Even more brutal is the CASA alignment of CARs to EASA instead of Dick Smith's intent of FAA FARs. We have some of the most restrictive regulations as a result, influenced by the nonsense decisions out of Europe.

Hard to break the chains linking you to the Old World, eh?

The consensus may be that EASA is more out of touch than the FAA but I can assure that the FAA is also full of people who, for lack of a better term, haven't a clue. When I started in the business almost 40 years ago, field approved modifications were way more common than STC'ed approvals. I'm not aware of whether or not that is or has ever been an option under EASA, where a local FSDO inspector could approve a proposed modification and often times even would allow a previous field approval to substantiate the same repair/alteration on another airframe of the same type. You could actually go to their office and explain/argue your case. They had the option to reject or put you off while they researched it or stamp it on the spot. Were there approvals that never should have been approved? Yup, however not as many as one might think. Maybe I'm lucky nothing I did ever came back to bite me and there were a few oddball things I did on fixed wing machines that would never be approved in any way today. One that comes to mind is bolting 2 over-engineered pieces of steel on a Hamilton Standard propeller hub on a P & W 985 to allow for placement of balance weights for dynamic balancing (other than the hollow Welch bolts that hold the hub halves together). I had a Chadwick and made a handful of those engines run as so smoothly that the ag operator thought I was a god. The FAA field approved it but eventually came to their senses and said "no more". As far as I know they are still flying. Too many of the FAA inspectors have been brought up through the ranks being told "why take the risk"? Now field approvals are not nearly as easy to obtain. I'm waiting for external load devices to eventually fall under the FAA purview so that Bambi buckets, helitorches, hydraulic chainsaws, SAR equipment not to mention long lines themselves will to have their stamp of approval. It is all complicated by the fact that in IMO the FAA lacks having many people who are helicopter savvy and are willing to allow that many operators are quite capable of knowing what is safe and works for what they do. Too bad , too sad.

Although I agree with everything said I have seen the other side of EASA. 2 years ago i was to be the 2nd helicopter to have an Aspen PFD put into it ( 500D ) we applied to EASA to have it as a minor mod as there was no STC. They came back within 1 week and said yes. Couldn't believe it !!! until they said they were going to ask Gatwick to do the paperwork, 6 months later with lots of e mails, shouting , swearing threatening legal action it was finally passed !!
So UK CAA still has the last laugh:ugh:

Just what is it about the people in these collective agencies that makes them so intent on holding pointless, pedantic, anti-aviation attitudes? I just don't understand what motivates these people. What possible job satisfaction can you get knowing that a significant portion of the industry you serve hates you? Why make decisions that fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary? What on earth makes people that have no aviation experience think that they know better? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Steady on there SAS, we implemented the metric system more than 50 years ago.....

JohnE
Do you think DS idea of aligning with FARs is a good one?
Do you think it might be a viable option for Brexited Britain to get together with other countries and create an alternative regulatory framework along the FAR route that is practical etc?

FARs? Absolutely, and we are the poorer as an industry for the loss of that initiative.

Interesting concept to try for a 'new' option, but any such move would become bogged in bureaucratic inertia which would guarantee another 15-20 years of do-nothing/no change :ugh:

John,

just call yourself the West Island and use the NZ CAA rules. Not absolutely brilliant, but at least we can operate reasonably ok. its the stupid new interpretations that the bureaucrats are trying to bring in from EASA land that drive us crazy!!

It emanates from the very top - ICAO is full of non-aviation minded people with out a clue but a penchant for devising ways to fill the day.

I am all for forming a pressure group to ditch EASA and go on the FARs. If we don't complain the government wont know the problems we face.

EASA is killing the industry-lots of small companies here in Europe had to go out of business, as they could not afford hiring 5 pencil pushers to manage one pilot and one engineer trying to make enough dough to pay all their salaries...

It has become almost impossible to run a small helicopter company these days...

I have three good friends who wanted to set up their own aoc and all three gave up . They realised it was just so much simpler and cheaper to operate lease agreements .
I would estimate that already over 50% of all flights are not aoc and this will go up to 90% in time .

Yet again idiots advocating taking UK to FARs and ditching EASA. These will be the same people bleating when they cannot operate in Europe in their G-Reg helicopter OR fly a an EASA aircraft using their UK Licence.

Think before you jump to on the EASA bashing bandwagon.

Same with small maintenance organisations - really hard to convince the 'authorities' (CAA) that, in a two person organisation, someone has to be the 'independent' Quality Manager.