EASA/FAA and Ultralights/General Aviation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dubai UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA/FAA and Ultralights/General Aviation
Question: Since the last 20 years in GA I am wondering whether EASA is making mistakes. A lot of pilots these days choose for an Ultralight license over a PPL...why? And in general is EASA making the sky safer or just the opposite?
Seems like aircraft/ULM owners are more and more trying to avoid the over-regulated or in a few cases nonsense regulated EASA concerning Maintenance and Licensing on GA leaving the slowly growing or overtaking ULM market alone with some consequences. General Aviation is a dying breed and that I know for sure. In Belgium for example there were one day in the nineties about 4000 registered GA aircraft. I believe now it's down to only about 2000....so where are all the aircraft gone then? Should GA regulations be a bit back to the basics, OR ULM regulations a bit more to the basics? Love to hear your thoughts about this because I think EASA is missing the big picture focusing only on GA.
Seems like aircraft/ULM owners are more and more trying to avoid the over-regulated or in a few cases nonsense regulated EASA concerning Maintenance and Licensing on GA leaving the slowly growing or overtaking ULM market alone with some consequences. General Aviation is a dying breed and that I know for sure. In Belgium for example there were one day in the nineties about 4000 registered GA aircraft. I believe now it's down to only about 2000....so where are all the aircraft gone then? Should GA regulations be a bit back to the basics, OR ULM regulations a bit more to the basics? Love to hear your thoughts about this because I think EASA is missing the big picture focusing only on GA.
Last edited by africanbushpilot; 13th Feb 2012 at 14:06.
) EASA is getting it all wrong for GA - I'm bloody certain of it.
A major factor is certainly the technological evolution: some of today's microlights perform better than the average spamcan, looking better and costing less, in maintenance and fuel, though not in acquisition. For a single person flying VFR, or two with little if any luggage, there is little reason to fly a certified aircraft today.
Reasons I can see for keeping to certified planes: IFR , more than two persons, luggage.
A lot of craft, registered today as microlights, should really be called LSA's, and I wonder if they'd still be as attractive - lower fuel cost remains, but maintenance can no longer be done "at home" so will be significantly more expensive.
Another factor not yet mentioned is delocalisation: the Belgian civil register is indeed draining fast, but a lot of that is to neighbour countries. Of the Belgian based microlights, I reckon at least half are French registered, while Belgian glider operators are massively switching to the German register.
But, for all I understand about EASA and what they try to achieve and how, I can only be happy they are not (or not yet?) meddling with microlights and gliders. Balloons neither, I think.
Reasons I can see for keeping to certified planes: IFR , more than two persons, luggage.
A lot of craft, registered today as microlights, should really be called LSA's, and I wonder if they'd still be as attractive - lower fuel cost remains, but maintenance can no longer be done "at home" so will be significantly more expensive.
Another factor not yet mentioned is delocalisation: the Belgian civil register is indeed draining fast, but a lot of that is to neighbour countries. Of the Belgian based microlights, I reckon at least half are French registered, while Belgian glider operators are massively switching to the German register.
But, for all I understand about EASA and what they try to achieve and how, I can only be happy they are not (or not yet?) meddling with microlights and gliders. Balloons neither, I think.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA has no control over Permit to Fly aircraft, which include much more than microlights. To get an idea of the numbers involved in the UK go here GINFO Database Search | Aircraft Register | Safety Regulation and enter "PFA" under Serial Number, then do the same for "LAA" and "BMAA". Add to those searches factory built microlights and it shows that non-EASA aviation is alive and well in the UK.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan, I wish it were true that EASA is not interfering with gliders or balloons. It does both, in too mny ways to list here. It has added to gliding costs and very little positively for safety, while considerable anti-safety measures.
One gliding example – Under BGA, I could have had a transponder in my glider, under EASA it is impractical.
Re balloons - the non-aviators who run EASA had several tries to enforce carriage of an ASI in balloons. I believe it is still the case that EASA says all landings should be made into wind – including balloons (somebody, please correct me if this is an urban myth, but it was reported).
Chris N
One gliding example – Under BGA, I could have had a transponder in my glider, under EASA it is impractical.
Re balloons - the non-aviators who run EASA had several tries to enforce carriage of an ASI in balloons. I believe it is still the case that EASA says all landings should be made into wind – including balloons (somebody, please correct me if this is an urban myth, but it was reported).
Chris N
Patowalker, 't is not the first time I am found insufficiently aware of the PtF statute. Over here there is no such thing, AFAIK, there are only various classes (glider, ULM, balloon) each with their own set of rules.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been at their meeting at EBML last summer. Think you should rather avoid overestimating them... and the vast majority of what they do is on the Fox Papa classification, "et pour cause..."
Still, they are more active than their Northern counterpart.
Still, they are more active than their Northern counterpart.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dubai UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am very happy I am not the only one here. I wonder who is running the show at EASA headquarters. It must be a lot of "just people that need a job" kind of people clocking time reinventing the wheel! Why didn't they just copy the FAA system in the first place and for the most part leave it alone! It works good enough! and keeps people happy!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChrisN wrote:
"Re balloons - the non-aviators who run EASA had several tries to enforce carriage of an ASI in balloons. I believe it is still the case that EASA says all landings should be made into wind – including balloons (somebody, please correct me if this is an urban myth, but it was reported)."
No myth, but EASA did drop the ASI requirement for balloons after realising it was a 'copy / paste' error (in 2008 during early drafting stage of Part OPS). Those of us in the working group at the time had a bit of a laugh though, and I am afraid I did relate this more widely which is why it is now quoted back to me a lot!
The 'balloons land into wind' requirement was a real element in the SERA (Standardised European Rules of the Air) draft by Eurocontrol not EASA, and this was 'corrected' after, again, a good humoured debate and banter. Again, wish I hadn't reported this......as it is no longer even funny at EASA.
"Re balloons - the non-aviators who run EASA had several tries to enforce carriage of an ASI in balloons. I believe it is still the case that EASA says all landings should be made into wind – including balloons (somebody, please correct me if this is an urban myth, but it was reported)."
No myth, but EASA did drop the ASI requirement for balloons after realising it was a 'copy / paste' error (in 2008 during early drafting stage of Part OPS). Those of us in the working group at the time had a bit of a laugh though, and I am afraid I did relate this more widely which is why it is now quoted back to me a lot!
The 'balloons land into wind' requirement was a real element in the SERA (Standardised European Rules of the Air) draft by Eurocontrol not EASA, and this was 'corrected' after, again, a good humoured debate and banter. Again, wish I hadn't reported this......as it is no longer even funny at EASA.
the non-aviators who run EASA had several tries to enforce carriage of an ASI in balloons
The 'balloons land into wind' requirement was a real element in the SERA
The 'balloons land into wind' requirement was a real element in the SERA
