An expensive and a bureaucratic quagmire.

[mad_jock]

H'mm Belgium and driving standards

The difference between the US geography and GA and European is like poo and cheese. There are small areas of the US around major hubs which come near it but the rest is like flying in the North of scotland apart from the fact you get a radar service.

The simple fact is that GA does interact with commercial aircraft all the time in europe. The GA pilots have to be several steps up from your example of standard car drivers.

Personally I would have all car drivers doing a test every 5 years. And pro drivers one every 2 years even though that would mean a whole heap of effort for me and loosing my C+E license. But then again I haven't driven a 44tonner for 5 years now and I know in myself it wouldn't be safe.

The level of FAA training is just as variable as JAR training you get some gooduns and you get some bad. I have seen some shockers both FAA and JAR and thats both private pilots and commercial.

Alot of folk don't have an issue with the status quo just now until we read about people like Robert Weaver who would never be able to operate the way he does if he wasn't able to use the FAA and N-reg to side step the European system.

I really don't want to see the likes of PACE and IO not to be allowed to continue doing what they are doing. But the current stituation cannot be allowed to continue. I will admit the method of stopping the previous practises is flawed and also the method of bring the changes in is barbaric and is self defeating to what it is trying to achieve.

I have no doudt they will do it though. It makes no difference to me personally one way or the other.

Personally I would have removed the dispensation for airways charges for lights (none training) and also made VFR pay them for crossing FIR boundarys. With also an additional fee for none EU reg aircraft flying internally in the EU. Would have solved the majority of issues within a few years by simply making all users pay the cost of maintaining the european ATS infrastructure.

[proudprivate]

The misconception of private travel by air

This thread was obviously started by a sciolist; I recommend he/she should be banned from the forum.

I merely wanted to react to the misconception of so many who see private flying as "recreational", or a "hobby", as opposed to a genuine means of private travel (for business, personal or other reasons).

I can see the wisdom of the 7 exams and 20K for driving licensing. We'd have only the very best, most serious people driving, and the income would cover highway costs excellently!

If you see the "wisdom" in that, I take it you never had a course in or read a book about economics. The point I'm trying to make is that, whilst some regulation is useful or even necessary, it has to be balanced with economic concerns and civil liberties. Their is a tendency of civil servants, fuelled by self-aggrandissement, to overregulate while abusing a safety argument. As such, the comparison with cars was ironic and meant to expose this abuse of argument.

I don't think "hobby" and aircraft size should be associated with each other.

Who on earth made that association ? What we want is to be allowed to fly from A to B at FL100-ish in a PA28-180 or similar, under IFR, and get family, friends and business associates there and back, safe and sound.

But, as long as businesses struggle to make a go of it with a few two seat trainers...

so we need protectionist regulation to subsidize the inefficient European flight training scene ? Maybe I'm missing the point you are trying to make, but shouldn't the main concern be that we get as many future pilots (professional and other) trained as the market can optimally sustain ? Doesn't the solution therefore lie in assuring the competencies of the trainer, whilst removing all unneccesary barriers to entry ? But I confess I'm struggling to grasp the idea behind your last paragraph.

PP.

[IO540]

Alot of folk don't have an issue with the status quo just now until we read about people like Robert Weaver who would never be able to operate the way he does if he wasn't able to use the FAA and N-reg to side step the European system.

Come off it, MJ.

I know nothing about RW but if I was going to fly totally off the books, with a plane which has no CofA, has never been maintained, has forged logbooks, I have a forged logbook, no license, no medical, no insurance, my choices would be:

a) G-reg (no EU country has the right to inspect its VAT status, and the UK CAA don't do ramp checks), or

b) N-reg (potentially gets turned over anywhere in Europe, and if the UK office of the FAA get to hear of some dodgy stuff they will drive down and take a look, and plenty of people hate N-regs and are likely to spill the beans)

What do you think I would go for? G-reg every time.

Reading the AAIB reports, the most notable recently totally-duff-paperwork case is that totally fatal one of a bloke doing amateur aeros and killing himself and passengers, who had basically no valid paperwork, no maintenance, and had forged big chunks of his pilot logbook. He was G-reg. The only N-reg one I can think of was Graham Hill in ~ 1976 whose CofA was invalid because it was deregistered from N and never registered anywhere else, and I am 99% sure GH (not short of money) was unaware. IMHO the most likely explanation was that somebody requested an FAA Export CofA to be done, the FAA de-registered the aircraft (as they might do in that case) but the UK end was not on top of things.

But the current stituation cannot be allowed to continue

Why not?

Personally I would have removed the dispensation for airways charges for lights (none training) and also made VFR pay them for crossing FIR boundarys. With also an additional fee for none EU reg aircraft flying internally in the EU. Would have solved the majority of issues within a few years by simply making all users pay the cost of maintaining the european ATS infrastructure. 28th Jun 2011 12:15

The very slight problem with that is that now the powers to be would have to deliver a service guarantee to VFR traffic, which is somewhat in excess of their ICAO obligations It's also barmy to do route charges to VFR traffic - how would you work it out?

[proudprivate]

I beg to differ

The simple fact is that GA does interact with commercial aircraft all the time in europe.

That is simply not true. Light GA (sub 2 Tonnes) generally avoids the big airfields and happily trods along at sub FL120 without a big bird in sight. Also, for take offs and landings, we generally get scheduled behind any commercial trafic, and I don't mind that, but the "interaction" or "clogging of airways" simply isn't there.

Personally I would have all car drivers doing a test every 5 years. And pro drivers one every 2 years even though that would mean a whole heap of effort for me and loosing my C+E license. But then again I haven't driven a 44tonner for 5 years now and I know in myself it wouldn't be safe.

Ok so you also didn't pick up an Economics course at St. Andrews. Too bad. Although you do get an intuitive hint of it, by pointing out that it "would mean a whole heap of effort".

Alot of folk don't have an issue with the status quo just now until we read about people like Robert Weaver who would never be able to operate the way he does if he wasn't able to use the FAA and N-reg to side step the European system.

You don't need EASA / Commission to lie to parliament to do something about Robert Weaver. The Police arresting him would be a good start. Also, assuming only half of what is being told in the ferry thread is true, the CAA would have of plenty of ways to stop Mr Weaver. Verification of Address and a quick exchange with the FAA would do the trick. The other license issues that are being mentioned can easily be verified on the ramp.

I also don't think that Mr Weaver is representative in any sort of way for the N-reg scene in Europe.

Personally I would have removed the dispensation for airways charges for lights (none training) and also made VFR pay them for crossing FIR boundarys. With also an additional fee for none EU reg aircraft flying internally in the EU. Would have solved the majority of issues within a few years by simply making all users pay the cost of maintaining the european ATS infrastructure.

I think we should then raise the question of cost-efficiency. As the routing charges in Europe are being used to fund 2/3 of the 107 million EASA budget, you might intuitively come up with a few suggestions.

Mad Jock, you're sounding like one of those frustrated underpaid public transport bus drivers that hate cars. Banning cars has far more devastating effects on the economy than the minute employment possibilities increase for bus drivers.

[mad_jock]

The VFR you have to have a a flight plan to cross international FIR boundarys. Do it off that.

Have a search for a ferry bad experence on pprune for Weavers background.

You don't need a service to be liable for having the privilege of being allowed to fly. You have used the ATS system for crossing and by default you have access to the emergency services which they provide even if you don't use them.

Why not?

Because you living in europe and you are european if you like it or not. If you don't like it do what alot of us do a go somewhere else. Then realise thats its not quite as bad as we thought and then come back again.

I think quite a few bikers would like to have an american chopper with no front brakes and a suicide clutch and ride around without a helmit on. Stick a Arizona plate on, should they be allowed to ride it around europe?

[IO540]

Have a search for a ferry bad experence on PPRuNe for Weavers background.

I couldn't care less. I know many N-reg owner-pilots and every one of them is 100% legit, and a very careful pilot too. I know of some walter mitties (don't we all) but they are invariably flying G-regs.

Because you living in europe and you are european if you like it or not. If you don't like it do what alot of us do a go somewhere else. Then realise thats its not quite as bad as we thought and then come back again.

You need to drag yourself into the latter part of the 20th century. This is aviation, which is an inherently international activity, and civilised countries are supposed to behave in an open manner. I know it's the 21st c. now but it's better to do things one small step at a time otherwise the wheels might come off.

I think quite a few bikers would like to have an american chopper with no front brakes and a suicide clutch and ride around without a helmit on. Stick a Arizona plate on, should they be allowed to ride it around europe?

The main reason they can't (beyond X months) is because a) they would not pay road tax and b) they would evade speeding tickets.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

Are you saying that when you get into a detailed technical argument that you don't check your facts are correct?
Where I would agree with you is there is a facility for highlighting which I always use if I refer to another's post.
Passing off someone else's writing as your own is a bit ???
But I for one am not upset or insulted that he used my writings.
Flattered that he thought they were good enough to use!

Pace

[mad_jock]

Nah was never a bus driver, well held the ticket for it but always stuck to lorrys. But yes I am a bus driver now.

And my economics is that of any Mechanical engineer very simple.

Yes it would be an effort but if it got half the useless bastards off the road that we have now I would be happy to put that effort in.

You do get involved in CAT. A sub 2 ton aircraft takes up a slot in the flow control for CAT aircraft, it also takes that slot for a huge amount of time at 120knots compared to 300knts plus. You use more reasources but don't pay for it. Each sector is only allowed a certain number of aircraft under an ATCO's control at any one time.

[mad_jock]

You might not care less but alot of us do care about folk bypassing the legal system in the community we live in. And it doesn't matter how safe we are as individuals we still have to conform. If you want to predominately own and fly a N reg on an FAA ticket do it in the USA. If you want to live and fly in europe do it on a european reg with a european ticket. Just because its easier/ costs less, you (or for that matter 1000's of other pilots) think its better than the european reg/ticket is neither here nor there.

If a US citizen wants to visit europe with their N reg stay for a bit and then go home they are more than welcome.

And loopholes have been part of history for years and so has closing them.

The method this time has been dirty but still that doesn't mean it shouldn't be closed.

And the chopper wouldn't be allowed on the public highway because it doesn't conform to local law for safety standards, which also applys to not wearing a lid.

6 Months after arriving in most european country's you need to get a local driving license (unless you have one from another memeber state) which to be honest would be more than acceptable rule for pilots licenses as well.

[IO540]

I thought you were a pilot, MJ, flying somebody around.

Never knew you were a bus driver.

[proudprivate]

The myth of clogged airways

You do get involved in CAT. A sub 2 ton aircraft takes up a slot in the flow control for CAT aircraft, it also takes that slot for a huge amount of time at 120knots compared to 300knts plus. You use more reasources but don't pay for it. Each sector is only allowed a certain number of aircraft under an ATCO's control at any one time.

Mad Jock, I think you are in vain searching for an argument here.

Have you ever talked to people actively involved in ATC (those knowledgeable, competent and friendly people from Brussels Departure for instance) or ATC design (at Eurocontrol) ?

Then you would realise there is NO resource issue. Except at take-off or landing (and even then) all those hours at 120kts TAS are at flight levels where nobody from the CAT scene ever comes. And in the rare event there is a traffic issue, they will route you out well in advance on a significant detour.

The only real interference is there when we target a destination that is still somewhat affordable for light GA yet also has relatively busy CAT traffic. But then we are already paying medium highish landing and parking fees for that, as it is TWR who is handling the CAT / Light GA conflict. And we understand when we are put into a hold for scheduling; And we give it everything we have until 1-1.5 mile final; And we study the taxiway plan well in advance; And we say "thank you" to Ground before we switch off.


But I'm honestly a bit sick and tired of uninformed people like yourselves spreading nonsensical myths around like

- Light (N-reg) GA is clogging the airways (MJ here and now)
- (Light) N-reg GA is badly maintained (that seems to be Mr Patrick Goudou's favourite. The words he uses are "poubelles volantes". As with all EASA output, without a hint of statistical evidence. Go to Cordoba airport for example, and have a look at the registration number on the wrecks and on the shiny, well maintained aircraft)
- Light N-reg GA is performed by incompetent pilots (another good one. I guess that explains the 1:20+ accident per flown hour ratio between N-reg and JAA-reg in Europe)

Instead of whining, it would be a good idea to do some proper thinking about how we can improve air safety in Europe, while promoting the transportation of goods and persons at minimal regulatory cost. But hey, that's just a mission statement I read somewhere.

I thought you were a pilot, MJ, flying somebody around.

IO, Mad Jock is of course a member of our beloved Community. In the past, to make ends meet, as so many sub 1000 hours professional pilots not overjoyed by the prospect of flight duty in a Sand Pit or in a Central China mountenous area, he also drove lorries around the UK. That is where he picked up his mean and unforgiving streak.

[mad_jock]

I am quite happy in my argument that european citizens who are domicile and resident in europe should not be able to opt out of the european system because they don't like it.

To be honest I don't know why anyone actually argues about all the other things like congestion, maint and the rest.

The bottom line is your european not american, you want to fly in europe you have to have an european ticket. If you don't like it become an american citizen and fly a N reg and own your aircraft properly and not through some trust to allow you to bypass the US regulations on ownership.

And yes I have spoken to ATC types. Both enroute and terminal. Choke points are increasing and if it wasn't for the down turn in CAT due to fuel price and economic issues we would be stuffed. There may not be such an issue in some european countries but there is in the UK.

IO I was driving lorrys for years before becoming a pilot. In fact I was driving them when I was 17 had to wait 4 years before I could drive a civi one. And I could fix them as well, hence having the bus and track license as well. The TA before the wall came down was good fun.

The bus driver bit was just a bit of banter

[proudprivate]

We don't disagree

Choke points are increasing and if it wasn't for the down turn in CAT due to fuel price and economic issues we would be stuffed. There may not be such an issue in some european countries but there is in the UK.

I would think the solution for congestion - if it existed at all - would be technological enhancement (like the are trying with SESAR, and like the Americans are doing with NextGen GPS and derived systems) as opposed to banning people from flying.

Coming to "the European License" issue : what a great idea. Unfortunately at present Europe seems incapable of coming up with a reasonable uniform proposal. Which is the same reason why the idea of a single airspace with uniform European rules (with Eurocontrol in the driver's seat) also failed in the late 1970's on stubborness and petty nationalism (mostly by the French, although some other Member States were also pretty active at derailing the project).

We are now faced with a dogs breakfast, a true regulatory mishap, that needs corrective action, fast. The solution is straightforward, though : make a European Licensing System that is LESS cumbersome, LESS restrictive and CHEAPER than the American one, whilst maintaining ICAO standards.

THEN our trainers will compete from a better vantage point, and consumers will benefit from an accessible private aviation scene. Furthermore, our airlines would find it easier to recruit.

So I agree with you, a European License would be much better. But let's take away the reasons why people are on the N-reg (or VP-reg or M-reg) first please.

[Pace]

Mad Jock

All this stupid terratorialism is rubbish! Why should we have European licences ? Flying knows no boundaries! All licences worldwide should be to an acceptable world wide standard.
The fact is whether you or EASA or any other flag waving pilots want such boundaries needs will determine no barriers between licences.
As China demands more experienced pilots and developing third world countries do too there is predicted to be a shortage of experienced pilots on both sides of the pond.
Couple that with the drying up of new pilots affording to come in at the bottom and there will be a major shortage.
That in turn will force bi lateral agreements to recognize each others licences and then all this willy and flag waving can go to the bin where it all belongs.

Pace

[mad_jock]

Doesn't suprise me to be honest Silvaire1.

And I must admit I before I visited such a US state I would have been very pro similar laws on cars. Then I went to Brittania FTO and drove the old red death machine. Brakes were dodgy, engine mount had gone, opposing corners suspension was also gone. It would still do 80 on the freeway though if someone was stupid enough to try. Came to the conclusion the MOT wasn't such a bad idea after all.

I have never said the EASA system is better, it would be a fair reason to have my medical removed.

There is never going to be a shortage of pilots. The local effects of expansion will be temporay with expats being brought in the train locals up and then they will be reduced. There may well be shortages of experenced Captains and training staff but that will be it.

There may well be a drying up on new pilots in europe but there will be a huge increase in the localities that are expanding. But even a drying up will go no where near a shortage. Last year in the UK there was 1290 CPL's issued with only 630 type ratings and some of them will be second ratings.

And flying doesn't know boundarys but if you stay inside a boundary and now the whole of europe is considered a single entity you have to comply with the local rules and not use a loophole to opt out.

I am fully in favour of supporting a reasonable set of rules in europe for european pilots and if they are based on the FAA system so be it. I am not in favour though of a group of pilots who are exactly the same as me and the rest of us (pilots) who trained in the european system haviing an opt out that the rest of us have to put up with.

[IO540]

What a load of nonsense, MJ, but I don't think many people are going to bother writing yet more reams to argue with you.

Policy should be made on the basis of safety data and there is NO safety data for what is going on in Europe now. This garbage is a purely political decree; an anti American private project for the most part, run by a few bent individuals in the EU.

Hopefully they are now getting a taste of their own medicine from the French who are old experts at this kind of thing.

[mad_jock]

This garbage is a purely political decree; an anti American private project for the most part, run by a few bent individuals in the EU

A whole load more than a few but they won't engage with you. And the simple fact is that your trying to step round the laws and regulations of sovergien states using a loophole which requires yet another loophole in the state which you are using as your vehicle. Your fighting against the whole principle of states and there citizens and democratic rule.

I am fully in favour in what the french will more than likely do. Which will be to change the rules which apply in Europe. Won't change the fact in the slightest that the N reg loophole will be shut.

The only thing I can see that will save the current situation as is, is the whole of the EU collapsing back to a common market.

[Katamarino]

IO540, I think MJ is now so locked into his "I've got myself stuck in this crappy system, so I want to drag everyone else down to my own level" attitude that any further discussion there is pointless

[mad_jock]

nope I am not locked in, I can go and fly on my other two licenses which I had to aquire for flying in other bits of the world.

Funny enough I wasn't allowed to just ignore the fact that I was living in a different country and carry on regardless. In fact a JAR licenses is very very transferable these days. Most places it just an airlaw exam because the locals have used the JAR theory as a model for there own licensing. Coupled with the fact they also know if they are based on FAA theory its such a piece of piss for JAR pilots that its a waste of time even making them sit the exams. The JAR license is becoming quite the license of choice and pretty much bullet proofs you where ever you go.

I like many others when deciding my training route had the choice of which direction I could go.

It really was quite a simple choice when I looked at.
1. Were I was likely to get work
2. What license I would require to work in that region
3. The likely hood of this situation occuring which in 2000 I could see the writing on the wall with JAR.
4. It cost me 35k in 2002 for CPL/IR and FI which was only $6k more than going the FAA way before adding conversion to JAR. which alot of that would get eaten up in travel costs and HOTAC.
5. I could get a JAR class 1 medical.
6. The JAR theory wasn't outside my grasp by a long way. In fact looking back it was far easier than I predicted.

So for me personally its not a crappy system, far from it in fact.

[Katamarino]

So, with the exception of "because that's how I think the rules should be, and look, thats how cars do it", what reason do you have for wanting N-Reg banned? I've not seen a single logical reason from you based on any kind of facts; but perhaps I've missed some gem somewhere. Airplanes are not cars, and it's pointless to try and compare the two systems.

Currently, N-Reg is entirey legal, and it works. What was the problem, again, other than a desire to make life difficult for other people? Remembering that this forum is for private pilots who have no need to learn about the systems of a Boeing 737 to fly IFR; I too have done both JAA and FAA theory exams, and found the JAA to be the same material wrapped in a thick blanket of worthless tripe.