EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you took like for like i.e FAA/IR and JAR/IR I don't think you would see such a marked difference. If any at all.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree but the stats are in someways meaningless to the current argument.
They are not comparing like for like. The experence levels are completely different, the currency levels amongst the majority of FAA holders is higher on the PPL side of things.
The IR PPL brigade in Europe both FAA and JAR are hardcore pilots who would put quite a few commercial pilots to shame with both there procedural knowledge and hand flying skill's.
I really don't have a problem with the protectionism personally but then again I have worked in areas where it is the norm and expect to get shafted at some point. When the good times come to an end its not a suprise and I always have an escape route planned before I even start. I would just tell everyone that it was Political and Protectionism. There really isn't and argument to be had about that when you put your cards on the table.
They are not comparing like for like. The experence levels are completely different, the currency levels amongst the majority of FAA holders is higher on the PPL side of things.
The IR PPL brigade in Europe both FAA and JAR are hardcore pilots who would put quite a few commercial pilots to shame with both there procedural knowledge and hand flying skill's.
I really don't have a problem with the protectionism personally but then again I have worked in areas where it is the norm and expect to get shafted at some point. When the good times come to an end its not a suprise and I always have an escape route planned before I even start. I would just tell everyone that it was Political and Protectionism. There really isn't and argument to be had about that when you put your cards on the table.
What I've heard in the grapevine is that the disposal of the N-regs and it's pilots in Europe is only the first step. They are so insistent about it because what they plan for afters would simply cause all of GA to go N-reg, so if they don't close that window first, they can't dream of going on with their further plans.
The attack is on two levels really, to ground pilots via the medical and airplanes via rules and cost. The end target is to eliminate most of GA from the European skies, leave VLA and UL's in place but ban everything else.
I still can not fathom where all the hatred within European politicians against aviation comes from, but it is profound. Even the argument "how shall we train our future airline pilots" does not make them change their minds, they are fantasizing about training directly in the MEP Sim without having any prior flight experience and to put folks in the right seat of an airliner who will get airborne the first time on a passenger carrying flight.
In the end, for us GA Folks there might be only one way out, emigrate to friendlier fields. With what some European "visionaries" have in stock for us on all levels of live, this might become a very attractive thing to do this way or the other.
The attack is on two levels really, to ground pilots via the medical and airplanes via rules and cost. The end target is to eliminate most of GA from the European skies, leave VLA and UL's in place but ban everything else.
I still can not fathom where all the hatred within European politicians against aviation comes from, but it is profound. Even the argument "how shall we train our future airline pilots" does not make them change their minds, they are fantasizing about training directly in the MEP Sim without having any prior flight experience and to put folks in the right seat of an airliner who will get airborne the first time on a passenger carrying flight.
In the end, for us GA Folks there might be only one way out, emigrate to friendlier fields. With what some European "visionaries" have in stock for us on all levels of live, this might become a very attractive thing to do this way or the other.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are not comparing like for like. The experience levels are completely different, the currency levels amongst the majority of FAA holders is higher on the PPL side of things.
For example under JAR I hold a JAA PPL with IMC. Under the FAA I hold SE CPL land and sea, CPL ME, IR.
You probably find that many N reg pilots in Europe hold >PPL level qualifications because it is achievable and clearly this group of pilots takes flying seriously enough to improve their skills. Something that may be prohibitively expensive and time consuming under JAR / EASA for many.
So surely there is NO safety case to change the current system - which is why I bleat on about it.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might very well be right AN2.
And I don't disagree with you englishal.
But to be honest the above question overrides the other issues for me.
And I don't disagree with you englishal.
Why should a person domicle and resident in one country be able to opt out of the local laws and regulations, using I might add a constructed system to bypass its ownership laws in another country of choice?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should a person domicle and resident in one country be able to opt out of the local laws and regulations
MJ - if you can tell me how I can "opt out of local laws and regs", I am "all ears".
Come on then, tell us N-regs how to "opt out of local laws and regs".
bypass its ownership laws
Garbage.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN2
Much as I loathe the over-bureaucratic way that both EASA and the CAA operate, I don't actually think they intend to wipe out GA. That is just one of the many unconsidered consequences of the way they operate.
I am (just) convinced that there are some good guys out there but the lawyers and politicos are where the problem lies. They each have their agenda - not getting blamed for when accidents happen.
The ANO could start from the premise that Aviation is not a computer game and you do it at your own risk. There are certain minimum standards for airworthiness, training and insurance and if you screw up you'd better have a good reason.
However, nowadays, and esp in EU-land, you are only allowed to do something if it is specifically permitted. It used to be so different.
Its probably why the Colditz glider never flew - they were waiting for the approvals to come through.
Years ago in an old copy of Sailplane and Gliding I have somewhere in my attic, there was a great article about the encroachment of controlled airspace and the final last-gasp flight of the remaining glider pilots. They landed at a deserted Heathrow as over-regulation had grounded everything.
EASA is rapidly going about this through its attitude to what is a simple and relatively safe activity. The history of the BMAA, LAA/PFA and BGA for example shows that we can be trusted with self-regulation by people engaged in and familiar with the specific sector.
If EASA were just to go back to deal with Airbus approvals we'd all be happy
Much as I loathe the over-bureaucratic way that both EASA and the CAA operate, I don't actually think they intend to wipe out GA. That is just one of the many unconsidered consequences of the way they operate.
I am (just) convinced that there are some good guys out there but the lawyers and politicos are where the problem lies. They each have their agenda - not getting blamed for when accidents happen.
The ANO could start from the premise that Aviation is not a computer game and you do it at your own risk. There are certain minimum standards for airworthiness, training and insurance and if you screw up you'd better have a good reason.
However, nowadays, and esp in EU-land, you are only allowed to do something if it is specifically permitted. It used to be so different.
Its probably why the Colditz glider never flew - they were waiting for the approvals to come through.
Years ago in an old copy of Sailplane and Gliding I have somewhere in my attic, there was a great article about the encroachment of controlled airspace and the final last-gasp flight of the remaining glider pilots. They landed at a deserted Heathrow as over-regulation had grounded everything.
EASA is rapidly going about this through its attitude to what is a simple and relatively safe activity. The history of the BMAA, LAA/PFA and BGA for example shows that we can be trusted with self-regulation by people engaged in and familiar with the specific sector.
If EASA were just to go back to deal with Airbus approvals we'd all be happy
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
This is the BIG Cancer in our society the BIG STATE.
Create millions of Government /state jobs who research and regulate and regulate and research and who all get paid to do just that.
What industry needs is DE REGULATION but this runs contrary to what all these QUANGOS and departments do which is examine with a microscope every detail of our lives to see if they can regulate on it.
How are all these NON productive jobs paid for? taxation or by charging the end user or targets of the various regulations for the service (Big Joke)
Look at the massive monster we have created in the UK and resistance to cutting any of the Quangos, groups, sub groups research groups study groups etc.
All paid a fortune to sit in coffee and wine bars or expensive restaurants all with fancy and important job titles discussing next weeks possible agenda.
De regulation is what the industry needs and going back to basics which should be to regulate on known safety holes in aviation not to regulate for regulations sake.For that reason I dont see the future of GA in Europe as being a healthy one.
No wonder N reg is so attractive.
EASA could have done what most markets do by putting something in place which was even more attractive than N reg and the whole problem would vapourise away.
But that would be totally against their self interests and their own livelyhoods.
To my good friend Mad Jock
You may have an arguement about opting out but with more than 30 years of N reg in Europe the practice has to be well established in its own right?
In most areas of at least UK law "accepted and established practice over a considerable time has legal rights on its own merit so hardly opting out but more NOT WANTING TO OPT IN We were around a long time before the EU !
Frankly who would blame us. Unless of course you have Masochistic tendencies, loads of free time and a huge bank balance of money you dont need to pay for it all!
Pace
This is the BIG Cancer in our society the BIG STATE.
Create millions of Government /state jobs who research and regulate and regulate and research and who all get paid to do just that.
What industry needs is DE REGULATION but this runs contrary to what all these QUANGOS and departments do which is examine with a microscope every detail of our lives to see if they can regulate on it.
How are all these NON productive jobs paid for? taxation or by charging the end user or targets of the various regulations for the service (Big Joke)
Look at the massive monster we have created in the UK and resistance to cutting any of the Quangos, groups, sub groups research groups study groups etc.
All paid a fortune to sit in coffee and wine bars or expensive restaurants all with fancy and important job titles discussing next weeks possible agenda.
De regulation is what the industry needs and going back to basics which should be to regulate on known safety holes in aviation not to regulate for regulations sake.For that reason I dont see the future of GA in Europe as being a healthy one.
No wonder N reg is so attractive.
EASA could have done what most markets do by putting something in place which was even more attractive than N reg and the whole problem would vapourise away.
But that would be totally against their self interests and their own livelyhoods.
To my good friend Mad Jock
Why should a person domicle and resident in one country be able to opt out of the local laws and regulations, using I might add a constructed system to bypass its ownership laws in another country of choice?
But to be honest the above question overrides the other issues for me.
But to be honest the above question overrides the other issues for me.
In most areas of at least UK law "accepted and established practice over a considerable time has legal rights on its own merit so hardly opting out but more NOT WANTING TO OPT IN
We were around a long time before the EU !Frankly who would blame us. Unless of course you have Masochistic tendencies, loads of free time and a huge bank balance of money you dont need to pay for it all!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 1st Dec 2010 at 12:35.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye there well know history for the N reg thing which I presume is a left over from the Alliance in the second world war.
Its had its day.
Masochistic tendencies, nope never seen that trait in my collegues.
I will stick up for transfer of current ratings in a sensible manner but not for the status quo to continue.
Its had its day.
Masochistic tendencies, nope never seen that trait in my collegues.
I will stick up for transfer of current ratings in a sensible manner but not for the status quo to continue.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Masochistic tendencies, nope never seen that trait in my collegues.
If you run around jumping over all manner of prickly undergrowth in the highlands wearing only a Kilt you must have Masochistic tendencies ?
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Deregulation is all very well but look at the mess it got our bankers into.
In so far as aviation is concerned lest it be forgotten part of the motivation for this is fee based. The fee take on N reg aircaft in Europe is nil. Now I accept the argument that if there was no good reason to position an aircraft on the N reg then Europe would enjoy the benefit of those fees but that would require an even more fundamental change in legislation. The reality is the regulatory bodies have to been in receipt of this income to operate and that is not unreasonable. If everyone migrated to the N reg. the CAA would go bust or need to charge fees in some other way, always assuming that we all agree some regulatory oversight is a prerequisite.
Deregulation is all very well but look at the mess it got our bankers into.
In so far as aviation is concerned lest it be forgotten part of the motivation for this is fee based. The fee take on N reg aircaft in Europe is nil. Now I accept the argument that if there was no good reason to position an aircraft on the N reg then Europe would enjoy the benefit of those fees but that would require an even more fundamental change in legislation. The reality is the regulatory bodies have to been in receipt of this income to operate and that is not unreasonable. If everyone migrated to the N reg. the CAA would go bust or need to charge fees in some other way, always assuming that we all agree some regulatory oversight is a prerequisite.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats just foreplay before you catch flossy.
And looking at my facebook page there is a 40 plus thread about a mate who had a suprise poo in an airport when he thought he was going to have a wee.
The posters proberly have nearly 50k hours worth of experence on 500 mill worth of hardware and the hot topic is poo and farts and who cat 5'd the bog in various FBO's.
And looking at my facebook page there is a 40 plus thread about a mate who had a suprise poo in an airport when he thought he was going to have a wee.
The posters proberly have nearly 50k hours worth of experence on 500 mill worth of hardware and the hot topic is poo and farts and who cat 5'd the bog in various FBO's.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deregulation is all very well but look at the mess it got our bankers into.
I think repealing all the nonsense of ATO/FTO requirements would be a good start not compromising safety in any way. Same thing for part M maintenance larceny. Same thing for half of the part-medical and some...
As regards funding your local CAA, that can easily be settled by siphoning off avgas and jetfuel income; Unless you live in Denmark, where they don't have one anymore. Fee take on N-reg is nil ? Ever landed at EBOS ? EBAW ? EBBR ? Ever paid a Eurocontrol heavy metal charge ? All a simple matter of equitable budgetary allocation....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N reg aeroplanes in Europe generate significant revenue for the economy. I still pay an EASA145 maintence org to maintain my aeroplane - in fact they rebuilt it, therefore they are paying income tax on their income. I pay fuel tax, landing fees, approach fees....the only thing I don't pay is about 75 quid for an ARC (and the other 700 quid charged by rip off companies).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proudprivate
I dont disagree.
I guess the point I was seeking to make is we need some regulation. To argue for complete deregulation is silly. As always the trick is to preserve a reasonable balance. My analogy with banking is why be surprised if you put the kids in the sweet shop with the jars open, if they nick the lot. In effect that is what the bankers did and if you had no "light touch" regulation in aviation doubtless there would be all sorts of dubious going on in exactly the same way. In the long term that is not good for anyone.
With regulation comes adminstrative cost; inevitably the regulator must be properly funded. Again the trick is to achieve the correct balance between over funding and just sufficient funds to do the job.
Again there are various ways of collecting the necessary "tax". As the system presently operates most of the "tax" is derivied from fees that Euro registered aircraft, crew and operators pay. You cant shift the burden all that easily to entirely indirect taxes because the genuinely foreign operators will argue this is a trade barrier (we pay the tax in Europe, but BA doesnt pay the tax when in operates in say US airspace) but equally, and this is the important bit, it seems unfair that N reg owners living and breathing in Europe avoid the taxes while their neighbour in a G reg pays.
In summary if you agree there is a need for some regulatory authority to oversee operations, then in turn you must also agree this has to be funded, and in turn it seems only reasonable that the cost should be shared between all the users that are effectively operating under that umbrella. If you dont agree taken to its conclusion everyone would migrate to the N reg., but the CAA would still need to exist and so would end up funding itself in some other way.
I dont disagree.
I guess the point I was seeking to make is we need some regulation. To argue for complete deregulation is silly. As always the trick is to preserve a reasonable balance. My analogy with banking is why be surprised if you put the kids in the sweet shop with the jars open, if they nick the lot. In effect that is what the bankers did and if you had no "light touch" regulation in aviation doubtless there would be all sorts of dubious going on in exactly the same way. In the long term that is not good for anyone.
With regulation comes adminstrative cost; inevitably the regulator must be properly funded. Again the trick is to achieve the correct balance between over funding and just sufficient funds to do the job.
Again there are various ways of collecting the necessary "tax". As the system presently operates most of the "tax" is derivied from fees that Euro registered aircraft, crew and operators pay. You cant shift the burden all that easily to entirely indirect taxes because the genuinely foreign operators will argue this is a trade barrier (we pay the tax in Europe, but BA doesnt pay the tax when in operates in say US airspace) but equally, and this is the important bit, it seems unfair that N reg owners living and breathing in Europe avoid the taxes while their neighbour in a G reg pays.
In summary if you agree there is a need for some regulatory authority to oversee operations, then in turn you must also agree this has to be funded, and in turn it seems only reasonable that the cost should be shared between all the users that are effectively operating under that umbrella. If you dont agree taken to its conclusion everyone would migrate to the N reg., but the CAA would still need to exist and so would end up funding itself in some other way.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
What tax do we exactly avoid? I pay avgas tax, I pay my EASA145 maintenance outfit to maintain my aeroplane, I pay for parts, I pay VAT on parts, I rent my hangar (and hence the airfield pays tax), I pay landing fees, I pay BRITISH people to carry out work to my aeroplane who then pay taxes..etc....The ONLY tax I avoid is a 75 quid ARC fee to the CAA. I'll send them a cheque for 75 quid once per year if they really want that.
There are TWO advantages for me to be N reg 1) I can use my IR, and 2) I can fit some equipment to my aeroplane fairly easily - NB this is safety related equipment, like GPS's and Engine monitors.
What tax do we exactly avoid? I pay avgas tax, I pay my EASA145 maintenance outfit to maintain my aeroplane, I pay for parts, I pay VAT on parts, I rent my hangar (and hence the airfield pays tax), I pay landing fees, I pay BRITISH people to carry out work to my aeroplane who then pay taxes..etc....The ONLY tax I avoid is a 75 quid ARC fee to the CAA. I'll send them a cheque for 75 quid once per year if they really want that.
There are TWO advantages for me to be N reg 1) I can use my IR, and 2) I can fit some equipment to my aeroplane fairly easily - NB this is safety related equipment, like GPS's and Engine monitors.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
I was using "tax" in its widest sense.
As far as I am aware the CAA is self funded these days and not subsidised from the public purse. The CAA recovers its costs form the fees it levies on pilots in the UK and aircraft based in the UK. I agree it receives a part of the same fees from maintenance organisations but nothing more. I can see for the reasons I set out above why the EU would want to safeguard its revenue stream without which its ability to oversee aviation would flounder.
For the reasons I gave earlier (and other reasons) it is difficult to see how this could be achieved via indirect taxation (duty on fuel being hypothecated in some way to EASA).
Perhaps one answer would be to levy a "based in" charge on N reg aircraft that are based in the EU equivalent to an EASA registered aircraft and crew. At least EASA would no longer feel the need to protect their revenue stream whcih may be a motivation for their fixation on N reg operators.
(PS I think you will find the fees to keep an aircraft on the G reg a lot more than £75 these days, and of course the fees are a lot fatter when you come to deal with bizjets and the like).
I was using "tax" in its widest sense.
As far as I am aware the CAA is self funded these days and not subsidised from the public purse. The CAA recovers its costs form the fees it levies on pilots in the UK and aircraft based in the UK. I agree it receives a part of the same fees from maintenance organisations but nothing more. I can see for the reasons I set out above why the EU would want to safeguard its revenue stream without which its ability to oversee aviation would flounder.
For the reasons I gave earlier (and other reasons) it is difficult to see how this could be achieved via indirect taxation (duty on fuel being hypothecated in some way to EASA).
Perhaps one answer would be to levy a "based in" charge on N reg aircraft that are based in the EU equivalent to an EASA registered aircraft and crew. At least EASA would no longer feel the need to protect their revenue stream whcih may be a motivation for their fixation on N reg operators.
(PS I think you will find the fees to keep an aircraft on the G reg a lot more than £75 these days, and of course the fees are a lot fatter when you come to deal with bizjets and the like).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The actuall FEE to the CAA for our SEP is only something like 75 quid - BUT the CAA charges huge fees to maintenance organisations and so this gets inflated to the end user to recoup some of their costs. Our last ARC cost 700 quid, which is a blatant profiteering because in theory our aircraft is maintained under a controlled environment and so after the first ARC the history is known and it is simply a form to fill in.
Because we use the same EASA145 company, whether we're on the N or G reg then they still pay their fees to the CAA and hence the only money we're diddling the CAA out of is 75 quid. In fact you could argue that the extra money we have pumped into the economy by running an N reg (i.e. avionics upgrades which wouldn't have happened otherwise, thirstier aeroplane, more expensive maintenance fees, etc..) more than outweighs some of the savings.
Because we use the same EASA145 company, whether we're on the N or G reg then they still pay their fees to the CAA and hence the only money we're diddling the CAA out of is 75 quid. In fact you could argue that the extra money we have pumped into the economy by running an N reg (i.e. avionics upgrades which wouldn't have happened otherwise, thirstier aeroplane, more expensive maintenance fees, etc..) more than outweighs some of the savings.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's right. There are very few N-reg-only MOs. So the European N-reg population is pretty well fully supporting the EASA MO scene.
If you kicked out N-regs, the economic impact would be huge - especially as these are the biggest spenders.
If you kicked out N-regs, the economic impact would be huge - especially as these are the biggest spenders.
Robin,
Europe per se and the countless regulative organs it's produced are the primary problem in almost all aspects of our lifes now. It is not only a question of aviation, it is everywhere. I do see GA as some sort of a trial rabbit for these guys to see how far can they really go.
Yes, there are good guys, even with the lawyers and politicians, but the overwhelming crowd ruling Europe today has one agenda, control over every single aspect of life. Plus, to catch cheap votes. Face it, almost every airport today has a vocal opposition group which are easy to catch with a promise to rid the world of the playboys in the sky.
Of course the fact that a lot of Europeans have opted to fly N-Reg is actually a declaration of bancruptcy of the European regulators. It is not that the FAA system is a free-for-all backaroo system, whereby any bozo will get a licence, whereby nobody cares if airplanes are airworthy, whereby there is a horrible safety record. Far from it and even the EU bureaucrats know that. But the US and the FAA have a fundamentally different attitude to flying. We have talked about it before.
The US still lives the American dream and part of that is that if you have earned it by merit and effort, you can go fly. In Europe, the attitude towards anything out of the ordinary is "how dare he have more than me." "How dare they have fun and have a larger car, let alone an airplane." Europe is cramped, people step on each others feet and nerves on a daily basis. Anyone having fun is suspect. Rich people are suspect. Hell, in the US, if people talk of the ultra rich who managed to "get there", the overwhelming majority of people will try to emulate what they have done and look at it as an ideal. In Europe, anyone above working classes is looked at with envy and dreams of revenge. Look at the tax battles, just to start with.
Clearly, the fact that people do circumnavigate the regulations of the countries they live in by going "N" is generally an unacceptable condition.
In one way, it's about competition. If you don't like the service in one place, people go buy at another, that is just natural. Europe however does not take this as an incentive to provide a better system but instead wants to close the market so to speak and force Europeans to buy at home, without however even TRYING to become competitive towards the clearly better system but rather by shutting it out with laws and continue on their track.
Europe works on the principle that only rich people fly, flying is rocket science and only the very best with the "right stuff" should be selected by THEM rather than by self determination if they are worthy to fly. European Medicals are closer to what an Air Focre Cadet needs to provide, rather than a simple private pilot. Small plane operators need to fulfill the same kind of requirements as a major carrier. Why? Not because it is necessary but because it goes with the principle of "I tell you that you can not!" "NOT" is the operative word. Again. How DARE you challenge the authority? You lowly form of life want to fly? Ha, if God had wanted you to, he'd have given you wings and even then we'd find a way of regulating you.
Pace has said it in one.
Add to that and to their understanding of how "things ought to be".
We are first, because we are a relatively small group. Next will be personal vehicles, how much electricity you may use, when you're allowed to buy a car, what you may eat, e.t.c. Not unlike the old USSR, just a darn sight greener.
Much as I loathe the over-bureaucratic way that both EASA and the CAA operate, I don't actually think they intend to wipe out GA. That is just one of the many unconsidered consequences of the way they operate.
I am (just) convinced that there are some good guys out there but the lawyers and politicos are where the problem lies. They each have their agenda - not getting blamed for when accidents happen.
I am (just) convinced that there are some good guys out there but the lawyers and politicos are where the problem lies. They each have their agenda - not getting blamed for when accidents happen.
Yes, there are good guys, even with the lawyers and politicians, but the overwhelming crowd ruling Europe today has one agenda, control over every single aspect of life. Plus, to catch cheap votes. Face it, almost every airport today has a vocal opposition group which are easy to catch with a promise to rid the world of the playboys in the sky.
Of course the fact that a lot of Europeans have opted to fly N-Reg is actually a declaration of bancruptcy of the European regulators. It is not that the FAA system is a free-for-all backaroo system, whereby any bozo will get a licence, whereby nobody cares if airplanes are airworthy, whereby there is a horrible safety record. Far from it and even the EU bureaucrats know that. But the US and the FAA have a fundamentally different attitude to flying. We have talked about it before.
The US still lives the American dream and part of that is that if you have earned it by merit and effort, you can go fly. In Europe, the attitude towards anything out of the ordinary is "how dare he have more than me." "How dare they have fun and have a larger car, let alone an airplane." Europe is cramped, people step on each others feet and nerves on a daily basis. Anyone having fun is suspect. Rich people are suspect. Hell, in the US, if people talk of the ultra rich who managed to "get there", the overwhelming majority of people will try to emulate what they have done and look at it as an ideal. In Europe, anyone above working classes is looked at with envy and dreams of revenge. Look at the tax battles, just to start with.
Clearly, the fact that people do circumnavigate the regulations of the countries they live in by going "N" is generally an unacceptable condition.
In one way, it's about competition. If you don't like the service in one place, people go buy at another, that is just natural. Europe however does not take this as an incentive to provide a better system but instead wants to close the market so to speak and force Europeans to buy at home, without however even TRYING to become competitive towards the clearly better system but rather by shutting it out with laws and continue on their track.
Europe works on the principle that only rich people fly, flying is rocket science and only the very best with the "right stuff" should be selected by THEM rather than by self determination if they are worthy to fly. European Medicals are closer to what an Air Focre Cadet needs to provide, rather than a simple private pilot. Small plane operators need to fulfill the same kind of requirements as a major carrier. Why? Not because it is necessary but because it goes with the principle of "I tell you that you can not!" "NOT" is the operative word. Again. How DARE you challenge the authority? You lowly form of life want to fly? Ha, if God had wanted you to, he'd have given you wings and even then we'd find a way of regulating you.
Pace has said it in one.
EASA could have done what most markets do by putting something in place which was even more attractive than N reg and the whole problem would vapourise away.
But that would be totally against their self interests and their own livelyhoods.
But that would be totally against their self interests and their own livelyhoods.
We are first, because we are a relatively small group. Next will be personal vehicles, how much electricity you may use, when you're allowed to buy a car, what you may eat, e.t.c. Not unlike the old USSR, just a darn sight greener.