More of the EASA mess, confusion and ineptitude!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 minute Google search, I would agree with the statement below 'The best safety record is that of the Corporate category which is run on a non commercial basis'
PRIVATE OPERATION OF BUSINESS AIRCRAFT - A REVIEW
Business Aircraft in Europe only represent 10% of the worlds fleet of Business Jets and Turboprops. They are divided into three separate categories;
1 Business Aviation Commercial
Aircraft flown for business purposes by an operator having a commercial operating certificate( generally on-demand charters) under public transport regs & holding an AOC
2 Corporate Private
Non-commercial operations by professional crews employed to fly the
aircraft.
3 Owner operated
Aircraft flown for business purposes by the owner of the business. This can refer to all types of aircraft from a Gulfstream to a Cessna 150.
• This review has concentrated on the third category- owner operated.
The first question to consider: “Is there a problem in this area of operations?” from the statistics prepared by Robert Breiling and Associates for a 5 year period from 1997-2001 it can be seen that owner operated business aircraft have a good safety record compared with Commercial operations. The best safety record is that of the Corporate category which is run on a non commercial basis.
In 2003 there were 25 accidents and 2004 the figure was 19 with no Part 91 (private operators) business jets involved but 1 fatal turboprop accident.
Does this mean that problems are not present in the private category?
No, must be the answer and Business and Commercial Aviation published a review of 12 years of Business Jet accidents last April identifying the areas most likely to be the cause of an accident ( based on info fro US NTSB, UK Air Accidents Branch, Canada and Australia plus Air Claims )
Whilst not identifying which category was involved the statistics could apply to all at one time or another.
Approach and Landing still top the number of accidents followed by Mechanical, Takeoff and Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT)
Differences of operations between Private and Commercial Private Commercial
ANO JAR OPS1 Remunerated remunerated & owner pilots
Unaudited Audited
Additional layers of regulations
Experience and levels of Competency
Are private category pilots any less competent than commercial?
Not necessarily so as the owner operator will have undertaken a full conversion course on the aircraft and is willing to undergo regular refresher training plus the mandatory checks in accordance with the ANO’s. It is essential that he/ she keeps themselves current on type and builds up experience with the aid of a competent instructor who can assist in the more critical areas such as operations into marginal airfields, ETOPS, MEL compliance etc.
The fact that Commercial operations have a marginally worse safety record than the Private operators cannot be associated with the lower levels of experience in this category and their competency may well be as good.
• Initial / recurrent training
A vital area which is so important for both private and commercial pilots. A private owner/ operator buying a new aircraft will have the advantage of free training from the manufacturers and a continuing programme of checks and recurrent training can be arranged with an established training organisation. Commercial crews also have free initial training on new aircraft but the further training can be influenced by cost constraints such as price of simulator and distance of provider, usually in the USA.
PRIVATE OPERATION OF BUSINESS AIRCRAFT - A REVIEW
Business Aircraft in Europe only represent 10% of the worlds fleet of Business Jets and Turboprops. They are divided into three separate categories;
1 Business Aviation Commercial
Aircraft flown for business purposes by an operator having a commercial operating certificate( generally on-demand charters) under public transport regs & holding an AOC
2 Corporate Private
Non-commercial operations by professional crews employed to fly the
aircraft.
3 Owner operated
Aircraft flown for business purposes by the owner of the business. This can refer to all types of aircraft from a Gulfstream to a Cessna 150.
• This review has concentrated on the third category- owner operated.
The first question to consider: “Is there a problem in this area of operations?” from the statistics prepared by Robert Breiling and Associates for a 5 year period from 1997-2001 it can be seen that owner operated business aircraft have a good safety record compared with Commercial operations. The best safety record is that of the Corporate category which is run on a non commercial basis.
In 2003 there were 25 accidents and 2004 the figure was 19 with no Part 91 (private operators) business jets involved but 1 fatal turboprop accident.
Does this mean that problems are not present in the private category?
No, must be the answer and Business and Commercial Aviation published a review of 12 years of Business Jet accidents last April identifying the areas most likely to be the cause of an accident ( based on info fro US NTSB, UK Air Accidents Branch, Canada and Australia plus Air Claims )
Whilst not identifying which category was involved the statistics could apply to all at one time or another.
Approach and Landing still top the number of accidents followed by Mechanical, Takeoff and Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT)
Differences of operations between Private and Commercial Private Commercial
ANO JAR OPS1 Remunerated remunerated & owner pilots
Unaudited Audited
Additional layers of regulations
Experience and levels of Competency
Are private category pilots any less competent than commercial?
Not necessarily so as the owner operator will have undertaken a full conversion course on the aircraft and is willing to undergo regular refresher training plus the mandatory checks in accordance with the ANO’s. It is essential that he/ she keeps themselves current on type and builds up experience with the aid of a competent instructor who can assist in the more critical areas such as operations into marginal airfields, ETOPS, MEL compliance etc.
The fact that Commercial operations have a marginally worse safety record than the Private operators cannot be associated with the lower levels of experience in this category and their competency may well be as good.
• Initial / recurrent training
A vital area which is so important for both private and commercial pilots. A private owner/ operator buying a new aircraft will have the advantage of free training from the manufacturers and a continuing programme of checks and recurrent training can be arranged with an established training organisation. Commercial crews also have free initial training on new aircraft but the further training can be influenced by cost constraints such as price of simulator and distance of provider, usually in the USA.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes private corporate jets flown by professional crews have a good safety record and way better than AOC ops so not sure why EASA want us to AOC standards 
To be fair the company jet is the companies pride and joy and usually flown by the same crew who know every squeak in the aircraft
Maybe different to AOC where the aircraft fly around the clock often by different crews and where the aircraft are regarded as work horses
But would be interesting to know why private jets have a substantially better safety record ?
Pace
To be fair the company jet is the companies pride and joy and usually flown by the same crew who know every squeak in the aircraft
Maybe different to AOC where the aircraft fly around the clock often by different crews and where the aircraft are regarded as work horses
But would be interesting to know why private jets have a substantially better safety record ?
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't, at least not in Europe. I suggest you look up the business jet accidents involving JAR/EASA CAT business jets and N/VP private jets in Europe over the past 10 years. I think you might be surprised.
I think you are confusing European figures with FAA Part 135 vs Part 91 primarily in the States. EASA AOC business jets operate to the same standards and under the same oversight as the Airlines. Even so, accidents will happen and all EASA are trying to do is achieve a common standard of operation and oversight for those operators that are clearly based in Europe rather than just passing through.
You can rant all you like, Pace, but this is a done deal. Bad-mouthing Public Transport business jet operations and quoting misleading stats. won't help you, I'm afraid.
AP
I think you are confusing European figures with FAA Part 135 vs Part 91 primarily in the States. EASA AOC business jets operate to the same standards and under the same oversight as the Airlines. Even so, accidents will happen and all EASA are trying to do is achieve a common standard of operation and oversight for those operators that are clearly based in Europe rather than just passing through.
You can rant all you like, Pace, but this is a done deal. Bad-mouthing Public Transport business jet operations and quoting misleading stats. won't help you, I'm afraid.
AP
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are saying that Eurooean AOC ops are safer than the equivalent of our friends in the USA not on the comparison studies I read
As for all the accidents happening in the USA and not in superior Europe show the statistics ?
It was a done deal in 2012 and still is not done
Pace
not on the comparison studies I read As for all the accidents happening in the USA and not in superior Europe show the statistics ?
It was a done deal in 2012 and still is not done
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no desire to play Mines Bigger than Yours with you, Pace. The accident stats are available for you to peruse on Aviation Safety Network > if you don't mind the facts getting in the way of a good story.
Regardless, you really are missing the point. Oversight, common standards and accountability is what EASA are looking for from operators and crew who are clearly based and operating in Europe, and that is difficult to achieve under the present system.
AP
Regardless, you really are missing the point. Oversight, common standards and accountability is what EASA are looking for from operators and crew who are clearly based and operating in Europe, and that is difficult to achieve under the present system.
AP
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reference should be Aviation Safety Network >
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Oversight' will be much much worse with having to operate with two sets of legislation, State of Registry and EASA, more accidents and incidents will happen as a result and it will give insurers the perfect reason not to pay out. The moment you step outside of your State of Registry legislation you open yourself up to all kinds of legal issues. EASA being a stateless non ICAO entity, and it is going way beyond it's remit with non EU registries.
The safety figures posted earlier are from legitimate studies and do show private corporate ops are more safe than commercial AOC holders. Pace listed a good reason that a businesses will look after it's aircraft, compared to chartered corporate jets that cut costs down to the last penny and their aircraft show extreme wear compared to a private aircraft. The crews of said chartered aircraft for much of the time are under extreme pressure to fly regardless of airworthiness or aircraft or fatigue.
The safety figures posted earlier are from legitimate studies and do show private corporate ops are more safe than commercial AOC holders. Pace listed a good reason that a businesses will look after it's aircraft, compared to chartered corporate jets that cut costs down to the last penny and their aircraft show extreme wear compared to a private aircraft. The crews of said chartered aircraft for much of the time are under extreme pressure to fly regardless of airworthiness or aircraft or fatigue.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If private ops. Really were safer than AOC in Europe (not America), don't you think the Authorities would be seriously concerned about it and taking appropriate action?
On the contrary, they are attempting to bring all private jet operations in Europe, regardless of state of registry, to a standard level, approaching that of AOC ops. If this causes problems for third country operators who choose to base themselves in Europe long term without converting to the local register then they know what they can do about it. I understand the inconvenience this will cause for the smaller private operators but this is hardly breaking news.
AP
On the contrary, they are attempting to bring all private jet operations in Europe, regardless of state of registry, to a standard level, approaching that of AOC ops. If this causes problems for third country operators who choose to base themselves in Europe long term without converting to the local register then they know what they can do about it. I understand the inconvenience this will cause for the smaller private operators but this is hardly breaking news.
AP
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The previous stats clearly relate to European AOC ops too, and clearly state that private non commercial ops have a better safety record than AOC ops.
Well, I and others can hardly wait for that 'standard level of AOC ops' That 'standard level of AOC ops' from what has been experienced by many is cut to the bone costs affecting safety, pay, fatigue and safe operation. That's something to really look forward to then isn't it ?
Well, I and others can hardly wait for that 'standard level of AOC ops' That 'standard level of AOC ops' from what has been experienced by many is cut to the bone costs affecting safety, pay, fatigue and safe operation. That's something to really look forward to then isn't it ?
If private ops. Really were safer than AOC in Europe (not America), don't you think the Authorities would be seriously concerned about it and taking appropriate action?
On the contrary, they are attempting to bring all private jet operations in Europe, regardless of state of registry, to a standard level, approaching that of AOC ops. If this causes problems for third country operators who choose to base themselves in Europe long term without converting to the local register then they know what they can do about it. I understand the inconvenience this will cause for the smaller private operators but this is hardly breaking news.
AP
On the contrary, they are attempting to bring all private jet operations in Europe, regardless of state of registry, to a standard level, approaching that of AOC ops. If this causes problems for third country operators who choose to base themselves in Europe long term without converting to the local register then they know what they can do about it. I understand the inconvenience this will cause for the smaller private operators but this is hardly breaking news.
AP
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC
There is negligible safety differences between FAA and Europe that is fact! Private ops in jets using professional crews are safer than AOC ops and no not because there is such a terrible safety record in USA that it is dragging all AOC ops down
Why ? It doesn't make sense to me either but if you have statistics which show otherwise please post them ))
There was always this arrogant view held in Europe that we produced better pilots with better training that is total rubbish and not shown in any statistics which EASA would have loved to have shown to strengthen their case but couldn't
For me EASA had a golden opportunity starting with a blank sheet to truly harmonise standards world wide and make it easier for pilots to work worldwide
That opportunity was lost in a sea of burocratic nonsense, self interest influence by pressure groups and politics
It makes no difference to those regulators with huge protected salaries and gold plated pensions whether hard working pilots are pushed into unemployment by their ridiculous demands and actions
They don't pay for it all
Shame
There is negligible safety differences between FAA and Europe that is fact! Private ops in jets using professional crews are safer than AOC ops and no not because there is such a terrible safety record in USA that it is dragging all AOC ops down
Why ? It doesn't make sense to me either but if you have statistics which show otherwise please post them ))
There was always this arrogant view held in Europe that we produced better pilots with better training that is total rubbish and not shown in any statistics which EASA would have loved to have shown to strengthen their case but couldn't
For me EASA had a golden opportunity starting with a blank sheet to truly harmonise standards world wide and make it easier for pilots to work worldwide
That opportunity was lost in a sea of burocratic nonsense, self interest influence by pressure groups and politics
It makes no difference to those regulators with huge protected salaries and gold plated pensions whether hard working pilots are pushed into unemployment by their ridiculous demands and actions
They don't pay for it all
Shame
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaver100 and Pace. If you take the time to have a look at the EASA Annual Safety Review for 2014 (google it), you will find the accident and serious injury numbers for all EASA Member State AOC operators for that year against the previous 10 year average.
The report is conveniently split to cover Airline, Business Aviation (page 57)> 5700kg and GA. A 10 year annual average of < 1 fatal accident Worldwide for EASA member state AOC Business Aviation aircraft >5700kg seems fairly reasonable to me (and EASA). Got any figures for FAA part 135 and Part 91?
AP
The report is conveniently split to cover Airline, Business Aviation (page 57)> 5700kg and GA. A 10 year annual average of < 1 fatal accident Worldwide for EASA member state AOC Business Aviation aircraft >5700kg seems fairly reasonable to me (and EASA). Got any figures for FAA part 135 and Part 91?
AP
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, your stats issued by EASA, funny that eh ? Especially when this whole nonsense is being driven by EASA
At least the previous stats posted were an independent review which found private ops (and in Europe) safer than AOC
At least the previous stats posted were an independent review which found private ops (and in Europe) safer than AOC
Beaver100 and Pace. If you take the time to have a look at the EASA Annual Safety Review for 2014 (google it), you will find the accident and serious injury numbers for all EASA Member State AOC operators for that year against the previous 10 year average.
The report is conveniently split to cover Airline, Business Aviation (page 57)> 5700kg and GA. A 10 year annual average of < 1 fatal accident Worldwide for EASA member state AOC Business Aviation aircraft >5700kg seems fairly reasonable to me (and EASA). Got any figures for FAA part 135 and Part 91?
AP
The report is conveniently split to cover Airline, Business Aviation (page 57)> 5700kg and GA. A 10 year annual average of < 1 fatal accident Worldwide for EASA member state AOC Business Aviation aircraft >5700kg seems fairly reasonable to me (and EASA). Got any figures for FAA part 135 and Part 91?
AP
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the best data is here of AOC vs Private... It is based on FAA but it is loud and clear for me. Not for Pace but he cannot be convinced regardless of any data thrown at him 
Aircraft Accident Rates, 1990–2013 (per 100,000 flight hours) 1 Year General
Aviation 2
Total/Fatal Air Taxi 3
Total/Fatal Commuter
Air Carriers 4
Total/Fatal Airlines 5
Total/Fatal Corporate/
Executive 6
Total/Fatal Business 7
Total/Fatal 1990 7.77/1.56 4.76/1.29 0.641/0.171 0.198/0.171 0.210/0.090 3.71/0.96 1991 7.91/1.57 3.93/1.25 1.004/0.349 0.221/0.034 0.230/0.080 3.08/0.82 1992 8.51/1.81 2.67/0.84 0.942/0.300 0.146/0.032 0.210/0.080 2.17/0.68 1993 9.03/1.74 2.97/0.82 0.606/0.152 0.181/0.008 0.230/0.070 2.02/0.52 1994 9.08/1.81 3.45/1.05 0.359/0.108 0.168/0.030 0.180/0.070 1.81/0.51 1995 8.21/1.63 3.02/0.97 0.457/0.076 0.267/0.022 0.250/0.110 2.04/0.67 1996 7.65/1.45 2.80/0.90 0.399/0.036 0.269/0.036 0.140/0.060 1.68/0.34 1997 7.17/1.36 2.65/0.48 1.628/0.5098 0.309/0.025 0.230/0.060 1.41/0.39 1998 7.43/1.41 2.03/0.45 2.262/0.000 0.297/0.006 0.091/0.000 1.14/0.30 1999 6.50/1.16 2.31/0.37 3.793/1.459 0.291/0.011 0.182/0.099 1.41/0.40 2000 6.57/1.21 2.04/0.56 3.247/0.271 0.306/0.016 0.125/0.060 1.28/0.37 2001 6.78/1.27 2.40/0.60 2.330/0.666 0.236/0.011 0.108/0.031 1.06/0.23 2002 6.69/1.33 2.06/0.62 2.559/0.000 0.237/0.000 0.116/0.029 1.08/0.36 2003 6.68/1.34 2.49/0.61 0.627/0.313 0.309/0.011 0.028/0.014 0.95/0.26 2004 6.49/1.26 2.04/0.71 1.324/0.000 0.159/0.011 0.093/0.013 0.91/0.23 2005 7.20/1.38 1.70/0.29 2.002/0.000 0.206/0.015 0.076/0.013 0.73/0.14 2006 6.35/1.28 1.39/0.27 0.995/0.332 0.171/0.010 0.141/0.011 0.80/0.29 2007 6.93/1.20 1.54/0.35 1.028/0.000 0.143/0.005 0.103/0.034 0.72/0.16 2008 6.86/1.21 1.81/0.62 2.385/0.000 0.147/0.010 0.075/0.000 9 1.27/0.16 2009 7.08/1.32 1.63/0.07 0.685/0.000 0.170/0.011 0.070/0.014 0.56/0.21 2010 6.63/1.23 1.00/0.19 1.947/0.000 0.163/0.006 0.067/0.000 0.79/0.25 2011 6.84/1.24 1.64/0.52 1.330/0.000 0.173/0.000 0.061/0.000 0.73/0.22 2012 6.76/1.25 1.24/0.28 1.250/0.000 0.151/0.000 0.141/0.025 0.48/0.13 2013 5.34/1.05 1.50/0.33 2.265/0.971 0.107/0.011 0.38/0.025 0.66/0.17
Aircraft Accident Rates, 1990–2013 (per 100,000 flight hours) 1 Year General
Aviation 2
Total/Fatal Air Taxi 3
Total/Fatal Commuter
Air Carriers 4
Total/Fatal Airlines 5
Total/Fatal Corporate/
Executive 6
Total/Fatal Business 7
Total/Fatal 1990 7.77/1.56 4.76/1.29 0.641/0.171 0.198/0.171 0.210/0.090 3.71/0.96 1991 7.91/1.57 3.93/1.25 1.004/0.349 0.221/0.034 0.230/0.080 3.08/0.82 1992 8.51/1.81 2.67/0.84 0.942/0.300 0.146/0.032 0.210/0.080 2.17/0.68 1993 9.03/1.74 2.97/0.82 0.606/0.152 0.181/0.008 0.230/0.070 2.02/0.52 1994 9.08/1.81 3.45/1.05 0.359/0.108 0.168/0.030 0.180/0.070 1.81/0.51 1995 8.21/1.63 3.02/0.97 0.457/0.076 0.267/0.022 0.250/0.110 2.04/0.67 1996 7.65/1.45 2.80/0.90 0.399/0.036 0.269/0.036 0.140/0.060 1.68/0.34 1997 7.17/1.36 2.65/0.48 1.628/0.5098 0.309/0.025 0.230/0.060 1.41/0.39 1998 7.43/1.41 2.03/0.45 2.262/0.000 0.297/0.006 0.091/0.000 1.14/0.30 1999 6.50/1.16 2.31/0.37 3.793/1.459 0.291/0.011 0.182/0.099 1.41/0.40 2000 6.57/1.21 2.04/0.56 3.247/0.271 0.306/0.016 0.125/0.060 1.28/0.37 2001 6.78/1.27 2.40/0.60 2.330/0.666 0.236/0.011 0.108/0.031 1.06/0.23 2002 6.69/1.33 2.06/0.62 2.559/0.000 0.237/0.000 0.116/0.029 1.08/0.36 2003 6.68/1.34 2.49/0.61 0.627/0.313 0.309/0.011 0.028/0.014 0.95/0.26 2004 6.49/1.26 2.04/0.71 1.324/0.000 0.159/0.011 0.093/0.013 0.91/0.23 2005 7.20/1.38 1.70/0.29 2.002/0.000 0.206/0.015 0.076/0.013 0.73/0.14 2006 6.35/1.28 1.39/0.27 0.995/0.332 0.171/0.010 0.141/0.011 0.80/0.29 2007 6.93/1.20 1.54/0.35 1.028/0.000 0.143/0.005 0.103/0.034 0.72/0.16 2008 6.86/1.21 1.81/0.62 2.385/0.000 0.147/0.010 0.075/0.000 9 1.27/0.16 2009 7.08/1.32 1.63/0.07 0.685/0.000 0.170/0.011 0.070/0.014 0.56/0.21 2010 6.63/1.23 1.00/0.19 1.947/0.000 0.163/0.006 0.067/0.000 0.79/0.25 2011 6.84/1.24 1.64/0.52 1.330/0.000 0.173/0.000 0.061/0.000 0.73/0.22 2012 6.76/1.25 1.24/0.28 1.250/0.000 0.151/0.000 0.141/0.025 0.48/0.13 2013 5.34/1.05 1.50/0.33 2.265/0.971 0.107/0.011 0.38/0.025 0.66/0.17
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohh bugger.. I am as good at posting as Pace is at being rational: https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there we have it, both of your stat postings are worthless as they offer no direct comparison between private Corporate and AOC Corporate. Also, all figures are US based.
Ohh bugger.. I am as good at posting as Pace is at being rational: https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaver100. I have had a look at Robert Breiling Associates, the apparent authors of your quoted report. They appear to be an American private company who sell reports on the aviation industry. From their home page they state that there have been 176 business jet and turboprop accidents in 2014. EASA state that one of these involved one of their aircraft; I am afraid you will have to pay Robert Breiling $200 to find out which registers the others were on......
AP
AP
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the wild blue yonder
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find that a rigorous statistical mathematical analysis of the data, from a scientific reality based viewpoint and not a political, bureaucratic of nationalistic agenda point of view will reveal.....
...the statistics you are presenting are pretty meaningless......
...and events are well below any threshold of relevance.
From so few events, then inferring not only correlation but also dependence is pushing the boat way out......and from dependence to causality is well......fun to talk about but really......pull the other one.
The issue is simply put.
Has the existence of EASA made understanding and working within reasonable guidelines easier for the users?
NO would be the answer to that question....in fact, HELL NO!!! is the full answer.
...the statistics you are presenting are pretty meaningless......
...and events are well below any threshold of relevance.
From so few events, then inferring not only correlation but also dependence is pushing the boat way out......and from dependence to causality is well......fun to talk about but really......pull the other one.
The issue is simply put.
Has the existence of EASA made understanding and working within reasonable guidelines easier for the users?
NO would be the answer to that question....in fact, HELL NO!!! is the full answer.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.6 The higher overall fatal accident rate for air taxi operations may justify further analysis. European operators are subject to direct regulatory oversight under EU-OPS, the same as for regular public transport, whereas in the USA air taxi operations are overseen by the less demanding Part 135 regulations. It is believed that EU-OPS regulated air taxi operations may demonstrate a far better safety record than the overall figure would suggest. This is a recommended area for further study.
I have seen very poor AOC ops I am sure we can all think of some and some very well run Private ops.
interesting the CAA document refers to over regulation and stress caused by meeting those regulations as well as confusion in the EASA mess up.
I do not know what EASA are trying to achieve? I am not against oversight and working within a framework as that is sensible.
I can even understand having to pass one exam Air law for pilots flying on ATPs on third country licenses where the operator is based in Europe but the expensive and stupid mess EASA are trying to put in place is very much a sledgehammer trying to crack an egg while the oversight they supposedly want could so easily be achieved without loading pilots with huge costs or the threat of loosing their livelihoods. if they so want dual licences so as to have some control over the pilots as well as the aircraft then a simple you must hold an EASA licence to fly for an operator based in Europe would give them that control to remove that licence but frankly a Basic PPL would legally achieve that or a restricted ATP exchange requiring one air law exam limited to private aircraft and non commercial operations but maybe that was too simple for them? not enough work to justify their gold plated jobs?
I believe EASA had a dictate to make it practically impossible for N reg to operate based in Europe i.e. a political rather than safety based mandate otherwise they could have accommodated these pilots and aircraft in a far more practical way this way its obviously nothing to do with safety
The best way if they had really been safety driven would have been to offer a special EASA restricted ATP to 3rd country ATP holders limited to non commercial use On private jets ? Maybe with an air law pass as a prerequisite but that was too simple ??
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 22nd Oct 2015 at 14:58.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defacto the "new" rules made for just more workload with the same or sometimes even less workforce to cover said administrative junk,
I was DO/MM and had to make the transition from German Air Law to JAROPS, never ever in my life worked so much like after that switch. And 99,5% is just for the birds and will never have any impact on safety.
I had hoped to fly the last 18 years of my career without their BS, but one never can evade the bureaucrats in Europe for a long time.
I was DO/MM and had to make the transition from German Air Law to JAROPS, never ever in my life worked so much like after that switch. And 99,5% is just for the birds and will never have any impact on safety.
I had hoped to fly the last 18 years of my career without their BS, but one never can evade the bureaucrats in Europe for a long time.