EASA Vs FAA

[glider[_2_]]

As much as we like to complain about our FAA, we are fortunate to be
in the USA and not going through the insanity of soaring in Europe.

To quote a German friend, "Bureaucrazies are Lifetaking".

The EASA does not seem to have interest in promoting aviation.

We Yankees must stay alert.

GA

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 19, 10:53*am, glider > wrote:

> *We Yankees must stay alert.

I heard yesterday that new federal regulations were being proposed
that would restrict/prevent access to federally funded airports by
"off airport" aircraft. What was mention to me was in the context of
trailered light sport but, if true, this could seriously impact
sailplane activities in USA.

Anyone else heard of this proposal and could perhaps provide a URL
where the actual proposal can be read. Is it an extension of the
proposed "through the fence" restrictions?

Andy (golf yankee)

[BT]

The idea of "through the fence" operations at airports that receiving
federal funding.. is that the airport management may have problems with
security and animal control to the runways if they cannot close a fence.

There is mention that aircraft stored off airport on adjacent property to
the airport should have access, but should pay the same fee as those tied
down on airport. This is under the consideration that an airport should be
self supporting and how to raise $.

The only mention of "Light Sport" is that the new rating exists and that
those operating under that new classification of aircraft and rating need to
be considered in the same vein as Ultralights, gliders and balloons.

The file can be retrieved from this link either as a whole or in parts.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/
This document is 691 pages, 22MB file and should be reviewed by any
organization, business or private individual considering any agreement with
airport management. This document mentions many restrictions to Grant
Assurances and outlines how the airport operator must operate.

BT



"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 10:53 am, glider > wrote:

> We Yankees must stay alert.

I heard yesterday that new federal regulations were being proposed
that would restrict/prevent access to federally funded airports by
"off airport" aircraft. What was mention to me was in the context of
trailered light sport but, if true, this could seriously impact
sailplane activities in USA.

Anyone else heard of this proposal and could perhaps provide a URL
where the actual proposal can be read. Is it an extension of the
proposed "through the fence" restrictions?

Andy (golf yankee)

[BT]

I should add that it is not a "proposal", it is an updated revision of an
already existing FAA Order.
BT

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 10:53 am, glider > wrote:

> We Yankees must stay alert.

I heard yesterday that new federal regulations were being proposed
that would restrict/prevent access to federally funded airports by
"off airport" aircraft. What was mention to me was in the context of
trailered light sport but, if true, this could seriously impact
sailplane activities in USA.

Anyone else heard of this proposal and could perhaps provide a URL
where the actual proposal can be read. Is it an extension of the
proposed "through the fence" restrictions?

Andy (golf yankee)

[mattm[_2_]]

On Dec 20, 12:33*pm, "BT" > wrote:
> I should add that it is not a "proposal", it is an updated revision of an
> already existing FAA Order.
> BT
>
> "Andy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 19, 10:53 am, glider > wrote:
>
> > We Yankees must stay alert.
>
> I heard yesterday that new federal regulations were being proposed
> that would restrict/prevent access to federally funded airports by
> "off airport" aircraft. *What was mention to me was in the context of
> trailered light sport but, if true, this could seriously impact
> sailplane activities in USA.
>
> Anyone else heard of this proposal and could perhaps provide a URL
> where the actual proposal can be read. *Is it an extension of the
> proposed "through the fence" restrictions?
>
> Andy (golf yankee)

There are two example letters attached to the "through-the-fence"
section (12).
From the looks of this the FAA is concerned about public airports
being
converted to residential airparks, where people live adjacent to the
airport
and can taxi their airplane from their house to the runway. There's a
lot of
the word "adjacent" in the whole section. From that standpoint I
don't see
how it affects, e.g., someone who keeps their glider at their house 40
miles
away and drag it to the airport when they want to fly (as several
people in
my club do today). The main crux seems to be on "equity" such that
people
outside the airport have to pay equivalent fees to what the airport
tenants pay.

-- Matt

[delboy]

On Dec 19, 5:53*pm, glider > wrote:
> As much as we like to complain about our FAA, we are fortunate to be
> in the USA and not going through the insanity of soaring in Europe.
>
> * To quote a German friend, "Bureaucrazies are Lifetaking".
>
> * The EASA does not seem to have interest in promoting aviation.
>
> *We Yankees must stay alert.
>
> GA

The clue is in EASA's name - European Aviation Safety Agency. If they
can stop us flying, then we are 'safe' from having from having a
flying accident. Job done! Incidentally EASA was originally formed
just to simplify the certification of the Airbuses in all the
different EU Countries, but its tentacles keep spreading so that the
bureaucrats have something to do.

EASA makes the UK CAA (Campaign Against Aviation) look like pussycats
in comparison.

Derek Copeland