EASA Gobble-de-Gook - Bureaucrats at Work!
 

When EU 1321/2014 was published last year, coming into force 20 days later, it was clearly stated that its purpose was to consolidate and replace EC 2042/2003 and all subsequent Amending Regulation into a new document.

That being the case, it would make sense for EC 2042/2003 to be repealed, and lo 'n behold, Article 7 of EU 1321/2014 says...

Quote:

---

Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 is repealed.

---

The UK CAA's latest bulletin on EASA affairs informs us that...

Maybe it is possible that to a European bureaucrat it makes perfect sense to "adopt" in 2015 a Regulation that was first launched in 2003, and was repealed in 2014. But in the real world outside the Tower of Babel in Cologne it is incomprehensible.

I never thought I would say this, but I do believe that the UK would be better off, and have infinitely safer air transport and GA industries, without the burdensome antics of those clowns in the said Tower.

Thank god there is nothing more serious to worry about like whether we have a maintenance licence or not.

After reading the latest ALAE magazine I hope the UK votes to get out of europe (easa) and go back to doing it better on our own. At least then we all knew where we stood.

I seem to remember that the 'new' regulation also stated that references to 2042/2003 would/should be retained.

Rigga, I think you are right, but wasn't that just because they were too lazy to change and then republish all the references in other Regulations (eG EASA OPS) to 2042/2003?

The fact is that to a normal English-speaking person, when a piece of legislation has been repealed, it is no more; it is dead legislation and cannot be "revived".

But we are not dealing with normality when we deal with EASA; we are dealing with second-grade European bureaucrats selected to satisfy quota needs from member States. French bureaucracy, in particular, is designed to be impenetrable except to the chosen few, and EASA has always been heavily influenced by French customs.

As an exasperated delegate from the Czech Republic once said (at an EASA workshop on the NPA that was going to introduce Safety Management to Continuing Airworthiness, itself now lost without trace in the Tower of Babel) "As an independent National Aviation Authority it would take us a month or less, if necessary, to implement an ICAO recommendation. It takes EASA at least 3 years to do the same thing".

He was absolutely right, of course, the EASA "Rulemaking Process" is a tortuous, convoluted passage through a minefield of time-consuming European/French bureaucracy.

When the process concerns implementing an ICAO Recommendation, EASA works hard on adding unnecessary rules to the Recommendation, already agreed by all ICAO States, simply to justify EASA's existence.

For the ultimate example of why EASA should not exist, you have to look at the process and documentation involved with EASA's take-over of Aerodrome regulation. Starting with the absolute lack of any business, political or operational case for taking this over, EASA went on to amend the global, and very high standards provided in Annexe 14 into a huge bundle of rules, many in excess of the ICAO requirement. The NPA documentation for this ran to well over 1,000 pages.

(I had the misfortune to represent an Operators's organisation at a 2-day Workshop about the NPA, during which the appalling standard of drafting and lack of operational and technical knowledge among EASA staffers was highlighted time and again. For example, one question from the floor about Declared Distances was met with incomprehension, and it quickly became toe-curlingly, embarrassingly clear that none of the 5 staffers on the panel, who were responsible for drafting the section being discussed, understood what "Declared Distances" actually are, in the context of airside facilities. One man, ex-UK CAA, opined that "Declared Distance" simply meant the length of the actual tarmac from end to end, and nothing else.)

The Aerodrome Regulation then, in effect, exempted any aerodrome that did not comply with these new regulations, because of the multitude of practical and economic reasons why they could not.

All in all, a total waste of time and huge sums of taxpayers money, leading to no effective change whatsoever in the provision of airports and their facilities in any EASA Member State.

Quite agree. It's quite clear that whoever wrote the specifications for operations manuals (amongst other things) hadn't a clue what they were doing - they certainly knew nothing about technical writing.

Phil

Little missive from the Belgrano...

Ah well, another nail in the coffin of the CAA as an effective and efficient Regulator.

It will be interesting to see how they manage if the UK leaves the EU and thus, I sincerely hope, EASA. Even though you might argue that leaving EASA puts us back to the CAA as a Regulator, and therefore is a Bad Idea, the reality is that we have the worst of all worlds at the moment; a bureaucratic nightmare in the form of EASA calling the shots, and the CAA ineffectively and inefficiently enforcing EASA's rules.

A CAA restored to its pre-EASA functions and authority might recreate itself if it can replace its present "leadership" with top-rate people. We can only hope. Presently it seems to function largely as a home for the otherwise unemployable, at least so far as Airworthiness is concerned, Initial and Continuing.

Even if we leave the EU, I doubt we'd be able to leave EASA without another string of years while we replaced their rules with ours and re-created National Type Certificates, National Flight Test rules, etc.
IF we separated - why would anyone try to get a new Type Certificate from little old UK? - I think we'd just be ignored!
The mere fact that EASA also has Office Managers who can't understand what their teams have produced is not a new thing in any industry. Idiots are in abundance in Management - I know because I are one.
Having said all that - the withdrawal of contact with the local CAA (or any NAA) is worrying...I suppose they will withdraw access to Mobile Phone Numbers next.

If member-states have their own authorities (CAA here) and ALL or the majority of them issue derogations against all useless crap, hopefully the EASA machine will realise it's time to deliver the goods or face disbandment.
It was my understanding, that in a democracy, the majority decision ruled.

It seems that EASA is a medusa answerable only to itself and it's self-enacted "employment"