I wonder how gliding clubs will get round the new towing rating as it states the rating must be conducted through an ATO(by FI or CRI). Will gliding clubs be ATO's in their own right?? If not, how many FTO's out there(who will become 'ATO's') will be able to conduct the training......at the moment i cant think of any!

Presumably the 100's of existing tug pilots out there will have to obtain the new rating or will they get some kind of grandfather rights based on previous experience?

new EASA PPL and N-reg
 

can anyone explain to me if it is possible to fly with a than NEW EASA PPL in the whole of EASA land a N/reg airplane?
currently I can only fly with a JAR-FCL PPL an N reg airplane in that country the licence is issued.

Is my interpretation correct or do I have some wrong thinking??

My reply is higher up the thread.

Clearly faster than light travel is a reality :)

This looks promising? Where is the talk of dual licences required gone.
Third country is not just FAA so i wonder if this is an opening for a Bi Lateral subject to that third country being recognised as acceptable by EASA.

Pace

I'm pretty sure gliding clubs will become ATOs in their own right, or possibly the BGA will become an ATO & each club will be a local branch of the BGA. Someone is going to have to train, examine & issue all the future LAPL(S) & PPL(S) licences.

Gliding clubs will have to become ATOs if they wish to give instruction for the sailplane licence.

IO540, could you expand on this please. I assume that this means there is nothing to stop an N (or other third country) registered aircraft from staying and operating continually in Europe. Am I correct?

Do you have a reference source please?

Notwithstanding this, all decisions taken by the Commission under the Basic Regulation are, as usual, subject to review by the Court of Justice of
the European Communities in accordance with the Treaty.


Are you referring to the accelerated regulatory procedure with scrutiny ? That sounds like yet another anonymous and bribed EASA Committee throwing some more sh1t at the European GA Community. Better put the MEP's on pre-alert, then. After all, with EASA being unable to distinguish safety from politics as well as communicating different things to different people, anything can happen.

Yes.

Everything not prohibited is 100% legal.

There is no reference.

You can read the link(s) I posted - the applicable EASA regs are perhaps 2000 pages, and AFAIK there is no mention of any long term parking ban.

For better or worse, EU law is EU law.

That said, nothing stops isolated cases of localised harrassment, like I mentioned earlier. They happen today and it cannot be guaranteed that they will cease altogether. Countries like France, Italy, etc, can do what they like (again, for better or for worse).
That's true as well :)

The irony, Silvaire1, is that Europe's aviation regulation is driven largely by a dislike of America among Europe's self proclaimed intellectuals.

Otherwise, they could just mirror the FAA regs, which self evidently work OK, and have an easy life.

In one meeting a few years ago, I put this to one CAA official ("copy the FAA regs and have an easy life") and he agreed but said it's not politically possible.

IO540

EASA are just a reflection of what is wrong in Europe and why Europe is on the Brink of self destruction.

Any sensible person would take a tried and tested system like the USA has and tinker with it a bit to suit Europe and save a fortune.

I flew for a guy who wanted a million metal parts creating, he got a quote in Europe of approx £1.75 per unit and had a quote for exactly the same spec unit of 27 p in China! Where would you buy from?

Governments have created artificial jobs in Europe. To justify the jobs that government created they regulate, interfere, create further artificial jobs to research their potential regulations! They have quangos, committees, sub committees, etc etc etc. All a drain on wealth creation and all a massive cost.

Someone has to pay for all this rubbish and sadly we have come to the end of the road with the imminent disintegration of the financial system in Europe.

Yes there is a much bigger inclination towards a big brother state in Europe but I dont feel that this is much to do with a dislike of anything USA but more of the results of artificial work creation which has lead us to no longer being competative worldwide and one giant headache in doing anything aviation or otherwise because of the mass of burocracy and regulation that is the result of all this needless interferance.
These big fat monsters government created still need to be fed but we dont have the money to pay for them.

I was no lover of Mrs T but her direction was to limit governemnt interferance now we have gone the other way with disaterous results.

Here endeth the lesson now I will shut up:ugh:

Pace

Seconded !
 

Wonderful lesson ; look forwards to next Sundays sermon should you comment
on the coming weeks Lemmings' outing . !

Well that's how it all started, JARs were based on FARs but look what happened when a bunch of committees got at it.

If like much of Europe, we simply put it in the cupboard and shut the door, it would not be a big issue but, being Brits we have to take each stupid rule interpret it in our own way, and then try to enforce it even if it makes no sense.

Is this it?

Not entirely. This is this is the regulation, however, it excludes the AMCs (Acceptable Methods of Compliance) that will be published by EASA soon and will probably be somewhat longer. EASA is also able to make 'Decisions' that are legally binding as well to supplement the regulation.

The AMCs will add detail to the legal framework in then regulation. The rulemakers 'try' to simplify the regulation and put the details that are likely to change into MACs and Decisions because they are easier to change.

Sequencing of posts still out of kilter. My reply to post 26 is at 17....

Not they won't if the club is part of a national (BGA) ATO.

So applying the rules of equality, AOPA could be the ATO for all PPL training conducted in the UK!

Thank you David, that's good news.

I suppose it would be possible if the instructors & schools were AOPA members. If you look at the ATO requirements (3 page extract) they are not particularly onerous, it's a question of whether AOPA could set itself up as an ATO that instructors & schools would want to join.

The BGA has been doing all the ATO requirements for years anyway; the system is already in place. The CAA don't really want to regulate gliding so everyone just carries on as before.

I know at least one Panel (Instructor) Examiner who was ex CFS, very experienced, well respected who has given up examining because he could not stomach any more of this bureaucratic nonsense.

As an experienced pilot in several different theatres of operation who is approaching retirement from the airlines, I was considering seeing my days out doing some instruction at the local flying club I have been a member of for nearly 50 years but when I look at all the irrelevant bureaucracy and fees associated with the change to EASA (hell WHY should a small flying club have to write a comprehensive training manual) I am seriously considering hanging up the headset - I suspect there are many like myself who are feeling the same way.

As I have stated before we need nothing short of a major revolution to stop this nonsense - the first step would be for UK plc to pull out of the EU completely and just go back to having our own national licences and wave two fingers to the Eurocrats in Brussels.

The CAA will be obliged to apply the same level of regulation across the board whether it wants to or not!

If AOPA is worth its salt, it appears from what David Roberts has said, and he should know as one of the Architects of this nonsense, it could relieve the burden on many small operators who will simply give up. AOPA would then control all PPL flying schools which is exactly what they wanted when they proposed the JAA PPL back in the early 90s.

perhaps now is a good time to do this?
 

Dear Sirs,

The European Aviation Safety Agency’s mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation.

One of our core values is to continuously strive to satisfy our stakeholders' expectations without compromising safety, by inspiring confidence, in particular to the general public, and ensuring that we act in an effective and efficient way.

Within this context, we have decided to conduct stakeholder satisfaction surveys on a regular basis. Your feedback will help us to improve our processes in order to provide the best possible service.

Mr. Jules Kneepkens, Rulemaking Director, would therefore like to encourage you to provide us with feedback and comments on the Rulemaking process by filling in our online questionnaire. We would very much appreciate if you could submit it within the next two weeks.

Link to the questionnaire: Stakeholder Feedback Questionnaire 2011 - Rulemaking Directorate

Yours faithfully,

Allison Kerr
Quality Officer, Internal Audit & Quality Department (E.3.1)
Executive Directorate

:}