International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations - European Region
INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTER
421 Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701 USA
Tel [1] (301) 695 2221, Fax [1] (301) 695 2375
e-mail: Este endereço de email está protegido contra piratas. Necessita ativar o JavaScript para o visualizar.
European Commission VICE PRESIDENT EUROPEAN REGION
DG TREN Dr. Rudolf Gerber
Director Daniel Calleja Breitestrasse 9
Office DM24 05/153 CH-8472 Seuzach / Switzerland
BE-1049 Bruxelles Tel/Fax [41] (52) 335 45 19
Belgium e-mail: Este endereço de email está protegido contra piratas. Necessita ativar o JavaScript para o visualizar.
March 29, 2007
DISCUSSION PAPER ON GENERAL AVIATION IN THE EC
COMMENTS FROM IAOPA (EUR)
Dear Señor Calleja
I would like to thank you on behalf of IAOPA (EUR) for the opportunity to participate at the first discussion forum on GA in the EU and to offer two presentations. We appreciate your short report and are glad to answer your kind invitation with our complementing comments on the discussion paper that are not confidential and may be published on the website.
Comprising the whole sector of private air transportation beside public air transportation by airlines and charter, General Aviation with its numerous functions, airplanes of different weight, power and capacities and various kinds of operation asks for proportional regulation. Therefore we welcome the EU Commissions initiative to develop a Communication on General Aviation that can help to stop overregulation and allow differentiated regulation.
We support the concentration of the future work on the issues arising from page 3 of your report from the 1st Discussion Forum on GA and assure you our full cooperation. IAOPA can offer a lot of data about GA in the EC and disposes of studies that were made on GA’s contribution to the economy. They also may help to avoid severe problems arising from EASA with it’s new proposals for maintenance (IR-M).
Looking forward to the next steps to a safe and prosperous development of GA in the EC I remain sincerely yours
Dr. Rudolf Gerber
Attachment: Comments from IAOPA (EUR) on the Discussion Paper on GA in the EC
IAOPA’s comments on the Discussion Paper on GA in the EC
IAOPA’s comments are not confidential and may be published.
Comments focus on points where IAOPA wants to clarify, gives additional data to complete or has a different view.
The comments start with a general remark and then follow the structure of the discussion paper and refer to the numbers in the table of contents.
1. Objective of the Discussion paper
Regulation Principles
Better Regulation Principles need to be applied uniformly throughout the EC.
When developing new regulations or when amending existing laws regulators need to make sure that they are:
-
Proportionate: Regulators should only intervene when necessary.
Remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed, and costs identified and minimised. -
Accountable: Regulators must be able to justify decisions, and be subject to public scrutiny.
-
Consistent: Government rules and standards must be joined up and implemented fairly.
-
Transparent: Regulators should be open, and keep regulations simple and user friendly.
-
Targeted: Regulation should be focused on the problem, and minimise side effects.
Political judgement will be improved as a result of better information and there is an urgent need for good quality data in respect of European General Aviation. This is a prerequisite prior to being able to produce meaningful Impact Assessments or cost verses benefit studies.
In order to insure that there is equity and fairness there has to be segmented Impact Assessments (IA) so that the decision makers can fully understand the impact on the different aviation communities. To achieve this there needs to be a policy that directs this to happen across all agencies.
3. What is General Aviation?
General Aviation is a term with several slightly different definitions. Originally General Aviation was introduced as a term for all flight operations that are not part of the military or the airlines. (See also www.GAservingAmerica.org dated 2006).
ICAO defines General Aviation as all civil Non-Commercial and Non-Aerial Work operations.
GA comprises all individual, personal civil air transportation and activity while airlines and charter serve scheduled public air traffic.
Further specification needs deepened knowledge of the various kinds of operations of General Aviation aircraft as mentioned below (4.1. Statistical Information). A rough separation of individual and personal civil air transportation into commercial and recreational operations – as drafted in the Regulation 1592/2002 (COM 579) - does not at all cover the needs of a proportional regulation. But it would affect as a killer item the activities of Flying Schools, Clubs (motor powered flying, gliding, parachuting), training facilities, owner associations and owners and pilots using their aircraft for different purposes as business trips one day, training, private travel or occasional flights with passengers contributing to the costs of flown hours the other day.
Definitions do not only clarify the meaning of terms but also define the scope of application of regulations. The more legal certainty and uniform approach is in our view of utmost importance as divergence of interpretations has an impact on the scope of application of Community legislation and thus create distortions of competition in the internal market and compromise safety and security of air operations in the European airspace.
As long as there are differences in an internal market where all European citizens are supposed to have the same opportunities, GA in some countries will never be able to grow and compete in fair conditions with other member states and with other markets.
4.1. Introduction
Statistical Information
Using the principle that in order to manage any activity it must first be defined by its nature and activity levels. The institution and maintenance of a detailed statistical database of European general aviation activity must receive a high priority. Without data to define general aviation activity it will be difficult to demonstrate its utility and value to EU decision makers. Some EU states have fairly comprehensive and accurate databases that describe general aviation activities within their borders, but the majority of states do not have such data.
To initiate such a project an agency must be designated to define, request and receive such data. Either the European Commission or European Aviation Safety Agency would be suitable organizations to perform this task, but since EASA has a vested interest in the progress of aviation activities and is a sub-directorate level agency the Air Transport Directorate of the EC is probably the best agency to conduct such an activity. Importantly, they have a greater power to properly define, request and maintain this data.
While the definitions of general aviation activity are being developed by EASA it must fall to the agency collecting the data to precisely define its requirements. For instance, it is not enough to request the total number of general aviation aircraft registered within a state; subdivisions of aircraft categories, types and classes must be requested as well (e.g. single-engine piston powered, multi-engine helicopter, powered-lift and multi-seat gliders).
As a minimum the following basic statistics must be captured and maintained on regular basis:
-
Licensed pilots – by certificate level, e.g. sport, private, commercial, airline transport, flight instructor, etc.
-
Registered aircraft – by category, class and type
-
Weight classes, especially for aeroplanes will be important to better define general aviation, such as 750, 2’000 and 5’700 kg.
-
This information must be subject to audit and verification to ensure accuracy.
Of equal importance is the need to maintain a database containing data describing General Aviation activity. Activity is usually described by the number of hours flown by the various classes of aircraft. This data may be collected via annual user reports, surveys of the aviation population or estimates made based on fuel consumption. None of these methods is without error and anomaly, but some means of determining activity is essential if the value and utility of general aviation is to be portrayed.
While total hours flown is of great value in defining activity, flight purpose is almost as value. Since a single General Aviation aircraft may be used for commercial air transport (charter), aerial work (flight training) and non-commercial transport (personal use) all within the same day, recording the amounts used for each purpose produces valuable information.
Therefore, activity should capture the following:
-
Hours flown – by aircraft category, including aircraft weight divisions
-
Hours flown – by flight purpose – commercial, non-commercial or aerial work (either commercial or non-commercial)
While number of aircraft departures is important for commercial air transport, they are of less value for general aviation but may have greater applicability for aerodromes. However, aerodrome operators traditionally are responsible for capturing this data.
The number of passengers carried will also be of interest.
Finally, all of this information should be maintained in a sophisticated relational database that will permit cross-referenced data inquires for true statistical inference.
4.2. Recreational aviation and air sports
4.4. Personal air transportation
Most of powered General Aviation Aircrafts up to 2500 kg are used for private and personal transportation. Their pilots operate according to Instrumental or Visual flight rules, IFR and VFR. This activity for personal or business purposes with the biggest economic importance should not be mixed up with recreational flying or air sports.
Personal transportation is crossing regions and borders while air sports are mostly local or regional activities.
Microlights with limited weight and range will grow in the recreational market and may serve in some places as first step training aircraft for private pilots looking for PPL or higher licenses.
4.3. Aerial work
It is important to note that aerial work may be considered either as a commercial or non-commercial activity. For instance, flight training, transporting sport parachutists and glider aerial tow activities may be engaged in by either commercial or non-commercial entities. A flight training organisation authorized to conduct its activities by the state or regional authority is a commercial, e.g. for-profit enterprise. However, a flying club may also use its aircraft for flight training, but since it is a not-for-profit activity it is non-commercial. The same principle applies to sport parachute transport and glider tow activities.
Therefore, as regulations are devised for aerial work activities, the commercial vs. non-commercial aspects must always be considered. Primary among these considerations are the level of safety afforded to an individual who pays a commercial operator for a flight service compared to that of an aviation club member who benefits from a variety of services provided as a consequence of club membership, a non-profit venture.
ICAO Annex 6, Part II, Operation of Aircraft, International General Aviation – Aeroplanes, articulates this dual level of safety and protection as follows:
Level of safety: The Annex should ensure an acceptable level of safety to third parties (third parties meaning persons on the ground and persons in the air in other aircraft). Also, as some international general aviation operations will be performed:
a) by crews less experienced and less skilled;
b) by less reliable equipment;
c) to less rigorous standards; and
d) with greater freedom of action than in commercial air
transport operations;
it has to be accepted that the passenger in international General Aviation aircraft will not necessarily enjoy the same level of safety as the fare-paying passenger in commercial air transport. However, it was recognized that in ensuring an acceptable degree of safety for third parties, an acceptable level of safety for flight crews and passengers would be achieved.
Similarly, aerial work activities will fall outside the purview of either commercial or non-commercial activities if they are conducted by the state, which for the most part are immune to civil aviation standards and recommended practices. Examples of these activities include aerial survey, police patrol and fire suppression.
Interestingly, with the exception of flight training and security, ICAO has developed virtually no standards specifically for aerial work activities.
4.6. Business Aviation
Business Aviation is that sector of aviation which concerns the operation or use of aircraft by companies for the carriage of passengers and goods as an aid to the conduct of their business, flown for purposes generally considered not for public hire and piloted by individuals having at the minimum a valid commercial pilot licence with an instrument rating. Often referred to as executive aviation is the self fly businessman, who uses his aircraft to enhance the efficiency of his business. Using a light aircraft often means that the ‘self – fly ‘ businessman is not caught up in traffic on roads that are very busy – using the network of GA airfields means that these people can get near to the place that they want to be.
The EC Mid Term Review 2001 Transport White Paper: “Sustainable mobility for our Continent” did not mention General Aviation. It reported the concern with regards to transport in remote regions and said that CAT sector suffered from “its lack of door to door service”
Some parts of GA and all of business aviation either corporate or executive needs to be seen as part of Europe’s Transport system which does deliver their ‘passengers’ to where they want to go.
5.1. Access to airports and
5.2. Access to airspace
More than 90 percent of European General Aviation aircraft operate under visual flight rules (VFR). This activity is only permitted without communications with an air traffic control facility or air traffic clearance within a few types of airspace, ICAO Classes E, F or G. The ability to operate freely within these types of airspace is important to General Aviation pilots because of the ad hoc nature of their operations.
However, uniform application of airspace types within Europe is quite poor due to there being no central agency governing this application. In one European state a small airport may be contained within Class A airspace, imposing the most stringent level of control, while in a neighbouring state this same type of airport may lie within Class D airspace, requiring only radio communication with an air traffic control tower and no air traffic control clearance. This over-classification of airspace by many states unnecessarily restricts the activities of many general aviation operations and causes lengthy delays and detours.
More important, as commercial air transport grows and accesses more regional aerodromes the expansion of closely-controlled airspace (Classes A, B and C) grows at an alarming rate. This phenomenon is most apparent at the proliferation and expansion of terminal area airspace (TMA) where close control and access difficulties abound. While air traffic rules state that non-instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft may be granted access to Class B and C airspace, which commonly comprise TMA airspace, the reality is that air traffic controllers seldom seem to have the time or energy to issue such transit clearances.
The ability of a VFR pilot to safely negotiate the complex terminal airspace and associated vertical restrictions is becoming increasingly difficult. For instance, the very complex TMA surrounding Zurich may force pilots to choose between an airspace violation or a collision with an obstacle or terrain. This airspace is so complex that a special training course has been developed to accommodate its intricacies!
Eurocontrol is pressing for a “simplified” airspace classification system that will reduce the current ICAO-defined seven types to just two types, “known” and “unknown.” If this is permitted to occur general aviation will lose a great amount of freedom and be required to operate under either a communications requirement or actual air traffic clearance the majority of the time. These clearance/communication requirements will also require expensive radio/transponder equipment. This cannot be permitted to happen.
Modern information technology like ADS-B and Digital Communication will facilitate the mixed use of airspace by GA, airlines and UAVs by allowing GA pilots to share the same information about the traffic situation as ATControllers and Airline Pilots have. Safety will be enhanced by reducing the risk of collision.
The EC Framework Regulation sets out to enhance current safety standards and over all efficiency for General Air Traffic in Europe, to “optimise capacity meeting the requirements of all airspace users and minimise delay”
As the demand for more CAS grows there is often an impact on the surrounding airspace which is used by GA - causing bottle necks!
As regional airports continue to expand they often need airspace that is controlled which connects from the terminal airspace to the en route airspace. This again can create problems for GA as access is reduced and the potential for maintaining existing safety standards are reduced. Airspace planners need to examine the impact of changes to controlled airspace on the surrounding uncontrolled airspace.
GA needs fair and equitable access to both airspace and airports if it is to deliver its full potential to the benefit of the European economy and therefore there are needs for a proper system in place that examines the impact of change to all airspace users. Safety has to be the first priority for all users. Look at how the system overall benefits and try to find a way to fund those who do not benefit from the proposal so that safety and capacity gains may be delivered sooner.
5.3. Environmental impact of General Aviation
At any flying site, intrusive aircraft noise can be reduced with a little effort by:
-
careful engine and propeller handling,
-
thoughtful circuit planning to avoid sensitive areas,
-
recommended arrival and departure routes.
The majority of airfields operate happily without upsetting their neighbours. This is because:
-
They are valued in the local community for the business and pleasure they bring.
-
They safeguard valuable open space and keep it safe from intensive development.
-
They have a written airfield briefing designed to prevent a recurrence and help everyone go about their flying business with minimum disruption to the lives of others.
Very few operational difficulties are incapable of a solution. Some practical suggestions:
-
After take-off, reduce power and increase propeller pitch as soon as it is safe and practicable to do so.
-
Climb to at least 500ft QFE before turning.
-
Fly as compact a circuit as possible at 800-1000ft AGL.
-
If possible, periodically vary the circuit direction.
-
In the local area and en-route fly as high as airspace and weather considerations allow.
-
Avoid flying over populated areas and try to keep downwind of noise sensitive sites like hospitals and schools.
Good practice is common sense:
-
Always use the full length of the runway for take off.
-
After take off fly at best angle of climb speed until clear of built up areas, then best rate of climb speed.
-
For maximum rate of climb avoid turning; it reduces performance and increases the noise footprint below.
-
Fly as tight a circuit as is safe and practicable at 800-1000 ft AGL, avoiding sensitive areas and looking out for other traffic.
-
Reduce power downwind to maintain required airspeed. Avoid high propeller RPM.
-
Whenever possible avoid making a long, flat, powered approach
Engineering Solutions to reduce aircraft noise:
-
Propellers: More blades and less diameter. Airworthiness Approval needed.
-
Exhaust Systems: Approved silencer kits are available for some types.
-
Greener Fuels: for instance 91/96 unleaded AVGAS.
However in some states the certification costs have delayed the transition to these new technologies. We need a much more effective and efficient certification system, we have high hopes in EASA delivering pan European rules that help to speed up the current system.
5.4. Taxation of General Aviation
The term “of private pleasure flying” has to be replaced with the correct terms of personal or private transportation or Aerial Work for flight training as mentioned in point 4.1.and 4.3.
Item (107) contains a definition that does not at all correspond to any official and worldwide acknowledged definition. Taxation on energy products “supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than in private pleasure flying” must be reviewed with the goal to create equal proportions as for private traffic on the road. The recent Directive on tax exempting on aviation fuel had a dramatic impact on movements and hours flown by General Aviation. It also affected flight training to hold or renew licenses – a consequence opposed to the interest of safety. Bearing in mind that General Aviation consumes only 0,03% of the total Automotive fuel in Europe it is justified to ask for the proportionality of the regulation and the over all costs for a small benefit.
5.5. Social and economical dimension of General Aviation
Despite the fact that the statistical database for General Aviation suffers from certain lacks that IAOPA can help to cover, there are scientific national studies showing the dimensions of General Aviations social and economic benefits. Projected to the EC-level they reach 15 bn Euro revenues per year and about 50’000 highly qualified employees in the General Aviation industry.
General Aviation connects remote European Areas without easy access to Airline Hubs, Highways or Fast Train Networks and tending to be the losers of the European Unification process. Good connections within reach become a more and more important location factor for industrial companies on the supra national market. In the geographically growing European market metropolitan areas with good access to airline networks are the winners with the economy often heating up (rising labour costs, expensive real estates and pollution). Whereas the remote areas are difficult to reach, companies and labour force leave these areas. Labour force becomes cheap, but management can’t reach these areas within an acceptable travel time.
GA can mitigate this problem with short runways of 1500x30m and a GPS approach. General and Business Aircraft don’t need 2500x45m runways, airline terminals, control towers, ILS, security controls, etc. Their modern aircraft with Diesel engines consume less than 2,5 liters per Pax/100km and are outside of airfields much more silent than cars. GA Airfields are less noisy than streets. Total GA fuel consumption is 0,03% of Total Automotive fuel.
6. Regulatory developments in the EC
Performance-Based Standards
ICAO has recently pledged to move away from very finite prescriptive standards and more toward more goal-oriented performance-based standards. For instance, in the forthcoming revision to Annex 6, Part II, specific types of flight instruments, such as a sensitive pressure altimeter or directional gyroscope, are now replaced by a requirement for “a means of measuring and displaying … pressure altitude … and… stabilized heading.” Much of this was necessitated by advances in cockpit displays but the philosophy of standards that incorporate objectives is the guiding principle.
This approach of permitting the pilot/operator to determine or choose a means of compliance with a stated objective has merit and should be considered for future aviation standards within the EU.
6.2. Description of the aviation acquis relevant for the GA sector
Security of Civil Aviation
The security provisions imposed on pilot licensing, aircraft movements and airports within Europe has proved to be challenging and often restrictive for General Aviation operations in many states. While General Aviation is quite concerned about the safety of its personnel, innocent third parties and security of its aircraft and airports, overly-restrictive practices discourage existing operators and new entrants from enjoying the possibilities presented by our unique mode of transportation.
A major problem in devising rational but not restrictive security provisions is the failure of regulators to note the distinction between the security requirements for commercial and non-commercial air transportation. The ability of large commercial aircraft to inflict damage on third parties or property or to bring harm on large numbers of innocent passengers has driven many of the security provisions of ICAO Annex 17 and regulatory authorities worldwide. However, the relatively small size, load carrying capability and passenger capacity of the majority of General Aviation aircraft makes a different level of security reasonable and prudent. Unfortunately, many states have not recognized these distinctions, consequently enacting burdensome and unnecessary security provisions on the general aviation community.
The EC/EP draft document 2005/0191, “On common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002” also fails to make this important distinction in levels of capability and threat between commercial and non-commercial air transportation. If enacted, this statute will have a chilling and retarding effect on General Aviation operations within Europe because of its one-size-fits-all approach.
The answer to these inequities is to conduct segmented threat analyses that account for the capabilities of the various users of the airspace, and develop security provisions accordingly. Without these key analyses and informed security provisions General Aviation in Europe will surely regress and contract.
Conclusion
General Aviation brings many benefits to the EU but most of these very positive items have not been mentioned in the past because they have not been quantified. Our estimates for social and economic benefits carry little credibility among Europe's decision makers because a verifiable survey has not been accomplished that will list and quantify those benefits. Therefore, the EC should undertake a survey that will provide businesses and governments with the true dimensions of value brought to the population by General Aviation activity. Only then will general aviation be perceived as a useful and valuable segment of the European transportation system.
March 28, 2007 IAOPA (EUR)
Dr. Rudolf Gerber
Vice President
