Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592824
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:or cause them hardship


I think it's difficult to argue that JAA/EASA *hasn't* caused any problems. Disregarding flight crew licensing for a moment and the Annex I/Annex II issues (and the fight for the IMC rating...?), what about maintenance? What about training organisation/intructor approvals? Has any of this not come with both a headache and a financial cost?


You could make a very strong case that the sheer amount of effort spent on understanding, adapting to, and negotiating about JAR and EASA regulations has been damaging to recreational aviation. Just think what might have happened if all that effort had instead been spent on developing airfields, promoting flying to the public, designing new aeroplanes...

(Or just, frankly, going flying!)

G
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592842
patowalker wrote:... on the storm in a tea-cup.


It's not a storm in a teacup if it comes to pass; it's a red spot on Jupiter for some of us.

I still haven't seen anything that says it won't happen; so far as I read from those close to the decision makers it's perhaps not as probable as the Pilot story implied, but it still appears as though there needs to be a fight to keep it from being applied by the lawyers.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592854
I read it as a published proposal, that has not been taken off the table. As such, for as long as it remains on the table, it is a threat - I agree with you Dave.

The only thing, arguably, that is inaccurate or inappropriate about the Pilot report, as I see it at the moment, is that Pilot reported it as a new proposal, rather than something that had been on the table for several years, but just had the dust blown off it. As such, Pilot have probably done everybody a favour in ensuring it is aired and not just allowed to sit and eventually slip through bedded into some other lump of regulation making.

G
townleyc liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592879
As with everything about that future situation, the answer is that we don't yet know.

Any further discussion should take place in the existing Brexit thread, please. Although thread drift is a forum staple, it'd be better if it didn't dilute the specific issue being discussed in here; thanks..
#1592881
muffin wrote:..put the clock back 30 years or so to when licences were poo brown ..


or, 50 years, when they (BoT PPLs*) were light brown (not matching the colour of any healthy faecal matter I met during my pathology career) </chromatography pedant> :)

[*lifetime, but requiring 'CertEx' by a BoT-licensed Examiner. Anyone know any current ones ? :roll: ]
#1592882
Dave W wrote:As with everything about that future situation, the answer is that we don't yet know.

Any further discussion should take place in the existing Brexit thread, please. Although thread drift is a forum staple, it'd be better if it didn't dilute the specific issue being discussed in here; thanks..


Unfortunately I think my post would be out of contex if just put there as is.

But guilty if seen as thread drift, but in defence it was in response to the issues raised here.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592884
FlarePath wrote:I know the Brexit/EASA paradox is alive and well, and I don't for one minute suggest I have any knowledge of EASA's workings. But my probably naive idea that once out of the EU can we really not reject or question these "laws/regs" and apply "derogations" that would still allow us to fly as before?

I think it's in our interest however that we don't. If we stay within EASA, which seems highly likely, it seems in the UK's interest that we work within EASA to make its rules work as well as possible, then embrace them fully.

(And yes I am well aware that many people feel the same about the EU, but there you go - they are not the same, and have different degrees of disfunction.)

G
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592981
Dave W wrote:
patowalker wrote:... on the storm in a tea-cup.


It's not a storm in a teacup if it comes to pass; it's a red spot on Jupiter for some of us.


Dave,
I have gone through the first 52 of 471 pages of NPA21014-29(A) and the wording:
Not accepted
After consultation with the EASA experts, the decision taken was to remove the text amendment in FCL.035(a)(2) proposed with NPA 2014-29 because with this amendment the requirements of the Basic Regulation would have been altered. If deemed necessary this should be done in the Basic Regulation itself rather than in its implementing rules. EASA has prepared an AMC and proposed it with NPA 2014-29(B) and this AMC will be published after the adoption of the amendments to the Aircrew Regulation as GM.

appears 10 times, always in response to a request for microlights to be added to the list of Annex 2 aircraft allowed.

The wording:
Not accepted
When the content of Annex II to the Basic Regulation was developed, Member States specifically wanted to exclude the aircraft referred to therein from the scope of the Regulation and its implementing rules.

When proposing to accept hours flown on some Annex II aircraft, EASA considered that also hours flown on third-country registered aircraft would be credited for revalidation. Accepting the use of Annex II aircraft to obtain qualifications with skill tests or assessments of competence and perform proficiency checks on Annex II aircraft would render the whole Annex II feckless. The intention was never to undermine Annex II but to provide General Aviation with the possibility to continue to use aircraft they were using for years already with the clear aim that at a certain moment only equipment that was certified in accordance with the Basic Regulation would be used for training, testing and checking.

appears three times, always in response to identical requests from DGAC, IAA and FOCA for Annex 2 aircraft to allowed for the practical exam.

I reckon the worst that could possibly happen is that I have to do the hour with an instructor every two years in a Cessna. What am I missing, apart from pessimism? :)
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1592984
patowalker wrote:I reckon the worst that could possibly happen is that I have to do the hour with an instructor every two years in a Cessna. What am I missing, apart from pessimism? :)


And that's seen as a GOOD result?!

Hang on a sec whilst I Google "Stockholm Syndrome".
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1593054
patowalker wrote:At least it is better than having to do 12 hours in a Cessna to remain current,
which is what the mags suggest
and many on here believe.

Relax, it is not going to happen.


Oi, it's not what we suggest, in fact the opposite. Please don't tar me/Flyer with the 'sensationalist clickbait copy brush'

Ianr
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1593064
I'm just a simple PPL, unversed in the sophisticated ways of comitology and other 50 cent words, but I'd be a lot more comfortable at this point if the thread had included short and to the point posts saying things like:

    "This can't possibly happen because of...[the following clear and understandable reasons, with references from 2018]"

Rather than posts including the following example wording:

    "clickbait"
    "Relax, it's not going to happen"
    "I've seen behind the curtain, and I assert that..."
    "Sensationalist"
    etc

I can well believe that others know more than I do.

However, there obviously is something behind this, and it seems from what I can divine from posts from those in a position to know that this issue has been being addressed for some while now.

But I haven't seen anything that my poor amateur brain can understand that convinces me I don't need to be concerned.

Some posters earlier in this thread may think they've already provided that: I'm here to say you haven't, because whatever it is you've provided needs simplifying if I am to understand it.

The truth is, this article is out there, people are worried about it (the story is being fairly widely shared on social media now), and there does seem to be an as yet unmitigated risk that this could happen.

Therefore it really does need to be clearly addressed ASAP if it is possible to do so.

Can anybody give me - and others - that assurance (by which I don't mean assertions) in convincing and simple terms? We'd all be grateful, I'm sure.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10