IFFR.org

EASA railroads its N-reg attack through Parliament

The European Parliament yesterday approved EASA-FCL despite a last-minute attempt to have it sent back to EASA for redrafting because of unresolved issues surrounding third-country licences. The vote was very close – 16 against approval, 22 for – and a surprise for IAOPA was the fact that the Parliament's Transport Committee chairman Brian Simpson and his socialist group voted in EASA's favour. Mr Simpson had expressed support for IAOPA's position on the N-register in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly.

The passage of EASA-FCL despite the deleterious effect it will have on the general aviation industry illustrates not only the absence of any real democratic control over EASA but the failings of the whole European governmental structure. EASA-FCL was born out of a Basic Regulation written by European Commissioners with no electoral mandate; the details were added by bureaucrats at EASA who paid lip service to the idea of consultation with industry. When the time came to vote, the elected members of the European Parliament were denied the opportunity to pass judgement on the components of this long and complex document – they only had the power to accept all of EASA's proposals, or reject them entirely. Because the Commission's deadlines (themselves entirely arbitrary) are bearing down on us, MEPs are under enormous pressure to pass the legislation; failure to do so would have caused chaos and confusion among the national aviation authorities who are expected to begin implementing EASA-FCL by April next year, and it is a measure of the extreme level of concern MEPs have over the N-registration issue that many of them were prepared to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

The decision was effectively taken on August 31st by the Transport and Tourism Committee, which speaks for the whole Parliament on this issue. Thanks in part to the work of Herbert Habnit, founder of AOPA Netherlands, two MEPs, Peter van Dalen and Philip Bradbourne, had sought a resolution saying that EASA's third-country licensing proposals meant that many pilots would be severely disadvantaged, subject to additional training, examination and 'notable costs', and that the requirements were 'disproportionate'. EASA claims the shortcomings in its regulation can be overcome by a bilateral agreement between Europe and the US, but the van Dalen/Bradbourne motion points out that 'there is absolutely no evidence nor clear future prospects for the potential bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements being drafted and to be concluded before April 2014'(by which time the third-country provision of EASA-FCL must be fully implemented) that would solve these problems. It goes on to say there are no safety issues behind EASA's regulation, and adds that the draft regulation does not even conform to the requirements of the Commission's own Basic Regulation.

Four more votes would have tipped the matter in general aviation's favour. Mr Habnit was particularly disappointed at the failure of Mr Simpson and those in his sphere of influence to support the resolution. Mr Simpson had, says Mr Habnit, abrogated the provisions of the European Parliament's own 'Agenda for a Sustainable Future for General Aviation', adopted in 2009. There has, he adds, been no real attempt to quantify the cost of this politically-motivated attack on the GA industry. 'Even EASA does not understand the consequences of its actions.' IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said afterwards: 'It's a sad day. The MEPs were put under enormous pressure to push this through and were denied the ability to address the huge flaws in it. This could not have been railroaded through in a truly democratic process. Economically, the vote is seriously bad news for our industry. Many of those who have been flying perfectly safely for decades on FAA licences are not going to make the extraordinary investment of time, effort and money needed to get European IRs or other qualifications – they will simply give up. The European Parliament has blown a great hole in our industry with this vote, and because it has been bamboozled by EASA, it doesn't even know it.

'We now have to focus on the detail of the FCL annexe to the Bilateral Agreement to make sure that EASA and the FAA reach sensible agreements on what credits they will give to each other's training systems. It is unlikely that the 2014 deadline will be achieved given the amount of work that needs to be done, and the Commission has accepted that the deadline may need to be extended. Retrospective legislation like this is damaging and the Commission should now work hard with the industry to reduce as far a possible the negative impact of these decisions.'

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

EASA-Ops – some amelioration, but not enough

ASA's final proposals on Ops were published yesterday (August 31st), and while they have matured considerably since the original poor-quality document was first made public, there are still areas with which IAOPA is not satisfied. It is important that members look at Notice of Proposed Amendment and make their observations clear to EASA. Failure to do so may mean we are saddled with the undesirable, pointless and in some cases expensive requirements which remain in the proposals, despite the best efforts of Working Groups to have them removed. IAOPA's representatives on the two Working Groups were Jeremy James (non-complex ops) and Jacob Pedersen (complex ops). Both are happy that the most onerous requirements have been cut out of the regulations. In complex ops, the absurd requirement that a single-engined aircraft be capable of continuing its take-off after an engine failure has gone, as has a requirement that would effectively have prevented a single engined aircraft from taking off at all in IMC conditions. In non-complex ops, a requirement that all helicopters be fitted with floats when flying over water has been modified to exempt aircraft flying within 50 miles of land, and the demand for steerable landing lights has been finessed. The contentious demand that all aircraft be equipped with a fixed ELT has been replaced with a more sensible requirement for a PLB to be carried on an aircraft with six or fewer seats.

Proposals to require two horizons for night flight have gone. However, a demand for heated pitot heads for night flying has been re-introduced at the last moment after having been cut out at the Working Group stage. This is a particular blow in the helicopter world, where heated pitots are generally fitted only to aircraft which will operate in IMC and where retrofitting costs will be enormous. The requirement is all the more baffling because it was not contained in the last draft regulation, produced only three weeks earlier, and there has been no explanation for its reintroduction.

Other issues are:

1. Oxygen requirements – mandatory above FL130 and if you fly between FL100 and FL130 for more than 30 minutes.

2. Mandatory fire extinguisher, with no exemption for aerobatic flights as requested.

3. Poor dangerous goods regulation, not adapted to non-commercial operations.

4. More than doubled minimum visibility for an IFR take-off without a special approval – now 400 meters RVR, as opposed to the existing 150 meters RVR, with no justification for the change.

Jacob Pedersen says: "Items 1 and 2 prevent the pilot from taking responsibility and selecting the safest course of action in a given situation. It should never be the case that a safety regulation forces a pilot to choose a less safe option, and in both situations EASA goes directly against the recommendation of EASA's own review group. Consider the pilot who is crossing the Alps at FL110 and finds himself on top of a cloud layer after 30 minutes. Should he be forced to leave FL110, with smooth air and blue sky, to descend 1000 ft, bringing him closer to high terrain and into the clouds that might contain severe turbulence, rain, hail or worse? EASA may make it the only legal option, but is it also the safest? Germany has had good results with allowing operations between FL100 and FL120 without extra oxygen, and it is exactly these altitudes which are so important, particularly for the Alpine regions." The dangerous goods rules will cover EASA's back but add to cost and do nothing for safety. Few non-commercial pilots will ever apply for dangerous goods approval, nor will they intentionally fly with dangerous goods. Yet EASA's rules will require all pilots to buy an ICAO document costing €100, plus an update charge. In practice what will happen is that most pilots will never know that they are violating ICAO recommendations on dangerous goods since they will never obtain what is in fact a document produced for the commercial world.

Jacob says: "The first three cases above are clear examples of the fact that EASA is not writing safety regulation to promote safety but to absolve EASA from liability if something goes wrong. If a pilot wants to take what he considers to be the safest course of action, he could be forced to break the rules, which is absurd. Item 4 is an example of EASA changing regulation to prevent operations that have been conducted safely for decades, without providing any evidence as to why this change is necessary."

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Spain wins ground on AENA charges

After a long campaign, AOPA Spain has met with some success in persuading the national aviation infrastructure authority AENA to moderate the landing fees it charges at Spanish airports.

AENA has officially announced that rates or 2012 will be much more reasonable than those it had originally proposed. Fees will be €30, €17 and €10, depending on the category of airport. Rafael Molina of AOPA Spain says disproportionate increases in GA fees at airports were made earlier this year, since when AOPA has been running a campaign to convince AENA that its charges are having a severe depressing effect on the GA industry at a critical time. Now, managers have responded by proposing increases which, while higher than AOPA has suggested, are much lower than they originally intended. Sr Molina reports that a new problem is raising its head – that of mandatory handling at Spanish airports, with its attendant charges.

AOPA has arranged a series of meetings with AENA officials in September to negotiate on compulsory handling, with the aim of eliminating the requirement where there are alternatives, and providing free handling where the airport claims it must use vehicles to transport pilots and passengers to and from the terminal for security reasons.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Channel Islands ATC starts to mend fences with GA

Profound disagreements over the imposition of 'prior permission' requirements for VFR flight to the Channel Islands have had one positive result – the establishment of a joint GA/ATC working group which aims to prevent such issues arising in the first place.

The first meeting of the 'Channel Islands Air Traffic Control and General Aviation Working Group has been hailed a ‘great success’ by Fergus Woods, Director of Civil Aviation for the islands, and Charles Strasser, AOPA' Channel islands Chairman. The 'prior permission' requirement, imposed without consultation in an area where traffic is relatively light and is in any case down by some 20 percent on a few years ago, led to some angry exchanges, and as reported in the last enews, the islands' authorities are now phasing it out. Discussion of the issue at the first working group meeting was described as 'frank and honest'.

Afterwards Charles Strasser said: “Although we are disappointed that PPR has not been removed entirely, we recognise that this working group will allow the GA community to be consulted on all future changes to operations in Channel Islands airspace in a timely fashion. This forum will enable us to work with the DCA and ATC management to make visits to the Channel Islands easier and more attractive to the wider community that AOPA represents. This will also filter through to the ongoing work to identify the true contribution that the GA community brings to the Channel Islands’ States.”

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Britain gives ground on Olympic restrictions

The British Government has made vital concessions to general aviation over its plans for flying restrictions during the Olympic Games in London in 2012, and AOPA UK believes the changes could be the difference between bankruptcy and survival for some flight training organisations.

The original restrictions, announced in March, covered a vast area of Britain’s most active GA airspace, 100 miles across, and were scheduled to run for the two busiest months of the flying season. A limited number of flights would be allowed, but only of aircraft with transponders and after VFR flight plans had been filed and accepted. Student solo cross-countries were banned and VFR aircraft were totally prohibited from parts of the area. Since March, IAOPA has been working with others to win alleviation from the most onerous aspects of the restrictions. It has had strong support from the UK CAA, the air traffic control company NATS and the Department for Transport, who have been able to convince the security services that important adjustments could be made without compromising security at the Games.

This month the government announced a series of amendments which went a long way towards meeting IAOPA’s goals. Most importantly, the main restrictions will last for only one month, from 14 July to 15 August, while less onerous restrictions will cover the period of the Paralympics from 16 August to 12 September. In addition, the restricted area has been shaved in some areas, and a long list of concessions have been made to cover specific problems around individual airfields.

Those who lie within three miles of the boundary of the restricted area can apply for exemptions to allow them to come and go at will, using agreed routes. The ban on student solo cross-countries has been lifted, and arrangements have been made for airfields in the prohibited zone to stay in business. A dedicated group of military air traffic controllers will be established, using civilian equipment, to provide a flight-following service for up to 120 aircraft an hour in the restricted zone. On the subject of transponder carriage the security services were immovable, but circuit traffic has been exempted from the requirement to file flight plans and will not count towards the 120 aircraft limit.

IAOPA’s Martin Robinson says: “The changes are highly significant and we owe a great debt to everyone who has worked hard to help us, most notably the CAA, NATS and the Department for Transport, and to the security services for responding to our concerns. General aviation is not in robust health, and the original proposals would have tipped some companies over the edge. It’s now up to us to ensure that we use the slots available wisely so that none are wasted, and to sharpen our RT and our airmanship to fit the needs of the moment.” Full details of the restrictions can be seen at http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

New EC Aviation Director meets with IAOPA

IAOPA-Europe has had its first full-length meeting with the European Commission’s new Director of Air Transport Matthew Baldwin, and it turned out to be a positive experience on which we hope a good relationship can be built. Mr Baldwin and the Deputy Head of Unit, Aviation Safety, Olga Koumartsioti, met with IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson for ninety minutes on July 28th and discussed a wide variety of general aviation topics. Afterwards Martin Robinson said: “It’s been a very positive start, and while it’s clear Mr Baldwin does not have a general aviation background, he is open to discussion and is willing to listen.”

While there was a written agenda for the meeting it was largely a sounding-out exercise, Martin said, and he was left with a clearer idea of the issues that need to be addressed most urgently. One topic covered was the accident data on which EASA bases some regulation. Martin Robinson says: “I was able to point out that accident statistics provided to EASA often had a preponderance of Annex 2 aircraft in them – aircraft which EASA does not regulate. EASA therefore makes regulations to attack accidents which are happening primarily in the unregulated sector, creating cost and bureaucratic burden for the sectors which are not having the accidents.

“But this was not the time to discuss the shortcomings of EASA. We want to forge a constructive relationship with the EC’s Transport Department DGMOV, and the picture will become clear to them as time goes on.” Agenda subjects included the European Parliament’s White Paper ‘A Sustainable Future for Business and General Aviation’ and how this will evolve; the bilateral agreement with the United States and matters arising from it; and EASA’s lack of working consultation processes. Martin says: “We discussed the shortcomings of a one-size-fits-all approach, and Matthew Baldwin praised IAOPA four our involvement in SESAR, which is important. I think it was an important first meeting, with plenty to build upon for the future. We’re likely to meet again in November.”

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Channel Islands backtracks on VFR PPR

Air Traffic Control authorities in the Channel Islands have begun progressively withdrawing their requirement for prior permission for VFR flights following an intervention by AOPA. The dismantling of the PPR requirement, which was introduced at the beginning of July, began on July 27th and continues through August – see notams for the hours covered. AOPA’s Channel Islands Chairman Charles Strasser says AOPA will continue pushing for easement of PPR until it is totally removed.

The withdrawal comes after an extraordinary campaign in which ill-tempered attacks were made on AOPA and on pilots who questioned the need for new restrictions in a relatively low-traffic area which is covered by Class A airspace, and for which flight plans must already be filed for VFR flights from the UK, as well as a form that satisfies customs and police. The requirement to obtain prior permission, via a 17-step online system – later modified after AOPA protests to allow requests for PPR on a Helpdesk phone line – was condemned as a further disincentive to visit the Channel Islands, and particularly upset pilots who are based there because they could not return home without obtaining an online slot. Traffic in the Channel Islands Control Zone (CICZ) is down by 20 percent in the last two years.

The imposition of PPR followed the commissioning of a new multi-million-euro ATC computer and operating system. IFR traffic was unaffected, as were VFR transit flights. Authorities in the Islands received many complaints from pilots who said the addition of yet another layer of permissions merely replicated much of the information already provided on flight plan forms. The debate eventually reached the Islands’ legislative assembly, where questions were asked about the new ATC system’s apparent inability to cope with levels of traffic routinely handled by the old system.

Although a two year study has been commissioned into changing the structure of the Class A airspace of the CICZ, AOPA’s Channel Islands Region continues to press for an urgent change to the Class A airspace, by raising its base from ground level to a suggested 2,500 feet, which will give easier access for VFR flights and at the same time ease the workload of ATC controllers who will not have to give a Zone entry clearance and Special VFR permission, but provide a deconfliction service only in the existing class D airspace immediately surrounding the airports. This system works well at much busier airports with long haul commercial traffic. Additionally, AOPA CI is suggesting a VFR corridor between the Cherbourg Peninsula and the island of Alderney to be height- and width-limited and under the control of Alderney Tower, which would also ease the workload of the Jersey Zone controllers.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Got a Malibu? Like Malibus?

Calling all European Malibu owners – AOPA UK member (and Malibu owner) Steven Day wants you to know that the 21st Annual Malibu and Mirage Owners and Pilots Association Fly-In Convention runs from September 14th to 18th at The Homestead resort in Hot Springs, Virginia. The convention is open to non-members – if you’re a Malibu enthusiast, you’re welcome. The Convention provides operators of Piper Malibu, Mirage, Matrix, Meridian, and JetProp PT6 conversions with outstanding academic programmes presented by industry experts on safety, operations and maintenance. The Piper factory is heavily involved and will be providing details about the new PiperJet Altaire It’s a good networking opportunity, and of course it has a major social side. www.mmopa.com has details.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

EU committee gives qualified nod to EASA-FCL

The European Parliament’s Transport Committee has expressed reservations about EASA’s FCL proposals but will not stand in their way, pending a further debate when all the proposals have been translated into all European languages. At a debate on May 25th MEPs were given sometimes-incomplete answers – the European Commission’s representative claimed there were ‘safety concerns’ over FAA licences – and the Chairman of the Transport Committee, Brian Simpson MEP, said that the issue was America’s refusal to accept European licences. “Is this a case of America dictating to us?” he asked. “If the US won’t recognise ours, why should we recognise theirs?” Some MEPs made very good cases on behalf of European pilots, notably the British Conservative MEPs Jackie Foster and Philip Bradbourn and the Austrian Green MEP Eva Lichtenberger. Ms Foster said that from a UK perspective, there had been a mutual recognition of FAA licences down the years and it wasn’t a big issue. “Clearly the UK was okay with FAA-trained pilots and there were no safety issues,” she said. Even though the deadline had been extended to 2014.

Philip Bradbourn added: “This EASA decision threatens a long-standing status quo. It is a solution without a problem. The domicile of the pilot is irrelevant.” There was no reason to change the system, he said. “Is there any evidence that FAA licences are unsafe? Cost is a real issue. If pilots have to convert – it’s estimated that some 68,000 pilots will be affected, and that’s a very conservative number – the cost of retraining will be £125 million.” The solution was quite simple, he added – in July the European Parliament should reject EASA-FCL until a firm bilateral agreement was found.

They received support from Ms Lichtenberger, who asked: “Are European pilot tests so outdated now that we are requiring unnecessary things from our European pilots? Is there also an element of age discrimination concerning medicals?”

But Brian Simpson said the European Parliament had passed the Basic Regulation with the European-licensing element included and could not now say it didn’t want it. (The Basic Regulation was outline law written by the EC, on which EASA was then expected to put flesh.) “The solution seems to be mutual recognition of pilot licences,” he said. “The issue seems to be the US not accepting EU licences.” For the EC, aviation policy director Matthew Baldwin said he believed the FAA licence issue was among those that had been ‘satisfactorily resolved’. The EC had a ‘clear mandate’ from the Basic Regulation for the licensing of pilots residing in the EU. They were trying to settle this through an annexe to a Bilateral Agreement with the United States. He added: “In certain respects, we believe some of the US licences may need to comply with additional EU requirements for safety reasons.”

IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson says: “While this issue was certainly in the Basic Regulation, that did not give EASA carte blanche to hang any baggage in pleased on it. The idea of genuine mutual acceptance of licenses and ratings being enshrined in an annexe to the BASA is, at best, a very long-term expedient. Mr Baldwin’s raising of safety concerns demands and explanation. Thousands of FAA licence holders fly in Europe every day, and have done for decades. On what is the claim of ‘safety concerns’ based? The Committee is now waiting for the full translations before making a decision. The final proposals are expected to be published in November.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Greek Fly-In

AOPA-Hellas and Egnatia Aviation, a Greek flight training organisation, are having a fly-in and air show at Kavala this weekend – see www.kavalafly-in.com. More than 100 GA aircraft are expected to participate, from ultralights to modern twin-engine aircraft. The Italian Pioneer Aerobatic Team will perform, flying Extra 300s. AOPA-Hellas founder Anton Koutsoudakis says: “The most important news is that this is the first time general aviation providers and users are sitting together with local communities, and plan to use general aviation as an instrument to enhance the area’s economic situation. The spectacular air show will be advertised as a tourist attraction. The thousands of visitors will be good news for a big number of small businesses. AOPA-Hellas is very keen to underline the economic benefits which may come out from GA in a remote area of the country.”

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Stay above 1,000 feet in the Netherlands

Good news on flying over Natura 2000 areas in the Low Countries, reports Ary Stigter of AOPA Netherlands. An environmental consultancy has concluded that general aviation poses little or no risk to plants and wildlife in the 162 Natura 2000 areas in which they have special protection. AOPA-NL and Dutch Airsports (KNVvL) have asked the departments of Transport and Environment to investigate whether general aviation has an impact on wildlife. The departments engaged a well-known environmental consultant called Bureau Waardenburg to do the investigation. Waardenburg recommended that a maximum annual average of five passes of GA at 1000 feet or higher is acceptable for preservation and restoration of wildlife. Basing its research on the present use of airspace and today’s traffic patterns, Waardenburg calculated that the average number of passes in only a few locations was five, and in most locations it was less than five. In four locations they concluded that some airfield patterns be changed.

This conclusion is a great assistance to allow the Natura 2000 management to include aviation in their management plan without further research. If they want more restrictions, they must provide scientific research to back their request.

The Code of Conduct for GA in the Netherlands urges GA to fly above 1000' AGL as far as safe operation allows. AOPA-NL urges all pilots, including our international colleagues, to comply with the code of conduct and fly above 1000'. The minimum altitude of 1500'over the Dutch Wadden in the north of the country is still applicable, excluding the corridors to Texel (EHTX) and Ameland (EHAL) as indicated on the Low Countries chart.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Can the French find a way out of the EASA maze?

The French are looking at an initiative which could help general aviation avoid some of the damage caused by EASA’s proposals on instrument flying and its attack on the N-register in Europe. Before EASA takes over responsibility for flight crew licensing in April next year, France intends to have an ICAO-compliant, genuinely achievable PPL instrument rating. Holders will seek grandfather rights under EASA, and the French believe that if a handful of European countries adopt their IR, EASA might be persuaded that there’s no point in persisting with its own destructive plans.

Emmanuel Davidson, Executive Vice President of AOPA France, outlined the plan to the 126th Regional Meeting of IAOPA Europe in Friedrichshafen in April. The new IR enjoys active support at the very top of the DGAC, the French CAA. The practical will require a minimum of 45 hours’ training, which is greater than the ICAO standard, but the major difference will be on theoretical knowledge. Instead of seven written exams covering a mass of arcane and often nonsensical questions on how many megaphones are required on a 747, or fire axes on an A340, or calculating the mach number of a PA-28, there will be a single exam with questions relevant to the pilot flying a single-engined aircraft.

“On the private side, the European Instrument Rating is totally out of reach of 99 percent of private pilots,” M Davidson said. “EASA’s Working Group FCL 008 was working at a snail’s pace at building a new IR and got nowhere. M Patrick Gandil, the Director of Civil Aviation at the DGAC, recognised that urgent action was required.” The JAA/EASA theoretical knowledge requirement, which calls for about a year of study, is the reason so many Europeans go to the United States for their instrument ratings and fly on the N-register in Europe. Under the FAA, the practical flying standard is as high or higher, but the theory is sensible and commensurate. Thousands of FAA IR holders fly in Europe every day, and EASA admits there is no safety issue with the rating. DGAC Director Gandil is to travel to the USA next month to fly with Bruce Landsberg, Director of the AOPA Foundation, to see the FAA IR in action.

M Davidson said: “In the UK they have saved the IMC rating for those who already hold it by forcing EASA to accept that it cannot take away rights that pilots already have. Unlike the IMC rating, the French IR will be ICAO-compliant and will meet every international standard. The DGAC is talking to other CAAs, who are looking at whether they can do this too. The DGAC is asking whether they will accept French pilots flying into their countries, and if so, why not adopt it? If five or six countries in Europe do so, we can ask EASA whether it’s really necessary to continue with FCL.008’s proposals – why not simply adopt what will already be in existence?” EASA is beginning to accept that its politically-motivated assault on the N-register will cause far more damage than it originally thought. It had calculated that between 2,000 and 3,000 pilots would be hit, but now quotes a figure of 68,000. IAOPA believes the number to be even higher.

Dr Michael Erb, Managing Director of AOPA Germany, who was IAOPA’s representative on FCL-008, reported that the holders of FAA Instrument Ratings would be forced by EASA to go back to flight school, no matter what standard they had attained, in order to have a check ride. They would also have to undertake the full theory course. “This is unacceptable for people who have held their ratings for decades, that they must disappear for weeks, months, do all this theory learning again,” he said. “Even EASA accepts that the theoretical knowledge requirement for the IR is much too ambitious for private pilots.

“We met with EASA’s Director of Rulemaking Jules Kneepkens and came away believing that this was a fruitful meeting, but then we found out that EASA FCL has effectively gone to the European Parliament and nothing can be changed. There may be a solution, but there is a high risk that thousands of pilots will be stranded and it will be a shock for our industry, which is economically in a very bad state. There has never been a safety concern over this. We must allow people to continue to fly as before with their licences, and we need methods by which they can validate their licences and ratings without unnecessary burden.”

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Russia makes headway on airspace liberalisation

AOPA Russia has produced an excellent Google Earth download which shows Russia’s complex restricted airspace, with details of each area available on-screen. Vladimir Turin of AOPA Russia said the long campaign for airspace liberalisation had borne fruit when new regulations officially gave Russia Class G airspace, mostly to 4,000 feet. However, the various authorities had retained about one and a half million square kilometres of restricted airspace, activated by notam. The website helps pilots pick their way through the minefield. See http://aopa.ru/maps/aopa_russia_airspace.kmz.

Foreigners flying into Russia will find that little has changed. Vladimir says: “You need permission to fly into Russia, and if you try to fly in uncontrolled airspace you need another special permission which might take seven days to get. It’s a multi-level permission from three separate authorities and you must five the full route. There is a draft regulation that might remove some of those requirements, so there may be some progress in the summer.”

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

ICAO report – bad news on fixed ELTs, better news elsewhere

IAOPA Secretary General John Sheehan reported that after a year and a half of work by IAOPA’s representative at ICAO Frank Hoffman and other members, a set of guidelines on the regulation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles had been put together. “It is a fundamental requirement that all UAVs must be able to operate independently of complementary systems and ‘sense and avoid’, and there should be no requirement to block out airspace solely for the use of UAVs,” he said. ICAO had also produced a new set of security guidelines, he added, and much of that had been written by IAOPA. IAOPA is also closely involved with ICAO’s NGAP programme, which stands for ‘Next Generation of Aviation Professionals’. “ICAO recognises that we’re running out of professionals, not only pilots but aviation engineers and others necessary to the future of the industry at every level,” John said. “Growth needs will be great, but getting the right people will be a problem. The initiative we have pushed involves getting them when they’re young – taking them out to the airfield, taking young people flying, enthusing them with the love we ourselves have for aviation.”

John also mentioned work currently under way with both ICAO and EASA on Performance Based Navigation (PBN) under which when it is required that aircraft follow a very precise course using GPS or RNAV, there are standards to which we must conform. The main thrust of IAOPA’s involvement is ensuring that for general aviation, equipage and training requirements should not be excessive.

The never-ending battle on fixed ELTs continues. ICAO has now decreed that aircraft must carry a basic ELT. “We’ve lost two battles but not the war,” John said. “We have now gone over ICAO’s head to COSPAS/SARSAT and are asking for alternative means of compliance. This is driven by the Canadian AOPA, and I think we’re making progress. We think we should have an accurate system, but current ELTs are not reliable and don’t work.” Europe is saying that ICAO standards, which up o now have only been recommendations, are to be treated as mandatory, which makes IAOPA’s representation at ICAO ever more important.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Special deal for all AOPA members from Jeppesen

IAOPA and Jeppesen have come together to offer AOPA members four months free subscription to the JeppView digital chart service. It’s easy to apply, there’s no obligation, and if you’re already a subscriber you’ll get four months free so you don’t feel left out.

Cay Roth, of Jeppesen’s Frankfurt office, explained the digital system and the offer, worth about €125, to the IAOPA Europe Regional Meeting in Friedrichshafen. He illutrated the growth of clutter on paper IFR charts over the decades, to the point where today’s charts – he used the New York area as an example – were a barely-decipherable mess, and there was enormous pressure from the authorities to put even more information on them. With a digital presentation, you get only what you need for the flight in hand, and the number of sources for data – online, by phone, paper charts etc – are reduced. In-service testing of the system has found that pilots very much prefer it.

The mobile solution is the way ahead – with the Apple iPad leading the charge. A pilot preparing for a flight at home could do so on an iPad; en route, the information he needed could be presented on the iPad or the aircraft’s MFD; and in a hotel the mobile delivery of data to the iPad once again makes planning easier.

The airlines want to go down the iPad route, Roth said – it had 98 percent of the market – and there would also be Motorola Xoom and iPhone solutions. The FAA has certified the iPad for this use, but what of Europe? “We did try to talk to EASA and they’re not ready to talk at all,” Roth said. “But we have had more success with national authorities, in Germany, in Austria – we are training the UK inspectors on the system in May. There’s a totally different attitude from CAA to CAA. It ranges from full appreciation of the possibilities to ‘What’s an iPad?’” US charter company Exec Jet Management has flight-tested the system, operating 250 flight segments on 10 different aircraft with no reported problems. Their pilots are extremely enthusiastic about digital JeppView. If you want to try JeppView, contact your AOPA and they’ll give you a code and a number to call. Jeppesen will ship the initial software for installation on a laptop or iPad, and it will operate for four months. Specify your country, and whether you want IFR or VFR. If you like it, you can subscribe – if not, let it lapse. As previously stated, if you’re already a Jeppesen customer the company will extend your subscription by four months. “It’s a win-win for everyone,” said Roth.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Greek airport faces GA legal action

AOPA Hellas has initiated legal action against the airport manager and officials of an island airport operated by Greek CAA after it was reported that access was repeatedly being refused to general aviation aircraft on the grounds that there was ‘not enough parking space’. Pilots established that sometimes when this excuse was used, the apron was completely empty. An attempt to file a complaint with the airport manager failed to produce results, and AOPA had no alternative but to go to law. Anton Koutsoudakis of AOPA Hellas says: “We do not yet want to identify the airport, in the hope that an amicable solution can be found before we get to court. We would like to thank AOPA Switzerland for their assistance in gathering the required evidence, and the Swiss and Lebanese crews who provided information in this case. Overall, it was a fine example of European pilot collaboration.”

Want to fly in Greece this summer?

AOPA Hellas has formed a voluntary legal team to support all pilots who want to fly in Greece. The team comprises lawyers and pilots, and their target is to stand by the lonely private pilot who may feel mistreated by the authorities. AOPA will take care of expenses related to helping pilots in trouble. All a pilot has to do is to provide a detailed report to info@aopa.gr. Unfortunately we can not support a telephone service for the time being.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

New ‘European’ security requirements hit Italian pilots

While Italian general aviation has not so far been affected by extra security because of air operations in Libya, pilots face real problems getting to their own aeroplanes if they are based at commercial airfields. Resident pilots must go through four days of security training, at a cost of €360, to obtain a pass which will allow them to reach their planes, even if they are in separate, designated GA areas. The pass is valid for only one airfield. Non-resident pilots must have filed a flight plan, and must be going to the aircraft with passengers with the sole purpose of departing, if they are to be allowed to go unaccompanied by security officials and policemen. The Italian authorities claim this is a European directive, but it seems once again to be an over-zealous interpretation of security requirements.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Breakthrough as Europe and America sign aviation agreement

America and the European Union have officially concluded a long-awaited bilateral aviation safety agreement (BASA) designed to make government oversight of aviation more efficient and to pave the way for future regulatory cooperation. The BASA, signed on March 15th, allows reciprocal acceptance FAA and EASA certification and oversight of civil aviation products and repair stations. The US and the EU specifically agree to recognise each other’s ‘findings of compliance and approvals.’ This means, for example, that the FAA can determine a US repair station is eligible for an EASA approval to work on European registered products without a separate inspection by European regulators.

The BASA is good news for the industry. Duplication of oversight was a real fear, and the BASA takes a lot of expense and bureaucracy out of the equation. Importantly, the BASA makes provision for annexes to be developed and added by a Bilateral Oversight Board, leaving the door open for agreements in other areas, including flight crew licensing. EASA’s proposals to hammer the N-register operator in Europe have been put back to 2014, and may now be subject to bilateral negotiations.

Headlong rush to make bad regulation

EASA’s proposals on flight crew licensing were due to have been passed by the European Parliament on March 17th despite the misgivings of many MEPs over issues such as the Agency’s attack on the N-register. In fact, the decision was put off because documents had not yet been translated. The Parliament is under pressure to accept FCL because the deadline for implementation is April 2012, and national authorities and governments need as much time as possible to set up their systems. This process highlights deficiencies in European lawmaking which are leading to the rushed creation of bad law. The deadline is entirely arbitrary yet it is treated as Holy Writ, and bad law passed in time is seen as better than good law passed after proper consideration. IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson says: “Civil servants want to be seen to achieve their deadlines and are prepared to be criticised by industry rather than by their employers. Aviation also suffers because it’s easier and quicker to say ‘no’ and block something than to say ‘yes’ and facilitate it. We must ask ourselves whether the regulators themselves are fit for purpose.”

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Britain takes fright at Olympic attack prospects

British authorities have revealed their plans for security at the Olympic Games in 2012, and they will cause severe difficulties for general aviation. IAOPA is working to alleviate some of the main problems, including how to ensure access for foreign aircraft flying VFR into the UK. Restrictions on flying have been imposed not by the Civil Aviation Authority but by the Ministry of Defence and the security services, and it is unlikely that GA will be able to win major concessions, but the industry expects to be able to modify and amend the restrictions where it can show that security will not be affected.

The main proposal is for a vast restricted area almost 100 miles across surrounding London, which will be in force from July 13th to September 12th – covering the Olympic Games, which run from July 27th to August 12th, and the Paralympics, from August 29th to September 9th. The restrictions will come at the busiest time of year for the dozens of flying schools and airfields in the affected area. No compensation is available for those who lose out. While the restrictions have been presented ‘for consultation’ by the British government, in fact they are a fait accompli – they had already been announced in Parliament before they were revealed to the industry. During the two-month restriction, every VFR flight will have to apply for a code number and file a VFR flight plan, normally via the online service AfPEX. If they are granted access they will have to stick precisely to their filed route, something the nature of flight training often makes difficult. There is no guarantee that there will be enough air traffic controllers to provide a ‘flight following’ service for every one of the thousands of flights that would normally be airborne in the restricted area on a busy weekend; there is as yet no agreement over who will provide ATC services. AfPEX is not a user-friendly system, and AOPA-UK is seeking improvements to the online service, particularly to make it useable for non-English pilots. It is also seeking access guarantees, provision for aircraft without transponders, and other concessions. A number of meetings between industry and government have been arranged by AOPA in the coming weeks.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

The Great Opportunities with IFFR...

A letter from Mark Hagen, NC Chair.....

A few days ago, I had the opportunity to go flying with IFFR member Charles Strasser OBE in Southwest Florida. Charles winters on Marco Island, Florida and my wife and I spend a few months in Florida during the cold Minnesota winters. We met while making up at the Marco Island Rotary Club.

I was reflecting this morning on all of the opportunities IFFR has afforded Karen and myself. I joined IFFR in the mid 90’s prior to going to Glasgow, Scotland with my family for the Rotary International Convention. Wanting to get some information about a good bed and breakfast in Inverness, I faxed IFFR member Ian Kerr to get a recommendation. He immediately invited the four of us to come to his home in Stonehaven and stay with his family. I accepted…. and then told my wife. She was aghast and I found out later that Ian’s wife Jan was also unsure. I told Karen that he is a Rotarian so he has to be a good person. My thoughts proved to be true. We stayed the night, went flying, and enjoyed a wonderful time at the IFFR Banquet in Glasgow (the highlight of our trip). We met a number of Flying Rotarians, including Angus and Alisma Clark who sat at our table.

The next summer Ian invited me to a UK fly around that took in the east coast of England and crossed the channel into France. We spent a night in Dieppe and flew the Normandy coast. This was a huge highlight for a World War 2 student of history. Since that time, Ian has been to our house in Minnesota and we have met up multiple times at other locales.

A few years ago, we made contact with IFFR members Tim and Linda Freudenthal on the way to Oshkosh. Every year since then we have stayed in our motor home, at their home just west of Oshkosh, and had an annual dinner out prior to arriving at AirVenture. From that relationship developed an annual BBQ Karen and I host for IFFR members in Oshkosh in addition to a gathering of IFFR members at the Oshkosh Rotary meeting at the AirVenture site midweek. Last year at the BBQ, we had additional guests including a WW2 RAF pilot. Any IFFR member or their guest are welcome to come, the contact information is on the IFFR website.

In New Zealand, we had the opportunity to meet up with Brian and Jeanette Souter who took us to the 60th Anniversary Concert of the New Zealand Symphony. It was a great evening indeed! Later, on the same trip, we stayed at Phil & Judy Pacey’s gorgeous Bed & Breakfast and we both went flying with Phil.

In England on another trip to attend the Air Racing, in Leicester, we met Rodney and Pam Spokes. Rodney had relatives in Minnesota and we were fortunate to be able to host the two of them when they visited Minnesota. At the same Air Race Banquet Graham & Doreen Browning invited us to stay at their house near Stonehenge. We spent the night, I went flying with Graham over the Isle of Wight, and we had a wonderful dinner.

In 2009, we went on the Fly Around after the Birmingham convention. I flew with Ian in his Cirrus along with Mal McLennan from New Zealand. We met many wonderful IFFR members and enjoyed the camaraderie of many good meals and great flights. Rodney and Pam Spokes were the organizers and they did a great job.

On the way down to Florida in January this year, we stopped in Smyrna, TN and enjoyed a nice meal with IFFR members Paul Lamb and Mike Woods. Paul is organizing the Nashville stop on the New Orleans Fly Around and is doing a wonderful job. Both of these members have been to the Oshkosh BBQ the last couple of years.

I encourage you all to reach out to other IFFR members when you travel by airplane or by other means of transportation. You are always welcome to stop and stay at our house on the lake in Northern Minnesota. IFFR members are a great group who not only share the love of flight, but also the Rotary model of service above self.

Mark Hagen

IFFR NC Chair

Article ©Mark Hagen 2011

‘Split the difference’ on safety?

A high-level conference on ‘EU aviation safety management towards 2020’ brought together some 200 regulators and industry representatives in Brussels in January, including European Aviation Commissioner Daniel Calleja, EASA Executive Director Patrick Goudou, Brian Simpson MEP, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Transport Committee, Bo Redeborn of Eurocontrol and Nancy Graham of ICAO. And while little that is new was brought forward, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about some of the old things that were repeated. On third-country registrations, Brian Simpson spoke briefly of the work that is being done on bilateral safety agreements, including those with the United States; referring to FAA licenses he turned to look directly at Patrick Goudou and said: “I just thought I’d mention it!” So we are not totally without friends in this debate.

Mr Simpson went on call for continued improvement in Europe’s already-excellent safety record and reiterated his call for change to be made only where it is necessary. M Goudou, saying EASA’s motto is ‘Your safety is our mission’, said EASA does not want to over-regulate, but that there needs to be clarification of industry’s role and responsibilities. He went onto talk about moving from a prescriptive form of regulating to a performance-based one, with more risk-based oversight founded on good safety data, which must be shared across Europe. While M Goudou clearly shares IAOPA’s concern that the lack of data makes for bad regulation, that hasn’t stopped the European regulatory express hurtling onwards to meet its arbitrary and artificial deadlines.

Patrick Gandil of the French DGAC said that the average number of aviation fatalities in France over the last five years had been about 60, which illustrates one of the major dilemmas of European harmonisation. The comparable number in the United Kingdom is 20 to 25; harmonisation leading to a ‘split the difference’ death figure would be difficult for the UK to stomach, while harmonisation on the French figure would be catastrophic. IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson asked M Goudou and M Gandil how they made sure that new safety regulations did not themselves become safety risks? The second part of the question was how to achieve proportionality between safety and business growth in GA? Daniel Calleja answered by saying the question was “very interesting, but very difficult.” Neither of the two Patricks gave very good answers, saying it was difficult because of the diversity of general aviation. M Goudou said they recognised that one size does not fit all, and that GA is different to CAT, therefore they tried and introduce flexibility in the rules.

The conference concentrated largely on CAT; when Martin Robinson asked why speakers from general aviation had not been invited, there was no answer.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Cessna twin systems seminar on Jersey

Do you own a twin-engined Cessna? The Channel Islands branch of AOPA UK is supporting a seminar on engines and systems in April – the first time this seminar, which is very popular in America where more than 900 owners and pilots have attended, has come to Europe.

While the seminar concentrates on the complex systems of the Cessnas, it is valuable to any operator of Lycoming or Continental powerplants or mechanics working on them. And as the organisers say, increased knowledge translates into increased safety.

The seminar is run by Twin Cessna Flyers (TCF), established 23 years ago to represent the specific interests of aircraft ranging from the earliest 310s to the 421s. The seminar will be held on the island of Jersey over four days from April 7th to 10th, although it’s possible to attend for shorter periods.

Jersey-based Cessna twin owner Paul Rennie says: ‘Twin Cessna aeroplanes offer great performance in all weather conditions, but that capability requires complex systems. I went to FlightSafety in the USA and learned a huge amount about the aeroplane that reading the manuals hadn’t taught me. It cost me over $7,000 and at the end I was a much more informed, safer pilot, more capable of handling difficulties from bad weather to emergencies. With TCF coming to Jersey, we have the opportunity to learn from people with years of experience of operating and maintaining these fine aeroplanes. I really think this is imperative training for a twin Cessna pilot and shall attend as a refresher, and urge all those lucky enough to own or fly these great aeroplanes to attend as well as all budding twin Cessna pilots and owners.’

Have a look at the TCF website www.twincessna.org, where full details of the Jersey seminar are in the front page.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

ICAO’s language ‘racket’

The Irish Aviation Authority is demanding a €40 fee for recognition of the English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessment even though they are not personally making the assessment. The IAA say they will only accept an assessment from an examiner who has their specific approval, and they refuse to accept that ELPs issued by English examiners might be valid. AOPA Ireland’s Jim Breslin says: ‘How daft is that? As the ELP assessment is an ICAO qualification and not necessarily an EASA one, it should be acceptable to them that many pilots do not necessarily hold an Irish radio licence.’ AOPA Ireland is awaiting a meeting with the IAA on this and other matters.

Authorities across the world have effectively brought the new ELP requirements into disrepute by turning them into money-making sidelines for themselves and their ‘accredited’ English-language schools, while some countries have given their ATPLs Level 6 ‘expert’ accreditation as of right – including, it is claimed, the Chinese. Some official language assessors are refusing to issue Level 6 ‘expert’ credentials even to native English speakers because Level 6 never needs to be renewed, which cuts down their fees. IAOPA fought long and hard at ICAO to have less onerous language rules imposed on general aviation – a battle we lost. For many pilots, having to learn conversational English in order to cross any international boundary is a profound disincentive – especially where the western alphabet is not used.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Landing fee blow in Spain

Minimum landing charges at Spanish airports have been increased by around 300 percent, a new blow to general aviation in a country where GA is grossly under-developed even though VFR flying conditions are among the best in Europe. AOPA Spain has written to the country’s Development Minister saying that Spain should be ‘the Florida of Europe’, but instead it puts every obstacle in the way of the GA pilot.

AOPA Spain says the airport network run by the national operator AENA, a de facto monopoly, is severely under-used, partly because of mandatory handling, parking limitations, fuel supply problems and terminal access. The tripling of landing charges from January 1st has not helped.

The letter seeks high-level negotiations to address issues which, it says, constitute ‘a fatal blow to general aviation and aerial work and ensure the continued under-development of the sector’ in Spain. Traffic levels are 10 to 20 times lower than those in northern European, and where a healthy GA industry might employ 50,000 people, it remains moribund. The small companies which predominate in GA are severely handicapped, contrary to the recommendations of the Spanish government’s own 2007 Strategic Plan for the aviation sector. The encouragement of GA tourism could be of great benefit to Spain, the letter says, and with the country’s uncongested airspace and good weather Spain represents an attractive training option for all of Europe, with benefits which could match those of Florida if the obstacles were overcome.

In concert with the Royal Aero Club of Spain, the Aerial Work Association and the Aviation Schools Association, AOPA will be meeting ANEA officials in an attempt to have the landing charges increase alleviated.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Guernsey Rally change of dates

The Guernsey International Air Rally, normally held in September, has been switched to June this year because of major runway work at the island’s airport which is due to start in July. This will be the 40th Guernsey Rally, and its reputation has grown every year. It’s a fun weekend, offering great hospitality and just incidentally, some of the cheapest avgas in Europe. Full details and an application form will shortly be available on the Guernsey Aero Club website www.guernseyaeroclub.com

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

A Trip of a lifetime round Cape Horn 2012

Hans Gutmann an exceptional Austrian pilot and President of the FAI (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale) General Aviation Comission (read an interview with Hans) is again arranging a once in a lifetime trip. Many of you may know that PWP Feroz Wadia and Myself undertook the last event organised by Hans - the FAI Round The World Trip 2009 (You can read my Blog about it at http://www.simonpbarlow.wordpress.com/)

This time Hans has planned a route round across the Atlantic and round South America. The start from Europe will be from the famous Red Bull Hanger at Salzburg (LOWS) airport.

For more info please visit our Cape Horn Adventure page

FCC Suspends Prohibition Of 121.5 MHz ELTs

The FCC has stayed their rule on the prohibition of 121.5 MHz ELTs (signals no longer processed by satellites) and is "planning a new Notice requesting public comment on the future of legacy 121.5 ELTs." The action is a response to concerns expressed by the FAA, one of which is supply. The FAA warned the FCC that the current supply of 406 MHz ELTs is insufficient to replace all 121.5 MHz ELTs in the near term. Because of that, reasoned the FAA, prohibiting the use of 121.5 MHz ELTs "would" effectively ground "most" general aviation aircraft. The FAA also expressed concern regarding the potential continued value provided by 121.5 MHz ELTs in locating aircraft "even without satellite monitoring of frequency 121.5 MHz." Search and rescue operators still monitor the frequency. The FAA also expressed concerned about the associated cost to operators of forcing a transition.

While future action is expected, "no action will be taken regarding 121.5 MHz ELTs until further notice, following an additional opportunity for interested parties to comment." The new notice is expected "sometime in early 2011," according to the Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA). In 2000, Cospas-Sarsat announced it planned to terminate by 2009 satellite processing of 121.5 MHz beacons and has made good on that change. The AEA and user groups had challenged the FCC's planned prohibition regarding continued use of existing 121.5 ELTs. Only 406 MHz frequency beacons are currently monitored by satellite.

Further information can be found on the AVweb.com web site

Article ©AVweb

EASA FCL - Two years grace on third-country registrations?

Pilots and operators of aircraft on the N-register continue to be the meat in the sandwich as Europe and America attempt to resolve trade issues, and the future does not look promising. EASA’s proposals to hamstring the N-register operator in Europe have been put back to 2014 and are now said to be subject to bilateral negotiations which may or may not produce a workable compromise – and the evidence of recent history indicates that no user-friendly solution will be found. In fact, it seems we have won a two-year grace period before the boot goes in. At its December meeting the EASA Comitology Committee postponed from 2012 to 2014 the adoption of EASA’s proposals on third country licensing. In the meantime the committee hopes the matter can be dealt with by way of bilateral agreements between Europe and America. In fact the first bilateral – known as a BASA – is due in spring, although it makes no mention of licensing. The hope is that flight crew licensing agreements can be added later by way of annexes. Unfortunately the negotiations on bilaterals have been characterised by ill-will on both sides. AOPA’s lobbying of members of the EASA Comitology Committee and European Commission indicated that while they were wary of the damage EASA’s proposals would cause, they were more concerned about the ability of national aviation authorities to handle the change from national to EASA licences, and the introduction of new third-country rules at the same time might be too much to cope with. IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson says: “The difficulty when it comes to lobbying on these issues is that everyone agrees with you, but won’t change position. Nobody claims there is a safety issue, everyone accepts that the economic damage will be substantial, yet the status quo is impossible to maintain.

“Everyone says they want full reciprocity from the other side, while secretly trying to give less than they receive. Full reciprocity would be great for general aviation as long as we had a sensible validation system; imagine if you had an FAA IR and the process for converting it to a European equivalent was simple and sensible. But how likely is that? At the root of the argument is government support for Boeing and Airbus, and everything from downline repair station charges to pilot licensing is governed by that. We are small cogs in a large intercontinental dispute, and bigger wheels are going to grind us up. ”

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Malta plans to capitalise on registration difficulties

Malta is planning an aircraft registry which could take advantage of EASA’s third-country crackdown by offering a lower-cost haven, particularly for business jets. Up to now Malta has instructed its GA owners and pilots to operate their aircraft on the N-register and conform to FAA regulation. EASA will however make this impossible, and Malta has woken up to the possibility of challenging the Isle of Man as a registry of choice for the business operator. The Isle of Man, nominally not part of the United Kingdom, set up the M-registry two years ago, and while the registry is open only to aircraft over five tonnes for owners who have business connections on the island, the Maltese aim to cast their net somewhat wider.

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA

Maintenance rules leave unanswered questions

New EASA proposals on maintenance of third country aircraft in Europe – they’re attacking this issue on multiple fronts – do not seem to be as onerous as they might have been. For commercial operators of non-complex types EASA is proposing that a maintenance programme be agreed between the operator and the maintainer. The maintainer can either agree the programme with the state of registry, or be accredited by EASA as a CAMO(T) to work on third country aircraft.

While this does not pose insurmountable problems, there are questions left hanging. No provision is specified for aircraft whose type certificate is not accepted by EASA. An N-registered aircraft which is forced to accept an EASA directive, say on a wing spar modification, will invalidate its FAA registration by doing so. What then? And operators of American flight schools teaching Europeans will be required to conform to European maintenance regulations, not those of the FAA, on American soil. Will the Americans accept this? And will it be just another level of bureaucracy, or a game-stopper?

Further information can be found on the IAOPA Europe web site

Article ©AOPA