EU Encroachment

[TangaraToo]

I'm not sure there is too much to be scared about. Gliding is very different to sailing / motorboating.

Not as different as you might at first think. One of the biggest changes to gliding is the amount of maintenance the owner is allowed to do themselves. Prior to the EASA involvement the owner could do a large part of the maintenance, fit different instruments etc. I rebuilt a wrecked glider myself and only had to get it checked by the qulified club inspector. These days none of this is possible. All has to be done by qualified aviation engineers.
Just imagine the impact of sailing if you had to involve a boat yard just to change an instrument or reseal a fitting. This is what gliding is now faced with.

 

[[70521]]

After 60 years or more of self regulation about 5 years ago gliding UK control was formally brought under the control of the Civil Aviation Authority ( CAA ). Being a government body it was only a short time before they became mired in EU control.

FANTASTIC to see that they have finally brought glider pilots under CAA control. Why it took so long I have no ideal. Skys are regulated for good reason.

 

[Plevier]

Gliding in the UK used to be near-identical to sailing in terms of governance and oversight. Anyone could buy a glider and fly it as long as they had third-party insurance and some method of launching. It was regulated by the BGA, who worked closely with the RAFGSA and the CAA. In practice everyone followed the BGA syllabus for training, if only because you couldn't get a launch anywhere except at an airfield with a BGS-affiliated club. There were very, very few accidents and the standard of instruction and supervision was generally very high indeed. A very high proportion of professional and ex-professional pilots, both military and civil contributed to a culture that was at least as robust as that of the CAA's.

Despite the fact that there was no problem to fix a massive amount of legislation and bureaucracy has been introduced which has made it quite simply harder to participate in the sport without increasing safety in the slightest.

True for the aircraft as well. The BGA ran an efficient registration and airworthiness control scheme, you only had to have a little number on the glider somewhere plus a competition reg if you wanted (like a K sail number), now you have to have great big G-ABCD on it like a 747!

The CAA used to be known as Cancel All Aviation but compared with Euro bodies JAA and EASA they turn out to have been the relatively good guys!

 

[Seajet]

Nimbus,

there are pro's and cons as always.

Gliding is wonderful, but in these troubled times the fear is some idiot ( maybe a motor glider ? ) might manage to come across the Channel with naughty substances...

I have done a lot of flying, but the reason I love sailing is that I'm not told where to go and how to behave by some sad character in Air Tragic !

Your post is quite timely, the day I have to request clearance to leave the mooring I'll leave the UK for Mars.

 

[Plevier]

FANTASTIC to see that they have finally brought glider pilots under CAA control. Why it took so long I have no ideal. Skys are regulated for good reason.

I think you are ill informed.
Glider pilots were always subject to all the same rules of the air, airspace restrictions etc., and the BGA training syllabus covered necessary aviation law etc. and in some areas - notably meteorology and some aspects of aircraft handling particularly recovery from difficult situations - was more advanced than the power PPL syllabus.
Technically most airspace is still unregulated anyway - and roughly speaking gliders cannot enter any regulated airspace (there are a few exceptions to that.)
What we are talking about here is the pure background bureaucracy that doesn't affect the outcomes.
The logical deduction from what you say is that you believe that increased bureaucracy, registration and licensing requirements around your boat will make you a better safer sailor.
I bet you don't really think that!

Of course you may be under Salmond rules not EU rules!

 

[Plevier]

Nimbus,

there are pro's and cons as always.

Gliding is wonderful, but in these troubled times the fear is some idiot ( maybe a motor glider ? ) might manage to come across the Channel with naughty substances...

That's for UKBA to look after rather than a/c registration or FCL surely? (Visions of being boarded from a flying rib at 10,000ft! )

Motor gliders carried a full reg under the previous regime anyway.

 

[nimbusgb]

+1 Troubadour

I agree with the sentiment behind a single 'standard' for everyone across Europe. My niggle is primarily with the change from self regulating, volunteer driven regulation to a civil service driven one.

Te next thing to go will be volunteer instruction. Did you know that you can learn to fly a sailplane and never pay a penny for instruction? The BGA did a sterling job of controlling standards of instruction and instructors sacrificed weekends and evening for the simple reward of teaching people to fly. VERY different to sailing which is a business and which delivers some very variable standards of 'boat drivers' to say the least!

As has been mentioned already we used to be able to do just about any work on a glider and it had to be signed off by a qualified person. That has pretty much gone by the board and what's more it's getting worse. You have to pay someone ( with a few exceptions ) if you want to mount new instruments or do other simple work.

There are frequently murmurings here about compulsory 'driving licences' for vessels. Make no mistake that once that happens under the control of some government body then 'standards' for fitting instruments or servicing engines or climbing the mast or a hundred other things will quickly become the remit of someone you have to pay.

 

[Seajet]

+1 Troubadour

I agree with the sentiment behind a single 'standard' for everyone across Europe. My niggle is primarily with the change from self regulating, volunteer driven regulation to a civil service driven one.

Te next thing to go will be volunteer instruction. Did you know that you can learn to fly a sailplane and never pay a penny for instruction? The BGA did a sterling job of controlling standards of instruction and instructors sacrificed weekends and evening for the simple reward of teaching people to fly. VERY different to sailing which is a business and which delivers some very variable standards of 'boat drivers' to say the least!

As has been mentioned already we used to be able to do just about any work on a glider and it had to be signed off by a qualified person. That has pretty much gone by the board and what's more it's getting worse. You have to pay someone ( with a few exceptions ) if you want to mount new instruments or do other simple work.

There are frequently murmurings here about compulsory 'driving licences' for vessels. Make no mistake that once that happens under the control of some government body then 'standards' for fitting instruments or servicing engines or climbing the mast or a hundred other things will quickly become the remit of someone you have to pay.

I am very experienced with aircraft; home fixes are rarely welcome, and for good reason !
Howevever you are right in cautioning sailors against ' big brother '.

 

[Plevier]

I am very experienced with aircraft; home fixes are rarely welcome, and for good reason !

No offence meant, but weren't you photographing them (very beautifully!) rather than working on them and having technical knowledge? And you are taking the standard big industry attitude. Would you like Bav and Ben campaigning to say that you shouldn't be permitted to do any jobs on your Anderson?

Nobody would support home designed mods to a Harrier! Working on a glider or homebuilt light aircraft, to recognised procedures and change approval systems and subject to inspection and clearance to fly, is entirely different.

I've maintained several gliders, built a light aircraft from scratch and renovated two vintage ones and i haven't killed anyone yet.

At an entirely different level, amateurs (admittedly some with professional backgrounds) have restored a Vulcan to flight and are close to having a Lancaster flying too.

 

[Grumpybear]

Then why was it rolled up with your other comments one can only comment on what one sees. The regrettable reality is that if you wish to create a 'common market' with no internal barriers to trade you need regulations and standards that apply to all otherwise it doesn't work. The choice for the UK is to be part of this regulation creation system, or to not take part in the creation of the regulations but still comply.

Separate paragraphs can be allowed to make separate points in the language I was brought up to speak and write. The need for common standards is not disputed, although the rest of the world has yet to adopt EU standards...... To me it is the suspect quality of the standards creation machine, and the motives of those employed or more usually subcontracted to do the work that signals the need for caution.

The larger issue seems to me to be the acceptance (ranging from fanatical to sullen) of the peoples of mainland Europe that the necessary and desirable end point is the creation of a federal superstate; that it is appropriate for this to be managed by an unelected bureaucracy answerable only to unwieldy and divided committees of transient national government ministers; and that the interest of the citizens can somehow be safeguarded by elected representatives who soon enough will have to belong to political parties which support the creation of said superstate, and are therefore highly unlikely to apply any brakes to that process.

By contrast the British only joined the EEC on the understanding that no sovereignty would be lost; those concerned to conceal this fundamental deceit seem too often to take the line that our national standards and laws are inherently inferior to those obtaining across the Channel, and that anyone opposed to the extension of foreign control of our activities is by definition an extremist. Do we really believe that Habeas Corpus is a bad thing, for example?

 

[grumpy_o_g]

FANTASTIC to see that they have finally brought glider pilots under CAA control. Why it took so long I have no ideal. Skys are regulated for good reason.

What a bizarre and ill-informed comment. Exactly what problem has the regulation of glider pilots solved? You talk as if hundreds of accidents and deaths have been averted. In practice the fatality rate is so low that it's nigh on impossible to even plot a trend. All glider accidents are investigated just as rigorously as any other air accident by the same people so I really can't see any sense behind your comments at all. This link may educate you a little http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/accidentreview2011web.pdf,

 

[GrahamM376]

I am very experienced with aircraft; home fixes are rarely welcome, and for good reason !
Howevever you are right in cautioning sailors against ' big brother '.

Like Troubadour, I used to carry out glider repairs as well but any airframe repairs were afterwards inspected and signed off by a licensed inspector. Gliders also had to have annual C of A inspections. Although there have been accidents due to incorrect rigging, I know of none due to faulty syndicate repairs. The new regs have done nothing for flying safety, air law has always applied to gliders, it's just more bureaucracy and expense.

 

[Koeketiene]

that it is appropriate for this to be managed by an unelected bureaucracy

When you last get to elect Whitehall mandarins?

 

[nimbusgb]

Nimbus,

there are pro's and cons as always.

Gliding is wonderful, but in these troubled times the fear is some idiot ( maybe a motor glider ? ) might manage to come across the Channel with naughty substances...

I have done a lot of flying, but the reason I love sailing is that I'm not told where to go and how to behave by some sad character in Air Tragic !

Your post is quite timely, the day I have to request clearance to leave the mooring I'll leave the UK for Mars.

By the same measure one could load several tonnes of ammonium nitrate into your average barge or benjenbav and sail it right up the Thames or into central Birmingham, Bristol or Southampton. What if that plonker who went under the bows of the tanker in the solent recently had actually had mischief at heart?

Regulating the hell out of things won't fix that. The proponents of all this regulation tend to say that the regs are preventing accidents or incidents or malicious attacks but ignore the fact that there weren't any 'events' before the regulations either. It's regulation for the sake of it, work for jobsworts.

 

[Plevier]

By the same measure one could load several tonnes of ammonium nitrate into your average barge or benjenbav and sail it right up the Thames or into central Birmingham, Bristol or Southampton. What if that plonker who went under the bows of the tanker in the solent recently had actually had mischief at heart?

Regulating the hell out of things won't fix that. The proponents of all this regulation tend to say that the regs are preventing accidents or incidents or malicious attacks but ignore the fact that there weren't any 'events' before the regulations either. It's regulation for the sake of it, work for jobsworts.

And every time the regs fail to achieve their intention, their answer is we need more of the same!!

 

[Grumpybear]

When you last get to elect Whitehall mandarins?

In our case the bureaucrats work for, and are theoretically answerable directly to, elected politicians we can chuck out, in the EC they answer to unelected failed politicians we can't chuck out. Apologies for being unclear in my post!

 

[Zen Zero]

The Original Post seemed to suggest that the EU has contrived to make Gliding a little less enjoyable. Has the EU's culpability actually been proved? (Does it need to be?)

The EU seems to get the blame for a lot of things, just about everything in fact! Have we actually established how "they" managed to destroy the pleasure of Gliding?

Is there an EU directive for the maximum amount of horse in something that claims to be beef? Actually I believe there is, and all that came about because of the Irish govt.'s enthusiasm to enact an EU directive so I suppose you could say that that is the EU's fault too!

 

[[70521]]

I think you are ill informed.

Or perhaps not, as I worked in the engineering side of the aircraft industry for a while in my youth.

While the airspace is unregulated the engineering side of things are s highly requlated, I know I failed miserably to identify that point.

There is a subtle difference between aircraft and yachts, if a aircraft has a mechanical failure and falls out the sky people on the ground can get killed, the helicopter crash in London last week was an example of that and some of my mountain rescue friends were involved in the Lockerbie disaster, if a yacht has mechanical failure it is highly unlikely that others are at risk of being killed.

It is all about reducing risk and sadly bureaucracy, registration and licensing requirements are needed because people like to take shortcuts. Horseburger anybody?

 

[Seajet]

No offence meant, but weren't you photographing them (very beautifully!) rather than working on them and having technical knowledge? And you are taking the standard big industry attitude. Would you like Bav and Ben campaigning to say that you shouldn't be permitted to do any jobs on your Anderson?

Nobody would support home designed mods to a Harrier! Working on a glider or homebuilt light aircraft, to recognised procedures and change approval systems and subject to inspection and clearance to fly, is entirely different.

I've maintained several gliders, built a light aircraft from scratch and renovated two vintage ones and i haven't killed anyone yet.

At an entirely different level, amateurs (admittedly some with professional backgrounds) have restored a Vulcan to flight and are close to having a Lancaster flying too.

Troubadour,

Great stuff re the Vulcan and Lancaster, thank you from a fellow enthusiast !

However if you mean ' big ( modern aviation ) Industry ' as I found it, I hate it and left BAe because of it, I always say it was like seeing an old friend with a bad illness.

The days of Nevil Shute Norway and even John Farley are sadly gone, now it's accountants who couldn't tell an Aeroplane from an Aardvark; when I had one such ' boss ' in the photographic office and we had a rather heated 'discussion', I pointed to a pic of a Sea Harrier ( my avatar here actually, John Farley calm and collected as usual at 30', 300+ knots ) and asked her " what's that then ? "

She calmly and confidently replied " RAF Harrier GR5 ! " despite the thing having ' Royal Navy ' in big letters all over the fin !

I was a guide at an aviation museum for a while, I loved showing youngsters how to play with the ' simulator ' and by meeting a smashing couple there my Dad ( Stan lawson)'s tales of being a Leading Air Mechanic on Seafires and Hellcats is now availiable for all to hear at the IWM London.

I trained first as an aircraft fitter, before that in general engineering and have various hands-on engineering qualifications, both general and aviation.

When a technical photographer at BAe Dunsfold I was closely involved with Flight tests of prototype aircraft and weapons, so was part of the team including Test Pilots who all discussed tests and how to do them.

My detailed cockpit photo's were taken before the first flight of each type, to brief the Test Pilots.

I also sadly was photographer - and advisor in some respects - on boards of Inquiry after fatal accidents.

'Nailing cameras on' - 16 high speed cine jobs on the Harrier GR5, or playing with the Pilot Display Recorder 'gunsight camera' on all the jets, Harriers and Hawks - was fun, but pretty PR pictures were a rare perk !

A job I had much later was photographing houses from rather tatty Cessna 172's; I wasn't too impressed by the various standards of kit,( nuts without wirelocking, fuel guages which lied, engines which would have been out of place on a lawnmower... ) or one or two of the pilots !

If really suffering insomnia, a sure cure is www.harrier.org.uk/history - scroll down to ' Harrier Testing '.

Andy

 

[Plevier]

A job I had much later was photographing houses from rather tatty Cessna 172's; I wasn't too impressed by the various standards of kit,( nuts without wirelocking, fuel guages which lied, engines which would have been out of place on a lawnmower... ) or one or two of the pilots !

Which, as those would have been maintained and flown by "professionals", goes to show that adding more regulation and qualification requirements guarantees neither the standard of maintenance work nor of flying!

At one time I had an aircraft that was on CofA not permit. Every time it had been in to an approved workshop for annual or star inspection I had to put things right that they had put wrong. You talk about wirelocking. One year they broke the wirelocking tag provided on the sump (RR O-200 engine), so wirelocked the oil drain plug back to the firewall instead. As soon as the engine started and shook in its rubber mountings, it broke the wirelocking. (incidentally proving they hadn't test run it.)

On other occasions I left telltales and could tell that things that had allegedly been removed for inspection hadn't been touched.

I was acquainted with Paul Morgan, one of the founders of Ilmor racing engines, now part of Mercedes. He owned among other things a P51 Mustang (2 seat conversion in which I once had a flight ) and a Sea Fury (in which sadly he was later killed). As you can imagine, they had to go to a highly approved specialist (near Harlow, I'm sure you can guess) for all maintenance. He also said when they came back, the first thing he always did was put his men from Ilmor on it to put things right again!

Professionals eh.