EU Encroachment

Camelia said:
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?
Click to expand...

If a glider or light single engined a/c - which is what we are talking about here - has mech failure it's not going to be low over the centre of a city as they can't go there anyway. On most occasions it will make a field landing with no injury to anyone, including the occupants. The chances of collateral damage are far lower than the risk of a driver ploughing into a bus queue or a group of walkers.

Any comparison with a loaded 747 crashing is too farcical to need comment.

In any case I dispute what seems to be your fundamental assumption that aircraft not directly controlled by CAA/JAA/EASA are bodged and not maintained properly. The BGA and LAA maintain high standards without the massive bureaucracy appropriate to an airliner.

I invite you to trawl the records as much as you like for evidence of accidents resulting from incompetent maintenance or flying in these classes of aircraft. They are very few. One of the worst in the last few years was a mid air with a military jet. The military jet was found responsible for it.
 
Hi Troubadour,

well the aircraft from Dunsfold were pretty immaculate ( have you ever read ' Test Pilots; the History of British Test Flying 1903 - 1984 ' by Don Middleton ? A wonderful book, my all time favourite ! ) but the Cessnas left me wondering.

I always tried to be useful rather than ' sitting there ' but one day before takeoff when I noticed the fuel tank guages showed rather asymmetric, ie one side empty the other full, and commented on this to the rather snotty pilot ln a Dads' Army ' I say, do you think that wise ?! ' sort of way I was told to " shut up, the guages are never any good ! " and would have strolled away if I hadn't dipped the tanks.

I wasn't too impressed when the vacuum on the artificial horizon failed either, I can imagine some poor sod following that at night and rolling in, early Sea Harriers had exactly that snag with the INS toppling and the horizon bars on the HUD rolling, killing a few people as they tried to hover back onto carriers...

Back to lighter things, though a serious subject, if you haven't seen Don Middletons' book I can't recommend it too highly.

Andy
 
Many of the changes I've heard about (sold my glider shares 18 years ago so out of touch) are expensive paperwork nonsense and it is worrying that one day it may also happen to leisure boating.

If such "standards" became the norm for leisure boating in the UK, it could be horrific.

Over here for instance for local boats, if an outboard breaks down, putting a spare or borrowed one on would lead to heavy fine - the engine is part of the boat registration. I can't even sell my old outboard to a Portuguese as he wouldn't be allowed to use it because I can't provide the original distributors invoice from 2000 to the first purchaser.

We had the boat impounded after being hit, merely because the bow nav light had been wiped out. Although no hull damage, not even allowed to move 0.5 miles into the yard for lift out until the police surveyor deemed it safe - another survey of course after repairs. Survey also required to check for damage if a boat goes aground and is spotted by police.

All boats categorised and licensed for use, small open boats for instance not allowed more than 3 miles from harbour, inflatables IIRC 200m from beach. Compulsory list of equipment to be carried as well as compulsory training.

Problem is, every country has its own rules and regs so no level playing field throughout the EC which could well lead to some overpaid and bored idiot dreaming up new laws. Of course they would use the most regulated country as the standard for all.
 
Troubadour said:
I invite you to trawl the records as much as you like for evidence of accidents resulting from incompetent maintenance or flying in these classes of aircraft. They are very few. One of the worst in the last few years was a mid air with a military jet. The military jet was found responsible for it.
Click to expand...
A quick google finds http://www.glidesportuk.co.uk/CMS-Images/Pik%2020%20-%20Challock.pdf


Perhaps my weltanschauung is some what narrowly focused as:

a) I work in a highly regulated environment; and

b) my brother watched his flying instructor fall out the sky just after take off one evening
 
Grumpybear said:
By contrast the British only joined the EEC on the understanding that no sovereignty would be lost; QUOTE]

The world is a fundamentally different place now than it was in 1973.

You have the enlargement of the EU and the emergence of the new and very powerful economies which have the advantage of very large home (and therefore stable) markets.

This was one of the great advantages the USA had. They have a home market of 300m population. On this market they can plan large scale production runs which will not be affected by currency swings. In addition because of the strength of their home market they have a strong local currency which they have consequently been able to apply as a trading standard currency over a much larger field than their own home market. eg All aircraft sales are denominated in dollars. Therefore Boeing doesn't have to factor in the cost of exchange protection into its contracts.

The only long term protection, IMHO, is a wider use of the euro. I feel that sooner or later the UK will be obliged to follow the trend. Despite certain recent good news in the motor sector, the long term manufacturing trend is downwards and the UK becomes increasingly dependent on the tertiary secor and invisible exports eg finance and insurance.

What would happen if the Russians, Indians or Chinese seriously decided to devote themselves to this area, with all their new financial muscle?

If therefore there is a wider use of the euro, there needs to be obligatorily closer integration of the economies. The US only has one central bank to deal with and can therefore react quickly to changing situations

On another level when you read the various posts here there is almost universal condemnation of UK politicians. Do you not think that maybe there might be better governance with some continental politicians? Germany isn't doing too badly and they had to absorb the very poor East Germany of the past.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Camelia said:
A quick google finds http://www.glidesportuk.co.uk/CMS-Images/Pik%2020%20-%20Challock.pdf


Perhaps my weltanschauung is some what narrowly focused as:

a) I work in a highly regulated environment; and

b) my brother watched his flying instructor fall out the sky just after take off one evening
Click to expand...

I have also seen friends die in gliding accidents and been involved in the investigation after one double fatality but, none were caused by faulty workmanship.

The case you have Googled shows incompetence by one particular pilot on 3 occasions - 1. incomplete rigging 2. Failure to check control movements on DI (inspection after rigging) 3. No control check once in the cockpit, as part of pre-flight checks.

The new legislation will not stop incompetent pilots from having accidents.
 
Sybarite said:
Grumpybear said:
By contrast the British only joined the EEC on the understanding that no sovereignty would be lost; QUOTE]

The world is a fundamentally different place now than it was in 1974.

You have the enlargement of the EU and the emergence of the new and very powerful economies which have the advantage of very large home (and therefore stable) markets.

This was one of the great advantages the USA had. They have a home market of 300m population. On this market they can plan large scale production runs which will not be affected by currency swings. In addition because of the strength of their home market they have a strong local currency which they have consequently been able to apply as a trading standard currency over a much larger field than their own home market. eg All aircraft sales are denominated in dollars. Therefore Boeing doesn't have to factor in the cost of exchange protection into its contracts.

The only long term protection, IMHO, is a wider use of the euro. I feel that sooner or later the UK will be obliged to follow the trend. Despite certain recent good news in the motor sector, the long term manufacturing trend is downwards and the UK becomes increasingly dependent on the tertiary secor and invisible exports eg finance and insurance.

What would happen if the Russians, Indians or Chinese seriously decided to devote themselves to this area, with all their new financial muscle?

If therefore there is a wider use of the euro, there needs to be obligatorily closer integration of the economies. The US only has one central bank to deal with and can therefore react quickly to changing situations

On another level when you read the various posts here there is almost universal condemnation of UK politicians. Do you not think that maybe there might be better governance with some continental politicians? Germany isn't doing too badly and they had to absorb the very poor East Germany of the past.
Click to expand...

The US works because it has full political integration from which stemmed a single economy and financial system. The euro will not work properly, with or without economic integration, until there is full political integration. The EU is doing this back to front, with results we can all see. They have done this pecisely because the peoples of Europe, not just the British, would not stand for political integration: the Euro has been an attempt to bounce individual states into a superstate by stealth. Many people, not by all means Eurosceptic, warned that this would happen, and that the euro would lead to trouble, at the time.

A cynic might suggest that some of those behind the drive to set up and then over extend the Eurozone knew perfectly well that it would lead to trouble, but saw the possibility of arm twisting the members into forcing the pace of economic and hence political integration as the solution to this unnecessary problem.

Politicians on the Continent are beginning to come clean about political integration being both their desired end state and the only non violent way out of the Euromess they have created; they appear even more united in the belief (justified, I think) that the populace must not be allowed the chance to vote on the issue.

A United States of Europe may or may not be the best way to prosperity in the long term; the extraordinary reluctance of mainstream European politicians to campaign openly and enthusiastically on a platform of abolishing or downgrading their own offices speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Camelia said:
A quick google finds http://www.glidesportuk.co.uk/CMS-Images/Pik%2020%20-%20Challock.pdf


Perhaps my weltanschauung is some what narrowly focused as:

a) I work in a highly regulated environment; and

b) my brother watched his flying instructor fall out the sky just after take off one evening
Click to expand...

No amount of regulation will do away with occasional human carelessness as in the glider accident you mention. He forgot his basic procedures. GrahamM376 has already explained this in more detail.
Your brother's instructor would have been a commercially qualified pilot in a professionally maintained aircraft. It didn't prevent whatever happened to him.

You have faith in a highly regulated environment because you work in one, and maybe in your field - whatever it is - it's justified. However to me you have not come up with anything to show the necessity for an increase in heavy handed bureaucracy in gliding, light aviation - or sailing.
I think your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will alter it, and you probably think the same of me. No point continuing ping pong.
Maybe if it comes to sailing as well you will support it.

PS You said "Horseburger anybody?" Well how about "Dreamliner anybody?"
 
Last edited:
Troubadour,

while not decrying the great stuff you've done ( 558 ?! ) I thought some examples you and I mentioned show that some work on light aircraft leaves something to be desired ?!

As well as the Cessna 172's with various failings I mentioned, I had a job with a survey outfit in Eastern England which was so bad I thought it might be a ' You've Been framed ' style set up and found myself looking for the hidden cameras !

This was 1993 - when they started up a Cessna just outside the unsecured cowling blew straight off...

Much worse, walking through the hangar meant kicking aside snipped off wirelocking, and treading around pools of oil - they drained engines straight onto the hangar floor, I kid you not ! PM me for details...:rolleyes:

The boss, a really arrogant snotty type, had a WWII fighter style aerobatic aircraft, which I was told he took up and wrang the guts out of whenever he was annoyed; I was offered " you can go with him on one of these flights ! "

I could already imagine the report about the smoking hole, so politely declined.

I will never forget that hangar floor covered in FOD and oil though, I suppose everyone thinking aviation has generally high standards is how Thunder City incredibly got away with it for so long...

PS shouldn't this be in the Lounge ?

Andy
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
Troubadour,

while not decrying the great stuff you've done ( 558 ?! ) I thought some examples you and I mentioned show that some work on light aircraft leaves something to be desired ?!

As well as the Cessna 172's with various failings I mentioned, I had a job with a survey outfit in Eastern England which was so bad I thought it might be a ' You've Been framed ' style set up and found myself looking for the hidden cameras !

This was 1993 - when they started up a Cessna just outside the unsecured cowling blew straight off...

Much worse, walking through the hangar meant kicking aside snipped off wirelocking, and treading around pools of oil - they drained engines straight onto the hangar floor, I kid you not ! PM me for details...:rolleyes:

The boss, a really arrogant snotty type, had a WWII fighter style aerobatic aircraft, which I was told he took up and wrang the guts out of whenever he was annoyed; I was offered " you can go with him on one of these flights ! "

I could already imagine the report about the smoking hole, so politely declined.

I will never forget that hangar floor covered in FOD and oil though, I suppose everyone thinking aviation has generally high standards is how Thunder City incredibly got away with it for so long...
Click to expand...

Yes - and all those examples relate to C of A aircraft within the regulatory system and serviced by "professionals" with all the paperwork done correctly. They show that the system doesn't work.
I was pretty horrified by the school aircraft when I did my PPL too.
Amateurs building/looking after their own a/c tend to do it to much higher standards! Extension of heavy handed bureaucracy achieves nothing.
You and some others are talking as though the gliders and homebuilts and their pilots are not subject to regulation. They are, but in the past it has been achieved through a light touch system. It does not mean standards are low.
You haven't answered me yet. Would you support controls that meant you couldn't do jobs on your Anderson and had to take it to an approved boatyard for everything and routinely have it inspected and signed off every year at considerable expense? Or have to apply for approval to change your instruments from Raymarine to Garmin? Of course not.
That's the sort of system we're talking about.
I think we have done this to death now, I've had enough anyway.
Don't know what 558 means.

PS Thunder City were also a commercial operation licensed to maintain and modify commercial aircraft as well as operating the fast jets, in S Africa for those who don't know. Absolutely no relevance to UK gliders and light aircraft.

PPS just twigged, no I haven't been involved with the Vulcan although I lived near Brunyingthorpe then and have landed my homebuilt there!
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
Troubadour,

while not decrying the great stuff you've done ( 558 ?! ) I thought some examples you and I mentioned show that some work on light aircraft leaves something to be desired ?!

As well as the Cessna 172's with various failings I mentioned, I had a job with a survey outfit in Eastern England which was so bad I thought it might be a ' You've Been framed ' style set up and found myself looking for the hidden cameras !

This was 1993 - when they started up a Cessna just outside the unsecured cowling blew straight off...

Much worse, walking through the hangar meant kicking aside snipped off wirelocking, and treading around pools of oil - they drained engines straight onto the hangar floor, I kid you not ! PM me for details...:rolleyes:

The boss, a really arrogant snotty type, had a WWII fighter style aerobatic aircraft, which I was told he took up and wrang the guts out of whenever he was annoyed; I was offered " you can go with him on one of these flights ! "

I could already imagine the report about the smoking hole, so politely declined.

I will never forget that hangar floor covered in FOD and oil though, I suppose everyone thinking aviation has generally high standards is how Thunder City incredibly got away with it for so long...

PS shouldn't this be in the Lounge ?

Andy
Click to expand...

SJ,
I worked in the industry in the early 70s and if we had operated like that, the CAA would have shut us down pretty quick. We had a good relation with them, but even then they would be very careful and observant about our activaties. Your comments sound like the standards went down hill at a great rate...
Re: risk. As above, it wasn't even obligatory to insure your private light aircraft then, as the risk to third parties was so low. And of the incidents that I knew of/ was involved in, non were maintenance related.

(Bar one: Probable lack of oil bought a crop duster down 15 min after a service. Not us, but I got to investigate the problem at the request of the CAA area surveyor.)
 
DownWest said:
SJ,
I worked in the industry in the early 70s and if we had operated like that, the CAA would have shut us down pretty quick. We had a good relation with them, but even then they would be very careful and observant about our activaties. Your comments sound like the standards went down hill at a great rate...
Re: risk. As above, it wasn't even obligatory to insure your private light aircraft then, as the risk to third parties was so low. And of the incidents that I knew of/ was involved in, non were maintenance related.

(Bar one: Probable lack of oil bought a crop duster down 15 min after a service. Not us, but I got to investigate the problem at the request of the CAA area surveyor.)
Click to expand...

DownWest,

hello; that sounds like yet another sad, entirely avoidable accident.

If I ever own my own aircraft ( and ex USMC Test Pilot Art Nalls has the only privately owned Harrier, incidentally a particular aircraft I knew well ) I rather fancy a restored / builit from the ground up Walrus, ( known as the ' Shagbat ' by my Dad and his chums on WWII Escort Carriers ! ) in the same manner as the wonderful recent Mosquito rebuild in New Zealand.

Following my lottery win, I'd get the same team to build and maintain the Walrus and just visit now and again, giving those great people free rein in the meantime !
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top