IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE OF RECREATIONAL AVIATION AND IN PARTICULAR MICROLIGHTING AND PARAMOTORING PLEASE READ THIS NOW AND SEND YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENTS TO EASA BEFORE 16 OCTOBER!!
Over the weekend of 7/8 October the European Microlight Federation held its General Conference at the RAF Museum, Hendon, London. One of the main discussion topics was the EASA A-NPA 14/2006 or, to give it its full title:
Advance-Notice of Proposed Amendment (A-NPA) No 14-2006
A Concept for Better Regulation in General Aviation (Aircraft other than Complex Motor Powered Aircraft, used in Non-Commercial activities)
EASA, for those that don't know, is the European Aviation Authority. National CAA's are to some large extent just EASA's local offices these days and have very little regulatory control any more, except for microlights which thanks to paragraph e in the Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002 keeps them out of EASA's clutches.
If you read this A-NPA straight off it seems that EASA wants to gain control of practically everything that flies and the first step is this consultation. Apparently this isn't entirely true, I understand it is unlikely to include aircraft with a dry (?) weight of less than 70 Kg because including them would completely overload EASA but it doesn't say this, so your response is valuable. There is also a school of thought which thinks/hopes that the current 450's will stay within national control and that this entire proposition really concerns aircraft more than 450 Kg. It doesn't say this in the A-NPA either, and personally I'm less convinced of this because I believe this A-NPA was created in large part because EASA have noticed the proliferation of high performance microlights at the top end of the 450 definition, and globally because EASA's masters at the EU wants to see free trade and free movement within the community. National control, by the fact that it effectively imposes a trade barrier by requiring national airworthiness certificates and pilot licences does not promote either of them.
With the publication of this A-NPA it seems the 'train has started rolling' and is inevitable that some sort of Pan-European regulation will eventually come about, where the bottom limit will lie is up to all of us to make comments and hope they listen. Yes, harmonization might be a good thing but the danger of course is that all the most rigorous elements of every nations systems will be combined together in a new 'super system' and they'll kill off microlighting just as they tried to do (or have done, depending on your opinion) with GA and Gliding.
On this score I'm sure EMF and Europe Airsports will defend our interests as best they can and indeed there is some comment in the A-NPA on the notion of 'less rather than more' regulation which is encouraging, however only time will tell if these are weasel words from a European monster or not. To my mind even the most 'generous' proposal (Option 3) to include all aircraft weighing less than two tonnes (rather than 5 1/2) with a single 'break' at 700 or 800 Kg is still very much a 'one size fits all' system likely to be utterly inappropriate for foot-launched aircraft and hardly any better for sub-450 aircraft.
The EMF responses to this consultation may be found on their website http://www.emf.nanco.no/ and whilst I generally agree with them they seem much more confident than I am in the assumption that aircraft below 450 won't really be affected, and so merely quote a 750 kg 'light' limit with no mention of 450 or anything at the 'very light' end of the spectrum like foot-launched aircraft which are either legally or de-facto completely deregulated in most European countries, or light single seaters for which there is a strong case for partial deregulation.
In my comments I have therefore chosen to amplify what EMF has to say and if you fly a foot launched aircraft or a sub-450 microlight, I recommend you do too.
The key proposition is the EMF position on Question 7 which basically says things should stay as they are now with sub-450 Kg aircraft remaining under the control of National authorities as it seems the only way aircraft which are both micro and light might continue to fly without a massive increase in regulation.
The problem of course is that this 'killer' position may not be acceptable to EASA or their masters the EU for the reasons given above, and in any case there may be advantages to be had with a pan-European airworthiness and licensing system if only it accounted for aircraft at the light end of the scale rather than throwing everything into one very big pot. It is therefore necessary to make comment to all the other questions as well as Question 7.
I'm a stakeholder (their word) and if you fly any kind of aircraft below 5 1/2 tonnes MTOW then you are one too and are invited to comment. Interestingly there seems to be no mechanism for weighting responses; individual responses therefore carry as much weight as those of large organisations like the EMF which claims to represent some 38,000 microlight pilots.
YOUR RESPONSE IS VALUABLE, MAKE IT NOW!
Both the A-NPA 14/2006 and its Comment Response Document are to be found on the EASA web site http://www.easa.eu.int/home/rm_npa_en.html you are encouraged to spend an hour or two to read the A-NPA and respond. There's very little time left, this must be done before 16 October 2006.
Your responses MUST be sent on the proper Comment Response Document in the proper form which means you should submit up to seven documents in all. Any other format is likely to be ignored.
It is suggested you download the Comment Response Document and save it as a local word file with the following questions filled in:
1a: Put an 'x' in the row V.D. Concept: Discussion
4: Put your full name and address Etc.
Dated: Put in the date you sent it in. Must be before 16 October 2006 !
Then for each response save a new file and fill in:
1b: Put the question you are responding to ie Question 1, Question 2 Etc.
2: Put in your proposed text / comment
3: Put in your justification (optional).
Then save each one as a separate word file and send it / them as an attachment to an email to NPA@easa.europa.eu
The experience of those who have worked with EASA on analysis of NPAs is that:
1. There seems to be little to be gained by sending lengthy responses as, particularly when large numbers of responses are expected, as there is no mechanism for dealing with long responses. A short response will be fine, even helpful, as far as EASA is concerned.
2. You will see that the A-NPA itself is only available in English. Translation services do not seem to be available to EASA so responses should be written in English, the official language of EASA. Otherwise the danger is that some meaning may be lost in an amateur translation.
The EMF responses may be found on the EMF website http://www.emf.nanco.no/ I have read them carefully and whilst I am broadly in agreement, I have added my own bits to them below. You do not need to copy these and you may not agree with them, or EMF's, but please DO RESPOND, particularly if you're only interested in flying foot launched things, and whatever you do, RESPOND BEFORE 16 OCTOBER or you may find your paramotor will become subject to an airworthiness and licensing system designed for aircraft capable of carrying several passengers at 250 Km/h!
The Agency is interested in knowing the opinion of stakeholders on the general balance of the envisaged concept, as well as any suitable comment on its content not covered by the following questions.
RMH response:
2. PROPOSED TEXT/ COMMENT:
Although the general balance of the A-NPA gives cause for optimism there is a long way to go from here and much opportunity to get things wrong on the way. It is not in the interest of the entire population it addresses that all the most rigorous aspects of each nations national regulation should be combined in one super-regulation. Whilst a split at 750 Kg is wise, this would certainly over regulate existing sub 450 Kg microlights and a separate regulation for them would in turn over regulate aircraft at the very light end of the spectrum such as foot launched aircraft. Divisions at 450 Kg MTOW and one at the 'very light' end are therefore advocated.
3. JUSTIFICATION:
[None offered]
The Agency is interested in knowing the opinion of stakeholders, in particular potential assessment bodies, on introducing the possibility for approved assessment bodies to issue and administer approvals, certificates or licences, as a means to relax the regulatory framework applicable to General Aviation. It is also interested by comments about having one-man assessment bodies similar to the American system of designees.
RMH response:
2. PROPOSED TEXT/ COMMENT:
The introduction of approved assessment bodies and the use of one-man assessment bodies are both strongly supported however there should be a lower limit encompassing foot-launched aircraft and very light single seaters which are totally or partially deregulated.
3. JUSTIFICATION:
It has been shown that total de-regulation of foot-launched aircraft works extremely well in UK (where it is a legally established fact) and in most other European countries (where it is a de-facto practice). There is also a strong argument that single seat aircraft represent less of a risk than multi-seat aircraft and therefore they should also be less regulated.
The Agency is interested in knowing the opinion of stakeholders on which of the options described here above they think is the most suitable for regulating General Aviation initial airworthiness. In such a context comments on the weight limits envisaged are welcome.
2. PROPOSED TEXT/ COMMENT:
Option 3 is the preferred. In particular it is essential that there is a separate weight category for aircraft with a MTOM of below 750 kg, however there should also be separate categories for 450 Kg microlights, one partially deregulated category for light single seat microlights and one 'super-light' deregulated category of aircraft, which 'were foot-launched' for the flight in question.
3. JUSTIFICATION:
Many airworthiness requirements for current JAR VLA aircraft are simply not appropriate to aircraft below 450 Kg MTOM. A single 'Light' sub category at 750 Kg MTOM based on a system made for 2 tonne aircraft would therefore represent a significant increase in regulatory burden to the manufacturers and pilots of aircraft in the current sub 450 Kg MTOM 'microlight' weight range. Existing microlight regulations are in turn over-burdensome for manufacturers and pilots of foot-launched aircraft as it has been shown that total de-regulation of foot-launched aircraft works extremely well in UK (where it is a legally established fact) and in most other European countries (where it is a de-facto practice). There is also a strong argument that single seat aircraft represent less of a risk than multi-seat aircraft and therefore they should also be less regulated.
The Agency is interested in knowing the opinion of stakeholders on the following points:
a) Should assessment bodies be involved in the oversight of continuing airworthiness, such as ARCs’ renewal;
b) What should be the role of NAAs in this field?
c) Should continuing airworthiness requirements be adapted to the size/type of aircraft? How should this be done?
d) Is it worth developing standards modifications and repairs that could be embodied without the need for further approvals? Which bodies should do so?
f) Is it possible to develop Industry Standards to be used in continuing airworthiness processes? Which bodies should be in charge?
RMH Response:
2. PROPOSED TEXT/ COMMENT:
a. Yes, assessment bodies should be involved in the oversight of continuing airworthiness
b. None, there is no role envisaged for the NAAs
c. Yes, continuing airworthiness should be adapted to the size/type of aircraft, with aircraft categorized by weight and complexity and continuing airworthiness left in the hands of assessment bodies except those 'very light' foot-launched and single seater aircraft which should be partially or completely deregulated.
d. Yes, it is worth developing standard modifications and repairs and the assessment bodies should do this.
e. Yes, it is possible to develop Industry standards and the assessment bodies should be in charge of this.
3. JUSTIFICATION:
[none offered]
The Agency is interested in knowing the opinion of stakeholders on what they think should be the content of the “light” implementing rules for air operations.
RMH Response:
2. PROPOSED TEXT/ COMMENT:
Whilst as far as possible the implementing rules should be aligned to international (ICAO) standards with minimal requirements dictated by the complexity and mode of operation of the aircraft, a single 'light' category below an arbitrary aircraft MTOM of the suggested 700 or 750 Kg is likely to be disproportionately burdensome for 'microlights' below 450 Kg MTOM and completely inappropriate for foot-launched and other aircraft at the 'very light' end of the scale.
3. JUSTIFICATION:
It is an inescapable fact that the method of operation and training requirements for a current or future JAR VLA type aircraft are somewhat different to a microlight and entirely different to that required for a paramotor. It has been demonstrated over a period of many years that total deregulation of the latter works entirely satisfactorily whereas there is no suggestion or evidence the same could work for an aircraft at the other end of the scale under consideration. The 'very light' end of the scale is possibly the most dynamically developing area of aviation today and a single 'one-size-fits-all' system based on such a huge upper limit is likely to severely restrict activity in this area.
The Agency is interested in knowing the opinion of stakeholders on what they think should be the conditions and privileges of a European Private Pilot Licence, with particular emphasize on:
a) The type of aircraft it would allow flying and in particular whether an upper weight limit would be appropriate? If so, what it could be?
b) The ratings that could be attached to such a licence;
c) The way medical assessments could be done and the possible role of general practitioners.
RMH Response
2. PROPOSED TEXT/ COMMENT:
a. There seems to be no reason why the RPPL could not extend to all aircraft covered by this A-NPA up to 5700 kg however it has been demonstrated that total deregulation works entirely satisfactorily at the 'very light' end of the scale in paramotors and powered hang gliders so there must also be a lower limit below which an RPPL is not necessary.
b. Above the lower limit any rating that could be possible for the aircraft covered by the A-NPA should be available for the RPPL.
c. Medical assessments for the RPPL should be by self-declaration supported by the general practitioner.
3. JUSTIFICATION:
[none offered]
The Agency is interested in knowing whether stakeholders think possible to remove certain aircraft from Annex II if the envisaged concept (in particular with options 2 or 3 for initial airworthiness) were implemented?
RMH Response
2. PROPOSED TEXT/ COMMENT:
With regard to paragraph e in the Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002, proposed to be amended (Com 579), NO aircraft should be removed from Annex II.
3. JUSTIFICATION:
The 'one size fits all' proposal even with a limit for all aircraft below 700 or 750 Kg, whether in the airworthiness, maintenance or pilot licensing is simply not appropriate for most aircraft below 450 Kg MTOM and in particular for aircraft at the 'very light' end of the scale where total or partial deregulation has been proven over many years to work entirely satisfactorily.
THERE IS A VERY SHORT TIME UNTIL THE DEADLINE, PLEASE RESPOND NOW!
Richard Meredith-Hardy 10 October 2006
