Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
By bookworm
#937410
Irv Lee wrote:Would anyone like to comment further or point POSITIVE things out? Please no menton of any EASA negative results, there are so many threads about those. I'm just trying to genuinely remember if there is anything positive, and I really can't think of anything too significant for the general hobby population, having been chasing the negatives for so long. However, sidetracking my own thinking - what about commercial career pilots, is EASA doing ANYTHING positive for Commercial Pilots? I can't instantly think of anything there either...


This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, Irv, but the result will be somewhat biased. The benefits of harmonization, standardization and economic level playing fields tend to mature over years and decades, while the disadvantages, whether real or perceived, tend to be much shorter term. I would draw the comparison with the USA, which isn't just an example of how to do aviation, but is, in my opinion, the obvious standard in a successful federation. The US realized early that some things have to be regulated at a federal level, and aviation was one of them. Of course you might believe that it's simply the American attitude to gun control that makes them an economic and political superpower... ;)

My support for such European integration doesn't mean that we should simply accept anything that's thrown at us in terms of legislation. Much of my time is spent battling EASA regarding OPS rules. I'd rather see the project well executed, and the failings of Part M are just starting to bite me in the wallet like everyone else.

The disappearance of UK licence privilege limitations is a double-edged sword. The separation of rules of the air and licence privileges has significant advantages, and a prohibition on PPLs flying under IFR in circumstances where it is appropriate for them to do so is a good example of where important flexibility is swept away for the sack of 'simplicity'.

I would say that EASA pays more attention to stakeholders than the CAA of old -- and I'm grateful, BTW, for a lot of the support that the modern CAA has given in resisting stupidity coming from Brussels and Cologne. But I do think we have the prospect of a better and more appropriate regulatory system than in the past under national regulation.
User avatar
By dweston
#937424
bookworm wrote:I would say that EASA pays more attention to stakeholders than the CAA of old -- and I'm grateful, BTW, for a lot of the support that the modern CAA has given in resisting stupidity coming from Brussels and Cologne. But I do think we have the prospect of a better and more appropriate regulatory system than in the past under national regulation.

I don't have your depth of experience of this, but can only look at the results.

I remember that EASA was seen as a much more responsive and GA-friendly organisation that the CAA. But I have yet to see anything coming out of EASA that makes my life easier, safer or cheaper.

What I do see is a lot of fine words that are not translated into action, 'economies with the truth', as seen at the EU Transport committee by M Goudou, and massive unwarranted change and uncertainty.

Having once been told not to reinvent the wheel, EASA has simply ignored that instruction and ploughed on regardless.

The FCL legislation is to be presented as a take it or leave it Act, and they are trying to persuade the EU to stop having to consult with all stakeholders; just the ones they want to consult with.

This indicates a very poor and defensive attitude to consultation and some arrogance wishing to keep a distance from those being regulated.
By fuzzy6988
#937826
One thing I see as a potential positive is the FCL.008 group.

Fingers-crossed, if they eventually manage to come up with something great and the common-responses produce positive and encouraging comments, and it doesn't get chucked out at commitology and parliament, I think we're on a good way for a new IR.

I wonder if it would even solve the N-reg issue by means of a much easier license conversion!
By peterh337
.
#937842
There are various potential positives... but in the meantime EASA is shafting a whole load of people, using thoroughly dishonest methods and bent processes.

I have no idea why they are doing things that way round. It's barmy.

Well, Eric Sivel told me why, face to face, and Irv Lee was sitting to my left and Nick Wilcock was sitting to my right. The editor of some GA mag (not Ian here; might have been FTN) was sitting to his right. All in a cafe in London. It is to drag the FAA to the table to sign some big treaty.

How much of that pie in the sky treaty is relevant to GA I don't know. 10%?
By Basil
#937857
No-one's mentioned the LAPL. A pan-European sub-ICAO licence will (eventually) be a new feature on the regulatory landscape.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#937863
Basil wrote:No-one's mentioned the LAPL. A pan-European sub-ICAO licence will (eventually) be a new feature on the regulatory landscape.

That's what I meant by "a certain proportion of the NPPL population would be able to fly to Europe ..." in the lead post - but you're right, I managed to avoid naming it!
By Xoxon
#937999
What does the push and pull between EASA and FAA relate to?
What areas would the agreement that EASA are seeking cover and what would this agreement facilitate for whom?
By peterh337
.
#938015
What does the push and pull between EASA and FAA relate to?
What areas would the agreement that EASA are seeking cover and what would this agreement facilitate for whom?


Nobody I know knows the details but from extensive rumours it appears to be stuff related to high level airline operations, including the ability of European low cost airlines (perhaps e.g. Easyjet) to operate within the USA. I leave it to you what the USA is likely to think of that ;)

It is the nature of treaties to try to lump together a lot of not wholly related topics, in the hope that if you throw in a lot of easy bits you might get agreement on some tricky bits. It's like prisoner exchange in the Cold War :) One top level prize catch which would normally be hanged is worth half a dozen low level mules.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1022450
Happy EASA Year, everyone, I'll just kick this up again and see if anyone has come up with any more simple "positives" out of the fcl.001 published rules (remember fcl.008 is only at consulatation review at the moment, not 'definite')
By Frank Leopald
#1022454
David Robert's piece in LAA magazine this month was upbeat, I thought. Still haven't got a clue how low hours per year GA pilots will go about complying with the new regulations.

I hope it will be a Happy New Year; I fear it will not.

FL
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1022458
Frank Leopald wrote:David Robert's piece in LAA magazine this month was upbeat, I thought.
FL

Can you remember any of the positive points? I'll take the LAPL eventually arriving in about 3 years time for anyone with European ambitions as 'read'?
By chipmeisterc
#1022462
Frank Leopald wrote:David Robert's piece in LAA magazine this month was upbeat, I thought. Still haven't got a clue how low hours per year GA pilots will go about complying with the new regulations.

I hope it will be a Happy New Year; I fear it will not.

FL


What regulations Frank? Out of the loop..
User avatar
By muffin
FLYER Club Member (reader)  FLYER Club Member (reader)
#1022465
The introduction of an LAPL(H) certainly is a positive. Assuming that the LAPL medical requirements eventually turn out to be less restrictive that Class 2, that will allow PPL(H) holders to continue flying if they can pass the GP medical in exactly the same way that the NPPL has helped many fixed wing pilots over the last few years. I for one will be one of the first LAPL(H) applicants for that reason alone.
By Frank Leopald
#1022499
Thats just it Chippy! I still haven't got a handle on the whole picture (and I wonder if anyone has) but rules and regs about what you can fly with which Licence/Rating appears to suggest that pilots may unwittingly fly outside EASA regs.

Irv, I now see how all the associations etc have come together beneath an umbrella organisation and with DR so involved that must be positive.

THe 'win' on insurance and a working group on Part M might lead to something. I'm sure there was a positive spin in the article and maybe it won't be as bad as it could be, but I'm still full of dread.

FL