Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
#1698915
johnm wrote:EASA is still a messy compromise because some individual states cling to history.

Airspace is a dog's breakfast in the UK because of history and there is an opportunity under SERA to make things better, unfortunately that requires properly joined up ATC to make it work properly and we don't do that in the UK. That's why our services were re-named to make it clear that they aren't ICAO and don't work very well outside fully controlled airspace.

EASA's reputation in GA was badly hit by the idiocy of Goudou and his arrogant approach to using one size fits all bureaucracy to manage all aviation. His successor Patrick Ky and his team are working hard to row that back and with some success and deserve further encouragement.


Your last paragraph is interesting, as from my experience in ATM and Aerodromes, it’s actually the opposite. In their CRDs, EASA appears to be less tolerant of proposed amendments to draft regulation text than ever before, and ever more likely to be less flexible and just cut and paste ICAO into regulation with no nod to updating the sometimes obsolescent provisions therein.
#1699058
johnm wrote:His successor Patrick Ky and his team are working hard to row that back and with some success and deserve further encouragement.


If they're working hard then it shows what an inefficient organisation EASA is. We've had the idiocy of the 12 hours in the second of two years thing and rating signatures being needed before a certain date or retraining and a test is required whether the flying requirements have been met or not, for some years now. 19 is it? Not to mention Part M, LAPL rolling validity, and a whole load of other things mentioned in this thread.

Then there's the non-cock-up/stupidity related things like the EASA/EU doctrine of removing privileges from national licences.
flybymike liked this
#1699068
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
johnm wrote:His successor Patrick Ky and his team are working hard to row that back and with some success and deserve further encouragement.


If they're working hard then it shows what an inefficient organisation EASA is. We've had the idiocy of the 12 hours in the second of two years thing and rating signatures being needed before a certain date or retraining and a test is required whether the flying requirements have been met or not, for some years now. 19 is it? Not to mention Part M, LAPL rolling validity, and a whole load of other things mentioned in this thread.

Then there's the non-cock-up/stupidity related things like the EASA/EU doctrine of removing privileges from national licences.


I don't have too much pre-EASA history as I only learnt to fly in 2000, but the 12 hours etc. applied to my JAR licence before EASA and I had to renew it every 5 years. There's a good deal to complain about in any regulator but the new regime are trying and the delays are more often getting through the Commission, who are a bit busy with other matters at the moment.
#1699102
My PPLs (BoT then nascent CAA) started on the '5 hours in 13 months' rule, and changed to the JAR then EASA '12 hours in 2nd of 2 years, including 1 instructor hour'. Also, copying the often lauded here FAA model, the '3 takeoffs and landings to carry passengers;' and (also then a recentish FAA innovation) 'differences training for tailwheel or complex unless grandfathered'. The only 'privilege loss' for me (wholly hypothetical and always unlikely to affect me) was that to fly as P1 in turbine types (if under 12,500lb), as if anyone would have lent me one :)

For me as a 50-year day/VFR bimbler, I am genuinely unsure which system kept me and my passengers and fellow sky users and ground dwellers safer. The change was enough for me to choose to go from renting to syndicate, for better availability, and reducing the marginal cost of each flying hour. Under both systems, it remained true, as the CFI of my first Club said to me when he gave my my first 'revalidation by experience' signature: 'no system of regulation will save the rich idiot from himself*' ...

[*sic; it was probably true then, early '70s, that most rich idiot pilots were male :roll: ]
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9