FAA - v - JAA who does it right?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA - Does that equal JAA+
If you build a helicopter today you have little option but to build it to the latest certification standards. These will make your helicopter more expensive and a good deal heavier than you might like but you can't go backwards and build it to the old standards - if you did you as likely as not will be unable to sell it.
The unfortunate situation in Europe is that we have been through two iterations of 'new' regulators. First the JAA that was a 'club' of NAAs that wanted to 'harmonise' but couldn't really do that and turn a blind eye to all the new thinking that coloured our views of safety and related issues. So JARs ended up with a perceived 'tightening' of the regs.
To do that whole exercise again before we have really finished the JAA-thing is a big ask for it will not be allowed to be 'different' to JAA unless it is DIFFERENT to the JAA. It being impossible to regulate LESS we are likely to end up being regulated even MORE.
This unfortunate reality does not bode well for the future of European aviation and I suspect there are a lot of nervous NAA folk out their who were quite happy with a somewhat pick-and-mix application of JARs that gave them some elbow room and a comfortable un-audited way of life and now face having to make the rules stick.
It will be interesting to watch from the sidelines!!
G.
The unfortunate situation in Europe is that we have been through two iterations of 'new' regulators. First the JAA that was a 'club' of NAAs that wanted to 'harmonise' but couldn't really do that and turn a blind eye to all the new thinking that coloured our views of safety and related issues. So JARs ended up with a perceived 'tightening' of the regs.
To do that whole exercise again before we have really finished the JAA-thing is a big ask for it will not be allowed to be 'different' to JAA unless it is DIFFERENT to the JAA. It being impossible to regulate LESS we are likely to end up being regulated even MORE.
This unfortunate reality does not bode well for the future of European aviation and I suspect there are a lot of nervous NAA folk out their who were quite happy with a somewhat pick-and-mix application of JARs that gave them some elbow room and a comfortable un-audited way of life and now face having to make the rules stick.
It will be interesting to watch from the sidelines!!
G.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoffers, Anyone?
Any idea on timing before we might see a little enforcement/compliance from the various NAA's. Is there an actual date set for the removal of NAA privilege to operate under NAA regulations.
170'
Any idea on timing before we might see a little enforcement/compliance from the various NAA's. Is there an actual date set for the removal of NAA privilege to operate under NAA regulations.
170'
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have JAR, FAA and CASA ATPL(H)'s. JAR and FAA are poles apart and IMHO both need to move a little closer to the middle ground which I think is presently occupied by CASA who have it just about right. However, there is no such thing as the 'perfect' system.
Nobody sitting on the fence then.........
I wonder if there is someone out there prepared to speak up for the jolly old JAR-chappies??
..... and SAS, what do you say about the generals who put profit before the lives of their troops. Hardly in the true tradition of the Pony Express!!
Parallels with HEMS??
I wonder if there is someone out there prepared to speak up for the jolly old JAR-chappies??
..... and SAS, what do you say about the generals who put profit before the lives of their troops. Hardly in the true tradition of the Pony Express!!
Parallels with HEMS??
I am trying to divine how your non-sequitur example of Link (pre WW II, we are three generations past that) is in any way a point related to your topic.
Care to explain?
We used to say the same as SASless says, in re Navy pilots versus Air Force pilots: Navy (if it doesn't say you can't do it, you can) Air Force (if it doesn't say you can, you can't).
I wonder at how often, and in what shades of gray, that philosophical difference raises its head in comparisons between organizations.
That begging forgiveness stuff sounds good.....but based upon my past experience...forgiveness can be a hard sell sometimes! One has to be prepared to pay for one's Sin when called forth to do so and not make a habit of having to do so.
Captain Hypen-Smyth of Eket fame summed it up...."Don't miss a Takekoff and never ever argue with the Chief Pilot!"
Captain Hypen-Smyth of Eket fame summed it up...."Don't miss a Takekoff and never ever argue with the Chief Pilot!"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Literary contributions
Lonely Wolf
The trick when baiting yanks is not to respond when they bait you back. When faced with threads on tedious subjects like the FAA you have to liven it up a bit and SAS is always going to give you a major literary contribution which is thought provoking and educational.
Such is his literary contribution (8,000 posts) that it would be worth putting a collection of the best together and publishing them. What we would need is a good title - anyone have a suggestion. Mine would be 'Prime Posts from Principled PPruner', but I'm sure something better could be found.
The two essentials for a helicopter pilot are a thick skin and and good sense of humour. Add to that the ability to speak the following phrases in whatever the local language happens to be that month:
Where is the nearest hotel with a bar?
Where can I find a taxi?
Two beers please?
My friend will pay!
G.
The trick when baiting yanks is not to respond when they bait you back. When faced with threads on tedious subjects like the FAA you have to liven it up a bit and SAS is always going to give you a major literary contribution which is thought provoking and educational.
Such is his literary contribution (8,000 posts) that it would be worth putting a collection of the best together and publishing them. What we would need is a good title - anyone have a suggestion. Mine would be 'Prime Posts from Principled PPruner', but I'm sure something better could be found.
The two essentials for a helicopter pilot are a thick skin and and good sense of humour. Add to that the ability to speak the following phrases in whatever the local language happens to be that month:
Where is the nearest hotel with a bar?
Where can I find a taxi?
Two beers please?
My friend will pay!
G.
Bait a Brit....surely one jests!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major difference begins with funding sources. The American method sees Aviation as being of value to the community, part of the national infrastructure, and a necessary and vital part of the national transportation system and thus supports the system primarily by tax revenues from the general population. The UK has the diametrically opposite view and funds the system on the back of the individual users (Operators, Pilots, Engineers...and passengers).
You are right about the US seeing aviation as a vital part of the national transportation system, but wrong about the funding. The majority of the FAA's funding (68.8% in Fiscal Year 2011) comes from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is funded from aviation-related excise taxes on passengers, cargo, and fuel, not tax revenues from the general population.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are FAA so perfect?
Have we finished chucking rocks at the JARLAND folk? Maybe the guys who know it best can air their views about the FAA. Are they so perfect?
G.
G.
Are FAA so perfect?
Who has claimed this?
It is worth noting the point made earlier in the thread, that EASA and JAA functions, on one side of the pond two separate entities, are more or less folded into the function of one agency on this side of the pond.
I am not convinced, given the above, that one should believe one is making an apples to apples comparison.
Thinking further, it seems to me that JAA and EASA as agencies have a slightly trickier job in the aggregate, having to navigate and deal with the national political issues of a few dozen nations. The FAA only has to deal with one national government (the other agencies and the legislative) which while trouble enough, is at least not as filled with booby traps as what the folks across the pond have to deal with.
Who has claimed this?
It is worth noting the point made earlier in the thread, that EASA and JAA functions, on one side of the pond two separate entities, are more or less folded into the function of one agency on this side of the pond.
I am not convinced, given the above, that one should believe one is making an apples to apples comparison.
Thinking further, it seems to me that JAA and EASA as agencies have a slightly trickier job in the aggregate, having to navigate and deal with the national political issues of a few dozen nations. The FAA only has to deal with one national government (the other agencies and the legislative) which while trouble enough, is at least not as filled with booby traps as what the folks across the pond have to deal with.
KK,
Does that metric include all the local airports that are owned and maintained by City/County governments?
Indeed the bulk of the FAA funding derives from fees you note....and the Airline Industry makes a loud case crying about that as they feel the Corporate and Private sectors get a cheap ride on their behalf as a result.
Yet we have to remember that the vast majority of flights daily take place from small airports and are done VFR with not a lot of demand upon the large airports.
The Airlines also skip over the subsidies they get for operating into airports that are considered "remote"....a program that has been under much scrutiny lately for its gross inefficiency.
Casting a simple Statistic out without providing the underlying data does not always answer the question fully.
A quote from the FAA Inspector General's testimony to Congress about the 2012 Budget......
Please recall the recent debacle by Congress where the Trust Fund revenues were allowed to lapse while the folks in DC fussed over something silly. We also have to remember how John "Haditha" Murtha squandered over 120 Million USD's on his favorite small airport near his home. Add in the decline in the economy and we shall see a greater support of the FAA's Budget by General Fund contributions as the Trust Fund is damaged by politics and other factors.
So...if we take the figure from the IG's Testimony and add in the non-Federal contribution to the overall National Aviation System....I would suggest the Airline/Air Freight Industry does not "pay for the FAA".
As to having to pay a "fuel tax"....is that not just a fact of life anywhere in the World we live. The guvmint has to fund itself somehow...and that next to taxing groceries is probably the single best constant source of tax revenue.
Does that metric include all the local airports that are owned and maintained by City/County governments?
Indeed the bulk of the FAA funding derives from fees you note....and the Airline Industry makes a loud case crying about that as they feel the Corporate and Private sectors get a cheap ride on their behalf as a result.
Yet we have to remember that the vast majority of flights daily take place from small airports and are done VFR with not a lot of demand upon the large airports.
The Airlines also skip over the subsidies they get for operating into airports that are considered "remote"....a program that has been under much scrutiny lately for its gross inefficiency.
Casting a simple Statistic out without providing the underlying data does not always answer the question fully.
A quote from the FAA Inspector General's testimony to Congress about the 2012 Budget......
FAA is currently financed by two mechanisms: excise taxes deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and a General Fund contribution. While the General Fund has paid for about one-third of FAA’s total budget the past 2 years, in fiscal year 2012 the General Fund is expected to contribute $8.2 billion, or 44 percent, towards the total budget. In addition, past differences between FAA’s budget, Trust Fund revenues, and General Fund contribution were bridged by drawing down the Trust Fund’s uncommitted balance. These drawdowns have caused a 90-percent decline in the uncommitted balance, from $7.3 billion at the end of fiscal year 2001 to $770 million at the end of fiscal year 2010 (see figure 1).
Figure 1. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Uncommitted Balance Fiscal Year 2001 to Fiscal Year 2010 (Dollars in Millions)
Source: FAA
Figure 1. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Uncommitted Balance Fiscal Year 2001 to Fiscal Year 2010 (Dollars in Millions)
Source: FAA
So...if we take the figure from the IG's Testimony and add in the non-Federal contribution to the overall National Aviation System....I would suggest the Airline/Air Freight Industry does not "pay for the FAA".
As to having to pay a "fuel tax"....is that not just a fact of life anywhere in the World we live. The guvmint has to fund itself somehow...and that next to taxing groceries is probably the single best constant source of tax revenue.
Last edited by SASless; 16th Sep 2011 at 13:12.
If you build a helicopter today you have little option but to build it to the latest certification standards. These will make your helicopter more expensive and a good deal heavier than you might like but you can't go backwards and build it to the old standards - if you did you as likely as not will be unable to sell it.
Thanks SASless for the reminder - Here's the picture!!
After the first two or three responses I had rather decided to ignore commenting on this thread, as it was descending down the usual baseless and ignorant course, but caved in!!
I guess I'll see you (Geoff) next month in Holland - look forward to it!
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the desert southwest
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pointless
A pointless discussion in the mode of he said she said. If you fly in the U.S. you will get to know the FAA. if you fly in Europe etc. you will get to know the JAA or EASA. I am not planning to leave the U.S. just because I like the alternate better and no one on the other side of the atlantic is coming here because the FAA seems so much better. It is what it is and as a professional pilot for 26 years there ain't a damn thing I can do to change either one. I like my job. Flying helicopters for a living is a fantastic way to go. If you don't like the money, go to Harvard! Enjoy. Cheers.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't like the money, go to Harvard
IMHO both need to move a little closer to the middle ground which I think is presently occupied by CASA who have it just about right
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212
You make an important point. Where the pressure of commercial interest has come to bear we see a measure of harmonisation. As the helicopter world becomes ever more globalised is there scope for harmonisation of the FCL regulations? Control of Flight Operations? After airworthiness where next?
G.
G.
Create a thing called ICAO perhaps?
