Will I wonder the LAA be lobbying on our behalf to free us from the morass of EASA regulations now that we are leaving the EU, this would save many of us from a significant hole in the pocket when we are currently under threat of having to scrap perfectly good radios to comply with 8.33 requirements.
A further thought is that this whole 8.33 idea is going to be a debacle anyway....does anyone really believe that we are all going to scrap hundreds or even thousands of pounds worth of perfectly servicable equipment and then dig deeply into our pockets to replace it,let's get real ; legal or illegal people will not comply and in large numbers at that,maybe the good old days of non-radio with lamps and semaphore might make a comeback.
Brexit
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Trevor Harvey
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:20 pm
- Location: Scotland
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Re: Brexit
As with so many things at the moment, nobody knows for certain what will happen regarding UK staying in EASA but it seems highly unlikely that we would not remain within it.
LAA aircraft are of course outside of EASA, as annex 2 aircraft they are already under national control, and the CAA has delegated the responsibility of their oversight to the LAA. As owner operators of those aircraft we are however, still significantly affected by EASA regulation - the fitting of 8.33kHz radios for example. I cannot see that is going to change, the .025 sets are not going to work in an 8.33 environment, they are likely to interfere with nearby frequencies. Good news is that the promised 20% funding appears to remain available to help re-equip.
LAA aircraft are of course outside of EASA, as annex 2 aircraft they are already under national control, and the CAA has delegated the responsibility of their oversight to the LAA. As owner operators of those aircraft we are however, still significantly affected by EASA regulation - the fitting of 8.33kHz radios for example. I cannot see that is going to change, the .025 sets are not going to work in an 8.33 environment, they are likely to interfere with nearby frequencies. Good news is that the promised 20% funding appears to remain available to help re-equip.
Well Flymike, I think most people will comply because for the sake of a £300 handheld it isn't worth the hassle of flying non-radio or being done for using a non-compliant set. Many of course will replace their panel mount equipment, prices start from about £1000 which admittedly isn't a drop in the ocean but in aviation terms is not a ridiculous amount of money.does anyone really believe that we are all going to scrap hundreds or even thousands of pounds worth of perfectly serviceable equipment and then dig deeply into our pockets to replace it,let's get real; legal or illegal people will not comply and in large numbers at that,maybe the good old days of non-radio with lamps and semaphore might make a comeback.
014011
Re: Brexit
Brian, whilst I see your points the fact remains that it is just another pile of needless regulation and expense,how is it that the U.S. can stay with 25mhz spacing when their airspace is more crowded than ours and the country is carpeted with airfields.
When I started flying ,more years ago than i will admit to,everything was simple and straightforward but since the EU it has all become stifled in regulation,there was for example one licence and one medical for private aviation...just look at the complexity now, even instructors find it a nightmare to cope with.
Moving to the point over a possible 20% funding this too is absurd because for what it is likely to cost many of your members the funding should be 100% on a like for like replacement basis, their expensive hi-tech equipment is just going to be scrapped, that in itself should merit serious compensation by the regulatory authority who are imposing their will regardless of the impact.
When I started flying ,more years ago than i will admit to,everything was simple and straightforward but since the EU it has all become stifled in regulation,there was for example one licence and one medical for private aviation...just look at the complexity now, even instructors find it a nightmare to cope with.
Moving to the point over a possible 20% funding this too is absurd because for what it is likely to cost many of your members the funding should be 100% on a like for like replacement basis, their expensive hi-tech equipment is just going to be scrapped, that in itself should merit serious compensation by the regulatory authority who are imposing their will regardless of the impact.
Michael Downes
025303
025303