EASA FCL - Latest from Brussels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at the above link to see how stupid things are going
no demonstrable threat but a broader picture of safety being achieved by control and intervention which we all know is not the case
Some of the anti-N-reg brigade simply don't realise who their newlyfound bedfellows are. Luckily they are not a majority, but there are politicians (and not the ones you would expect) out there who are supporting the EASA-FCL proposal because it will lead to less people flying (yes they do grasp that) and hence reduce carbon emissions !
Last time I checked painting a G on your empennage did not reduce CO2, so private flying as a whole will be next, at least according to those politicians' agenda.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a flight ops inspection the CAA bloke said they were ramping up there inspectors as well. And they are intending that there will be more ramp inspections and engineering inspections in the UK including GA and schools.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel Farrage vs Mike Nattrass
Nigel Farrage is most certainly entertaining. Good for democracy, most probably, as he points out some of the more painful disconnects between European politicians and European citizens.
In that sense, there is a parallel between the workings of EASA and the of the Commission in the Basic Regulation and subsequent FCL files.
But to rally behind Nigel Farrage would not be my cup of tea. Apart from a few well documented controversial statements made by EFP members, I also happen to like the Schengen agreement a lot. I think we should cherish the freedom it gives us. For private pilots on the continent that means a lot less paperwork (none if you file the flight plan online) when flying into Reims, Geneva, Peenemünde or Maastricht. Good about the Schengen agreement is that you don't have to sign it if you're not comfortable with it. I think the Danes are a bit daft in first signing up to it and then wanting out. You're not going to stop illegal immigration by putting a couple of clowns in a booth in Padborg. And nothing is stopping the Danes from clamping down on drugs : but you can also do that 30 km inland with a few targeted checks. So all in all, unlikely bedfellows for me.
That being said, Morten Messerschmidt, also of the EFD fraction, was at least friendly enough to send a pertinent letter to the Commission asking about N-reg instrument ratings.
Coming back to UKIP : Mike Nattrass is the transport committee rep, now sitting independently from Farrage after major disputes last year as to the future stance of the EFD. Nevertheless, just like Morten Messerschmidt, Mike Nattrass is also favourable to exposing the Commission and EASA and curtailing their undemocratic behaviour (as well as cutting their budget - "EU’s budget skal reduceres og under kontrol").
I've noticed that some of you on this forum have strongly negative views on Europe (which I can empathise with, but do not share). If that is the case, it certainly can't hurt to give Mike Nattrass' office a call and ask him whether he would support the resolution for objection, show up at the vote and could he maybe convince some others to to the same thing ?
Happy landings,
Proudprivate
I think its a good idea for the civil service at all levels to assess which tasks need revamping and which ones should be cut in an overall effort to increase efficiency. But maintaining regional flight test centres seems like a no-brainer ?
In that sense, there is a parallel between the workings of EASA and the of the Commission in the Basic Regulation and subsequent FCL files.
But to rally behind Nigel Farrage would not be my cup of tea. Apart from a few well documented controversial statements made by EFP members, I also happen to like the Schengen agreement a lot. I think we should cherish the freedom it gives us. For private pilots on the continent that means a lot less paperwork (none if you file the flight plan online) when flying into Reims, Geneva, Peenemünde or Maastricht. Good about the Schengen agreement is that you don't have to sign it if you're not comfortable with it. I think the Danes are a bit daft in first signing up to it and then wanting out. You're not going to stop illegal immigration by putting a couple of clowns in a booth in Padborg. And nothing is stopping the Danes from clamping down on drugs : but you can also do that 30 km inland with a few targeted checks. So all in all, unlikely bedfellows for me.
That being said, Morten Messerschmidt, also of the EFD fraction, was at least friendly enough to send a pertinent letter to the Commission asking about N-reg instrument ratings.
Coming back to UKIP : Mike Nattrass is the transport committee rep, now sitting independently from Farrage after major disputes last year as to the future stance of the EFD. Nevertheless, just like Morten Messerschmidt, Mike Nattrass is also favourable to exposing the Commission and EASA and curtailing their undemocratic behaviour (as well as cutting their budget - "EU’s budget skal reduceres og under kontrol").
I've noticed that some of you on this forum have strongly negative views on Europe (which I can empathise with, but do not share). If that is the case, it certainly can't hurt to give Mike Nattrass' office a call and ask him whether he would support the resolution for objection, show up at the vote and could he maybe convince some others to to the same thing ?
Happy landings,
Proudprivate
On a flight ops inspection the CAA bloke said they were ramping up there inspectors as well. And they are intending that there will be more ramp inspections and engineering inspections in the UK including GA and schools.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of CAA FEs is at an all time low and with the closing of Flight Test Centres one wonders how and where they will train new staff!
Re Schengen, this never meant much in mainland Europe because border checks became ineffective decades ago. It is largely a symbolic thing. Of course, for private aviation, it is wonderful (unless you live in the UK
). But e.g. Greece always ignored it anyway, for anybody coming in a "vehicle". The only way to get the advantage of Schengen was to walk there, or swim there. There is just one airport there (LGKC) which seems to know about how the system should run, and accepts Schengen traffic despite having no Customs.
N-reg checks have always taken place, mostly in France and Germany, mainly looking for the dreaded certificate of free circulation for VAT. This is a huge issue for UK pilots who have got this piece of paper because UK Customs no longer issue them (they are acting illegally but thus far nobody has spent the money to challenge them). I got mine in the nick of time in 2005 and anybody who bought their plane after that without knowing about this is stuffed. Denmark offered a route for company owned planes till 12/2009. There only UK route now is via a declaration of market value and paying VAT on that value, which works out very expensive.
That post in the bizjets forum was probably looking for illegal charter. The UK CAA have done the same thing: they interview the passengers separately (out of sight of each other so they cannot straighten out their stories) to find out of they paid. Also, the issue of cabotage can be raised in some cases. You have to watch this and, for example, take NO money from passengers flying in an N-reg and be very explicit about this. The traditional PPL Cost Sharing scheme is legal in a G-reg in UK airspace, and is legal in an N-reg in US airspace.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Implementation of strict austerity measures...
EASA is a safety body so people like Baldwin will spout that mandate whether its true or not
Things can only get better from here
Or maybe it is a reward for their flawlessly tailored legislative work thus far...
I'll have a word with Mr B to suggest he reads all letters put in front of him for signature.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really want a European Aviation System ?
Most of the drivel from Europe reveals a universal lack of understanding across the board.
The result is then an awful "compromise" that is likely to create havoc and decrease overall air safety. So either you agree on something like "European Air Law", and that implies
- that a Bulgarian Examiner is as good as a Latvian one
- that the semicircular system in Italy is going to be the same as in France
- that you don't invent obstacles to flying that have nothing to do with safety (the 8.333 kHz radio springs to mind)
- ...
or you don't touch it and leave things the way they are.
Also, the way EASA operates now is totally unacceptable, with prominent figures like Goudou or Sivel going about sprouting complete nonsense, with rulemaking technicians like Cluzeau (aka "the Frog Einstein" on this forum) just collecting input without a clear vision and then claiming that some piece of junk is "the best compromise for a legislative proposal that was obtainable". The cherry on the cake is then some classical civil service bickering between the Commission officials (Mr. B's superiors, predecessors and subordinates) and EASA about who fulfills what role...
Add to that complete intransparency of the rulemaking process and the lack of vision with many member states' CAA's and Transport Ministeries and pretty soon politicians start wondering about the "disconnect" between citizens and politics (or citizens and Europe).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is such a pity that EASA is run by a load of crooked people.
The previous system, JAA, was a mishmash of bodged regs where each country did more or less what it wanted anyway, and the same anti American sentiment (as EASA is running) prevailed in most of Europe.
JAA gold plated loads of ICAO requirements, inflated costs to everybody, and played a big hand in crippling private IFR capability. The elimination of the 700hr route was just one small piece of this.
But before JAA, it wasn't a bed of roses either. Speaking to some old-timers, the theory exams were only a bit better than the present JAA "90% garbage" which I gather is about to become "95% garbage" under the new EASA question bank.
To be charitable, one can see the EASA motivation in trying to standardise things across the EU, to curb the excesses of JAA, but they lost control of the process very early on (years ago).
This comes as no suprise since the biggest gold platers were the national CAA gravy train riders who left their jobs and went to work in Cologne I've had some correspondence (on component certification matters) with some Brits there whose replies were sickeningly arrogant - as well as unhelpful. They may have been ex UK CAA, or ex CAA approved design company people. They all come out of the same mould (ISO9000 quality manager types).
EASA was doomed as soon as it got going, as a result of an excessive political mandate, and as a result of stupid recruitment of just the personnel who were going to cripple its objectives.
It would have been fairly easy for EASA to do the obviously desirable things. For example they did one (just one) of them by grandfathering national modification certification to a pan-EU system. They could have accepted FAA STCs. They could have converted FAA papers to EASA ones, as a one-off conversion, which would have caused much of the N-reg scene to dry up. But instead they got infiltrated by a load of America-haters who have been running private anti-American projects from inside the place.
The previous system, JAA, was a mishmash of bodged regs where each country did more or less what it wanted anyway, and the same anti American sentiment (as EASA is running) prevailed in most of Europe.
JAA gold plated loads of ICAO requirements, inflated costs to everybody, and played a big hand in crippling private IFR capability. The elimination of the 700hr route was just one small piece of this.
But before JAA, it wasn't a bed of roses either. Speaking to some old-timers, the theory exams were only a bit better than the present JAA "90% garbage" which I gather is about to become "95% garbage" under the new EASA question bank.
To be charitable, one can see the EASA motivation in trying to standardise things across the EU, to curb the excesses of JAA, but they lost control of the process very early on (years ago).
This comes as no suprise since the biggest gold platers were the national CAA gravy train riders who left their jobs and went to work in Cologne
I've had some correspondence (on component certification matters) with some Brits there whose replies were sickeningly arrogant - as well as unhelpful. They may have been ex UK CAA, or ex CAA approved design company people. They all come out of the same mould (ISO9000 quality manager types).EASA was doomed as soon as it got going, as a result of an excessive political mandate, and as a result of stupid recruitment of just the personnel who were going to cripple its objectives.
It would have been fairly easy for EASA to do the obviously desirable things. For example they did one (just one) of them by grandfathering national modification certification to a pan-EU system. They could have accepted FAA STCs. They could have converted FAA papers to EASA ones, as a one-off conversion, which would have caused much of the N-reg scene to dry up. But instead they got infiltrated by a load of America-haters who have been running private anti-American projects from inside the place.
Most of the drivel from Europe reveals a universal lack of understanding across the board.
