Belgium
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:35 pm
-
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
It is unfortunate that CAA is tasked by government with returning a 6% operating surplus as opposed to most countries where the national airworthiness authorities are government departments paid for out of general taxation. Clearly CAA has to charge a rate for its operations sufficient to meet its targets so perhaps it is not surprising that it charges for the administrative work involved in dealing with requests for non UK non ICAO aircraft to be permitted to operate in the UK.
That CAA has been prepared to be a party to the ECAC agreement for homebuilts is a positive. That it has agreed to a quid pro quo with France on factory builts and microlights is another positive. We can only hope that we are able to negotiate similar deals with other EU States that ultimately will allow us all to fly around the EU with no hassle and no permission costs regardless of what aircraft we fly, but we won’t achieve that by bemoaning our lot and blaming the CAA for all the world's ills. Fortunately there are those within the LAA who are actively working on extending the freedom to fly more easily in other EU states but it takes time, resolve and patience.
That CAA has been prepared to be a party to the ECAC agreement for homebuilts is a positive. That it has agreed to a quid pro quo with France on factory builts and microlights is another positive. We can only hope that we are able to negotiate similar deals with other EU States that ultimately will allow us all to fly around the EU with no hassle and no permission costs regardless of what aircraft we fly, but we won’t achieve that by bemoaning our lot and blaming the CAA for all the world's ills. Fortunately there are those within the LAA who are actively working on extending the freedom to fly more easily in other EU states but it takes time, resolve and patience.
-
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:35 pm
Brian,
I don't get it. First you ask why I say we must not complain about the Belgians and now you tell us we must not complain about the CAA.
I do not question why the CAA charges for the administrative work involved in dealing with requests for non UK non ICAO aircraft to be permitted to operate in the UK. I question why they need to deal with requests at all. They could simply recognise the PtF issued by other EU countries, without the need for an application, just like France accepts all EU microlights.
I really appreciate what those in the LAA are doing to extend our freedom to fly more easily in other EU states, but feel it is regrettable their work is necessary in the first place.
Don't you think it is a reflection of a sad state of affairs when winning a concession from the CAA, such as the recent agreement with France, is considered a triumph which we should all be grateful for?
Donald
I don't get it. First you ask why I say we must not complain about the Belgians and now you tell us we must not complain about the CAA.
I do not question why the CAA charges for the administrative work involved in dealing with requests for non UK non ICAO aircraft to be permitted to operate in the UK. I question why they need to deal with requests at all. They could simply recognise the PtF issued by other EU countries, without the need for an application, just like France accepts all EU microlights.
I really appreciate what those in the LAA are doing to extend our freedom to fly more easily in other EU states, but feel it is regrettable their work is necessary in the first place.
Don't you think it is a reflection of a sad state of affairs when winning a concession from the CAA, such as the recent agreement with France, is considered a triumph which we should all be grateful for?
Donald
-
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
I think the problem is Donald that we shouldn't be looking at this as winning or losing in the first place. CAA has a job to do, it isn't trying to stop non ICAO aircraft coming to the UK, it is allowing them to and having to charge for the admin in doing so. Where do we draw the line? Do you really expect an airworthiness authority to simply decide that from now on they are going to let any non ICAO aircraft operate in UK airspace? Why would they decide to do that unless somebody - LAA for instance - can give them good reasons why they should allow certain categories in because they pose minimum risk, and CAA has shown they are prepared to listen to the arguments and amend their practices. Working with organisations like the CAA is about reasoned debate and compromise, show that you have carried out due diligence in presenting a case so that each side can move to a better resolution of a problem. The strategy of table thumping and going in all guns blazing demanding this and that with no reasoned case to back it up will get you absolutely nowhere - quite rightly in my view.
Just think for a moment what reasoned debate has brought us in recent years - the NPPL for starters, and nobody was more supportive of a similar style LAPL than the CAA when we sought it from EASA. SSDR, who would have thought that a possibility ten years ago, a wholly deregulated aircraft that can legally fly in the UK? They are just two of the success stories achieved by sensible negotiation backed up by thorough research and the presentation of a solid safety case. We are where we are Donald, wishing we had a clean sheet of paper to start all over again is a waste of time and effort. In may ways we are fortunate that today's CAA is prepared to listen and to change and I look to the future with confidence that we can continue to improve out lot.
As far as Belgium is concerned I have voted with my feet, I no longer fly there, a shame but I am just not prepared to pay the unreasonably high fee. I suggest the Belgian owners' associations think about trying to work with LAA so that we can work together with our CAA and their authority to come to a joint agreement on free admission to each other's airspace, as we did with the French.
Just think for a moment what reasoned debate has brought us in recent years - the NPPL for starters, and nobody was more supportive of a similar style LAPL than the CAA when we sought it from EASA. SSDR, who would have thought that a possibility ten years ago, a wholly deregulated aircraft that can legally fly in the UK? They are just two of the success stories achieved by sensible negotiation backed up by thorough research and the presentation of a solid safety case. We are where we are Donald, wishing we had a clean sheet of paper to start all over again is a waste of time and effort. In may ways we are fortunate that today's CAA is prepared to listen and to change and I look to the future with confidence that we can continue to improve out lot.
As far as Belgium is concerned I have voted with my feet, I no longer fly there, a shame but I am just not prepared to pay the unreasonably high fee. I suggest the Belgian owners' associations think about trying to work with LAA so that we can work together with our CAA and their authority to come to a joint agreement on free admission to each other's airspace, as we did with the French.
Well to a point - remember that the CAA brought in these arrangements to STOP non-ICAO aircraft being based in the UK. In other words you can only fly for short periods after paying our fee. This approach of course stopped things like basing N-reg experimentals in the UK. Very neatly closing the door and largely supporting the PFA - and its CAA approval.CAA has a job to do, it isn't trying to stop non ICAO aircraft coming to the UK, it is allowing them to and having to charge for the admin in doing so. Where do we draw the line? Do you really expect an airworthiness authority to simply decide that from now on they are going to let any non ICAO aircraft operate in UK airspace?
As with the vast majority of these sort of rules there was no safety reasoning simply a perception that other peoples standards were not 'as high' as ours and so they could not come. Thankfully only the Belgians followed a similar path.
Sooner of later EASA will get to these sort of arrangments and it will get sorted out, in the meantime we live with their legacies. ( you judging by EASA complete and utter mess so far living with these issues is probably better than anything they will do....)
Pete Morris
013242
013242
-
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:35 pm
Thanks for your comprehensive response Brian.
Do I really expect an airworthiness authority to simply decide that from now on they are going to let any non ICAO aircraft operate in UK airspace, unless somebody - LAA for instance - can give them good reasons why they should allow certain categories in because they pose minimum risk?
Well, the DGAC did it more than 11 years ago, when they allowed microlights with a PtF granted by a EU state or its delegated authority to circulate freely in France. The FFPLUM did lobby the DGAC for this, but I am quite sure they did not produce a mass of evidence to support their case.
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex ... dateTexte=
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the progress that is being made and the role the LAA has played in this, but having lived and operated microlights in a few countries, including France and Luxembourg, I am probably spoilt.
BTW, I will seek an LAPL as soon as the CAA accepts applications.
Do I really expect an airworthiness authority to simply decide that from now on they are going to let any non ICAO aircraft operate in UK airspace, unless somebody - LAA for instance - can give them good reasons why they should allow certain categories in because they pose minimum risk?
Well, the DGAC did it more than 11 years ago, when they allowed microlights with a PtF granted by a EU state or its delegated authority to circulate freely in France. The FFPLUM did lobby the DGAC for this, but I am quite sure they did not produce a mass of evidence to support their case.
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex ... dateTexte=
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the progress that is being made and the role the LAA has played in this, but having lived and operated microlights in a few countries, including France and Luxembourg, I am probably spoilt.
BTW, I will seek an LAPL as soon as the CAA accepts applications.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am
Belgium etc
So why did the CAA introduce these restrictions in the first place? Did they put forward a reasoned argument as to why these restrictions were necessary at all? Were the aircraft owned by our European neighbours falling out of the sky in a dangerous fashion? And with respect to aircraft operating on the N-Reg, I would humbly remind our rulemakers that Orvill and Wilbur got there first. To think that we could teach the Americans much about the safe design and operation of aircraft smacks of arrogance, and ignorance.
The whole thing smacks of a job creation scheme. The CAA collects money to pay for people doing an unnecessary job.
The whole thing smacks of a job creation scheme. The CAA collects money to pay for people doing an unnecessary job.
-
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am
Section S
I know nothing about Section S Approval. But were these non section-S microlights proven to be dangerous, or just the product of a different design philosophy?
This sounds to me like more UK gold-plating of regulations and what the EU wallahs call resttrictions 'in restraint of trade': 'not invented here'. When I think of the creativity (and success) of the French and German aero-industries, I really do wonder how they managed to survive to the present day without Section S. We really do know how to shoot ourselves in the foot.
If you compare the results of French, German and Czech industries against our own paltry outcomes.... No wonder we are quite uncompetitive in this business.
This sounds to me like more UK gold-plating of regulations and what the EU wallahs call resttrictions 'in restraint of trade': 'not invented here'. When I think of the creativity (and success) of the French and German aero-industries, I really do wonder how they managed to survive to the present day without Section S. We really do know how to shoot ourselves in the foot.
If you compare the results of French, German and Czech industries against our own paltry outcomes.... No wonder we are quite uncompetitive in this business.
-
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
We can argue the rights and wrongs of the way different countries handle the design and airworthiness of amateur built and microlight aircraft until the cows come home, and I would certainly agree that UK regulation has strangled UK output in the industry. However, faced with a string of fatal accidents in the early 1980s and with questions being asked in the House and a media driven public outcry, CAA was forced to act and Section S was the result.
It could be argued that once the industry had matured, a system more conducive to encouraging the growth of manufacturing should have been developed. That is effectively what has happened in the US with LSA which uses an ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) self-regulated design and manufacturing code. Unfortunately EASA has decided not to adopt that same code for LSA in Europe, but has added extra bells, whistles and hoops so any belief that EASA taking over regulation of the amateur build and microlights would result in less stringent rules are probably delusionarily optimistic.
As I said, we have what we have and it is up to the industry to try to negotiate a better position. BMAA achieved that with SSDR so there is positive proof that given sound reasoning, progress can be made.
It could be argued that once the industry had matured, a system more conducive to encouraging the growth of manufacturing should have been developed. That is effectively what has happened in the US with LSA which uses an ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) self-regulated design and manufacturing code. Unfortunately EASA has decided not to adopt that same code for LSA in Europe, but has added extra bells, whistles and hoops so any belief that EASA taking over regulation of the amateur build and microlights would result in less stringent rules are probably delusionarily optimistic.
As I said, we have what we have and it is up to the industry to try to negotiate a better position. BMAA achieved that with SSDR so there is positive proof that given sound reasoning, progress can be made.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am
Industry Improvement?
"Up to industry to negotiate an improvement"? There is next to no industry left. As you said Brian, it has been strangled. So what do we do now? Give up? Or just buy foreign products?
Why is it that we now see newcomers like the Italians, Slovenes, Austrians and Poles in the market and building great products (in addition to the Grench, germans and Czechs). Look at the list of manufacturers exhibiting at Friedrichshafen. Where was the UK? If they can do it, why can't we?
I think it really is time for all the Sport Flying Associations in the UK to re-assess their attitudes and find a way of liberating what little aero-engineering talent remains in the UK. Or are we simply no longer interested? Defeated by our acceptance of bad regulation? Or unable to work successfully within the system?
Why is it that we now see newcomers like the Italians, Slovenes, Austrians and Poles in the market and building great products (in addition to the Grench, germans and Czechs). Look at the list of manufacturers exhibiting at Friedrichshafen. Where was the UK? If they can do it, why can't we?
I think it really is time for all the Sport Flying Associations in the UK to re-assess their attitudes and find a way of liberating what little aero-engineering talent remains in the UK. Or are we simply no longer interested? Defeated by our acceptance of bad regulation? Or unable to work successfully within the system?
-
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
This thread is moving away from the issue of travelling between EU countries and into that old favourite of we are so badly treated in the UK it isn't fair. Just to draw a line under that aspect, industry in the context I am talking about includes associations such as LAA and BMAA, as well as existing and potential designers/manufacturers of recreational aircraft.
Anyway, back to the original thread and very good news this morning is that a similar agreement to that recently achieved between the UK and France has been agreed betweeen the UK and Ireland, thanks to the efforts of the Irish Aviation Authority and the UK CAA, plus input from a number of organisations including LAA. A note explaining will be put up on the website asap today.
I have no doubt discussions will open with other EU States in due course, who knows, the Belgian situation may also be resolved in due course.
Anyway, back to the original thread and very good news this morning is that a similar agreement to that recently achieved between the UK and France has been agreed betweeen the UK and Ireland, thanks to the efforts of the Irish Aviation Authority and the UK CAA, plus input from a number of organisations including LAA. A note explaining will be put up on the website asap today.
I have no doubt discussions will open with other EU States in due course, who knows, the Belgian situation may also be resolved in due course.
- Kevin Dilks
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:21 am
- Location: leicestershire
-
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Kevin, with a homebuilt you are OK in all except Belgium so I would simply route up the coast, talking to Ostend, and not plan to land. You need to land at a Customs airfield for your first port of call into mainland Europe so Midden Zeeland in the Netherlands would be a good first stop (PPR for Customs). Maybe a bit expensive but a nice, friendly place with a good cafe/restaurant for lunch.
If memory serves I think they also have a Mogas pump as well but you'll need to check.
Denmark used to have a minimum insurance level that was higher than the mandatory level so worth checking with your broker that you have adequate cover for Denmark. Not sure what the current situation is.
If memory serves I think they also have a Mogas pump as well but you'll need to check.
Denmark used to have a minimum insurance level that was higher than the mandatory level so worth checking with your broker that you have adequate cover for Denmark. Not sure what the current situation is.
-
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
- Location: Hinton in the hedges
thats exactly the way I went to Sweden a few years ago. Midden Zeeland is fine. Of course you then have the additional dutch problem of supposed to have an ELT. And whatever the dutch are doing about mode S this year! Last I heard you can still get through with mode a/c or maybe even no transponder if below 1200ft.
Good new on Ireland, Brian. So is there active negotiation with the Belgians at the moment? Id like to go to Schaffen-Diest again!
Good new on Ireland, Brian. So is there active negotiation with the Belgians at the moment? Id like to go to Schaffen-Diest again!