EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funding of EASA
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).
1. Funding of a CAA or EASA shouldn't be assured or regulated via FCL requirements ?
2. EASA gets a budget of € 107 Million, funded in part by Member States, as an EU subsidy, and in part from certification contributions, but which brings very little in value added to the end user and with very little accountability to parliament ? (source : video of the exchange between EASA and the EP Transport Committee)
3. EASA can easily be funded entirely through a full contribution by member states, if member states wanted to and were fully committed to the concept of a European Aviation Safety Agency ? (source: EASA financial regulation)
just to get the record straight...
Last edited by proudprivate; 2nd Dec 2010 at 12:59. Reason: word omitted
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proudprivate
The source of funding is another debate. A good socialist would of course say the national health should be funded by everyone, even if some prefer to pay for a private service. Doubtless a good right wing conservative would prefer an American style system where the user pays according to their ability and need. When it comes to aviation, as an individual of course I would like everyone to help me pay the cost, but in reality I cant convince myself that any component of aviation should be funded by our society - those that "use" aviation should meet the cost.
You can convince the man in the street that he should contibute to the next man who was unlucky enough to need heart surgery (not least because it could be him next) but can you convince him that he should subsidise my licence or my C of A?
Regrettably I think the "industry" must meet the costs of regulation. I am never the less grateful for whatever subsidies are going, and if the argument is these are in part hypothicated from duty on fuel or taxes on the cost of a ticket that suites me just fine. Would I like to move to a system of wholly indirect tax; well in so far as GA is concerned I am not so sure.
I believe in regulation, but of course I dont want to see over regulation, which is exactly what we have at the moment.
When it comes to GA I believe GA should receive some beneift for the duty paid on fuel.
When it comes to N reg I believe if you base an N reg aircraft in Europe you should pay the equivalent fees to EASA that would be payable by a G reg aircraft and their crew. Beyond that I believe you should be able to excercise your FAA licence priviliges without further ado.
The source of funding is another debate. A good socialist would of course say the national health should be funded by everyone, even if some prefer to pay for a private service. Doubtless a good right wing conservative would prefer an American style system where the user pays according to their ability and need. When it comes to aviation, as an individual of course I would like everyone to help me pay the cost, but in reality I cant convince myself that any component of aviation should be funded by our society - those that "use" aviation should meet the cost.
You can convince the man in the street that he should contibute to the next man who was unlucky enough to need heart surgery (not least because it could be him next) but can you convince him that he should subsidise my licence or my C of A?
Regrettably I think the "industry" must meet the costs of regulation. I am never the less grateful for whatever subsidies are going, and if the argument is these are in part hypothicated from duty on fuel or taxes on the cost of a ticket that suites me just fine. Would I like to move to a system of wholly indirect tax; well in so far as GA is concerned I am not so sure.
I believe in regulation, but of course I dont want to see over regulation, which is exactly what we have at the moment.
When it comes to GA I believe GA should receive some beneift for the duty paid on fuel.
When it comes to N reg I believe if you base an N reg aircraft in Europe you should pay the equivalent fees to EASA that would be payable by a G reg aircraft and their crew. Beyond that I believe you should be able to excercise your FAA licence priviliges without further ado.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it comes to GA I believe GA should receive some benefit for the duty paid on fuel.
Over here, the FAA is funded 77% by the Aviation Trust Fund and 23% by the General Fund.
The Aviation Trust Fund comes from aviation taxes on fuel, tickets, and packages sent by the air.
The General Fund is an enormous pool of tax money that funds a wide range of government services, like transportation, that are important for the public good.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it comes to N reg I believe if you base an N reg aircraft in Europe you should pay the equivalent fees to EASA that would be payable by a G reg aircraft and their crew
They create this work by gold plating ICAO procedures, and by disregarding approvals done by the FAA which directly or indirectly runs about 90% of the world's GA.It is wrong to accept that such a monster should be funded at all.
But while on the topic of funding EASA, I pay as much for my Annual on the N as I used to pay, or would pay, for a G. So the MO gets as much from me towards its EASA/CAA fees as it gets from a G... in fact more because they don't have to do any paperwork for me (I pay the FAA IA separately, on top, for his signoff). It's a bit of a scam but I don't complain...
The other thing is that a full implementation of "user pays" inevitably leads to a system under which all kinds of contrived fundraising goes on. Yesterday I read that that other ludicrous job creation outfit (Ofcom
) is proposing the charge phone companies 10p for every unused phone number. The purpose of this is - are you ready for this? - to raise tax revenues by creating a market in desirable numbers. If I did not have a life here in the UK I would pack up and emigrate to somewhere which is not run by d1ckheads (and which will almost certainly be warmer too 
). In the meantime N Europe will just implode up the back orifices of the id1ots who set its policies.The "user pays" principle is what led to ATC privatisation, which has in turn led to the crippling of GA utility, by creating the intractable situation of mandatory ATC for any GPS approach procedure, which means GPS approaches (which were the only hope of improving the utility of GA) will never become operationally relevant in the UK - because nearly all the airports which would really benefit from them will never be able to afford the bills from NATS or from whoever employes the ATCO doing the approach control.
The "user pays" principle is OK for very narrow endeavours which have no possible wider economic benefits.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those that "use" aviation should meet the cost.
While I agree with you that we should pay the costs of services which bring benefits to us the end users I cannot agree we should pay for Burocrats and quangos who are actually damaging our industry by loading it down and choking it with needless and expensive regulations to justify their own ends and existance.
EASA is supposed to be a safety organisation who should solely be regulating on matters of safety ie those matters are of benefit to us the end users.
It is wholly accepted that the latest FCL proposals on N reg have NO basis on safety whatsover.
The letter I had from the commission which was posted here confirmed that!
This was purely protectionism and political which is not in EASAs mandate.
We pay for a service. Someone guides us around the skies in ATC and we pay for it and you could argue that we should?
De regulation which made Bose jump doesnt mean NO regulations but stripping away the mass of useless regulation which is expensive and throttles our industry, keeping only the regulations which make our industry safer.
The CAA had a shock report which showed just that fact. Our AOC ops which are highly regulated and loaded with cost are less safe than the equivalent FAA part 135 which is not Burocracy and regulation loaded to such an extent.
The research to get those stats was to show how the European AOC OPS were safer but showed the opposite (own Goal)
Yes EASA has a budget of over 100 million Euros to produce what???
The stuff that has been churned out up to date?
I would be quite happy to copy the FAA system for a minute fraction of that!
57 Million Euros in salaries and god knows how many restaurant/wine bar charge accounts to boot.
Dont ask me to pay for that.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I mentioned before, I'll send my cheque to the CAA for 75 quid pa.
But just to remind you, GA in the UK generates 1.4 BILLION GBP pa to the economy (CAA's own figures from their future airspace docs).
N reg GA generates FAR more revenue than it costs the economy, therefore by banning N reg and possibly driving N reg out of the EU that money will be lost.
As economists have said for years, raising tax rates actually lowers tax revenues once you hit a certain point. It will for me because if we get "banned" I'll fly my aeroplane to the USA in one last fantastic flight, keep it there for a while then sell it. I'll then buy a yacht and spend my time drinking G&T living in Brazil rather than worry about euro politiciandickheads.
But just to remind you, GA in the UK generates 1.4 BILLION GBP pa to the economy (CAA's own figures from their future airspace docs).
N reg GA generates FAR more revenue than it costs the economy, therefore by banning N reg and possibly driving N reg out of the EU that money will be lost.
As economists have said for years, raising tax rates actually lowers tax revenues once you hit a certain point. It will for me because if we get "banned" I'll fly my aeroplane to the USA in one last fantastic flight, keep it there for a while then sell it. I'll then buy a yacht and spend my time drinking G&T living in Brazil rather than worry about euro politiciandickheads.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll then buy a yacht and spend my time drinking G&T living in Brazil rather than worry about euro politiciandickheads.
There again could always buy the Aircraft Carrier on E bay and do a bit of pirate chasing enroute
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The sunny side
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bent out of shape
What a great thread! I have never seen so many bitter and twisted people in one place!
Of course the citizens of a land should not be exempt of the laws of that land - even for the golden idol that is aviation!
Of course the citizens of a land should not be exempt of the laws of that land - even for the golden idol that is aviation!
I have never seen so many bitter and twisted people in one place!
Why are many in aviation getting desparate? Not because we are a bunch of twisted bitter old morons who think life has passed them by. But rather because we see our livelyhood and/or passion under a clear and present danger.
Of course the citizens of a land should not be exempt of the laws of that land - even for the golden idol that is aviation!
That has long ceased to be the case in Europe. The dynamics of the legislative process within the EU has taken leave of any semblance of democracy. As a citizen, it is the only way to protect one's assets plus one's ambitions and passions by going around the laws rather than simply accept defeat and pack up. Clearly it would be even more honest to take that further and leave the EU. Yet, the question is, should this continue to full extinction or is there a way to stop this fatal trends?
Whereas aviation is concerned, the only way forward that I can see for European aviation is for EASA and the European comission to go back to the drawing board of legislative process and provide us with an air law which makes flying in Europe as attractive and realistic as the laws in most other countries do. EASA needs to move away from over-regulation and oppression towards a service orientated agency which is FOR Aviation and not against it.
In fact, I believe that the only answer to the FAA/EASA gap would be for ICAO to take over the lead in this spirit and lay down the basic laws for all to follow. An ICAO License should be valid all over the world, an ICAO sanctioned certification or STC should be without any hassle accepted in every member state. There should not be any such balant differences between one member state's rules and those of another. Thus, the requirements should be identical for everyone.
Were this so, most N-registered planes would be on European register without any problem whatsoever, licenses would be valid all over the world, so the question of FAA vs EASA would not even arise.
Instead, what I do see is a rift between EASA and the remainder of the world which threatens to isolate Europe from the rest of the aviation community.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a great thread! I have never seen so many bitter and twisted people in one place!
Of course the citizens of a land should not be exempt of the laws of that land - even for the golden idol that is aviation!
Of course the citizens of a land should not be exempt of the laws of that land - even for the golden idol that is aviation!
Aviation should be comparable to other global industries, for example shipping. If one is a "Master Mariner Unlimited" then one can captain a ship of any size world wide under any flag (more or less). Ships of certain flags are not prevented for being based in the UK, and ther masters are not prevented from being EU citizens. That is because it is a global industry and to put such restrictions would not be realistic.
This EASA thing is NOT about safety, it is about job creating, money, expenses, quangos etc....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FiveGirlKit
Yes I for one am bitter against an organisation which is loading our industry N reg or JAA with such pointless regulations and overheads that the costs are strangling aviation to its knees.
No these proposed changes are NOT safety based which is supposed to be EASAs Mandate.
My situation I went FAA ATP and type ratings rather than JAA because N reg in Europe was an established and accepted practice for longer than the EEC has been in existance.
I wanted to fly private jets. Most were N or foreign reg so I self financed the required licences.
Mid fifties would mean it would be fairly pointless for me to find 20K and to study 14 exams over 2 years distance learning to do what I am already safely doing.
Remember I self finance so would have to get that investment back mid fifties in age would hardly allow much time to get that back.
Result??? I would be out of work in flying and even with EASA licences not an attractive option for EASA AOC OPS who have a vast supply of much younger pilots to choose from.
So Bitter that some self indulgent pen pusher can damage our industry and me so as to continue their own lifestyle and expensive luch accounts? YES!!!
As for twisted? Dont be so insulting.
The only way I think EASA could push this through without damaging a lot of people and facing a lot of financial claims is to Grandfather right excemptions not for one year as proposed but as an unlimited ongoing basis.
The excemptions would be issued with condition thus giving EASA "a"control that they seem to want.
Pace
Yes I for one am bitter against an organisation which is loading our industry N reg or JAA with such pointless regulations and overheads that the costs are strangling aviation to its knees.
No these proposed changes are NOT safety based which is supposed to be EASAs Mandate.
My situation I went FAA ATP and type ratings rather than JAA because N reg in Europe was an established and accepted practice for longer than the EEC has been in existance.
I wanted to fly private jets. Most were N or foreign reg so I self financed the required licences.
Mid fifties would mean it would be fairly pointless for me to find 20K and to study 14 exams over 2 years distance learning to do what I am already safely doing.
Remember I self finance so would have to get that investment back mid fifties in age would hardly allow much time to get that back.
Result??? I would be out of work in flying and even with EASA licences not an attractive option for EASA AOC OPS who have a vast supply of much younger pilots to choose from.
So Bitter that some self indulgent pen pusher can damage our industry and me so as to continue their own lifestyle and expensive luch accounts? YES!!!
As for twisted? Dont be so insulting.
The only way I think EASA could push this through without damaging a lot of people and facing a lot of financial claims is to Grandfather right excemptions not for one year as proposed but as an unlimited ongoing basis.
The excemptions would be issued with condition thus giving EASA "a"control that they seem to want.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 6th Dec 2010 at 10:26.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FiveGirlKit
You have made the fatal mistake of either not reading the whole thread or not understanding what you have read.
I dont think there are many who would dispute a nation is entitled to "regulate" its citizens. The issue is how these regulations take effect.
As a pilot you need to look beyond what is in front of your nose, it is a lesson worth learning well.
You have made the fatal mistake of either not reading the whole thread or not understanding what you have read.
I dont think there are many who would dispute a nation is entitled to "regulate" its citizens. The issue is how these regulations take effect.
As a pilot you need to look beyond what is in front of your nose, it is a lesson worth learning well.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The sunny side
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is Gents, many of the 'flags of convenience' (sorry, ICAO contracting states), have no idea how their fleet is being operated in Europe. Some don't care a hoot. Maybe the FAA is the best of the bunch, but many of the others do not give a damn if you dump your aircraft on my house.
A recent example - "Under CAA rules, the pilot would have been required to undertake a course of training and tests to obtain a type rating on the Nomad aircraft, whereas FAA rules make no such provision."
Air Accidents Investigation: GAF Nomad, N5190Y
Impressive! How come an aircraft, overseen by a near perfect "service orientated agency (FAA)" be allowed to fly in the UK under such conditions? Simply - out of sight, out of mind. It wasn't any Americans that were going to die that day.
Everyone is entitled to 'the pursuit of happiness', but let's do it safely under proper oversight by a local Authority = the Authority where the operation is based. If you want to "go around the laws", do it away from us innocent bystanders.
By the way, how many G registered aircraft have crashed in the USA? None, ever. Why? because the Feds don't allow you to own and operate a foreign aircraft there. N reg only. What's good for the goose, will soon be what's good for the gander!
A recent example - "Under CAA rules, the pilot would have been required to undertake a course of training and tests to obtain a type rating on the Nomad aircraft, whereas FAA rules make no such provision."
Air Accidents Investigation: GAF Nomad, N5190Y
Impressive! How come an aircraft, overseen by a near perfect "service orientated agency (FAA)" be allowed to fly in the UK under such conditions? Simply - out of sight, out of mind. It wasn't any Americans that were going to die that day.
Everyone is entitled to 'the pursuit of happiness', but let's do it safely under proper oversight by a local Authority = the Authority where the operation is based. If you want to "go around the laws", do it away from us innocent bystanders.
By the way, how many G registered aircraft have crashed in the USA? None, ever. Why? because the Feds don't allow you to own and operate a foreign aircraft there. N reg only. What's good for the goose, will soon be what's good for the gander!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, how many G registered aircraft have crashed in the USA? None, ever. Why? because the Feds don't allow you to own and operate a foreign aircraft there. N reg only. What's good for the goose, will soon be what's good for the gander!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bollox.....
FiveGirlKit is a one-liner (well 2 actually; got to be generous these days) troll; best ignored.
FiveGirlKit
5 posts to date and new to this discussion - I for one am very happy to hear a different point of view but you will have to come up with a properly thought through and constructed post if you want to be cut a bit of slack and not found guilty as charged.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The sunny side
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This trolling is indeed fun!
SoCal App
Are you reading the same report as me? This guy was clearly flying on his FAA license during both crashes. The report clearly says "If the aircraft had been operated on the UK register, he would have been required to undertake training and a test to obtain a type rating." Ergo, the UK CAA could not have taken action against his UK license; but the FAA should have against theirs. How many times has this joker have to try to kill people before the Feds take action? As I said, out of sight, out of mind.
Bring all succh aircraft onto the UK register (or export them if they are not fit to be here). It will be safer for all!
SoCal App
Are you reading the same report as me? This guy was clearly flying on his FAA license during both crashes. The report clearly says "If the aircraft had been operated on the UK register, he would have been required to undertake training and a test to obtain a type rating." Ergo, the UK CAA could not have taken action against his UK license; but the FAA should have against theirs. How many times has this joker have to try to kill people before the Feds take action? As I said, out of sight, out of mind.
Bring all succh aircraft onto the UK register (or export them if they are not fit to be here). It will be safer for all!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you reading the same report as me? This guy was clearly flying on his FAA license during both crashes. The report clearly says "If the aircraft had been operated on the UK register, he would have been required to undertake training and a test to obtain a type rating." Ergo, the UK CAA could not have taken action against his UK license; but the FAA should have against theirs. How many times has this joker have to try to kill people before the Feds take action? As I said, out of sight, out of mind.
As mentioned, you clearly don't understand the rules. This crash involved someone who was actually exercising the privileges of their CAA license, using an FAA validation to fly an N reg, in the belief that it exempted them from needing a type rating. If someone is going to fly illegally, whether on an FAA or CAA licence then you can't do much about that. The CAA had every responsibility to pull him up on the first instance for flying illegally.
There have been G reg "incidents" in the USA which have been investigated by the FAA - BA 747 from LAX on 3 engines for example. Of course you can own a G reg in the USA, but who in their right mind would? Who would carry out the annual?