Exterminate Aviators Strangle Aviation EASA

[Pace]

EASA railroads its N-reg attack through Parliament

The European Parliament yesterday approved EASA-FCL despite a
last-minute attempt to have it sent back to EASA for redrafting
because of unresolved issues surrounding third-country licences. The
vote was very close – 16 against approval, 22 for – and a surprise for
IAOPA was the fact that the Parliament's Transport Committee chairman
Brian Simpson and his socialist group voted in EASA's favour. Mr
Simpson had expressed support for IAOPA's position on the N-register
in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly.
The passage of EASA-FCL despite the deleterious effect it will have on
the general aviation industry illustrates not only the absence of any
real democratic control over EASA but the failings of the whole
European governmental structure. EASA-FCL was born out of a Basic
Regulation written by European Commissioners with no electoral
mandate; the details were added by bureaucrats at EASA who paid lip
service to the idea of consultation with industry. When the time came
to vote, the elected members of the European Parliament were denied
the opportunity to pass judgement on the components of this long and
complex document – they only had the power to accept all of EASA's
proposals, or reject them entirely. Because the Commission's deadlines
(themselves entirely arbitrary) are bearing down on us, MEPs are under
enormous pressure to pass the legislation; failure to do so would have
caused chaos and confusion among the national aviation authorities who
are expected to begin implementing EASA-FCL by April next year, and it
is a measure of the extreme level of concern MEPs have over the
N-registration issue that many of them were prepared to 'throw the
baby out with the bathwater'.
The decision was effectively taken on August 31st by the Transport and
Tourism Committee, which speaks for the whole Parliament on this
issue. Thanks in part to the work of Herbert Habnit, founder of AOPA
Netherlands, two MEPs, Peter van Dalen and Philip Bradbourne, had
sought a resolution saying that EASA's third-country licensing
proposals meant that many pilots would be severely disadvantaged,
subject to additional training, examination and 'notable costs', and
that the requirements were 'disproportionate'. EASA claims the
shortcomings in its regulation can be overcome by a bilateral
agreement between Europe and the US, but the van Dalen/Bradbourne
motion points out that 'there is absolutely no evidence nor clear
future prospects for the potential bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreements being drafted and to be concluded before April 2014'(by
which time the third-country provision of EASA-FCL must be fully
implemented) that would solve these problems. It goes on to say there
are no safety issues behind EASA's regulation, and adds that the draft
regulation does not even conform to the requirements of the
Commission's own Basic Regulation.
Four more votes would have tipped the matter in general aviation's
favour. Mr Habnit was particularly disappointed at the failure of Mr
Simpson and those in his sphere of influence to support the
resolution. Mr Simpson had, says Mr Habnit, abrogated the provisions
of the European Parliament's own 'Agenda for a Sustainable Future for
General Aviation', adopted in 2009. There has, he adds, been no real
attempt to quantify the cost of this politically-motivated attack on
the GA industry. 'Even EASA does not understand the consequences of
its actions.'
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said afterwards: 'It's a
sad day. The MEPs were put under enormous pressure to push this
through and were denied the ability to address the huge flaws in it.
This could not have been railroaded through in a truly democratic
process. Economically, the vote is seriously bad news for our
industry. Many of those who have been flying perfectly safely for
decades on FAA licences are not going to make the extraordinary
investment of time, effort and money needed to get European IRs or
other qualifications – they will simply give up. The European
Parliament has blown a great hole in our industry with this vote, and
because it has been bamboozled by EASA, it doesn't even know it.
'We now have to focus on the detail of the FCL annexe to the Bilateral
Agreement to make sure that EASA and the FAA reach sensible agreements
on what credits they will give to each other's training systems. It is
unlikely that the 2014 deadline will be achieved given the amount of
work that needs to be done, and the Commission has accepted that the
deadline may need to be extended. Retrospective legislation like this
is damaging and the Commission should now work hard with the industry
to reduce as far a possible the negative impact of these decisions.'

It is so disgusting what these con merchants are doing with GA
Is it not about time our CAA stood up like the French and copy the French PPL IR proposals?
Only scrap of comfort is the 2014 deadline is likely to be extended again to 2016

Pace

[Pace]

10540

Had already posted this under a new thread as maybe it needs more prominancee???

Pace

[IO540]

Yes; agreed.

It's bad news but it shows that the "residents" will always outwit the "passing through" crowd when it comes to getting new laws passed.

[Pace]

Really its about time our CAA or whoever started being more proactive with disobedience instead of devouted compliance to EASA.

A couple of large European countries following France would force an issue.
It looks likely from info I have had which ties up with whats been said here that there will be a further extension to 2016 as the reason for the extensions has been EASAs proclaimed desire for a Bi Lateral.

They know that will not be achieved by 2014.

Pace

[McGoonagall]

Virgil, shome mishtake shurely?

:)

[McGoonagall]

Its at it again.

:cool:

[IO540]

I tend to agree re a series of extensions past 2014 being a likely outcome.

However there is another angle on all this: the French IR was clearly designed to lead the way to being a lot more than a French-airspace-only job. I am hearing more and more stuff on other countries adopting it, and if that happens, the EASA stuff will effectively get bypassed.

The bottom line is that France can do it if they want to, and the EU is not going to impose a ban on French beef exports, or send Virgil and his Thunderbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_%28TV_series%29) 1 to nuke the DGAC HQ.

[S-Works]

It's not really a surprise is it. This has always been a done deal. As was pointed out a longtime ago the pen pushers who are the real drivers of politics were paying lip service to quieten the natives while they got on with their stated intent.

It was made clear a number of years ago this was going to happen. What did you think was going to stop it? Democracy? We lost that when we handed power to Brussels.

Just take a look at how the unelected have invaded every aspect of our lives with no control and no ability to push back. Take a look at motorcyclings latest threat, no bikes over 7 years old allowed in the City, Hi-Viz required by law. Not allowed to after market modify and fitting of diagnostic ports that are accessible by the police to show how the bike is being ridden. Instigated by the unelected in Europe.

IMC anyone?

[IO540]

Virgil, shome mishtake shurely?Apologies... Thunderbird 1 pilot was Scott.

But you get me drift ;)

[proudprivate]

Mr Simpson had expressed support for IAOPA's position on the N-register
in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly


Although in the November meeting he is still mocking Goudou for having made EASA into is second hottest e-mail topic after "save the whale", by the 25th May Brian Simpson's position had definitely changed.

The vote itself was relatively uninformed and EASA and the Commission, who in one way or another had convinced the fraction coordinators of the biggest parties (Grosch from the EVP and El Khadraoui from the S&D), were sh1t scared that more MEP's would be aware of the situation and the tables would be turned in a couple of weeks time. That is why they insisted on having a vote immediately (i.e. less than 24 hours) after the resolution was submitted, arguing that a no-vote would require further legislative work between then and april 2012 (nothing short of blackmail of course, especially in view of the fact that "verification by the legal department" and "translating" the document took more than half a year).

I think the good guys misjudged two things:

1) Although the EVP as a whole didn't really care about the matter, Mathieu Grosch had a specific interest. His constituency is the East of Belgium, just 50-odd kilometers from Cologne. That means that he would be in a position to negotiate some ex-pat & tax free jobs for his buddies from Goudou and his con-men, in exchange for decisive EVP support. That is why the rest of the EVP needed to be kept in the dark as much as possible, and why he ignored the catastrophic consequences for general aviation, despite him being on the board of a regional airport (in this case Liège EBLG) that needs GA as a supplement to freight and summer charters to balance the books.

2) Somehow they must have negotiated something similar with Simpson and El Khadraoui in the course of February / March of this year, and UK IAOPA wasn't able to leverage its Simpson connection, at least not in the way IAOPA NL was able to debrief and convince Mr. Van Dalen, who I believe is a much more straightforward guy than Brian Simpson, irrespective of political preferences (just look at how he handles the incident with the Austrian MEP after the voting session).


What I take home from this is that democracy in Europe is seriously deficient. Agencies such as EASA are apparently able to hijack an entire community without any accountability. It questions the validity of a model in which the Commission and its agencies act as being the sole initiator of European legislative proposals. The lack of democratic control and the lack of transparency is simply too big to accept.

But even if we were to accept such a model, clearly the current process of NPA CRDs is defunct too. As some of my strongest opponents on this forum have rightly pointed out, essential contributions by competent individuals with a lifelong experience in aviation are systematically studiously ignored. Content wise, there is a clear lack of vision and a complete absence of motivation. And in the rare instances that a hint at motivation is given, it is not supported by factual evidence or proper statistical analysis. The newly published NCO OPS papers hint in the same direction.

The efficiency of the work set-up at EASA can also be questioned: what use are statistical histograms of public responses ? Why is the legislative and rulemaking drafting quality so poor ? Why is EASA's management acting in such an uninformed way (being either incompetent or deceitful, neither being acceptable), seemingly unaware of the scope and consequences of their statements and actions ? Surely € 110 million is too much for what we are getting out of it.


On a different note,


Is it not about time our CAA stood up like the French and copy the French PPL IR proposals?


Given the fact that the Conservative Party was the one promoting the resolution [Yes moderator, this is shameless voting advice], why don't you get in contact with your local conservative UK MP and help them draft legislation that would
1) Implement an equivalent sub FL195 PPL-IR inside UK airspace, including similar grandfathering rights for existing ICAO PPL-IR licence holders
2) Recognise the French IR as such on the simple condition that the French recognize yours. That shouldn't take too long...
so that we can at least fly IFR from Wick to Cannes without EASA bothering us.

[AN2 Driver]

However there is another angle on all this: the French IR was clearly designed to lead the way to being a lot more than a French-airspace-only job. I am hearing more and more stuff on other countries adopting it, and if that happens, the EASA stuff will effectively get bypassed.

Will it?

Fact of the matter is that EASA has spoken the final verdict on how to stop foreign licenses in Europe. What France is doing (and I am all for it, no mistake) is illegal according to EASA. So EASA will, if they want Part FCL to have any significance, have to take France to court to prohibit them keeping national licenses active past April 8, 2012.

Actually, I do hope EASA will do it so we get a court decision on this. It might, if France wins, spell the end of EASA as a whole.

Democracy? We lost that when we handed power to Brussels.

Fact is that most European governments are no longer interested in true democracy, most have never been. If you look at the history of European politics, how many of the formerly independent European states have ever been true democracies? Not one of the current EU members. Some have frighteningly totalitarian histories, including and foremost the one which houses EASA's headquarters. True democracy? Forget it. You can't loose what you never had.

However, if the European aviation community has not yet understood what is happening and start to fight back in this war of extermination, there will be hell to pay in the near future. FAA licences is only the beginning.

[Pace]

An2
Just to clarify it's 2014 and probably 2016. Probably EASA are trying to get the lot through to be sorted afterwards,
Why did the 4 MEPs who were against vote it through?
My guess is their concerns were allayed. Problem is we don't know EASAs real intention ? Someone. Does! Is it to really get a bilateral or just a con act?
We don't know only the guys behind closed doors really know the agenda behind all this

Pace

[IO540]

Probably EASA are trying to get the lot through to be sorted afterwards,

Spot on.

My guess is their concerns were allayed

100% fact. This is how EASA's top brass work. They "brief" people selectively. They are quite good... I've met Eric Sivel face to face; spoke to him for quite a long time. What he told me was very different from what transpired afterwards; a sentiment echoed in far less printable language by a number of others.

But this is standard politics. You always do under the table deals. Town & Country Planning too.

The bottom line, however, is that nobody actually gains from the elimination of GA, or even IFR GA. Well, maybe some cynical FTOs who hope to make a fast buck processing a few k pilots one day, but it will be a one-off, and they must know that most people, if pushed, will pop down to Spain or Greece where things are much better "lubricated". FTOs in N Europe are not going to profit from any large scale pilot screwing, especially as any deadline will obviously be pretty flexible.

That's why I don't go along with the "we want to eliminate GA" motive. I can fully see the reason for thinking that, but there must be a motive.

My guess is that this is an anti American battle and we are caught up in it. The European intellectuals have always hated America and everything it stands for.

[funfly]

Democracy?
France is a Republic.
We are a Monarchy.
Our Monarchy has strong ties with the German Aristocracy
Up to 1940 our Monarchy had concerns that the population would look to the French style and, siding with Germany, engendered a dislike of the French.
Do you really believe that our 'establishment' would ever consider anything promoted by the French, however sensible, to be considered?
We are also beginning to understand the power of the Media Barons over our lives, few of them are British.
Since 1940 the US has a hold on us that no-one seems to fully understand.
The French have been suspicious of the Americans since 1942.
The US foreign policy over the last 20 years has encouraged many thinking people across Europe to question American motivation and integrity.
Our politicians, who therefore have one finger up the *ss of the US and another up the *ss of the Monarchy, are more keen to please their masters than to please the relatively small group of the G.A. community.

[dublinpilot]

That's why I don't go along with the "we want to eliminate GA" motive. I can fully see the reason for thinking that, but there must be a motive.


I can well believe that nobody particularly wants to eliminate GA. I suspect that GA simply isn't on their radar. Though I fear that if GA gets killed as 'collateral damage' while trying to achieve something else for "proper aviation" (ie airlines) then they won't lose any sleep nor get too upset over it.

They just don't see GA as we don't speak with a loud and clear voice. The airlines do speak with a loud and clear voice, and pay for a lot of the bills.

[AN2 Driver]

IO540,

The bottom line, however, is that nobody actually gains from the elimination of GA, or even IFR GA.

Nobody gains but a lot of people IMAGINE they will gain a lot! And that is what drives this hamster wheel of destruction.

That's why I don't go along with the "we want to eliminate GA" motive. I can fully see the reason for thinking that, but there must be a motive.


There is more than one, spread over the several anti aviation lobbies and the aviation lobbies itself.

Let's tackle the insiders first. Who in aviation has a motive to eliminate GA?
Answer: Airport managers, Airline Managers (of the sort who understand cash but not aviation), ATC Managers.

We have to look at the myth of the "overcrowded skies" to understand that. There are people out there, in high and influential places, who treat airspace as an endangered species and believe that there is not enough space to accomodate everyone. So they introduce slot management in order to regulate traffic in such a way that in theory, every traffic moving has it's space. In order to fly, you need airport slots both ends and enroute slots from ATC. Airport slots work according to the laws of what used to be the 5 year plan in socialist states. Someone determines what the capacity of an airport is and that is how many slots are available, thereafter they get distributed on a "tell me a year in advance when you want to fly" base and set in stone. The few and far in between holes which remain get allocated to GA and ad hoc charter. So in their ideal model railway world, everyone will fly at a time accorded 12 months in advance and everyone who doesn't get a slot should bu**er off. GA is in it's nature not plannable 12 months ahead so it disturbs the 5 year planners. Motive.

That the fact that we all operate in a weather orientated world where airplanes do not adhere to schedules like railways (err, or at least how they imagine railways work) is disregarded and an additional nuissance.

Airlines feel that the "insects" or "lawnmowers" or "parasites" are "stealing" their airport slots. Airline pilots who have to queue up for take off and see a small airplane land imagine that if it wasn't for the (see above) they could line up and take off NOW instead of waiting. They do not see that ATC knows darn well that an airliner burns more fuel than a PA28 but that the release for the airliner had not come so he might as well squeeze that VFR bird in between? Motive.

ATC has real concerns. Slow moving IFR traffic which has to keep to the same departure routes as airliners DO and CAN slow down a busy airport. So ATC Managers want them gone instead of thinking of how to accomodate them with low speed SID's or other ways. Motive.

ATC has more trouble. They get screamed at by irrate airline managers why their "Golden Argosy Flight 2" had to hold 2 minutes because of an "insect" landing. Explanations won't do jack garbage to someone who does not understand the basic concept, so once those "insects" are gone, phew, they'll still get screamed at but they can say, see, no insects. We do our best.


Ok, that is the aviation side. The others?

Anti Noise leagues want NO airplanes at all. Motive.
Socialists want to either eliminate flying for everyone but themselfs on the mission to save the planet and ground those parasitic rich people for good.
Greens want us all to go back to horse and carriage. Oh, well, maybe some exceptions for them. Some of them want to decimate mankind so that only good Greens remain. They don't bear discussion. Motive.
Politicians in general need re-election so they are looking around for ways to find eager beavers to work on. Who screams the loudest get's the vote. Motive
Bureaucrats want to make sure they remain bureaucrats with a comfy income until they safely retire at 45 or 50, so they create jobs for themselfs and others to make sure that all of the above folks are happy. GA is a perfect candidate to rip off via regulations, inspections, new regulations, new inspections. Can you spell EASA?

No motives? More than Hercule Poirot would ever have needed to bag the gardener.

silvaire
A notable exception to the above would be the thousands and thousands of Europeans (including my family) who moved to the US to enjoy greater freedom, including the opportunity to freely fly our own aircraft. The US is not perfect, but it has certainly made life better for more people, in more places, than every other country combined.

True. And more will follow after this. The land of the free. Just so you see it stays that way, because also in America all of the above exists. You just happen to have a very strong and motivated lobby we here lack so severely. But I reckon quite a few of us might want to dig out their green card applications in the coming years and see if they can make their lifes elsewhere.

Friend of mine once said it as it is: The degree of freedom a country grants its citizens is directly measurable from the fact whether they allow general aviation in their countries and at the degree of freedom it enjoys.

Best regards
AN2 Driver

[AN2 Driver]

Pace,

Just to clarify it's 2014 and probably 2016.

Who has given that in writing? Countries "MAY" ask for extention but there will be several which won't but will be happy to shut N-reg pilots down by April next year. And if so? Does it make this better?

I disagree that they will "find solutions", but they might give these extensions in order to give GA 4 more years in which to pack up and leave.

[AN2 Driver]

Silvaire,

well, changing the current administration next fall would be the first step in that direction I reckon. Question is what will follow. But this one is looking too fondly at Europe for a role model :eek: for any freedom loving American or resident to ignore. :uhoh:

[mad_jock]

I don't think it will change anything which is why there is such a rush to get it through.

Once its inshrined in local law that will be it. It doesn't matter what happens to the EU or EASA. It was a bitter pill that most CAA's have been avoiding for the last 15-20 years but wanted to do. An outside agency imposing the rules then going defunct is there prayers come true. Which is why I doudt very much if there will be an extension.

6k pilots in the grand scope of things is a very very small number of voters to piss off. Multi million euro donations are riding on this european wide.

Also as well once installed in local law thats it because if EASa does dissapear or the EU goes tots up it will be years and years before there will be any time to sort it out after the fall out. And to be honest most CAA have been wanting to shut the loop hole for years but never had the balls. Someone else doing it then getting shut down is a perfect solution to them.

[Pace]

Mad Jock

Firstly there are already workarounds in the offing not maybe so much for the owner pilot but for bigger GA.

Secondly there are major problems shoving this lot through as it stands. There are legal problems which EASA will be faced with.

That is why I dont think what has been passed to get the whole package through at this stagewill resemble what we end up with.

I dont think N reg in Europe will vanish with the stroke of a brush although I know thats what you would like.

Although the extensions to 2014 are claimed to be to get a Bi lateral I think EASA are fully aware that they will be no where near implimenting this lot on time never mind the member states who are not at all prepared.

A Bilateral has to happen for no other reason than that there will be a massive shortage of experienced pilots world wide with the fast developing areas of Russia China and third world countries.

There will have to be a cross acceptance just to fill the demand.

We dont know what has been said behind closed doors for 4 supporters of N to support The package to get it through must mean they have been given certain assurances we are not aware of.

What I was told about extensions to 2016 has been reiterated in the reports at the start of the thread (strange)

Pace

[mad_jock]

The legal problems as they stand will take years and years to work through. And by the time its been all sorted the core of the pilots that it will effect will have been depleted to such a point that it will just die a death.

I have said before I really don't care either way it won't affect me personally at all. Its just that I am one of the few JAR lic pilots that can be arsed discussing it with you. Most like myself don't give a toss that the loophole is being shut. Which is why you have such a small but vocal core that are fighting this. The majority of pilots stick by local laws and don't use loop holes. 6000 pilots in the EU out of what 200,000 plus its not going to affect at all.

The shortage will continue as it always has of experenced skippers on certain types. FO and below there won't be an issue. Either in the EU or developing markets its the same. And there are enough skippers who want to return to fill the market in the EU many times over.

And its standard practise to say there will be an extension. It lulls people into a false sense of security and helps damped ruptions. Come the day it will go through, there will be all hell let loose for a month and that will be that, instead of another two years of bitching. Realistically I can't see a bilaterial agreement in the next 10 years if at all. It took 8 years for them to sort things out with the canadians and thats still work in progress.

[IO540]

MJ is on his usual form.

Multi million euro donations are riding on this european wide.

???

[mad_jock]

To political parties from industry and the unions. In fact you have the rare situation that industry and the unions want the loophole shut.

There not per say after the GA side of things but the majority of socalist europe like any thing that kicks anything to do with the USA off there turf.

[IO540]

The FTOs sure want it shut.

The airline industry doesn't care. They are all on AOCs anyway and you can run an N-reg on an AOC (with certain conditions). All the airline pilot unions care about (in this context) is in keeping the IR hard to get because they tie it to "professional pilot" status.

[mad_jock]

yep there are a few more kicking around most of which you won't hear of because it will be behind the closed doors lobbying.

Lets face it there are 5 of you on here that bang on about it and apart from that nobody really cares.

I think most folk don't want an extension because it will put this ****e to bed and then we don't have to listen to a subject that doesn't affect us and we really don't care about. The slight delight that the bloke in the flying club that was taking the piss saying we were all stupid for not going FAA has been proved to be talking ****e has worn off years ago.

There is still the fundemental issue that you sticking the finger up at your local laws and the political types will never stand for that. Even if there wasn't back lash lobbying by european operators and the like, they would still want the loophole closed.

[funfly]

Silvaire1. Yes I do see your point, perhaps I was feeling a bit "they're all out to get us" when I posted it;)

[youngskywalker]

MJ, I hate to interrupt your daily rant, but are you capable of writing just one coherent post without excessive use of profanity?

[Pace]

MadJock

Far from not caring you seem to care an awful lot infact I would go to the lenghts of saying that the N reg thing really gets up your kilt ;)
There is no way anyone will meet the deadline of 2012 or even 2014. The CAA have already announced that they could not cope in implementing the changes.
What changes? as the whole lot is so poorly put together that it is work in progress so dont expect any of this to hit law before 2016. I will even lay a bet on it!
Where did you get the figure of 6000 N reg pilots in Europe? I believe its more like 67000!!!
Like previous attempts there are workarounds and this is no exception.
But we have to take EASA at their word! You obviously dont like dishonesty of N REG not complying with your hard earned path to JAA and finding loopholes.
How could anything be more dishonest than what EASA have made promises about in many areas just to placate disgruntled interest groups in aviation?How dishonest can they be at railroading something through in a totally undemocratic way? How dishonest can they be in declaring that their sole intention for delaying till 2014 is for a bi lateral agreemnet?
A Bi lateral agreement has already been signed with an option to add FCL.
EASAs stated intention?
With all the dirt that has been going around with EASA I am sure you will agree that it makes the dishonesty and loopholes of N reg appear like the Pope!!
MadJock you have a lot more than N reg at stake what are you fighting to protect? as it certainly isnt the health of aviation in Europe N reg or otherwise.

Pace

[AN2 Driver]

Mad Jock and others,

I think we are wrong to look at this only from the perspective of some 70'000 pilots and owners who understandably stand in front of a disaster right now. But there is a lot more to the method behind all this, than "only" to eliminate a loophole which had become necessary due to totally unreasonable requirements on the side of European aviation legislators.

To be totally neutral on this, I would not know how the FAA would have reacted to an influx of European registered airplanes operating from there. I reckon they would not have stood for it either, but the point is mute, as there was never a reason to do so, while European requirements have prompted many pilots to go FAA.

I am NOT one of them, I have my national license which I understand will somehow get converted into an EASA one next April. Yet, I see what EASA does in a wider spectrum.

ICAO is all about standardisation and about mutual reckognition, which is the base of it's raison d' etre. Without this, international air traffic becomes more and more impossible or, as it already is happening now, more and more nationalized. If we see moves like this one, which is a clear step away from ICAO's principle, there will be more to come. BOTH, EASA and the FAA will need to find a common way here, if we are to continue according to the spirit of ICAO. Otherwise, we will find ourselfs in 2 blocks again, not unlike the former East Block and the West. Some of you called it a trade war, yes, in a way it is.

But more than this, particularly in Europe, it is a concentrated effort to strangle free aviation and to force it into a corset eventually eliminating the need for pilots altogehter. We all know that is science fiction born of the sick mindsets of some of aviations worst beancounters, but that is where many things are headed. There are EASA folks around (and others) who believe that basic flight training can be dispensed with and pilots will be trained to do their first ever flight on the flight deck of an fully automated airliner which keeps pilots just to keep the punters from running off, but who are there to observe, not actually to fly. The same folks plus several others in the political scheme of things see aviation as something hostile, something to do away with and wish to do away with freedom altogether, as it only bothers their bureaucratic behinds. One step to do this is to take away the possibility and incentive to travel. THAT, folks, is happening already. Security, 9-11 scares, e.t.c. is not there to "protect" us but to keep us from travelling. Taking away private air travel is one vital step in this direction, back to regulated tarifs with the airlines and state run everything.

Folks, we need to take the future of aviation away from thes charlatans. Keep your eyes open in your daily life, it's everywhere. Overregulation has always been a fond issue in many nation states, who hate freedom and promote strong political leaders with willing vasalls to follow their every word. The EU has moved in this direction ever since it was formed. That is why certain large members of it are now taking matters in their own hands. One up to the French, who won't be bullied. Now it is up to everyone else not to be bullied either.

And our Ameircan friends, keep at it over there. The concept of freedom the American is used to is not a God given gift but it needs to be fought for every single day. If you want to know where you'll end up if you don't, just look at Europe.

best regards
AN2 Driver
(Whose AN2 has long gone the way of all worldly items thanks to the Cologne Gang)