EASA Update
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's get the facts straight, laddie
1. Your also up against the fact that you use the same resources as a revenue generating CAT aircraft when you inside the airways system. So you have most of the ATS providers against you as well.
2. FAA training material is payed for by the US tax payer. In europe the individual has to pay for it.
By trying to be clever, European CAA's put emphasis on physics or medicine, but then without a complete grasp of the physical or physiological principle at hand. Also, by subsidizing flight schools to come up with new questions, question designers, long deprived of real life experience or true didactic inspiration, questions, question styles and question framing have truly degenerated into monstrosities (don't believe me - check the reports on the French PPL-IR ideas).
The cost of providing proper training materials would be minimal. Instead, a lucrative parallel industry has developed in providing 3rd rate (I have no other word for it) "course material", not to educate people in the principles that would enhance flight safety, but to get around the monstrosities that the questionnaires have degenerated into.
If there were a real cost for study materials that would properly teach the necessities to safely navigate an airplane in the European Skies, I think most of us would be happy to pay up.
3. Landings fees again are payed for by the local taxpayers of the local airport.
I'm not advocating subsidizing private aviation (there is neither a need nor a public support basis for this, although in the US municipal airports get better utilization, bringing in other returns for the municipalities). But just as we use taxpayers' money for vocational schools, swimming pools and the Eurotunnel, it does make sense to provide for training facilities in aviation for the whole pilot community. For a country the size and population density of Belgium, two airports with this facility would suffice. I can imagine a similar regional setup in the UK.
4. If the US did become the defacto training provider to europe the whole of the european aviation would be dependent on the US not changing the rules to allow european pilots to use the system.
Also, it would be high time to provide these European wide training materials, because all of them are actually focussed on a particular nationality.
For instance, in Belgium, I had to study the entire Belgium airspace structure (really !), which you could find in the AIP or on a map if you wanted to know. Interesting differences, such as UK MATZ penetration procedures, or German noise abatement rules, are conspicuous for their absence. Another good one, which isn't exactly covered in the Oxford Aviation booklets (which you found "I have used more and more of it over the years"), is blind A/A circuit calls in France or Germany.
So, the danger that the US would be the de facto training provider for European Air law is rather remote. But it would be fantastic if there existed a training provider that would really train people for pan-European flight, and it would be even better if this subject matter were then covered on an actual exam.
5.
...if your a perm resident of europe you should jump through the same hoops as the rest of us
...if your a perm resident of europe you should jump through the same hoops as the rest of us
The fact that EASA and the Commission are precisely going after that safety enhancing skill is bordering on criminal negligence. In their protectionist scheming combined with a contempt for private travel by airplane, they are preventing pilots from becoming safer through a feasable additional training programme.
6. (point made by jxc)
I fear that there appears to be no way to get any leverage on the people making these bureaucratic decisions allegedly on our behalf.
I fear that there appears to be no way to get any leverage on the people making these bureaucratic decisions allegedly on our behalf.
Unlike some of the negativity I've heard around here, MEP's are beginning to form a clear opinion about what EASA, the Commission and a few individuals at French, UK and Dutch CAA have been up to. The Transport Committee of the European Parliament truly has the last word on this dogs breakfast.
That is a great thing, because you do have leverage over these people :
1) because you can vote / not vote for them, depending on how they treat you and how they vote on this proposal
2) because of lots of anti-European rhetoric (some of it entirely justified, some of it populistic drivel), they tend to thread carefully when massive protests such as from the private pilot community are being mounted. Ignoring it would not just cost them votes, it would also damage the credibility of the European institutions as a whole.
For me personally, the way the Transport Committee of the EP is going to treat this proposal is going to be decisive in my opinion of Europe as a project. And quite a few people are looking at this with the same anxiety.
Which is why I'm reasonably optimistic about the final outcome, although it will require a continuous effort from a lot of us in the months to come.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That is a great thing, because you do have leverage over these people :
1) because you can vote / not vote for them
1) because you can vote / not vote for them
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
European Democracy Issues
The real fight is getting yourself at the top of your party's list, which is done by some private process internal to the party
Some more interesting European issues I dug up for both MEPs and Honourable PPruNe members to consider (for those looking for inspiration when writing their 3rd letter or 4th letter to an MEP):
1) There appears to be an operational programme for regional development in the EU. The second priority axis of this programme is "Regional and Local Accessability". This is not unlike the US programmes of keeping specific Municipal Airports open, provided they truly contribute to regional accessibility. So supporting local airports, with the aim of promoting tourism, for instance, fits perfectly in the European Fund allocation process. Obviously, killing off private travel by airplane affects local accessability in a negative way...
2) There is something like a European Policy on Transparency : The Commission (admittedly not the Transport Directorate and its four letter Agency) is actively pushing Member States for citizens' participation in the decision making process. Key elements recurring in the various policy statements are
* Accountability
* Transparency
I must say I smiled when I read that, thinking about the surroundings of the two EASA committee meetings at the end of last year, with nearly inexistent minutes and keeping the horse trading participant members' names a closely guarded secret.
But it's good ammo in your letters to MEPs, because it is again proof of the fact that the secret agenda of Eh-Arse-Ah and a couple of Commission & local CAA axe grinders are pursuing flies in the face of what even their colleagues in the European Civil Service are aiming for.
Happy landings and inspirational letter writing,
PP.
Last edited by proudprivate; 7th Jun 2011 at 17:00. Reason: typo corrected