EASA to kill general aviation

[Panama Jack]

Rather than trying to re-invent a thoretically better wheel, there was another option that was working quite well. But then the Europeans chased all the N-registered bug smashers out.

Better the devil you know. No saying what an ICAO with licensing authority would look like. If the cost of ICAO publications is a guide, though, "affordable" isn't the first word to come to mind.

[Captain Singh]

NPPL(SSEA) is being replaced by LAPL. I seriously do not understand the process they have adopted.

I only fly 3 axis microlights. I was planning to get SSEA rating but it seems like better to wait until the changes come into force in 2015(?).

Like most EU wide initiatives, it seems that this was a good idea before it got to the politicians. I see similar issues in my day job (oil&gas) where EU wide initiatives are in good intentions but the legislation that we see is extremely biased.

[Prop swinger]

Originally Posted by Captain Singh

NPPL(SSEA) is being replaced by LAPL. I seriously do not understand the process they have adopted.

I only fly 3 axis microlights. I was planning to get SSEA rating but it seems like better to wait until the changes come into force in 2015(?).

Like most EU wide initiatives, it seems that this was a good idea before it got to the politicians. I see similar issues in my day job (oil&gas) where EU wide initiatives are in good intentions but the legislation that we see is extremely biased.

The changes came into effect in April 2012, although there is a 3 year transition period.

Your NPPL(M) is recognised by the NPPL group & can have an SSEA added with a greatly reduced training requirement. An NPPL(SSEA) can be converted to an EASA LAPL(A) until April 2015.

You will still be able to add an SSEA to your NPPL after April 2015 but it will only be valid within UK airspace & on non-EASA aircraft. If you want an EASA LAPL(A) after April 8, 2015 you will be treated as a total noob & expected to start from scratch.

[xrayalpha]

But, fortunately, after all the EASA hassles, the only flying schools left will be microlight ones!

[Cathar]

European
Aviation
Shyster
Association.

Not an ICAO signatory

Nor is the CAA a signatory to the Chicago Convention. Only States can contract to the Convention.

Not ICAO compliant, despite it being one of the EU objectives!

Can you explain in what way EASA is not complying with the requirements of the Chicago Convention?

So, why doesn't ICAO cease to recognise EASA licences and only recognise those of ICAO Member States?
Problem solved.

ICAO does not recognise licences, it only establishes the standards which must be met in order for the licence holder to enjoy the rights granted under the Convention. EASA does not issue licences, it only establishes the licensing standards for EU Member States. The licences themselves are issued by the competent authorities of the EU Member States which are all ICAO members. This is entirely consistent with the requirements of the Convention. I am not sure what problem would be solved if third countries were to refuse to recognise licences issued in accordance with the EASA implementing rules.

[freedomoftheair]

Buy a N reg aircraft or put your aircraft through a FAA Trust company on the N register. Some of the big guys are doing that. There are many N numbered private jets flying around in Europe. Cessna 150s too. The FAA is for everyone.

[fireflybob]

With the debacle of EASA and all the ramifications of increased, burdensome and unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense not to mention increased costs I wonder how many people will simply throw in the towel and give up on GA?

I know of at least one very gifted and experienced examiner who told me he was giving up a few years ago because he could not stomach any more of this nonsense.

I suggest that apart from seeing quite a few clubs giving up on training we are going to see a drain of well qualified, experienced and seasoned instructors/examiners from GA - a sad loss to the industry.

[StrateandLevel]

Nor is the CAA a signatory to the Chicago Convention. Only States can contract to the Convention.

Never suggested it was, but the CAA represents a State that is a signatory, EASA does not represent any signatory!

Can you explain in what way EASA is not complying with the requirements of the Chicago Convention?

It fails to recognise ICAO licences issued by member States and insists that the holders have to change to an EASA licence!

There are numerous cases of loss of privileges to those licence holders with increased costs and inane bureaucracy. Many will simply give up and the PPL industry will be decimated. All to keep a few low grade lawyers employed.

[Cathar]

Never suggested it was, but the CAA represents a State that is a signatory, EASA does not represent any signatory!

EASA represents 27 signatories to the Chicago Convention (the EU Member States) which have adopted legislation appointing it to carry out certain functions on their behalf. Regional cooperation on aviation safety regulation is encouraged by ICAO and their are similar arrangements elswhere in the world, eg the Eastern Caribbean Civil Aviation Authority.

It fails to recognise ICAO licences issued by member States and insists that the holders have to change to an EASA licence!

The Convention only requires States to permit aircraft registered in other contracting States to make flights across their across their territory and to make non traffic stops. The Convention does not grant the right to base an aircraft registered in one contracting State in the territory of another contracting State. It also gives contrating States the right to refuse to recognise foreign licences issued to its citizens.

The EU legislation on pilot licensing does not require EASA licences for the pilots of aircraft exercising rights granted under the Convention. What the legislation does is to require EU residents who operate aircraft in the EU to have a licence issued/validated in accordance with EU requirements. This is consistent with the requirements of the Convention as such pilots are not exercising rights granted by the Convention.

[StrateandLevel]

There speaks a lawyer

What the legislation does is to require EU residents who operate aircraft in the EU to have a licence issued/validated in accordance with EU requirements.

And this is the bit that is screwing GA, the training industry and every pilot in the UK with increased costs and beauracracy contrary to the EU Objective:

(c) to promote cost-efficiency in the regulatory and certification
processes and to avoid duplication at national and
European level;

All licences are being duplicated at a significant cost to the holder. There is no level playing field at PPL level because each State still issues its own interpretation designed to preserve their National methodology and theoretical exams, which vary in content, complexity and number of questions. The only level point is the label on the licence, a paper sticker would have have acheived the same outcome! Yet again this shows no compliance with another EU objective:

(f) to provide a level playing field for all actors in the internal
aviation market.

In fact there is no requirement for the recreational side of aviation to be included at all, all States comply with ICAO recommendations, so why the need for such a tranche of beauracracy that contributes nothing of a positive nature to the status quo?

The EU requirements are deeply flawed, with no perceived safety benefit, whilst having a markedly detrimental effect on cost-efficiency. The AMC contains vast amounts of material this is unqualified, unquantified and therefore totally meaningless for setting a level standard. The syllabus material is largely impossible to adhere to because of its lack of any measurable standards. At its daftest point, where some standards are defined, the PPL issue flight test standard is not the same as the class rating revalidation standard! Only a totally misinformed and unqualified person could have produced such inconsistent rubbish!

[Marchettiman]

I concur with StrateandLevel's very eloquent summary, and only suggest he should have added GA aircraft owners to his list of those afflicted by the EU's (i.e.EASA's) unaccountability and self serving appetite for over-regulation. The fiasco of the part M aircraft maintenance regulation would be laughable if it didn't have such serious financial consequences for all aircraft owners, for no safety benefit whatsoever.

And why do we pay the CAA to toe the EASA line to the nth degree as though they are an agency of an occupying power instead of what it once was, a world leading professional, effective and pragmatic air safety regulatory authority?

I have to say that I object to being classified as an "EU resident" and not as a British subject. Imagine the outcry if car owners residing in the UK suddenly had to buy new driving licences, have their existing drivers privileges Europeanised (which means restricted) and generally abide by a new set of road regulations dreamt up by a bunch of uncontrollable rule makers in Brussels. Maybe we would we have Annexe 2 cars that could be driven on the left and Euro cars that have to be driven on the right?

PPRune readers may understand why I shall change my lifelong political allegiances at our next Euro elections, and at the General Election. EASA has made me understand what all this EU stuff really means for us.

[Captain Singh]

Thanks! So, basically it is worth adding SSEA rating now, and convert later.
Sorry for my ignorance on the subject, but will LAPL(A) be treated as PPL(A), and valid for Microlights as well? I am very confused by the whole EASA transition thing.

[Whopity]

The LAPL is effectively a lower level non ICAO PPL so in most cases the difference will be transparent' throughout Europe

and valid for Microlights as well?

The Microlight is not an EASA aircraft however; reading the various rules:
FCL.105.A LAPL(A); EASA definitions and ANO Art 50A, there appears to be nothing in law to prevent it.

[Prop swinger]

Originally Posted by Captain Singh

Thanks! So, basically it is worth adding SSEA rating now, and convert later.
Sorry for my ignorance on the subject, but will LAPL(A) be treated as PPL(A), and valid for Microlights as well? I am very confused by the whole EASA transition thing.

The CAA will allow you to fly a microlight in the UK on any EASA licence with an SEP rating, subject to microlight training (which obviously you have had.) Hours in a microlight will not count towards the SEP revalidation requirements.

An EASA licence does not supercede an NPPL. An NPPL(M) & (SSEA) will remain valid, you just won't be able to use the NPPL(SSEA) to fly Cessnas/Pipers/any EASA aircraft after 7 April 2015. The LAPL(A) removes that restriction.

[Natstrackalpha]

is this the nail in the coffin for General Aviation?

Yes.

They have also binned the IMC rating.

UKCAA can`t do anything because we are being dictated to by Europe.
The UK Government won`t do anything as it might affect their jobs, and, they are being dictated to by Europe.

IAOPA try and try and might win through if the aviation community and the UK Government give it its support, IAOPA refuse to be dicated to by Europe.

Its up to us. Unless we do a massive demonstration outside No10 Downing Street - I cannot think of anything we can do, as we are all being dictated to by Europe.

In short - the situation is totally fed and nobody is doing anything about it (except IAOPA)

[Lone_Ranger]

Self sustaining Bureaucracy is god to the CAA , so faced with an organistion thats even better than itself at generating great reams of meaningless impediments to anyone actually doing something worthwhile....................... well, it just goes all dreamy eyed, bends over and takes it up the .....

The same thing happens at a lower level with the BMAA and LAA, they consistantly gold plate what ever the CAA chucks at em

Its a natural trait of bureaucrats

[xrayalpha]

Prop swinger wrote:

"The CAA will allow you to fly a microlight in the UK on any EASA licence with an SEP rating, subject to microlight training"

Eh, well, if you go to fill in the form to change from a JAR SEP to an EASA SEP, the CAA wants to shaft you for an extra fee to add an NPPL (Microlight) to your licence collection.

I thought your interpretation is correct, but........ the CAA thinks different!

[Prop swinger]

If you ask for an extra licence they will charge you for it, so don't ask.

The CAA will allow you to fly microlights in the UK on an EASA PPL(A) provided you have had suitable training - no extra licence required.

[xrayalpha]

PS,

You don't ask them - they ask you!

See the form!

[Prop swinger]

If you don't want an Annex II only licence, leave that box unchecked.