CAA-GA Conference 21st Nov

[robin]

Any views or info from this?

[Mariner9]

Discussed on the Flyer forum (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=27614)

[IO540]

It was quite interesting. I would not put as much of a cynical angle on it as many of those posting about it "elsewhere" have done.

It's true to say that a lot of the proposals were as predictable as a turkey voting for xmas. The usual bodies (with heavy commercial memberships, and I am not referring to AOPA) wishing to block the pretty revolutionary (and I think on the whole very good and fresh) EASA proposal for a Euro-wide private license. Plus a lot of equally predictable meaningless political talk.

But on the whole the CAA comes across as positive, pro-GA and well informed. Individually they are far from stupid and the meeting was valuable for the personal contacts too.

They did their best to dig themselves out of the Mode S hole which they dug for themselves a while ago (claiming they would help bring a cheap Mode S to the market; something they were never in a commercial position to do, of course) and now saying, quite correctly IMHO, that nobody is going to make one until there is a guaranteed market.

The CAA also clearly distanced themselves from the now-dead DfT proposal to kick out N-reg planes and commendably refused to criticise the FAA IR in any way. That is as far as one could expect the CAA to go on the record.

Important issues like availability of downloadable VFR charts were raised and not thrown out, which is good.

Suprisingly, nobody raised the trial GPS approaches, AFAIK.

The DfT came across a bit out of touch, especially one or two of them. To be expected. The senior civil servant giving the main DfT speech (quite a good looking woman) is reportedly very pro-GA which is excellent, but you will never hear anything interesting on the record from somebody that senior in politics.

The EASA proposals (licensing and maintenance) were dissected in some substance and the usual suspects voiced their objections but it's clear there will be a lot of changes and IMHO certainly for the better - on the VFR scene at least. The private IFR stuff is too distant (and much too controversial) for anyone to say anything of substance, with EASA about to replace JAA, not to mention much of the CAA.

A meeting worth going to.

[QDMQDMQDM]

But on the whole the CAA comes across as positive, pro-GA and well informed. Individually they are far from stupid and the meeting was valuable for the personal contacts too.

They did their best to dig themselves out of the Mode S hole which they dug for themselves a while ago (claiming they would help bring a cheap Mode S to the market; something they were never in a commercial position to do, of course) and now saying, quite correctly IMHO, that nobody is going to make one until there is a guaranteed market.

So what exactly did they say?

My objection to Mode S isn't just the cost and hassle, it's that it is part of the ever encroaching (and mostly moronic and pointless) surveillance of individuals that characterises Britain today. Bloody bureaucrats and politicians have no concept of how much people like me hate this ever increasing intrusion.

[Lucy Lastic]

I was at a different meeting from IO540, then.

The EU licence is to be called the Leisure PPL (head well forward over a paper bag)

There was a real concern that the UK is fighting a hard battle to maintain self-regulation. Roger Hopkinson of the PFA produced a paper showing that in the UK a high proportion of aircraft are self-regulated outwith the CAA ( by the PFA, BGA, BMAA etc). Other EU countries are opposed to this and under the standarisation across EASA, our reps will have a hard job allowing this to continue

There was talk of the Part M 'Light' for GA aircraft as it is recognised Part M is too onerous for most light aircraft. Unfortunately the implementation date is 28th Sept 2008 and needs an Act to be passed (not sure who buy) to delay it. So there is a possibility that we will have a Part M regime with the huge costs associated with it, then a year or so later, a roll-back to an acceptable level. By then, of course, many of us will be bankrupt.

Mode S - well, what can I say. There is deep scepticism at the process and the whole process applying to all aircraft in the UK airspace. Nothing was said to ease my concerns, except right at the end of the conference when Roy McNulty left his prepared script and said clearly and in terms that the CAA HAD NOT MADE ANY DECISIONS YET!.

This went against the tone of the presentation by the very unhappy Simon Wragg (why are the Mode S team members so ignorant of how GA actually operates outside of CAS??), but we expect more information in early 2007. This will probably be a decision to put back the 2008 target date, as time is getting short.

Oh, and Ann Godfrey from the DfT (not that good-looking, in my view) made it clear that she doesn't appreciate the tone of GA users. We are seen as unwilling to compromise, hectoring and lack understanding of the political process, where everyone has to give something. They don't like talk of civil disobedience!

She cannot understand why there can't be a single point of contact - a sort of industry-wide forum to cover all GA - although given the range of comments from the audience, it is fairly clear why.

Finally, there is still significant doubt that anyone can define GA. The talk of the sector growing, but then spoke of business aviation and microlights. They did acknowledge that traditional fixed wing SEP is in decline, but brushed over that.

So - we wait for the next steps. It will probably involve locking the GA Alliance, European Air Sports, BMAA, BGA, AOPA and others in a room
to fight it out.

I was disappointed in seeing Martin Robinson in action. He may well be a good rep for AOPA but was decidely quiet and reminded me of some union officials I knew who were 'captured' by the bosses.

[IO540]

Perhaps Martin Robinson has decided, after years of practicing, that smashing up all the china in the CAA's shop does not help one's negotiating position, and I would agree with that.

But more importantly I suspect that the CAA is listening more to GA now. Whether this is because EASA is pushing them out, or whether all the famous ex RAF navigators have retired, who knows?

Calling it a "leisure PPL" is quite clever. The objective is to make the regulators realise this is just another normal leisure activity, which should not be overly regulated. It's a leaf out of the CAA's book, where "safety" is used as an excuse for everything. I mean, who could possibly object to a Child Support Agency ;)

Unfortunately for some, going too far down the road to a deregulated VFR scene is likely to screw the IFR scene which (IR pilots flying in the airways system) cannot possibly claim to be a "leisure" activity. Some substantial meat will get thrown to the dogs on this one. You can't please everybody...