Exterminate Aviators Strangle Aviation EASA
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Exterminate Aviators Strangle Aviation EASA
EASA railroads its N-reg attack through Parliament
The European Parliament yesterday approved EASA-FCL despite a
last-minute attempt to have it sent back to EASA for redrafting
because of unresolved issues surrounding third-country licences. The
vote was very close – 16 against approval, 22 for – and a surprise for
IAOPA was the fact that the Parliament's Transport Committee chairman
Brian Simpson and his socialist group voted in EASA's favour. Mr
Simpson had expressed support for IAOPA's position on the N-register
in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly.
The passage of EASA-FCL despite the deleterious effect it will have on
the general aviation industry illustrates not only the absence of any
real democratic control over EASA but the failings of the whole
European governmental structure. EASA-FCL was born out of a Basic
Regulation written by European Commissioners with no electoral
mandate; the details were added by bureaucrats at EASA who paid lip
service to the idea of consultation with industry. When the time came
to vote, the elected members of the European Parliament were denied
the opportunity to pass judgement on the components of this long and
complex document – they only had the power to accept all of EASA's
proposals, or reject them entirely. Because the Commission's deadlines
(themselves entirely arbitrary) are bearing down on us, MEPs are under
enormous pressure to pass the legislation; failure to do so would have
caused chaos and confusion among the national aviation authorities who
are expected to begin implementing EASA-FCL by April next year, and it
is a measure of the extreme level of concern MEPs have over the
N-registration issue that many of them were prepared to 'throw the
baby out with the bathwater'.
The decision was effectively taken on August 31st by the Transport and
Tourism Committee, which speaks for the whole Parliament on this
issue. Thanks in part to the work of Herbert Habnit, founder of AOPA
Netherlands, two MEPs, Peter van Dalen and Philip Bradbourne, had
sought a resolution saying that EASA's third-country licensing
proposals meant that many pilots would be severely disadvantaged,
subject to additional training, examination and 'notable costs', and
that the requirements were 'disproportionate'. EASA claims the
shortcomings in its regulation can be overcome by a bilateral
agreement between Europe and the US, but the van Dalen/Bradbourne
motion points out that 'there is absolutely no evidence nor clear
future prospects for the potential bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreements being drafted and to be concluded before April 2014'(by
which time the third-country provision of EASA-FCL must be fully
implemented) that would solve these problems. It goes on to say there
are no safety issues behind EASA's regulation, and adds that the draft
regulation does not even conform to the requirements of the
Commission's own Basic Regulation.
Four more votes would have tipped the matter in general aviation's
favour. Mr Habnit was particularly disappointed at the failure of Mr
Simpson and those in his sphere of influence to support the
resolution. Mr Simpson had, says Mr Habnit, abrogated the provisions
of the European Parliament's own 'Agenda for a Sustainable Future for
General Aviation', adopted in 2009. There has, he adds, been no real
attempt to quantify the cost of this politically-motivated attack on
the GA industry. 'Even EASA does not understand the consequences of
its actions.'
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said afterwards: 'It's a
sad day. The MEPs were put under enormous pressure to push this
through and were denied the ability to address the huge flaws in it.
This could not have been railroaded through in a truly democratic
process. Economically, the vote is seriously bad news for our
industry. Many of those who have been flying perfectly safely for
decades on FAA licences are not going to make the extraordinary
investment of time, effort and money needed to get European IRs or
other qualifications – they will simply give up. The European
Parliament has blown a great hole in our industry with this vote, and
because it has been bamboozled by EASA, it doesn't even know it.
'We now have to focus on the detail of the FCL annexe to the Bilateral
Agreement to make sure that EASA and the FAA reach sensible agreements
on what credits they will give to each other's training systems. It is
unlikely that the 2014 deadline will be achieved given the amount of
work that needs to be done, and the Commission has accepted that the
deadline may need to be extended. Retrospective legislation like this
is damaging and the Commission should now work hard with the industry
to reduce as far a possible the negative impact of these decisions.'
The European Parliament yesterday approved EASA-FCL despite a
last-minute attempt to have it sent back to EASA for redrafting
because of unresolved issues surrounding third-country licences. The
vote was very close – 16 against approval, 22 for – and a surprise for
IAOPA was the fact that the Parliament's Transport Committee chairman
Brian Simpson and his socialist group voted in EASA's favour. Mr
Simpson had expressed support for IAOPA's position on the N-register
in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly.
The passage of EASA-FCL despite the deleterious effect it will have on
the general aviation industry illustrates not only the absence of any
real democratic control over EASA but the failings of the whole
European governmental structure. EASA-FCL was born out of a Basic
Regulation written by European Commissioners with no electoral
mandate; the details were added by bureaucrats at EASA who paid lip
service to the idea of consultation with industry. When the time came
to vote, the elected members of the European Parliament were denied
the opportunity to pass judgement on the components of this long and
complex document – they only had the power to accept all of EASA's
proposals, or reject them entirely. Because the Commission's deadlines
(themselves entirely arbitrary) are bearing down on us, MEPs are under
enormous pressure to pass the legislation; failure to do so would have
caused chaos and confusion among the national aviation authorities who
are expected to begin implementing EASA-FCL by April next year, and it
is a measure of the extreme level of concern MEPs have over the
N-registration issue that many of them were prepared to 'throw the
baby out with the bathwater'.
The decision was effectively taken on August 31st by the Transport and
Tourism Committee, which speaks for the whole Parliament on this
issue. Thanks in part to the work of Herbert Habnit, founder of AOPA
Netherlands, two MEPs, Peter van Dalen and Philip Bradbourne, had
sought a resolution saying that EASA's third-country licensing
proposals meant that many pilots would be severely disadvantaged,
subject to additional training, examination and 'notable costs', and
that the requirements were 'disproportionate'. EASA claims the
shortcomings in its regulation can be overcome by a bilateral
agreement between Europe and the US, but the van Dalen/Bradbourne
motion points out that 'there is absolutely no evidence nor clear
future prospects for the potential bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreements being drafted and to be concluded before April 2014'(by
which time the third-country provision of EASA-FCL must be fully
implemented) that would solve these problems. It goes on to say there
are no safety issues behind EASA's regulation, and adds that the draft
regulation does not even conform to the requirements of the
Commission's own Basic Regulation.
Four more votes would have tipped the matter in general aviation's
favour. Mr Habnit was particularly disappointed at the failure of Mr
Simpson and those in his sphere of influence to support the
resolution. Mr Simpson had, says Mr Habnit, abrogated the provisions
of the European Parliament's own 'Agenda for a Sustainable Future for
General Aviation', adopted in 2009. There has, he adds, been no real
attempt to quantify the cost of this politically-motivated attack on
the GA industry. 'Even EASA does not understand the consequences of
its actions.'
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said afterwards: 'It's a
sad day. The MEPs were put under enormous pressure to push this
through and were denied the ability to address the huge flaws in it.
This could not have been railroaded through in a truly democratic
process. Economically, the vote is seriously bad news for our
industry. Many of those who have been flying perfectly safely for
decades on FAA licences are not going to make the extraordinary
investment of time, effort and money needed to get European IRs or
other qualifications – they will simply give up. The European
Parliament has blown a great hole in our industry with this vote, and
because it has been bamboozled by EASA, it doesn't even know it.
'We now have to focus on the detail of the FCL annexe to the Bilateral
Agreement to make sure that EASA and the FAA reach sensible agreements
on what credits they will give to each other's training systems. It is
unlikely that the 2014 deadline will be achieved given the amount of
work that needs to be done, and the Commission has accepted that the
deadline may need to be extended. Retrospective legislation like this
is damaging and the Commission should now work hard with the industry
to reduce as far a possible the negative impact of these decisions.'
Is it not about time our CAA stood up like the French and copy the French PPL IR proposals?
Only scrap of comfort is the 2014 deadline is likely to be extended again to 2016
Pace
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Really its about time our CAA or whoever started being more proactive with disobedience instead of devouted compliance to EASA.
A couple of large European countries following France would force an issue.
It looks likely from info I have had which ties up with whats been said here that there will be a further extension to 2016 as the reason for the extensions has been EASAs proclaimed desire for a Bi Lateral.
They know that will not be achieved by 2014.
Pace
A couple of large European countries following France would force an issue.
It looks likely from info I have had which ties up with whats been said here that there will be a further extension to 2016 as the reason for the extensions has been EASAs proclaimed desire for a Bi Lateral.
They know that will not be achieved by 2014.
Pace
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I tend to agree re a series of extensions past 2014 being a likely outcome.
However there is another angle on all this: the French IR was clearly designed to lead the way to being a lot more than a French-airspace-only job. I am hearing more and more stuff on other countries adopting it, and if that happens, the EASA stuff will effectively get bypassed.
The bottom line is that France can do it if they want to, and the EU is not going to impose a ban on French beef exports, or send Virgil and his Thunderbird 1 to nuke the DGAC HQ.
However there is another angle on all this: the French IR was clearly designed to lead the way to being a lot more than a French-airspace-only job. I am hearing more and more stuff on other countries adopting it, and if that happens, the EASA stuff will effectively get bypassed.
The bottom line is that France can do it if they want to, and the EU is not going to impose a ban on French beef exports, or send Virgil and his Thunderbird 1 to nuke the DGAC HQ.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
It's not really a surprise is it. This has always been a done deal. As was pointed out a longtime ago the pen pushers who are the real drivers of politics were paying lip service to quieten the natives while they got on with their stated intent.
It was made clear a number of years ago this was going to happen. What did you think was going to stop it? Democracy? We lost that when we handed power to Brussels.
Just take a look at how the unelected have invaded every aspect of our lives with no control and no ability to push back. Take a look at motorcyclings latest threat, no bikes over 7 years old allowed in the City, Hi-Viz required by law. Not allowed to after market modify and fitting of diagnostic ports that are accessible by the police to show how the bike is being ridden. Instigated by the unelected in Europe.
IMC anyone?
It was made clear a number of years ago this was going to happen. What did you think was going to stop it? Democracy? We lost that when we handed power to Brussels.
Just take a look at how the unelected have invaded every aspect of our lives with no control and no ability to push back. Take a look at motorcyclings latest threat, no bikes over 7 years old allowed in the City, Hi-Viz required by law. Not allowed to after market modify and fitting of diagnostic ports that are accessible by the police to show how the bike is being ridden. Instigated by the unelected in Europe.
IMC anyone?
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
Post Mortem
Mr Simpson had expressed support for IAOPA's position on the N-register
in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly
in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly
The vote itself was relatively uninformed and EASA and the Commission, who in one way or another had convinced the fraction coordinators of the biggest parties (Grosch from the EVP and El Khadraoui from the S&D), were sh1t scared that more MEP's would be aware of the situation and the tables would be turned in a couple of weeks time. That is why they insisted on having a vote immediately (i.e. less than 24 hours) after the resolution was submitted, arguing that a no-vote would require further legislative work between then and april 2012 (nothing short of blackmail of course, especially in view of the fact that "verification by the legal department" and "translating" the document took more than half a year).
I think the good guys misjudged two things:
1) Although the EVP as a whole didn't really care about the matter, Mathieu Grosch had a specific interest. His constituency is the East of Belgium, just 50-odd kilometers from Cologne. That means that he would be in a position to negotiate some ex-pat & tax free jobs for his buddies from Goudou and his con-men, in exchange for decisive EVP support. That is why the rest of the EVP needed to be kept in the dark as much as possible, and why he ignored the catastrophic consequences for general aviation, despite him being on the board of a regional airport (in this case Liège EBLG) that needs GA as a supplement to freight and summer charters to balance the books.
2) Somehow they must have negotiated something similar with Simpson and El Khadraoui in the course of February / March of this year, and UK IAOPA wasn't able to leverage its Simpson connection, at least not in the way IAOPA NL was able to debrief and convince Mr. Van Dalen, who I believe is a much more straightforward guy than Brian Simpson, irrespective of political preferences (just look at how he handles the incident with the Austrian MEP after the voting session).
What I take home from this is that democracy in Europe is seriously deficient. Agencies such as EASA are apparently able to hijack an entire community without any accountability. It questions the validity of a model in which the Commission and its agencies act as being the sole initiator of European legislative proposals. The lack of democratic control and the lack of transparency is simply too big to accept.
But even if we were to accept such a model, clearly the current process of NPA CRDs is defunct too. As some of my strongest opponents on this forum have rightly pointed out, essential contributions by competent individuals with a lifelong experience in aviation are systematically studiously ignored. Content wise, there is a clear lack of vision and a complete absence of motivation. And in the rare instances that a hint at motivation is given, it is not supported by factual evidence or proper statistical analysis. The newly published NCO OPS papers hint in the same direction.
The efficiency of the work set-up at EASA can also be questioned: what use are statistical histograms of public responses ? Why is the legislative and rulemaking drafting quality so poor ? Why is EASA's management acting in such an uninformed way (being either incompetent or deceitful, neither being acceptable), seemingly unaware of the scope and consequences of their statements and actions ? Surely € 110 million is too much for what we are getting out of it.
On a different note,
Is it not about time our CAA stood up like the French and copy the French PPL IR proposals?
1) Implement an equivalent sub FL195 PPL-IR inside UK airspace, including similar grandfathering rights for existing ICAO PPL-IR licence holders
2) Recognise the French IR as such on the simple condition that the French recognize yours. That shouldn't take too long...
so that we can at least fly IFR from Wick to Cannes without EASA bothering us.
Last edited by proudprivate; 1st September 2011 at 11:27. Reason: typos corrected
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 581
Likes: 3
From: ZRH
However there is another angle on all this: the French IR was clearly designed to lead the way to being a lot more than a French-airspace-only job. I am hearing more and more stuff on other countries adopting it, and if that happens, the EASA stuff will effectively get bypassed.
Fact of the matter is that EASA has spoken the final verdict on how to stop foreign licenses in Europe. What France is doing (and I am all for it, no mistake) is illegal according to EASA. So EASA will, if they want Part FCL to have any significance, have to take France to court to prohibit them keeping national licenses active past April 8, 2012.
Actually, I do hope EASA will do it so we get a court decision on this. It might, if France wins, spell the end of EASA as a whole.
Democracy? We lost that when we handed power to Brussels.
However, if the European aviation community has not yet understood what is happening and start to fight back in this war of extermination, there will be hell to pay in the near future. FAA licences is only the beginning.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
An2
Just to clarify it's 2014 and probably 2016. Probably EASA are trying to get the lot through to be sorted afterwards,
Why did the 4 MEPs who were against vote it through?
My guess is their concerns were allayed. Problem is we don't know EASAs real intention ? Someone. Does! Is it to really get a bilateral or just a con act?
We don't know only the guys behind closed doors really know the agenda behind all this
Pace
Just to clarify it's 2014 and probably 2016. Probably EASA are trying to get the lot through to be sorted afterwards,
Why did the 4 MEPs who were against vote it through?
My guess is their concerns were allayed. Problem is we don't know EASAs real intention ? Someone. Does! Is it to really get a bilateral or just a con act?
We don't know only the guys behind closed doors really know the agenda behind all this
Pace
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Probably EASA are trying to get the lot through to be sorted afterwards,
My guess is their concerns were allayed
But this is standard politics. You always do under the table deals. Town & Country Planning too.
The bottom line, however, is that nobody actually gains from the elimination of GA, or even IFR GA. Well, maybe some cynical FTOs who hope to make a fast buck processing a few k pilots one day, but it will be a one-off, and they must know that most people, if pushed, will pop down to Spain or Greece where things are much better "lubricated". FTOs in N Europe are not going to profit from any large scale pilot screwing, especially as any deadline will obviously be pretty flexible.
That's why I don't go along with the "we want to eliminate GA" motive. I can fully see the reason for thinking that, but there must be a motive.
My guess is that this is an anti American battle and we are caught up in it. The European intellectuals have always hated America and everything it stands for.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
From: UK
Democracy?
France is a Republic.
We are a Monarchy.
Our Monarchy has strong ties with the German Aristocracy
Up to 1940 our Monarchy had concerns that the population would look to the French style and, siding with Germany, engendered a dislike of the French.
Do you really believe that our 'establishment' would ever consider anything promoted by the French, however sensible, to be considered?
We are also beginning to understand the power of the Media Barons over our lives, few of them are British.
Since 1940 the US has a hold on us that no-one seems to fully understand.
The French have been suspicious of the Americans since 1942.
The US foreign policy over the last 20 years has encouraged many thinking people across Europe to question American motivation and integrity.
Our politicians, who therefore have one finger up the *ss of the US and another up the *ss of the Monarchy, are more keen to please their masters than to please the relatively small group of the G.A. community.
France is a Republic.
We are a Monarchy.
Our Monarchy has strong ties with the German Aristocracy
Up to 1940 our Monarchy had concerns that the population would look to the French style and, siding with Germany, engendered a dislike of the French.
Do you really believe that our 'establishment' would ever consider anything promoted by the French, however sensible, to be considered?
We are also beginning to understand the power of the Media Barons over our lives, few of them are British.
Since 1940 the US has a hold on us that no-one seems to fully understand.
The French have been suspicious of the Americans since 1942.
The US foreign policy over the last 20 years has encouraged many thinking people across Europe to question American motivation and integrity.
Our politicians, who therefore have one finger up the *ss of the US and another up the *ss of the Monarchy, are more keen to please their masters than to please the relatively small group of the G.A. community.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
That's why I don't go along with the "we want to eliminate GA" motive. I can fully see the reason for thinking that, but there must be a motive.
They just don't see GA as we don't speak with a loud and clear voice. The airlines do speak with a loud and clear voice, and pay for a lot of the bills.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 581
Likes: 3
From: ZRH
IO540,
Nobody gains but a lot of people IMAGINE they will gain a lot! And that is what drives this hamster wheel of destruction.
There is more than one, spread over the several anti aviation lobbies and the aviation lobbies itself.
Let's tackle the insiders first. Who in aviation has a motive to eliminate GA?
Answer: Airport managers, Airline Managers (of the sort who understand cash but not aviation), ATC Managers.
We have to look at the myth of the "overcrowded skies" to understand that. There are people out there, in high and influential places, who treat airspace as an endangered species and believe that there is not enough space to accomodate everyone. So they introduce slot management in order to regulate traffic in such a way that in theory, every traffic moving has it's space. In order to fly, you need airport slots both ends and enroute slots from ATC. Airport slots work according to the laws of what used to be the 5 year plan in socialist states. Someone determines what the capacity of an airport is and that is how many slots are available, thereafter they get distributed on a "tell me a year in advance when you want to fly" base and set in stone. The few and far in between holes which remain get allocated to GA and ad hoc charter. So in their ideal model railway world, everyone will fly at a time accorded 12 months in advance and everyone who doesn't get a slot should bu**er off. GA is in it's nature not plannable 12 months ahead so it disturbs the 5 year planners. Motive.
That the fact that we all operate in a weather orientated world where airplanes do not adhere to schedules like railways (err, or at least how they imagine railways work) is disregarded and an additional nuissance.
Airlines feel that the "insects" or "lawnmowers" or "parasites" are "stealing" their airport slots. Airline pilots who have to queue up for take off and see a small airplane land imagine that if it wasn't for the (see above) they could line up and take off NOW instead of waiting. They do not see that ATC knows darn well that an airliner burns more fuel than a PA28 but that the release for the airliner had not come so he might as well squeeze that VFR bird in between? Motive.
ATC has real concerns. Slow moving IFR traffic which has to keep to the same departure routes as airliners DO and CAN slow down a busy airport. So ATC Managers want them gone instead of thinking of how to accomodate them with low speed SID's or other ways. Motive.
ATC has more trouble. They get screamed at by irrate airline managers why their "Golden Argosy Flight 2" had to hold 2 minutes because of an "insect" landing. Explanations won't do jack garbage to someone who does not understand the basic concept, so once those "insects" are gone, phew, they'll still get screamed at but they can say, see, no insects. We do our best.
Ok, that is the aviation side. The others?
Anti Noise leagues want NO airplanes at all. Motive.
Socialists want to either eliminate flying for everyone but themselfs on the mission to save the planet and ground those parasitic rich people for good.
Greens want us all to go back to horse and carriage. Oh, well, maybe some exceptions for them. Some of them want to decimate mankind so that only good Greens remain. They don't bear discussion. Motive.
Politicians in general need re-election so they are looking around for ways to find eager beavers to work on. Who screams the loudest get's the vote. Motive
Bureaucrats want to make sure they remain bureaucrats with a comfy income until they safely retire at 45 or 50, so they create jobs for themselfs and others to make sure that all of the above folks are happy. GA is a perfect candidate to rip off via regulations, inspections, new regulations, new inspections. Can you spell EASA?
No motives? More than Hercule Poirot would ever have needed to bag the gardener.
silvaire
True. And more will follow after this. The land of the free. Just so you see it stays that way, because also in America all of the above exists. You just happen to have a very strong and motivated lobby we here lack so severely. But I reckon quite a few of us might want to dig out their green card applications in the coming years and see if they can make their lifes elsewhere.
Friend of mine once said it as it is: The degree of freedom a country grants its citizens is directly measurable from the fact whether they allow general aviation in their countries and at the degree of freedom it enjoys.
Best regards
AN2 Driver
The bottom line, however, is that nobody actually gains from the elimination of GA, or even IFR GA.
That's why I don't go along with the "we want to eliminate GA" motive. I can fully see the reason for thinking that, but there must be a motive.
Let's tackle the insiders first. Who in aviation has a motive to eliminate GA?
Answer: Airport managers, Airline Managers (of the sort who understand cash but not aviation), ATC Managers.
We have to look at the myth of the "overcrowded skies" to understand that. There are people out there, in high and influential places, who treat airspace as an endangered species and believe that there is not enough space to accomodate everyone. So they introduce slot management in order to regulate traffic in such a way that in theory, every traffic moving has it's space. In order to fly, you need airport slots both ends and enroute slots from ATC. Airport slots work according to the laws of what used to be the 5 year plan in socialist states. Someone determines what the capacity of an airport is and that is how many slots are available, thereafter they get distributed on a "tell me a year in advance when you want to fly" base and set in stone. The few and far in between holes which remain get allocated to GA and ad hoc charter. So in their ideal model railway world, everyone will fly at a time accorded 12 months in advance and everyone who doesn't get a slot should bu**er off. GA is in it's nature not plannable 12 months ahead so it disturbs the 5 year planners. Motive.
That the fact that we all operate in a weather orientated world where airplanes do not adhere to schedules like railways (err, or at least how they imagine railways work) is disregarded and an additional nuissance.
Airlines feel that the "insects" or "lawnmowers" or "parasites" are "stealing" their airport slots. Airline pilots who have to queue up for take off and see a small airplane land imagine that if it wasn't for the (see above) they could line up and take off NOW instead of waiting. They do not see that ATC knows darn well that an airliner burns more fuel than a PA28 but that the release for the airliner had not come so he might as well squeeze that VFR bird in between? Motive.
ATC has real concerns. Slow moving IFR traffic which has to keep to the same departure routes as airliners DO and CAN slow down a busy airport. So ATC Managers want them gone instead of thinking of how to accomodate them with low speed SID's or other ways. Motive.
ATC has more trouble. They get screamed at by irrate airline managers why their "Golden Argosy Flight 2" had to hold 2 minutes because of an "insect" landing. Explanations won't do jack garbage to someone who does not understand the basic concept, so once those "insects" are gone, phew, they'll still get screamed at but they can say, see, no insects. We do our best.
Ok, that is the aviation side. The others?
Anti Noise leagues want NO airplanes at all. Motive.
Socialists want to either eliminate flying for everyone but themselfs on the mission to save the planet and ground those parasitic rich people for good.
Greens want us all to go back to horse and carriage. Oh, well, maybe some exceptions for them. Some of them want to decimate mankind so that only good Greens remain. They don't bear discussion. Motive.
Politicians in general need re-election so they are looking around for ways to find eager beavers to work on. Who screams the loudest get's the vote. Motive
Bureaucrats want to make sure they remain bureaucrats with a comfy income until they safely retire at 45 or 50, so they create jobs for themselfs and others to make sure that all of the above folks are happy. GA is a perfect candidate to rip off via regulations, inspections, new regulations, new inspections. Can you spell EASA?
No motives? More than Hercule Poirot would ever have needed to bag the gardener.
silvaire
A notable exception to the above would be the thousands and thousands of Europeans (including my family) who moved to the US to enjoy greater freedom, including the opportunity to freely fly our own aircraft. The US is not perfect, but it has certainly made life better for more people, in more places, than every other country combined.
Friend of mine once said it as it is: The degree of freedom a country grants its citizens is directly measurable from the fact whether they allow general aviation in their countries and at the degree of freedom it enjoys.
Best regards
AN2 Driver
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 581
Likes: 3
From: ZRH
Pace,
Who has given that in writing? Countries "MAY" ask for extention but there will be several which won't but will be happy to shut N-reg pilots down by April next year. And if so? Does it make this better?
I disagree that they will "find solutions", but they might give these extensions in order to give GA 4 more years in which to pack up and leave.
Just to clarify it's 2014 and probably 2016.
I disagree that they will "find solutions", but they might give these extensions in order to give GA 4 more years in which to pack up and leave.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 581
Likes: 3
From: ZRH
Silvaire,
well, changing the current administration next fall would be the first step in that direction I reckon. Question is what will follow. But this one is looking too fondly at Europe for a role model
for any freedom loving American or resident to ignore. 
well, changing the current administration next fall would be the first step in that direction I reckon. Question is what will follow. But this one is looking too fondly at Europe for a role model
for any freedom loving American or resident to ignore.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
I don't think it will change anything which is why there is such a rush to get it through.
Once its inshrined in local law that will be it. It doesn't matter what happens to the EU or EASA. It was a bitter pill that most CAA's have been avoiding for the last 15-20 years but wanted to do. An outside agency imposing the rules then going defunct is there prayers come true. Which is why I doudt very much if there will be an extension.
6k pilots in the grand scope of things is a very very small number of voters to piss off. Multi million euro donations are riding on this european wide.
Also as well once installed in local law thats it because if EASa does dissapear or the EU goes tots up it will be years and years before there will be any time to sort it out after the fall out. And to be honest most CAA have been wanting to shut the loop hole for years but never had the balls. Someone else doing it then getting shut down is a perfect solution to them.
Once its inshrined in local law that will be it. It doesn't matter what happens to the EU or EASA. It was a bitter pill that most CAA's have been avoiding for the last 15-20 years but wanted to do. An outside agency imposing the rules then going defunct is there prayers come true. Which is why I doudt very much if there will be an extension.
6k pilots in the grand scope of things is a very very small number of voters to piss off. Multi million euro donations are riding on this european wide.
Also as well once installed in local law thats it because if EASa does dissapear or the EU goes tots up it will be years and years before there will be any time to sort it out after the fall out. And to be honest most CAA have been wanting to shut the loop hole for years but never had the balls. Someone else doing it then getting shut down is a perfect solution to them.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Mad Jock
Firstly there are already workarounds in the offing not maybe so much for the owner pilot but for bigger GA.
Secondly there are major problems shoving this lot through as it stands. There are legal problems which EASA will be faced with.
That is why I dont think what has been passed to get the whole package through at this stagewill resemble what we end up with.
I dont think N reg in Europe will vanish with the stroke of a brush although I know thats what you would like.
Although the extensions to 2014 are claimed to be to get a Bi lateral I think EASA are fully aware that they will be no where near implimenting this lot on time never mind the member states who are not at all prepared.
A Bilateral has to happen for no other reason than that there will be a massive shortage of experienced pilots world wide with the fast developing areas of Russia China and third world countries.
There will have to be a cross acceptance just to fill the demand.
We dont know what has been said behind closed doors for 4 supporters of N to support The package to get it through must mean they have been given certain assurances we are not aware of.
What I was told about extensions to 2016 has been reiterated in the reports at the start of the thread (strange)
Pace
Firstly there are already workarounds in the offing not maybe so much for the owner pilot but for bigger GA.
Secondly there are major problems shoving this lot through as it stands. There are legal problems which EASA will be faced with.
That is why I dont think what has been passed to get the whole package through at this stagewill resemble what we end up with.
I dont think N reg in Europe will vanish with the stroke of a brush although I know thats what you would like.
Although the extensions to 2014 are claimed to be to get a Bi lateral I think EASA are fully aware that they will be no where near implimenting this lot on time never mind the member states who are not at all prepared.
A Bilateral has to happen for no other reason than that there will be a massive shortage of experienced pilots world wide with the fast developing areas of Russia China and third world countries.
There will have to be a cross acceptance just to fill the demand.
We dont know what has been said behind closed doors for 4 supporters of N to support The package to get it through must mean they have been given certain assurances we are not aware of.
What I was told about extensions to 2016 has been reiterated in the reports at the start of the thread (strange)
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 2nd September 2011 at 19:27.