EASA - Whats its going to do for us.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA - Whats its going to do for us.
Found this in Yesterdays Telegraph
"When Graham Colover, a London businessman, tried to make safety modifications to the Piper twin Comanche light aircraft that he jointly owns with two friends at Biggin Hill in Kent, they found themselves amongst the first victims of the the great EU power-grab reported in the story on the left (page 10).
All the changes they wish to make - brighter landing lights, more streamlined engine cowls, a better electrical system - have already been approved by the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Until two months ago getting UK approval from the expert officials of Britains Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) would have been routine, taking a few days. But on September 28 the CAA was reduced to the status of a mere branch office ofthe European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) when it took charge of all EU aviation safety regulation.
Mr Colover was told he would now have to get permission from an EASA office in Rome, to which had been allocated all certification powers over Piper Twin Comanches, even though Italy has few aircraft of this type. The nightmare began when it became clear to him that, althought the Italian authorities knew nothing about Twin Comanches, they refused to deal with the manufacturers or the CAA and would talk only to their increasingly bemused counterparts in the American FAA.
Despite the CAA trying to help, emails and messages to the EASA in Rome and Brussels went unanswered. The officials in Rome are unable to say how much certification will cost until they know how much work will be involved. This is whty the parts that would improve the safety of Mr Colover's aircraft are sitting on a shelf in Biggin Hill.
Mr Colover says he has nothing but praise for the Department of Transport in London. The UK Government is lobbying alongside Germany, Sweden and France to get the power of approving minor modifications handed back to national agencies. But one of the cardinal rules of the EU's supranational system is that power can only ever be transmitted in one direction: from nation states to the centre. Mr Colover may be waiting to improve his aircraft's safety for some time to come".
ANyone for the 'N register'?
Flyboy...
"When Graham Colover, a London businessman, tried to make safety modifications to the Piper twin Comanche light aircraft that he jointly owns with two friends at Biggin Hill in Kent, they found themselves amongst the first victims of the the great EU power-grab reported in the story on the left (page 10).
All the changes they wish to make - brighter landing lights, more streamlined engine cowls, a better electrical system - have already been approved by the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Until two months ago getting UK approval from the expert officials of Britains Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) would have been routine, taking a few days. But on September 28 the CAA was reduced to the status of a mere branch office ofthe European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) when it took charge of all EU aviation safety regulation.
Mr Colover was told he would now have to get permission from an EASA office in Rome, to which had been allocated all certification powers over Piper Twin Comanches, even though Italy has few aircraft of this type. The nightmare began when it became clear to him that, althought the Italian authorities knew nothing about Twin Comanches, they refused to deal with the manufacturers or the CAA and would talk only to their increasingly bemused counterparts in the American FAA.
Despite the CAA trying to help, emails and messages to the EASA in Rome and Brussels went unanswered. The officials in Rome are unable to say how much certification will cost until they know how much work will be involved. This is whty the parts that would improve the safety of Mr Colover's aircraft are sitting on a shelf in Biggin Hill.
Mr Colover says he has nothing but praise for the Department of Transport in London. The UK Government is lobbying alongside Germany, Sweden and France to get the power of approving minor modifications handed back to national agencies. But one of the cardinal rules of the EU's supranational system is that power can only ever be transmitted in one direction: from nation states to the centre. Mr Colover may be waiting to improve his aircraft's safety for some time to come".
ANyone for the 'N register'?
Flyboy...
Whenever I visit the CAA (which is far too often) none of the specialist staff there seem to know what's happening about EASA. I recently proposed as part of a new CAP a general description of what is subject to EASA regulation and what to national regulation, and this was removed by somebody senior at Gatwick on the grounds that they don't actually know yet.
It's not pretty. The long run shows some significant potential benefits, but the short term (at least 3 years) indicates a lot of this sort of mess happening.
G
It's not pretty. The long run shows some significant potential benefits, but the short term (at least 3 years) indicates a lot of this sort of mess happening.
G
Advantages
- Ability to buy an aeroplane from another European country and put it on the G-register without any mandatory modification, inspection, new service schedules, etc. etc.
- Ability to sell your aeroplane to another European register.
- Standardisation of fees (which in the UK almost certainly means downwards).
- Finally a real common licensing system.
Disadvantages
- You may have to deal with offices in another country.
- Consultation will become much more difficult than the current (already difficult) situation when trying to get any rules changed.
- They are threatening to put the HQ in Helsinki !!!!
Just a few points in my private opinion only
G
- Ability to buy an aeroplane from another European country and put it on the G-register without any mandatory modification, inspection, new service schedules, etc. etc.
- Ability to sell your aeroplane to another European register.
- Standardisation of fees (which in the UK almost certainly means downwards).
- Finally a real common licensing system.
Disadvantages
- You may have to deal with offices in another country.
- Consultation will become much more difficult than the current (already difficult) situation when trying to get any rules changed.
- They are threatening to put the HQ in Helsinki !!!!
Just a few points in my private opinion only
G
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
Your first point of the advantages is interesting. Most (all?) European countries have less stringent rules for microlight and permit aircraft construction. Do you think the UK will have to abandon its standards and accept aircraft that would not previously have been compliant?
Further, the Germans have lead the way on silencing their GA fleet. Do you see this been applied across the rest of Europe?
Helsinki, that pool, nay lake of aviation expertise?
Your first point of the advantages is interesting. Most (all?) European countries have less stringent rules for microlight and permit aircraft construction. Do you think the UK will have to abandon its standards and accept aircraft that would not previously have been compliant?
Further, the Germans have lead the way on silencing their GA fleet. Do you see this been applied across the rest of Europe?
Helsinki, that pool, nay lake of aviation expertise?
Permit aircraft (as we define them in the UK) will for the foreseeable fall into something called "Annex II", which means that they'll be excluded from EASA regulation. So, for the moment I don't see any change there. As it happens I've a copy of Annex II on my desk, in summary it covers historic aircraft, research aircraft, amateur built aircraft, aircraft designed for military use, microlights, very lightweight gliders and unmanned aircraft below 150kg.
Actually I don't think many European countries have noticeably lower standards than the Brits (except the French who have virtually no standards at-all), but they do often have cultures that makes working within the standards a lot easier and cheaper.
We're now working to EU noise regs in the UK, as presumably are the Germans. So, I think we probably will see standardisation on that - although probably only for new aircraft. What we should see is a much easier ability on Cof A aircraft to put the German silencing mods onto our own aircraft.
Yes, that Helsinki.
G
Actually I don't think many European countries have noticeably lower standards than the Brits (except the French who have virtually no standards at-all), but they do often have cultures that makes working within the standards a lot easier and cheaper.
We're now working to EU noise regs in the UK, as presumably are the Germans. So, I think we probably will see standardisation on that - although probably only for new aircraft. What we should see is a much easier ability on Cof A aircraft to put the German silencing mods onto our own aircraft.
Yes, that Helsinki.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 23rd Dec 2003 at 17:44.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA
Strangely enough I found answers to some of these questions on the CAA's website - Try www.caa.co.uk/srg/easa
Bar shaker, your comment about the UK abandoning its standards presumes that the UK standards are necessary &/or appropriate ie contribute to safety. If the rule set gives greater restrictions than a more 'lax' system without an attendent increase in safety, how does one justify the greater restrictions?
I'm not aware of a greater risk flying in Italy, or Germany, or France or wherever ie First World countries in general. Are you?
I'm not aware of a greater risk flying in Italy, or Germany, or France or wherever ie First World countries in general. Are you?
