There may be a God after all..... From The Daily Express Feb 23rd

[NutLoose]

:ok::ok::ok: Ahhhhhh EASA the Quango we all know it is :}

http://www.skonk.net/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=240&g2_serialNumber=1

[Atreyu]

Finally someone has seen EASA for what it is... Just a shame it's the express!!

Atreyu:ok:

[TURIN]

Begs the question,
Who are The Economic Research Council and Global Vision?

Are they QUANGOS too?

As it's in the Express, a paper with about as much integrity as er... the Daily Mail/Liar then I'll take it with a pinch of salt. :suspect:

[merlinxx]

For you ENGINEERS to get angry, and set up a pan European Union
of LAMEs:ugh: Go do it, and bloody good luck:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[jxk]

Having just helped to put together a CAME I couldn't agree more. If the old question: 'what makes an aircraft fly' is answered by money and paperwork then aircraft will undoubtedly soon have greater aerodynamic efficiency. I think this has come about because the CAA surveyors are all ex big airlines or RAF an don't understand little aeroplanes which are mostly flown for pleasure. How does anyone flight against obvious nonsense? I don't know! There are so many similar bits of legislation which we seem as mere mortals unable to solve with common-sense e.g. the Stonehenge bypass, JAA, ICAO, NPPL, IMC, ATCOCAS, Speed Cameras, home electrics etc.

[Safety Concerns]

well if you actually read the report EASA came out of it pretty well.

[jxk]

I bet the report wasn't written by those involved in setting up Part M etc..
There was nothing wrong with the M3 system which had been developed over many years and was monitored by our own CAA for the DOT.
I would like to know how the French, Spanish et al are progressing with their implementation and schedule for these rules. Any ideas? Will there be a reciprocal inspection of each union state's maintenance organisations by the CAA, DGAC etc.?

[Safety Concerns]

The problem most of you have and its the single biggest problem europe has, is that you can't see further than the end of your nose.

What good is it to you if M3 was the best in the world when in France say the situation as far as GA is concerned was the worst and the cheapest?

Many are complaining not because the system is bad but because it involves time and effort and money to get EUROPE to one level,one standard.

Think about it.

[jxk]

But surely this is why the UK didn't join the Euro and we don't drive on the right . Do you really believe there will ever be a level playing field? A pan European Part M is an idealistic dream and for what?

[Rigga]

I attended a CAA safety seminar a while ago where a prominent Euro Rule maker admitted that a level playing field for FCL (the most recent of EASA's stuff) could be as far away as 2020 after allowing for new rules to be made to force the issue.
This is at their highest priority due to pilot whinges!

Quite rightly, we are being forced to join the EASA rules as we will be under their control - It aint going to go away - so get used to it!
As an optimist - at least we will all be ahead of the Euro-game when they decide to play too! (and then they will have the expense)



The trouble with being in Europe is that only the British "play cricket" by following the rules.

[BAe146s make me cry]

Rigga

I think the UKCAA are the best at disguising when they DON'T play by the rules. The BA FAA AML/approvals-to-EASA Part 66 conversions in 2006 is just one example. EASA have findings directly linked to these conversions. These remain unresolved. Far too many EASA findings from all NAAs remain unresolved yet still the list gets bigger :ugh:....

I hope to obtain a letter soon that shows Sir Roy McNulty (UKCAA Chaiman) actually lying to a UK MP on the UKTSC about the existence of ANY conversions. For a level playing field and higher standards we supposedly promote, how can this be acceptable?

I remain absolutely unconvinced about EASA. I have learnt EASA has recently been 'forced' into taking action against a certain Airline/NAA - the outcome I'm sure we'll see in <6 weeks. Its hideous that it was 'FORCED' into action. EASA should have taken action Automatically.

Also, the practice of NAA's pre-warning of audit for any EASA Part 145 MRO has to end. We had one recently, passed with flying colours. Well done all. However, in reality, there are too many fundamental errors being made by our LAEs, namely practical task supervision and involvement. It is costing many extra manhours to disassemble, rectify & rebuild cabins, FADEC & NLG harnesses per EMM/AMM/CMM. I won't insult any of you fellow Techs with the serious airworthiness implications.

EASA NAA's - Make your visiting plans as usual, DON'T prewarn any QA &
then just turn up. You need to see the actual MRO day to
day operations. Not prepared facilities, conditions and
personnel performances. Then standards will improve.

EASA is not fit for purpose to the industry. Hopefully it'll be wound down
in the next 36 months and the EC will file it under 'Failed expensive tests'.
What a large EC file that is already.

BAe146??? :{:{:{