[Charliesixtysix]

Relax Customs requirements and make available a system to permit international flight direct to or from pretty much any airfield or strip of choice in France as easy as it is going from and returning to England.

Who would have thought anything to do with flying is easier at home than in France ....but this bit is!

[davef77]

I can agree with just about all of the above because so much about aviation regulation is a mess.

But what makes me even more angry is the lack of unity on this forum especially by some of the “ big hitters”, you know who you are!

In a recent thread they were very critical of the pilot licence holders that couldn’t be bothered to dig down into the rules to find out exactly what they had to do to make sure that were operating correctly within the framework.

Where do you start looking and when do you know you have found the answer? A long as those mentioned above support the regulators the complexities won’t be addressed and the problem remains.

Rant over.

I have to agree about the complexity of the regs these days.

I did my PPL(A) in the early 1990's. A PPL for life (ha!) and 5 hrs every 13 months and I was good to go. Has the accident rate changed significantly since then? I don't think that it has in any statistically meaningful way.

I recently did my hour with an instructor, which was very enjoyable I flew with a friend, but then we thought that we noticed a discrepancy in my paperwork. It turned out to be fine, but for a brief period I was sweating because I thought that I had been flying illegally for the past couple of years.

It took me (not a lot of help, I admit), two flying instructors and an examiner to realise that everything was actually fine. That my paperwork was correct, and my hour reval was OK to sign.

It really shouldn't be that complex!

This seems to be true nearly everywhere that you look.

I too dislike the "Mandatory PPR" and despise the "High Viz Jacket" nonsense (well done Sywell by the way), but the complexity in airspace, procedures, licensing, maintenance, even in things like how far to fly clear of clouds when VFR, are bureaucratic and, as far as I can see, add little or nothing to our safety.

Commercial aviation has a remarkable, wonderful, safety record. We don't! I don't believe that is only because we are all reckless, irresponsible idiots. I think that the system is messy and broken in many places.

I fly because I love it. I don't enjoy reading through reams and reams of, what looks like, amateur legalese. I recognise that I have a duty of care to me and others, and must bear some of the burden of the things that I dislike in order to enjoy the privileges that I do like, but the licensing system is a mess, airspace is a mess, and flying regulations are in some places over complex.

There seems to be a culture of blame too (I mean broadly in GA, not necessarily here), which I am sure doesn't help to improve the safety culture. I think that it is too simple to always say "It's your fault you should know the regs" if the regs are so complex that even full-time experts get them wrong.

[Dave W]

... reams and reams of, what looks like, amateur legalese.

That struck a chord.

There seems to be a culture of blame too ..., which I am sure doesn't help to improve the safety culture. I think that it is too simple to always say "It's your fault you should know the regs" if the regs are so complex that even full-time experts get them wrong.

So did this; a deep and sonorous one.

[VRB_20kt]

I'd like to see mandatory unlimited 3rd party insurance cover as on cars. It's madness that if one of my syndicate members crashes into an 747 (a) there wouldn't be money to cover the incident and (b) every syndicate member will lose everything.

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

[tomshep]

Yes, the APPG should get their gums into this.

[jerry_atrick]

After reading this thread it comes down to:
- Reduce the unnecessary complxity of the regulation
- Reduce the unnecessary complexity of the training
- Take a necessarily pragmatic view on airspace (and, well, eveything else related to he regulatory and administrative oversight of private flying).

So, I think, anyone who works for the CAA in a GA strategy, regulatory or enforcement function (ie. no the accountants of personal adminstrators) should have to get a PPL A or H.. If they don't want to, they should be moved onto a different function or department as they don't have the passion to regulate the industry effectively and are just there to pay the bills. If they do, they will live the same frustration we all do - and they just may be minded to change things. And I have no issue withthe CAA/DoT having to pay for them to do it - it will certainly attract more people to the vacancies and hopefully result in a richer pool from which better people could be selected for employment at the CAA.

How people can be responsible for safety regulation without having set foot in a GA aircraft is beyond me.

[Balliol]

- Reduce the unnecessary complxity of the regulation
- Reduce the unnecessary complexity of the training
- Take a necessarily pragmatic view on airspace

“Oh we thought it was what GA pilots wanted. So sorry, well we can just move everything to EASA FCL and get rid of national licensing and all these medical loopholes like we were supposed to, dead simple everyone on one system then. Sorted. Airspace, well if everyone wants it simple, we can just go blanket CAS and ADS-B and get rid of all the odd shapes and problems with access etc. Sorted for you, glad to help!”

Careful what you wish for! [not directed at any individual]

[Jodelman]

I'd like to see mandatory unlimited 3rd party insurance cover as on cars.

That would seriously reduce the number of pilots financially able to continue flying!!

[flybymike]

I don’t think that would necessarily be the case.

How often do pilots have to meet uninsured “disaster” type losses? I can’t ever recall one.

VRB’s suggestion would also remove the costs of group ownership via a limited company for those who take this precaution.

[Waveflyer]

This is soooooo tempting:-

[johnm]

How people can be responsible for safety regulation without having set foot in a GA aircraft is beyond me.

Interesting to note that the senior GA man at EASA, Dominque Roland, has held PPL MEIR and used to be a GA test pilot.

[jerry_atrick]

- Reduce the unnecessary complxity of the regulation
- Reduce the unnecessary complexity of the training
- Take a necessarily pragmatic view on airspace

“Oh we thought it was what GA pilots wanted. So sorry, well we can just move everything to EASA FCL and get rid of national licensing and all these medical loopholes like we were supposed to, dead simple everyone on one system then. Sorted. Airspace, well if everyone wants it simple, we can just go blanket CAS and ADS-B and get rid of all the odd shapes and problems with access etc. Sorted for you, glad to help!”

Careful what you wish for! [not directed at any individual]

Hmmm.. I know you're not pointing the finger at any one contributor, but I thought this was about regulatory change that would make flying more fun. And that would also mean changes in EASA (as our current supranational regulator) regulations. Also, note the word unnecessary... if it is unnecessarily complex, where in the context of this, it means not to proprtionally/resalistically improve safety - or worse - it creates confusion so as to contribute to an unsafer environment, then I am not at all worred about what I am asking for.

As an example - the PPL theoretical syllabus - there is - and I think it is generally agreed - a lot of theoretical stuff in there, while good and useful information, doesn't really help a PPL pilot stay safe (e.g. how does learning the cycle of a 4 stroke engine really contribute to safety?), So I would rather less broad complexity and more depth complexity on the things the pilot can know that will make a real difference to safety - like the impact of leaving the primer out, etc. Or what about the CAA's insistence of an outmoded and outdated air traffic service provision.. How often have we heard that the lowest is a chocolote teapot and because so many people ask for (and receive it), controller workload is such that access to the porcelain variety is heavily restricted? Why not simply get the ICAO standard so well implemented on the continent?

Actually, by your reasoning - the complexities of airspace and national licencing being there because of EASA's implementation of ICAO requirements and Gordeaux's (sp?) attempt to harmonise GA with CAT regs is is precisely the argument to make things less complex - at the EASA level (I know they have been doing this). The reason thse national complexities are there is because of the unnecessary complexities or demands of the EASA or ICAO system.. And we don't need the whole country under a blanket of controlled airspace; there is room for both that and uncontrolled airspace. But the jigsaw that is the boundaries - the seemingly unnessary airspace grabs that once granted can never be retrieved and the fragmentation of air traffic services surely could be simplified without the regulators responding of threat of relinquishing to a draconian authority, which itself implements things usually in an overly complex way - hmmmm - maybe to cater to 28 different states wishes and opinions.

That's why, in my case, I was careful in what I wished - removal of unnessarily complex things about aviation..

[johnm]

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.

[flybymike]

I'd like to see mandatory unlimited 3rd party insurance cover as on cars.

That would seriously reduce the number of pilots financially able to continue flying!!

I don’t think that would necessarily be the case.

How often do pilots have to meet uninsured “disaster” type losses? I can’t ever recall one.

VRB’s suggestion would also remove the costs of group ownership via a limited company for those who take this precaution.

Bob Bevan has just posted this on another thread.

When you drive your car your liability for death or injury to passengers or third parties is unlimited so you don't have to think about how much cover you need. Unfortunately I believe that when the idea of compulsory insurance on GA was introduced in 2004 they slightly bottled it as they could have also required it was on an unlimited basis, at least for non-commercial uses. In practice I do not think this would have a huge impact on the premiums people pay, and it would have avoided the types of concern you raise.

[foxmoth]

As I understand it, it's not all LAA types which are available for hire/training as implied, only the ex-C of A types, such as Condor, most Jodels, Austers etc.

Any type can potentially be cleared for hire/training but needs approval from the LAA, ours is certainly not ex CAA being only one of 2 in the UK!