailers in central London would generate traffic problems (even one does- I know!) - but would it have the least effect on the d***heads in Brussels?

[Skylark4]

How about a mass glider-rig in Hyde Park?

Mike W

[trevs99uk]

A little birdy in the CAA tells me that there is going to be no exemptions for gliders and that they will have to comply with EASA rules. The BGA have been/are talking to the CAA about exepmtions etc etc but my Birdy tells me the CAA are only play acting on this and will not allow any exemptions.
BGA should bypass the CAA and go directly to EASA as any agreements made there would over rule the CAA and UK law.
Now whats happening in the rest of europe. Does every country have a seperate system i thought the idea of EASA was to standardise everything.
All gliders will have to be registerd and that they the CAA will administer it because they want the revenues.

[S-Works]

Reading all of these threads with talk of "Little Birdies" at the CAA makes me wonder about the level of confidentiality that they maintain.

It seems to me they have more leaks than a broken sieve and does not leave me feeling confident about the confidentiality of my data.

Also is the CAA so bad that there are so many people with axes to grind that they feel the need to "leak" information?

Just a thought.......

[bar shaker]

Since EASA took over GA regulation, how many people have been laid off by the CAA?

[Genghis the Engineer]

A thought.

Annex 2, which is the EASA exclusions document doesn't include gliders, which is the whole problem.

However it does include homebuilts, microlights and historic aircraft. If the BGA can shoehorn as many of it's aircraft into those categories as possible, they can be dealt with on that basis by the PFA and BMAA. It would mean a degree of loss of control and revenue to the BGA, but far less than letting their fleet be annexed by EASA. Most importantly, it could hopefully minimise the extra cost and complexity to the average gliding club or pilot.

G

[mad_jock]

And no doudt they will cock up the instructor progression which is years ahead of the fixed wing instruction career progression.

You have my sympathy.

MJ (who has 2.5 hrs in a glider and thinks its great)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Since EASA took over GA regulation, how many people have been laid off by the CAA?

Actually they've had a recruiting ban on for about 2 years, and quite a lot of their people have left for JAA or EASA jobs without being replaced.

The consequence has been a shrinking organisation. But, also since it's generally been the most capable people who have gone off to jucy jobs in Hoofdorp or Cologne, it's becoming less and less competent - not to mention increasingly demoralised. Whether working with the new organisation in Cologne when it finally comes into being will be better or worse remains to be seen of-course.

G

[bluskis]

Is not Cologne in that country east of the Rhein, possibly the biggest manufacturers of gliders?.

[FNG]

I wonder if some crumb of comfort may be drawn from developments in the Mode S saga, where there appear to be promising indications of exemptions for grass-roots aircraft. I mention this because there was much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when it was thought that PFA types would be burdened by heavy and/or expensive transponding kit, but now it appears that things will not be so bad. At present, the future of glider regulation looks as though it may be beset by excessive complication, but perhaps the BGA will be able to hammer out a sensible deal.

I'm not (yet) a glider pilot, but hope to remedy this character defect soon. This subject is interesting, both from the general regulatory aspect, and from my selfish interest in (hopefullY) participating in gliding, so I'll be curious to see how things turn out.

[Polly Gnome]

We sometimes see EU regulations as a plot to get at the UK. Surely this regulation would affect gliding thoughout Europe.

This would include, as bluskis has said, Germany, where gliding and the manufacture of gliders is taken very seriously.

It's not just the BGA who will be involved in sorting this.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I thank that you're missing some history here.

Since 1948, when a small group from the BGA led I believe by Anne Welch persuaded Lord Brabazon (aviation minister at the time) that the BGA was a competent organisation who wouldn't benefit from state interference, we've had a system in the UK where the BGA has done it's own thing. In the 55 years since, it would be far to say that Lord Brabazon's decision was proved a sound one.

Alternatively since the war, Western mainland Europe (for example France and Spain, the new controlling force in the EU) have tended more towards socialist-style state control of all things aviation than we brits have. One consequence of this was that gliders have been brought into the CofA system, along with light aircraft.

Come EASA, the core European countries like France and Germany got the casting vote - so we're doing it their way.

Now, let's be fair and say that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the German way of dealing with gliders. The problem isn't with that, it's with the approach of forcing a 2,500 (or thereabouts) strong British glider fleet to be shoehorned into a system that they and their paperwork have never had to meet. So we are looking at a massive programme to fit in with requirements for licensed engineer maintenance, use of certified instruments, etc. which they've never had to meet. This will be a monstrous undertaking.

So, the Germans have no particular problem. The French have no particular problem. It's the Brits who have done things in a different way for 55 years who have a problem.


The converse interestingly is true of microlights. If microlights came under EASA regulation, there wouldn't be much of a problem so far as the Brits are concerned, it would just be a mild change to what's been going on here since about 1980. But France, for example, has never had state safety regulation of microlights (it's interesting to compare the UK and French microlight accident rates in the current GASIL by the way), and would be brought to a standstill if EASA forced them to meet UK level regs (which are still well below CofA standards).


I'm not offering a solution I hasten to add, other than possibly to get our own back on the French and Germans by saying that microlights should be EASA regulated, just explaining how we got to this mess.

G

[bluskis]

Ghengis

I suggest we got into this mess when too many Brits were conned into agreeing to join the Common Market.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah yes, but as I recall that is all they voted to join. I don't recall any politician ever seriously asking my opinion on any of the rest of it.

G

[astir 8]

As you all may have guessed I'm certainly not a happy bunny about the whole EASA thing. I habitually fly old, wooden gliders, mainly made by Slingsby but as far as I can see they won't qualify with the strict wording of Annex II.

Slingsby went out of building gliders years ago and want nothing to do with them these days. Most of their design work went up in flames in a factory fire, so I don't know how these aircraft can ever become CAA approved types, despite having flown entirely satisfactorily for 40 - 50 years.

Many gliders (especially the older ones) contain BGA approved modifications will become "disapproved" by EASA as the BGA is not the original manufacturer or a "national" agency.

So come 2007 unless things change, I can see a lot of the UK's older UK built gliders being declared officially unflyable.

If that happens, I'm going to burn mine as close to 10 Downing Street as I can get.

And Mr A Blair wants to sign us up for the EU constitution????????? :{

[Genghis the Engineer]

This got me interested (which is more than my monday morning in-tray has so far).

There's a nice directory of old Slingsby gliders and there specifications here (http://www.sailplanedirectory.com/slingsb.htm)

They all potentially fit into the microlight definition, which does come under Annex II. I seriously think that your best bet Astir would be to give the BMAA a call and see if they can put your aircraft onto microlight permits, the do have a system for doing this with old aeroplanes it might be amenable to keeping you out of EASA's clutches. Try Emailing their Engineering department on [email protected] and see what they say?

Incidentally, Annex II, for those who haven't read it, is on the CAA's website here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_dpsd_00009-01-211103.pdf) . (pdf, 2 pages).

G

Not a good European either:uhoh:

[S-Works]

If gliders go onto permits as Microlights does this mean that the pilots will need to get Microlight PPL'S (NPPL)?

[Pilotage]

Now there's an interesting question - to which I suspect nobody knows the answer at the moment.

But, given I think there's only a 10 hour upgrade from silver-C to NPPL(M), or "differences training" for a JAR-PPL(SEP) holder, it's hard to think of any option there that is more painful than having to obtain a JAR-PPL(G), which I'd guess probably doesn't exist yet - or getting an ICAO compliance CofA on a Kirby Cadet !

P

[astir 8]

Genghis

by microlight do you mean Annex II - Single seat max gross 300 kg, 2 seat max 450 kg?

And that includes the pilot(s) doesn't it? I'd love to be wrong though.


The trouble is, on a personal basis - me (bare) 92 kg, clothes 2 kg parachute 7 kg, water & sarnies 1 kg = 103 kg near enough.

And that excellent website sailplanesdirectory.com says that my main single seat aircraft's (Slingsby Skylark 4) empty mass is 272 kg. 18 metre wings made of wood are not light! So no 300 kg AUW for me - and most single seat glass gliders are not significantly lighter.

My favourite 2 seater (T21 Sedbergh) is 256 kg empty (struts allow much lighter wings and the span is less). So me + T21 = 373 kg. OK I could make sure that the other pilots are less than 77 kg (fly with small females only!) but a lot of males that I fly with are heavier!

And the ASK13, which must be the most heavily used 2 seat trainer used in the UK is 290 kg empty - so only 57 kg pupils for me?

so I don't think the microlight route would work - but please correct me if I'm wrong

:ok: :ok:

[robin]

Sorry Astir

I don't think anyone has really thought through any of the 'dark corners' of the regs, esp the weight limits of gliders

As the EASA are based primarily on French rules, and originally only concerned with Airbus certification - BGA rules never entered into their heads

Your point about the effect on pilot licencing is a good one - again, I would doubt the team working on aircraft type rules even knew there was a pilot licencing issue

I have had a very fraught and angry correspondence with reps in the EU asking how it was they could have approved such half-baked ideas without having undertaken an impact analysis on those affected.

Not surprisingly, our bureaucrats have no idea and keep spouting a load of BS about how it will benefit us all in the end.

Given that our beloved Duke of Edinburgh is the patron of the BGA and is noted for his diplomatic skills, esp with jobsworths, why isn't he asked to have a word with some of the 'crats'

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's not going to be a universal panacea, but, assuming that the numbers in that website are right...

T21B has an empty weight of 272kg, and an MTOW of 476kg.

To meet the microlight definition, that MTOW would have to come down to 450kg, which means a useable payload of 178. Subtract your 103kg (can you go high enough in a T21 to use a chute?) and we get a remainder of 75kg. Allow 9kg for their chute and clothing and you are restricted to pax under 10½ stone nude weight, which isn't too bad.

(The MTOW of a 2-seater flown solo is still 450kg by the way).


I have to agree, at 272kg empty weight, the Skylark 4 looks like a lost case, but the Skylark 2 at 109kg empty is probably viable.


Looking up the ASK-13 on the same website it shows an empty weight of 290kg as you say, and an MTOW of 480kg. Restrict that to 450kg and you have 80 kg per seat available - that's probably a problem with the basic regulations, since microlight rules normally require at-least 86kg capacity per seat. Also the microlight definition needs a stall speed under 35 knots, which the ASK-13 doesn't seem to meet.


Probably not a universal panacea then, but if it keeps a fair number of aircraft out of EASA's clutches, it may be worth the effort of working out which ones and asking the right questions.

G

[astir 8]

Ta Genghis - it confirms my fears re the weight limits.

PS max I ever did in a T21 was 6500' - even in midsummer it was 'kin cold (both pilots wearing shorts!). And the flight previous to that had been 5400'

So parachutes could be handy in such circumstances - especially since the visibility in tight thermals with that wing like a shelf over your head ain't great

The Skylark 2 was infinitely smaller than the 4 - about 4 metres less wingspan - hence the lower weight.

A K13 with me in the back seat is getting fairly stalled at about 37 knots, as is the Skylark. A T21 can still be flying in the high 20's!

[140cherokee]

As the BGA manages the UK fleet under a delegation from the CAA, what's wrong with the CAA taking it over per se so that it's covered by national body as elsewhere? Similarly, what's wrong with the licencing of existing glider maintenance organisations?

I can't really see the point of some of the later arguments, the ASK-13 is after all a German design, so what's the issue?

Finally, isn't it really about time that glider pilots in the UK held licences, as per microlights/NPPL? Surely it would help when gliding overseas, especially in France where they're reluctant to accept the BGA certification (wasn't this the reason for the BGA themselves creating a glider pilot's licence a few years back). For once we could have all pilots in the UK with a common minimum groundschool and that can only be good for safety.

140

[robin]

140 Cherokee

Oh- you innocent person, you!!!!!!
Where does one start to answer such a question.

If you assume that authorities have your best interests at heart, that is a good way of looking at the world

However, we, in gliding, have worked hard over the years to provide a safe, well-regulated system which works at minimum cost.

EASA is about to hand us over to organisations looking for new sources of funding and who do not know, or care about the way the BGA works - and for no very good reason. Certainly it is not going to benefit us

As for the CAA, they don't want to know about BGA aircraft - and they will be looking to us to fund the increase in staffing they will need to take on the role the BGA has been doing so well for so long

If you have not come across the history of the BGA, thinking that we don't matter and are unsafe compared to PPLs- the BGA has been in the forefront of fighting unnecessary airspace and flying regs since the 1950s.

No - leave us well alone.

[140cherokee]

I really don't see what the problem is. Motor gliders are currently managed by the CAA. The majority of new gliders produced in Germany are equipped with engines so will come directly under the CAA rather than the BGA anyway. The BGA will continue as a representative body like the PFA, AOPA, etc.

The only things that will change would be licencing (why resist a move towards NPPL, surely it's beneficial and allows easier transition to other airsports and access to SEP) and probably costs (but flying has never been cheap).

I don't believe EASA will be the death knell for UK gliding. It will change, that's all. By the way, I'm a glider pilot as well as a PPL.

140

[astir 8]

Chero

You're quite right - UK gliding is going to change- and for the worse.

Certainly costs are going to go up significantly. OK there are some people for whom cost doesn't seem to be a factor in gliding (step forward members of Booker, Dunstable & Lasham for an aerotow in their ASW 28's!) but there are an awful lot of smaller low cost clubs with older gliders maintained by the members who are going to be wiped out by EASA.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's not, IMHO, the adoption of a German-style CofA for gliders system that's damaging, it's the transition.

The costs are in trying to make 2,500 British gliders meet international CofA requirements that they've never had to (and from a pure safety argument, don't need to).

Those that survive the transition will by about 2010 wonder what all the fuss was about. Those who survive...

G

[Ripline]

In the ballooning world we are also facing the loss of privilege that has worked well for over 30 years. The total farce of trying to minimise the damage from an unelected organisation that doesn't even know what it's own rules are are frustrating in the extreme.

At the moment (although this is the unlikely end result) it looks as if only the two UK manufacturers of hot air balloons will be able to recertify/renew the C of A annual on approved premises with the correct lighting etc. That would mean every G reg balloon having to be transported to one of the two factories instead of having "a brief inspection in a muddy field once a year". (That's an ironic statement, BTW, as the inspection regime under delegation from the CAA to the BBAC is one of the systems that works so well at little expense for the private owner, which is probably one reason why it's under attack).

It doesn't help that there has never been a case of structural failure in flight (or an accident caused by one) in over 30 years, so a working, documented system with an exemplarary safety record is being rolled over in favour of an EU beaurocracy that can't even tell the CAA what its own rules are.

Like gliders, balloons should never have "been allowed" to be part of this: unfortunately the grandfather rights are being extinguished without appeal.

It looks as if buying a paramotor will be the answer - no licence etc. That's one that seems to have got away!

I LIKE the idea of a mass trailer protest. As a Silver-C holder I know how long they are, but you'd not be suprised at the log-jam effect that a few hundred balloon trailers could create!

It is interesting to muse that the main reason that new forms of recreational flying have evolved over the years to counter ever increasing regulation and expense....

Ripline