Battling Bureaucratic Buffoonery - EASA
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 563
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Battling Bureaucratic Buffoonery - EASA
Some light hearted reading for those who want to read about another operators challenges with EASA.
AlpinLIft & EASA
AlpinLIft & EASA
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
From: Germany
The article perfectly sums up the situation for small EASA helicopter operators. Actually Alpine‘s story sounds like the past 15 years in my diary. Reading the article I actually found so many quotes I‘m using everyday that I might want to check my office for bugs. 
And yes, I totally agree that the biggest safety risk we have nowadays is the useless paperwork eating up time and energy a pilot should be using in a different way.
And yes, I totally agree that the biggest safety risk we have nowadays is the useless paperwork eating up time and energy a pilot should be using in a different way.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
From: hayling island
EASA like EU to big for anyone person country to change, safety has nothing to do with it shame really because the idea was good but in practical terms will never work as the whole thing is too big now
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,217
Likes: 1,649
From: Ferrara
Could be rewritten as "operator didn't check before starting out what rules would be required" - they should have checked before investing in the whole process - 'most everyone else does
and I 'm a bit worried about "It’s almost all in English and a lot of our highly experienced personnel are local and not operating in an environment where English is required" - which is one I've only heard in France before...................
and I 'm a bit worried about "It’s almost all in English and a lot of our highly experienced personnel are local and not operating in an environment where English is required" - which is one I've only heard in France before...................
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: UK
What about existing small operators with over twenty years safety record now having to comply with this "buffoonery" in the so called "name of safety"... ?
Last edited by chopjock; 23rd December 2018 at 11:40.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,217
Likes: 1,649
From: Ferrara
20 years of safe operation does not guarantee anything - look at the recent Ju-52 crash
The legislation/rules these Swiss guys are complaining about was there when they started the process - they could have asked - maybe they did and decided it didn't apply to them - but you can't run a modern aerospace industry on that basis. Most of the rules exist to make the place (including their operations) safer
The legislation/rules these Swiss guys are complaining about was there when they started the process - they could have asked - maybe they did and decided it didn't apply to them - but you can't run a modern aerospace industry on that basis. Most of the rules exist to make the place (including their operations) safer
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 187
Likes: 11
From: Europe
And writing hundreds and hundreds of pages of manuals, risk assessments and procedures for EASA/ your local CAA (because the big airlines are doing it, so it must be working fine, right?) as a small operator does give you that Guarantee? You must be dreaming or not working for a small operator. The ammount of documentation, updating useless manuals and sheer bureaucracy borders on the insane.
Despite ALL the rules and legislation, that JU-52 still came down. One could look at it that way too you know....
I'm with the Swiss and Spunk on this because I'm dealing with the EASA crap and more (more bull!!!! and red tape on federal state level here in Germany) every day, working for a small operator.
Despite ALL the rules and legislation, that JU-52 still came down. One could look at it that way too you know....
I'm with the Swiss and Spunk on this because I'm dealing with the EASA crap and more (more bull!!!! and red tape on federal state level here in Germany) every day, working for a small operator.
Last edited by muermel; 23rd December 2018 at 19:36.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
From: Germany
@Asturias
I think you misinterpretated the quotation. There is more than being able to understand the english language behind the entire process.
The applicable law is written in english. It is than translated into the various languages existing in the European Community and unfortunately a lot of translating errors are made. Furthermore, the GM as well as the AMC are only available in ...? Right, english only.
Even if it was all written in someone’s mother tongue it would still be impossible for the average entrepreneur to understand all the gobledygook as there is simply no structure in the wording (just read all the comments on this forum referring to EASA written by our friends from the country arguing about the Brexit these days). They shouldn‘t have any problems as they are all native speakers.
When I started flying in the civil world there was only ONE DINA5 binder containing the entire legal text of aviation. Everybody could purchase this binder and was able to read and understand what was written. Nowadays, I‘m lost. I have to find the applicable law, the latest revision and make sure it‘ s not just a draft, a recommendation or who knows what else. Than I have to make sure that no other national law applies. And just because it is written in the law doesn‘t mean that the national CAA is following it. Believe me, there were plenty of times when the answer was: „We don‘t care. That‘s the way we look at it“.
A lot of regulations doesn‘t make the aviation industry any safer. You as a pilot should know what happens if there is too much of anything. Too much of information results in overload leading towards a dangerous situation. Too much of time pressure... etc.
Go back in history and take a good look at the Prussianism. They, as well as our politicians in the EC, tried to overregulate almost anything. And most of us know how the story ended.
For some strange reason politicians deny their voters to be mature citizens. The majority of individuals doesn‘t want to nor has to be patronized. Yes, we need some regulations to follow but we also need playroom for decissions and development.
As long as I‘m in charge, as long as I‘m the one getting blamed if something goes wrong and as long as I‘m taking all the economical and legal risk I also want to be the one being able to make decissions. From the distance EASA is trying to tell me what is good and what is safe. They do so by taking away my freedom of decision. At the very same time they burden me with the responsibility of the result of this decision (which I didn‘t make). Sorry, that‘s just not right.
I‘m definately with Alpinlift on this one.
It’s almost all in English and a lot of our highly experienced personnel are local and not operating in an environment where English is required"
The applicable law is written in english. It is than translated into the various languages existing in the European Community and unfortunately a lot of translating errors are made. Furthermore, the GM as well as the AMC are only available in ...? Right, english only.
Even if it was all written in someone’s mother tongue it would still be impossible for the average entrepreneur to understand all the gobledygook as there is simply no structure in the wording (just read all the comments on this forum referring to EASA written by our friends from the country arguing about the Brexit these days). They shouldn‘t have any problems as they are all native speakers.
When I started flying in the civil world there was only ONE DINA5 binder containing the entire legal text of aviation. Everybody could purchase this binder and was able to read and understand what was written. Nowadays, I‘m lost. I have to find the applicable law, the latest revision and make sure it‘ s not just a draft, a recommendation or who knows what else. Than I have to make sure that no other national law applies. And just because it is written in the law doesn‘t mean that the national CAA is following it. Believe me, there were plenty of times when the answer was: „We don‘t care. That‘s the way we look at it“.
A lot of regulations doesn‘t make the aviation industry any safer. You as a pilot should know what happens if there is too much of anything. Too much of information results in overload leading towards a dangerous situation. Too much of time pressure... etc.
Go back in history and take a good look at the Prussianism. They, as well as our politicians in the EC, tried to overregulate almost anything. And most of us know how the story ended.
For some strange reason politicians deny their voters to be mature citizens. The majority of individuals doesn‘t want to nor has to be patronized. Yes, we need some regulations to follow but we also need playroom for decissions and development.
As long as I‘m in charge, as long as I‘m the one getting blamed if something goes wrong and as long as I‘m taking all the economical and legal risk I also want to be the one being able to make decissions. From the distance EASA is trying to tell me what is good and what is safe. They do so by taking away my freedom of decision. At the very same time they burden me with the responsibility of the result of this decision (which I didn‘t make). Sorry, that‘s just not right.
I‘m definately with Alpinlift on this one.
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 550
Likes: 12
From: Africa
And then this nonsense spreads like a desease to our third-world countries. Lacking any imagination of their own, our regulators adopt the quest to overregulate by making reference to “international best practice” when proposing ever more rules and regulations.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,110
Likes: 1,083
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Our maintenance engineer told me that the paperwork for a 50 hour inspection now takes a lot longer than the inspection itself.
I suspect that the EASA system would continue in blissful ignorance if no aircraft ever actually flew again.
I suspect that the EASA system would continue in blissful ignorance if no aircraft ever actually flew again.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
Shy
Up to quite recently if my blades were sent back to the manufacturer for overhaul / repair I couldn't legally fit them as they do not have EASA approval. However if I purchased brand new blades from them there was no problem
Up to quite recently if my blades were sent back to the manufacturer for overhaul / repair I couldn't legally fit them as they do not have EASA approval. However if I purchased brand new blades from them there was no problem
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 90
From: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
I guess it is all about perspective - EASA land has very little GA as compared to the US - subsequently, the proportion of GA experienced folk within EASA is limited or quite possibly nil.
EASA is made up of the senior folks in each member states NAA who jumped ship to the great gravy train. It is not in their interest to make things easy or do themselves out of a job and they realise that.
As to used or overhauled parts the bi-lateral agreements are pretty limited with EASA. That being said it is fairly easy to overcome this with a foreign EASA Part 145 approval.
This ensures that the products are maintained i.a.w. the "EASA Part 145" system. It is hardly different from anyone else's "Part 145" system but see above. Keeps people in a job and frequent flyer miles swanning about the planet.
There are very few bi-lateral blanket agreements with EASA so everyody has to join the EASA system to be approved.
It is painful and hard work - it will take you hours to get familiar with the EASA system and even longer to find what you are looking for. Thats why you will need about 2 supporting staff for each certifying staff and a person in the CAMO office
for each aircraft that you operate!!!! Shares in a forestry company and/or a paper mill may be one way of recouping costs!!!
Is it safety or cost effective as compared to other systems? - doubtful. As mentioned it diverts people away from the real object of the exercise. Most that I have experienced cant see the wood for the trees and will slavishly follow the
system and never see a safety issue. They have no time to take a step back.
Hughes500 - a quick look tells me that MDHI does in fact have an EASA 145 approval - EASA.145.5475 - the important part is the correct release document which in your case could be single EASA, dual EASA FAA or triple EASA FAA TCCA.
EASA is made up of the senior folks in each member states NAA who jumped ship to the great gravy train. It is not in their interest to make things easy or do themselves out of a job and they realise that.
As to used or overhauled parts the bi-lateral agreements are pretty limited with EASA. That being said it is fairly easy to overcome this with a foreign EASA Part 145 approval.
This ensures that the products are maintained i.a.w. the "EASA Part 145" system. It is hardly different from anyone else's "Part 145" system but see above. Keeps people in a job and frequent flyer miles swanning about the planet.
There are very few bi-lateral blanket agreements with EASA so everyody has to join the EASA system to be approved.
It is painful and hard work - it will take you hours to get familiar with the EASA system and even longer to find what you are looking for. Thats why you will need about 2 supporting staff for each certifying staff and a person in the CAMO office
for each aircraft that you operate!!!! Shares in a forestry company and/or a paper mill may be one way of recouping costs!!!
Is it safety or cost effective as compared to other systems? - doubtful. As mentioned it diverts people away from the real object of the exercise. Most that I have experienced cant see the wood for the trees and will slavishly follow the
system and never see a safety issue. They have no time to take a step back.
Hughes500 - a quick look tells me that MDHI does in fact have an EASA 145 approval - EASA.145.5475 - the important part is the correct release document which in your case could be single EASA, dual EASA FAA or triple EASA FAA TCCA.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 21
From: Used to be God's own County
Slightly ‘off topic’ but .....
Has anyone here yet discovered which EASA NAA best for transferring UK EASA licence to in terms of cost and turn around times - following the CAA advice issued the other day
Has anyone here yet discovered which EASA NAA best for transferring UK EASA licence to in terms of cost and turn around times - following the CAA advice issued the other day
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 187
Likes: 11
From: Europe
I found the UK CAA to be quite sensible and quick to deal with when it came to issuing my CPLH.
