You somehow read things I haven't written. I have said that I think it's unprofesional -in general- when unqualified people take control over important decisions affecting safety in aviation. This is echoed by many news sources at this very moment.
Yes - and that assumes that the EASA is unprofessional and controlled by obscure politicians. Read below why:
I have also said that it is partcularly ridiculous that planes enroute are effected and did have to divert. You can keep denying it. But the ministers of indidual countries grounded the plane first yesterday and EASA basicly confirmed this at a later moment. It'a obviously a messy situation and if you don't think so, that's your opinion and I will respect that. You seem to have little respect over other people's opinion by becoming personal about things you know nothing about.
It is not like you are not "personal" against the engineers at the EASA and the NAAs, including the Dutch NAA?
Do you really believe the EASA decided in 20 minutes that the 737 MAX will be grounded? Or any other national agency involved?
That Scheuers statement preempted the EASA decisions is bad timing (and typically egoistic) and I would not exclude him to decide this after reading the tabloids about it. But he was not alone.
And fact is: In the background of such news, EASA and NAAs had already been busy getting all information about the 737 Max on the table and exchange with FAA and NTSB right after dust at the crash site settled. And you can be sure, the meeting with the decision to close European airspace did not happen after Scheuers statement, but in the early afternoon before Italy closed their airspace as well. Maybe they did not decide as fast as others.
Also, the CAA of Britain is sure not less professional than others or would you also say, they are ruled by politicians? Or the CASA of Australia, which had been among the first to decide to ground the 737 Max.
And you are wrong about quite a few things. I am not an European flight instructor. I am a Dutch flight instructor. I have never represented EASA. None of my licenses were ever printed on EASA paper. My signature is on it. And the signature of the Dutch minister. Soon the licenses will all be issued by EASA though. In my case, that will happen this year for the first time. Not eleven years ago. The transition to EASA is ongoing for quite some time now. It was postponed several times.
Still, all safety decisions are already coordinated by EASA since 2002 and EASA is fully operational in its own decisions since 2008. So, even without you being under direct control of EASA in your job, the European legislation and the responsibilities already switched to EASA 17 years ago. Even the dutch aviation authority is member of the EASA.
No idea why you think this is relevant. But the answer is simple. Yes. It's the duty of any pilot in command to make sure the plane is safe before flight by doing an inspection and signing off the paperwork to indicate this.
So you think there is no difference between an individual aircraft and a model? Why are those people who decide over the airworthiness engineers then in both Europe and the USA, while its not mandatory to be an engineer for a pilots license? Do you think your pre-flight checks will detect hidden design flaws in the aircraft software? And how long are you checking before each flight? Sure no full day, do you?
For being able to fly, you are depending implicitly on FAA or EASA doing their job properly. You trust them with your life. If they do a bad job, you won't notice it before you left the ground.
May I remind you of your claim that European aviation is safer than US aviation? You 'forgot' to answer thay one. Who's talking nonsense?
I did never say "safer". I said a different doctrine is behind the decisions (precautionary principle vs scientific principle, the former is a EU standard for all regulations, regardless if its about aircraft or children toys). That is why the FAA can still permit a model to fly, while the EASA already decides to play safe. For Europe, its enough to have "potentially unsafe" to ground an aircraft or ban an airline, while in the USA its "known unsafe".
Maybe this appears to be "safer", but no, it isn't. It just means putting different emphasis on how to prevent accidents. It also means a difference on WHO has to prove that something is unsafe. In the EU, the manufacturers have to prove something is safe, in the USA the FAA has essentially to prove something is unsafe.
---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------
And a new (tiny) vote of non-confidence against the USA and Boeing... Ethiopia wants that a European country analyzes the black boxes for the investigation, not the country of the manufacturer (USA) as alternative when the country of the airline or the accident is not able to investigate it.
Which country is still unknown, but the best candidate organizations regarding Boeing aircraft would be AAIB (UK) and BfU (Germany). I don't think the BEA of France would be chosen for a Boeing aircraft, AFAIR, they cooperated with the BfU to analyze Boeing black boxes.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5050774/ethiopia-black-box-ethiopian-airlines-crash/
