BRS

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

Post Reply
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2975
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 525 times

BRS

Post by Rich »

Just suppose that Diamond started adding BRS onto its airframes. For marketing reasons, this might come to pass (like handing out green stamps or toasters to customers lo these many years ago).

Yep, let's add another 85-90 lbs. of empty weight to a 2,100 lb NG. Or, for that matter to a 1800 lb rear-CG challenged XLT.
2002 DA40: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
Thomas
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Thomas
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: D-ENMA 40.337
Airport: LSZC BUOCHS SWITZERLAND

Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:20 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: BRS

Post by Thomas »

I think adding a BRS to the DA40 needs a completely new certification process.
Especially in these new Boeing MAX FAA environments.
you know we look a bit jealous to the US with your agency … as we stick to our EASA Monster :scream: ….. hope you can keep your easy track
Last edited by Thomas on Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thomas Bienz DA40-180 40.337 D-ENMA
Home Airport LSZC Buochs Switzerland
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2975
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 525 times

Re: BRS

Post by Rich »

It'd be no small thing to squeeze into the DA40 airframe as it now exists, anyway. :scratch:
2002 DA40: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Emir
Aircraft: DA42
Registration: SEMAD
Airport: LDZA LDVA

Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: BRS

Post by ememic99 »

Thomas wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:51 pm
you know we look a bit jealous to the US with your agency … as we stick to our EASA Monster :scream: ….. hope you can keep your easy track
People very often repeat that EASA complicates this or that, prevents this or that but in reality they are just repeating what they've heard or read somewhere without having any difficulties in real life. I have no connection to EASA (or FAA for that matter) and I'm sure that FAA is more efficient than EASA but I would be interested to understand what exact problem you had with EASA in your flying career or aircraft maintenance.
User avatar
Thomas
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Thomas
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: D-ENMA 40.337
Airport: LSZC BUOCHS SWITZERLAND

Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:20 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: BRS

Post by Thomas »

Here are a few

- Pilots; Language proficiency check (English) every 3 yrs – even with an FAA license and current BFR.
- personal logbook form requirement.

- Operations according to EASA Part-NCC – half of the Business fleet in the US would be grounded with this regulation!

- Airports; small airports need to fulfill same rules as intercontinental a/p`s – e.g. markings, safety strips and more
- Installing a GNSS approach … 5 years and 500td EUR.

- Maintenance; How long are we waiting for ELA 2 !
- Small shops closed to stringed environmental and other requirement’s.

I know that some EU countries are less consequent in applying the EASA rules, but definitely not D and CH
Thomas Bienz DA40-180 40.337 D-ENMA
Home Airport LSZC Buochs Switzerland
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Emir
Aircraft: DA42
Registration: SEMAD
Airport: LDZA LDVA

Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: BRS

Post by ememic99 »

Thomas wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:32 am
- Pilots; Language proficiency check (English) every 3 yrs – even with an FAA license and current BFR.
It depends on proficiency level you demonstrate - it can be 6 years or lifetime if you're level 5 or 6. Since EASA covers just few countries where English is native language for majority of citizens, there has to be a mechanism to check English language proficiency for other countries if you fly internationally. If you don't fly internationally ELP is not mandatory.
Thomas wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:32 am
- personal logbook form requirement.
Yes, you have to track your flights but based on this you easily extend your licence without any additional proof or check-ride (at PPL VFR level).
Thomas wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:32 am
- Operations according to EASA Part-NCC – half of the Business fleet in the US would be grounded with this regulation!
It is more expensive than in US but it doesn't mean that N-reg aircrafts are maintained to lower level. I agree that many parts could be checked and approved "on condition" like in US.
Thomas wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:32 am
- Airports; small airports need to fulfill same rules as intercontinental a/p`s – e.g. markings, safety strips and more
Depending on country and type of operations - e.g. in many countries you can have "farm strips".
Thomas wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:32 am
- Installing a GNSS approach … 5 years and 500td EUR.
I'm not sure where this figure comes from - I heard about 10 times less amount.
Thomas wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:32 am
- Maintenance; How long are we waiting for ELA 2 !
I agree on this - that's good example of bureaucratic inefficiency.
Thomas wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:32 am
- Small shops closed to stringed environmental and other requirement’s.
Sometimes it's not related to EASA (or not solely to EASA) but also to other regulations and I know that Germany and Switzerland are pretty tough on this.
Thomas wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:32 am
I know that some EU countries are less consequent in applying the EASA rules, but definitely not D and CH
I agree - look at the stiffness of other D and CH regulation and you'll get the answer on why something is more complicated than it should be.

As I wrote previously, I don't say that EASA system is better (or even close) to FAA, I'm just saying it's not so bad that badly affects all aspects of flying. Living in Croatia and owning aircraft on Swedish registry can give you the picture of problems that I had with previous aircrafts on Croatian registry. So yes, I'm aware that bureaucracy can make your life tough when they find their way of enforcing regulation.
Post Reply