1

JANUARY 2016 Part One – Consultation

Happy New Year to all.

After a little gap when we were unable to bring you any news, now we suddenly have more

than we can quickly manage. So I have found a new solution, which is to publish this

Issue in two parts. Our Programme

Manager, René Meier, has been working

hard on several Notices of Proposed

Amendment (NPA) and would now like to

hear from you with your views, so that he

can respond on behalf of all of us. But the

deadlines are very soon! So I bring you

here ‘January Part One – Consultation’.

Please look at these texts and, if you are

able to make some comments on them,

please respond as quickly as you can.

Thank you!

René and his support team

Very soon I will bring you ‘January Part Two – Information and Briefings’.

News in this issue:

Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2015-17 - Airworthiness Review ....................... 1

Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2015-14 - Air Navigation, SERA ........................ 2

Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2015-20 - Pilot Training outside ATO ................. 3

Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2015-18 (A) (B) (C) - Update Air Operations ...... 4

Key Contacts ........................................................................................................ 5

Sign up for the Newsletter! ..................................................................................... 5

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) 2015-17

(Review of the) Airworthiness Review Process

Europe Air Sports (EAS), on behalf of all its member organisations (national aero-clubs,

European sports and recreational aviation federations) and their members, thanks the

Agency for preparing NPA 2015-17. In the executive summary we read:

“The airworthiness review process, which first entered into force in September 2008,

introduced significant changes to former national requirements, among others a new role

for the national aviation authorities (NAAs), new privileges for the organisations holding a

Part-M, Subpart G approval, specific requirements for personnel involved in this review,

description of the process itself, and an airworthiness review certificate (ARC).

2

Article 24(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 requires the Agency to assess the

implementation impact of regulations. The feedback obtained by the Agency through

activities such as standardisation visits to the Member States (MSs), Article 14 exemptions,

and questions from NAAs/stakeholders related to the interpretation of the rules, among

others, led the Agency to decide that the airworthiness review process needed to be

reviewed. As a consequence, the European Aviation Safety Agency launched a survey

among NAAs and stakeholders whose results are included in Chapter 5.3 of this NPA. In

order to address the issues raised during the survey, the Agency has issued this NPA that:

➢ provides clearer requirements/guidance on those aspects creating

interpretation/standardisation problems;

➢ removes those requirements that do not bring any safety benefits;

➢ facilitates the transfer of aircraft between MSs; and

➢ reinforces the oversight role of the NAAs.

In line with the objective of providing proportionate and cost-efficient rules for General

Aviation (GA) while maintaining an acceptable level of safety, the Agency coordinates the

proposals included in this NPA with Rulemaking Task RMT.0463 ‘Task Force for the review

of Part-M for General Aviation’ (PHASE I) and RMT.0547 ‘Task Force for the review of Part-M for General Aviation’ (PHASE II).” (End of the Agency’s text)

Reviewing the Airworthiness Review Process is a promising task in the eyes of our

communities. We always supported the Agency's effort to prepare proportionate rules for

our segment of aeronautical activities. Nevertheless, some uncertainties (e.g. M.A.901)

and questions remain to be solved, particularly considering the statement on reinforcing

the oversight role of the NAAs mentioned above (e.g. ELA1 aircraft). We shall have to take a careful look at the publication and insist on what we were asking for in the past

Comment period ends very soon, on 5 February 2016. Please make use of the Agency’s

Comment Response Tool (CRT) or send your comments to the Programme Manager as

quickly as possible. This is the “link” to the document for an immediate reaction:

http://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment/npa-

2015-17

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) 2015-14

Operational Provisions regarding Services and Procedures in Air Navigation,

Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA), Part C

The purpose of this NPA is to propose Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance

Material (GM) to the recently endorsed Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA),

Part C. The rules and definitions are standardised, the applications are not (yet).

The AMC/GM developed and presented in the NPA derive from the following sources:

➢ ICAO Annex 10, Aeronautical Telecommunications, Volume II;

➢ ICAO Document 4444, Procedures for Air Navigation Services-Air Traffic Management

(PANS-ATM);

➢ ICAO Document 7030, European (EUR) Regional Supplementary Procedures;

➢ ICAO Document 8168, Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Operations (PANS-

OPS);

➢ ICAO Annex 2, Rules of the Air;

➢ The current practice in the EU/EASA Member States;

➢ Requests for clarification received from the stakeholders during the various

consultations conducted on the SERA material; and

➢ A number of comments and changes made by the Single Sky Committee during the

comitology procedure.

3

According to the Agency’s introductory text the publication of this material is intended to

help Member States in the implementation of SERA by providing additional guidance.

To me the texts appear to be copy-pastes with some old-fashioned designations (PanAm

and “Clipper 101” still exist, SAS’ DC-9 still fly). May I kindly ask our airspace specialists

to take a look at these texts? GM2 SERA.7002 (a)(1), page 11, could be changed, and

what is written on page 27, GM2 SERA.14015 on the language to be used will open many

discussions within our community.

The extended comment period ends now on 29 February 2016. Please make use of the

Agency’s Comment Response Tool (CRT) or send your comments to the Programme

Manager no later than Friday, 19 February 2016.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) 2015-20

Review of the Aircrew Regulation in order to provide a system for private pilot

training outside approved training organisations, proposing a “Basic Training

Organisation” (BTO), plus a review of the associated acceptable means of

compliance and guidance material

This NPA must be read and evaluated in the context of EC-Regulation 445 – 2015 which

allows Member States to postpone the ATO requirements until 08 April 2018 and continue

private pilot training in Registered Facilities and according to national rules.

This is what EASA proposes:

“This NPA aims to shift the General Aviation (GA) pilot training paradigm by

introducing a proportionate risk-based approach to training in Regulation (EU) No

1178/2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Aircrew Regulation’, in the meantime

already amended). The proposed requirements relate to training for Part-FCL non-

commercial pilot licences, including the light aircraft pilot licence (LAPL), private

pilot licence (PPL), sailplane pilot licence (SPL), and balloon pilot licence (BPL), as

well as for the associated ratings, certificates and privileges.

Upon completion of the transition work from JAR-FCL registered facilities (RFs) to

full approved training organisation (ATO) status, many stakeholders repeatedly

reported that a training system that consists only of ATOs is not the best and most

proportionate way to deliver the full range of Part-FCL training for non-commercial

pilot licences. In line with the strategic direction of the GA Safety Strategy adopted

in 2012, the Agency put forward a proposal to the EASA Committee in October

2014 to develop a possibility for training outside ATOs, in order to effectively adapt

the requirements for training towards non-commercial pilot licences.

This proposal reflects the six GA strategic principles as follows:

P1: One size does not fit all;

P2: Philosophy of minimum necessary rules;

P3: Adopt a risk-based approach;

P4: Protect ‘grandfather rights’ unless there are demonstrable and statistically

significant safety reasons for not doing so;

P5: Apply EU smart regulation principles; and

P6: Make best use of available resources/expertise.

In order to meet this general objective, this NPA introduces the concept of the

“Basic Training Organisation” (BTO) for providing a harmonised approach to non-

commercial pilot training within Europe. This new concept is based on a

performance-based regulation offering a less prescriptive approach than the

existing ATO framework while maintaining the level of safety. It focuses on

developing safety awareness within the training structure and keeping only the

essential elements in the rule itself as far as organisational and authority

requirements purposes are concerned. In particular, the proposed rules

concerning oversight of a BTO also aim to ensure a harmonised and lighter form

4

of oversight, taking a more risk- and performance-based approach. The

competent authority (CA) is therefore neither required nor expected to put in place

a rigid and burdensome oversight programme, such as is the case with the current

ATO requirements. The oversight activities should take into account factors such

as safety performance, results of the hazard identification and risk assessments

conducted by the BTO. It should also be noted that the present NPA does not

address the technical content of the Part-FCL training itself, since this is addressed

by other ongoing or future EASA’s rulemaking activities.” (End of the Agency’s

text.)

Thinking of the fact that many of our training

organisations made the costly and sometimes

painful step to become an ATO, this NPA is

welcomed with mixed feelings, varying between

full acceptance and total disapproval. The more

well-founded comments that we can send to

Cologne, the better will our position be reflected

in the result. The “less rigid and less burdensome

oversight by the competent authorities” as

mentioned above will require our full attention,

the name “Basic Training Organisation” indicating that only simple “basic” requirements

need to be fulfilled.

Also applicable to this NPA: The extended comment period ends now on 29 February 2016.

Please make use of the Agency’s Comment Response Tool (CRT) or send your comments

to the Programme Manager no later than Friday, 19 February 2016.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) 2015-18 (A) (B) (C)

Update of the rules on air operations (Air OPS Regulation — all Annexes & related

AMC/GM)

NPA 2015-18 comes in three parts. Some elements are important for us, some are not; all

are connected with Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

Sub-NPA (A) includes, among others not relevant to us, the following key changes:

➢ Editorial changes to IRs of all Annexes;

➢ Amendment of authority requirements specifying that the oversight cycle can also

be reduced;

➢ Amendment of authority requirements on findings and corrective actions;

➢ Exemption of certain operators from approval under Part-SPA of dangerous goods

training programmes if they do not intend to transport dangerous goods; and

➢ Amendment on the use of supplemental oxygen.

Several new definitions are proposed, some are slightly changed. The discussion of the

term “commander” and “pilot in command” goes on …

In “Annex VII” NCO.IDE.A.155 Supplemental oxygen — “non-pressurised aeroplanes” is

adapted to:

➢ be more performance-based;

➢ now refer to the performance-based requirement of NCO.OP.190 to use supplemental

oxygen whenever lack of oxygen might result in impairment of the faculties of crew

members; and

➢ ensure that supplemental oxygen is available to passengers when lack of oxygen

might harmfully affect passengers.

Sub-NPA (B) includes the following key changes:

➢ Editorial changes to AMC and GM to all Annexes;

5

➢ Amendment related to the management system of the authority;

➢ Proposed new AMC/GM on inspector qualifications;

➢ Amendments to AMC/GM related to RAMP inspections;

➢ Safety management in the AMC/GM related to organisation requirements (Part-

ORO); and

➢ Proposed AMC/GM on leasing agreements between EU operators.

➢ Proposed change to AMC on carriage of the emergency medical kit for certain CAT

operators, providing more flexibility to operators regarding a secure location of the

EMK.

The last two items definitely are not for us, others only partly, but are interesting (e.g.

“inspector qualifications”).

Sub-NPA (C) deals with passenger seating and emergency exits in CAT: nothing for us, I

think.

This is the third NPA whose comment period ends on 29 February 2016. Please make use

of the Agency’s Comment Response Tool (CRT) or send your comments to the Programme

Manager no later than Friday, 19 February 2016.

KEY CONTACTS

President David Roberts d.roberts@europe-air-sports.org

General Secretary – central EAS management & administration

Pierre Leonard p.leonard@europe-air-sports.org

Programme Manager and regulatory work

René Meier r.meier@europe-air-sports.org

+41 79 333 63 93

Skype meierswitzerland

Newsletter Editor Diana King d.king@europe-air-sports.org

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER!

If you would like to receive future issues of the Newsletter direct to your inbox, please sign

up on the Europe Air Sports website at http://www.europe-air-sports.org/

1

JANUARY 2016 Part Two – Information and Briefings

Winter soaring in Scotland (photo Roy

Wilson)

As promised, here is the second half of

our first 2016 Newsletter.

News in this issue:

EAS presidents’ meeting – November 2015 ……………………………………………………………. ........ 1

EASA communication with the aviation community .................................................... 4

General Aviation Exhibition: aero2016 ..................................................................... 5

Rulemaking Change in progress .............................................................................. 5

The new Basic Regulation proposed by the Commission enters the legislative process ... 6

Occurrence Reporting ........................................................................................... 7

Technical Opinion on EASA A-NPA 2015-10 .............................................................. 8

Europe Air Sports General Meeting 2016 - Bordeaux 9 - 10 April 2016 ......................... 9

Key contacts ........................................................................................................ 10

Sign up for the newsletter! .................................................................................... 10

EAS PRESIDENTS’ MEETING – NOVEMBER 2015 - Impressions from delegates

Nigel Stevens, EFLEVA Vice President Vintage, and Fédération RSA Vice President

International

Since our President Roger Hopkinson was away, James Tannock (EFLEVA Vice President

Consultation) and I attended the November 2015 Europe Air Sports meeting. I’m from

the Fédération RSA (society of aircraft builders and collectors) in France and James is from

the Light Aviation Association in the UK.

EFLEVA’s main areas of interest are experimental (home built) aircraft and Vintage aircraft

(factory built, over 30 years old). Most of these types are in Annex II of the Basic

Regulation, although there are a significant number of Vintage machines which are under

EASA, either Permit to Fly or Full C of A.

2

This was the first time I had attended an EAS meeting and I was impressed and heartened

to see the level of expertise and experience present among the members. The range of

subject issues facing EAS is extremely broad with

an agenda covering a dozen very different topics.

It is comforting to know that so many skilled

volunteers are ready to devote their personal time

and energy to defending the whole sporting

aviation community in our increasingly complex

regulatory environment.

I came away from the meeting with two

contrasting impressions.

EAS has worked very hard to encourage both EASA

and the Commission of the European Union into

doing something to compensate the sport aviation

community for the additional expense caused by the forced change to radios with 8.33 kHz

channel spacing. Several years of hard work by EAS has resulted in the Commission

allowing for applications for financial support for the retrofitting of radios under its

Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) funding programme (up to 20% of eligible costs). This

is an excellent outcome.

My first impression, however, was disappointment at

the complexity of the application process, which is a

large burden for sports organisation and over which

we have no influence. To the non-expert it feels as

though it could almost have been designed with the

aim of making it difficult to obtain any refund!

On the positive side, the presentation by Dominique

Roland, from EASA, was most encouraging. It is

clear that EASA, under its new Director Patrick Ky, is

seriously trying to understand and meet the needs

of our sort of aviation, and Patrick Ky wants to move

fast. This is to be applauded and it is a welcome

contrast to what we have been subject to, for the

last seven years. Dominique, along with his other

tasks in EASA, now has the position of General

Aviation Champion and is a key contact point for

EAS.

My second, and more positive, impression is that we

appear to have a window of opportunity opening for

EAS to dialogue with EASA, with the object of

ensuring a more proportionate regulation of our

activities. Let’s grasp the opportunity.

Rieteke van Luijt, President of the European Microlight Federation, presents the

Federation’s view

The review of Annex II of the Basic Regulation, EC No 216/2008, will be of great importance

for the European Microlight Federation EMF.

In October 2015 EMF had its General Meeting and this matter was discussed. All members

present stated that the most important thing is that EMF stays in Annex II. That means

that the National Authorities make the rules, thus each country has its own rules for

microlight flying.

Timo Schubert, EAS’s Policy and

Political Adviser, comments:

As the CEF is open for

applications from all transport

modes some of the

requirements are aimed at

commercial operators. This

makes it extremely difficult for

a European group of aeroclubs

of air sports unions to stand a

chance in the competitive

selection process of applications

which are chosen for funding.

One of the reasons for this

hurdle is that the European

Commission always receives a

lot more applications than

funding is available.

3

When you read Annex II you will find under para (e) a range of MTOM’s (Maximum Take-

off Mass) for aeroplanes, corresponding to different situations. A discussion started at the

EMF GM over whether it would be an idea to “clean up this mess” and harmonise it. In

addition several countries voiced safety concerns about the current situation where

operational practice may differ from the weight limits

in Annex II (e).

The Nordic countries volunteered to start

investigating this and to come back with a position

paper in January 2016.

In November 2015, EAS had a meeting to brief and

discuss a variety of important regulatory matters.

One of the items on the agenda was the revision of

the Basic Regulation including Annex II (EC No

216/2008). EMF’s opinion was brought forward at

the EAS meeting and here also a discussion started

about para (e). Some even wondered whether, for example, the scope of Annex II should

be widened until just under the 600 kg MTOM applicable to the European LSA (Light Sport

Aircraft).

New information caught up with all of us on 7th December, when the European Commission

released its new Aviation Strategy, including its Proposal for a new Basic Regulation

COM(2015)613 with Annexes I to X, where Annex I corresponds with the current Annex

II. Reading what is proposed in the (new) Annex I COM 2015/613, we find that it even

lists another MTOM for the electric propulsion system, so now there are 8 different MTOM’s

in para (e). Maybe now is the time to harmonise this in a way that is acceptable to all.

EMF together with EAS are looking for solutions on this thorny subject.

Significant improvements, a lot to come - Torkell Sætervadet, Advisor regulatory

matters, The Norwegian Air Sports Federation (NLF)

The Presidents’ meeting in November comprised an unusually comprehensive – but still

rather compact – overview of the regulatory matters that EAS is currently working on.

Dominique Roland, head of the design organisations

department at EASA, gave an interesting status update on

EASA’s campaign “Lighter, Simpler and Better Rules for

General Aviation”.

It was evident throughout the meeting that this campaign

as well as the overarching principles in “The roadmap for

regulation of general aviation” are leading to significant

regulatory improvements. For instance within the area of

aircraft maintenance “Part-M Phase 1” is already

implemented since July 2015, and an even lighter Part-M

– “Part-ML” – is coming soon. The recent and current

efforts related to training organisations offer realistic hope

that the concept of ATOs (Approved Training Organisations) won’t be the only path to

training in the future. Whether named Basic or Registered Training Organisations, a much

lighter regime is within reach.

The discussion about training organisations also revealed an inherent challenge for EAS

and the air sports community. While improvements are possible within the framework of

the current Basic Regulation, the regulation has also some “absolutes” that cannot be

overcome until a new Basic Regulation has been put in place. For instance, the basic

regulation requires a type certificate for aircraft (hence no self-declared LSA aircraft in

Europe), and it requires certification for training organisations (hence a merely registered

training organisation is perceived as incompatible). To what extent should EAS focus on

short to medium term solutions within the current regulatory framework, and to what

extent should the organisation concentrate its efforts on optimum long-term solutions?

4

As there is some truth to the saying “While the grass grows the steed starves”, the EAS

core focus has been on achieving the short term fixes first. However, the work on an

entirely new Basic Regulation could pave the way for further improvements within many

areas, but EAS also reminded the delegates in the meeting that there are limits to what’s

politically possible. The air sports community may have to opt for a strategy, where the

perfect does not become the enemy of the good.

Some overarching topics dealt with at the EAS Presidents’ meeting, November

2015 - by René Meier, Programme Manager

Besides the other texts received from participants René looks at three major topics of

importance from the point of view of the Programme Manager.

Proposal for a possible new Basic Regulation

Michel Rocca explained the state of the Commission’s proposal. He spoke about the urgent

need to create a common position on all issues touching the segments of General Aviation,

its sport and recreational community, in particular by putting our emphasis on risk-based

proportionate rules. This is our only chance for the next 10 to 12 years. We must seize

the opportunity and deliver well-founded inputs when it comes to weight limits, licences

and certificates and aircraft maintenance, particularly for those aircraft now under “Annex

II” provisions.

Use of airspace issues

Günter Bertram explained the very limited impact of SERA Part A and B on our activities.

He added then that NPA 2015-14, whose comment period ends on 29 February 2016,

contains a proposal asking for “English only” as the language requirement for airports with

more than 50,000 IFR movements per year. AMC and GM (Acceptable Means of

Compliance and Guidance Material) to SERA.14015 “Language to be used” should be

looked at carefully: the proposals apply to aerodromes with more than 50,000 IFR

movements per year, but it is also proposed that competent authorities may define an

even lower limit.

Occurrence Reporting

As the Commission wishes to reveal the existence of safety hazards as well as to learn

from incidents, Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 was published, and more recently Regulation

(EU) No 2015/1018, with a workable list of occurrences to be reported. There are still

several concerns, particularly when we think of sailplane operations in mountain areas,

but I think we can live with this well-structured new regulation.

Very positive indeed…

On the Agency’s website we find a button “Regulations” which opens the gate to all aviation

related regulations ever published. This is of great help to all of us having to work in all

the regulatory fields where consolidated versions are available. Many thanks to the Agency

for this remarkable tool!

Rudi Schuegraf briefs us on three items …

EASA COMMUNICATION WITH THE AVIATION COMMUNITY

EASA and GA stakeholder representatives have agreed to develop the General Aviation

Road Map further in 2016, especially to arrange a series of events where they will start a

dialogue with the affected users to promote the project, to exchange views, to learn from

each other and to present the results achieved.

Both the NAA GA Roadmap group and the GA sub-SSCC highly support this initiative which

will be tailored to the specificities and needs of the different local GA communities. The

events, jointly organised by EASA, NAA and local associations, will present to the regional

community – in the local language – the GA Road map and the effects of the results it has

achieved. The audience will also have the opportunity to challenge the presenters.

5

The event can be combined with other national events, it can last from half a day to one

day, to facilitate the optimum outcome for the individual roadshow.

The first event is planned on 08. March 2016 in Bonn, Germany, hosted by the German

Ministry of Transport and jointly organised by EASA, the German NAA Luftfahrt-Bundesamt

with the support of AOPA Germany and Deutscher Aero Club. This event is dedicated to

the German GA. The next one is planned for April in Vienna, followed by a major GA event,

possibly during the AERO Exhibition in Friedrichshafen. About seven events will follow in

2016. Eleven others are proposed to take place in 2017 which adds up to 20 roadshows.

Europe Air Sports members are invited and encouraged to get in contact with their national

authorities early to support, accompany and coordinate such events in their countries to

make this EASA GA initiative a success for the GA community.

GENERAL AVIATION EXHIBITION: AERO2016

Europe`s largest General Aviation

exhibition will be open to public

viewers from Wednesday, 20. April to

Saturday, 23. April 2016. On the

beautiful shore of Lake Constance and

in the triangle where Austria, Germany

and Switzerland meet, the interested

public and the enthusiastic aviators

have the chance to view the newest

GA aircraft in the market, especially

the newest developments in the

booming sector of Light Sport Aircraft and Microlights. It is not only the exhibition which

is certainly worth a visit, there is more.

Plan your trip to Friedrichshafen and the “aero2016” for the Opening day, it is the day

when your Association Europe Air Sports invite you and all friends to join for a beer, wine

or water and a snack. Last year’s party was a great success. Therefore, it was decided to

repeat the event this year, join and meet President David Roberts and other board

members at the stand of the Deutscher Aero Club which is hosting Europe Air Sports.

Note in your diary: Wednesday, 20. April 2016 starting at 17:00 LT in hall B 4

RULEMAKING CHANGE IN PROGRESS

For 12 years, from the initial establishment of EASA until today, rulemaking processes in

EASA followed the same procedures, from the start to the final rule. Much patience was

needed until the respective rulemaking task was declared finished. Another lengthy

process had to be started to push it through the European legal system before it could

come into force. Since the Executive Director amended the EASA structure by integrating

the Rulemaking Directorate in the Standardisation directorate, it was clear that Patrick Ky

wanted to optimize the Rulemaking Process, speed it up and simplify it.

On 15 December 15 the EASA Management Board decided on three important issues, which

modify the consultation process with the EASA aviation community and EASA. It is

intended to speed up the dialogue, make it proportionate to the importance of the issue

and to allow a faster publication process.

Up to now, Europe Air Sports experts represented, on behalf of the members, the airsports’

positions in the EASA Advisory Board (EAB), the full Safety Standards Consultative

Committee (SSCC) and in six sub-SSCCs. EAS is supporting the change of structure and

the intention for speed-up and simplification of the rulemaking process. This is of benefit

to our community, but we will closely monitor the changes to be implemented during the

first half year 2016, so that we don’t lose the opportunity to contribute the airsports’

expertise to the European Aviation system. We will publish news on this important issue

in the next newsletter and keep you up-to-date.

6

THE NEW BASIC REGULATION PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION ENTERS THE

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS - Michel Rocca brings us up to date

On the 7 December 2015, as planned, the Commission published its proposed Basic

Regulation (BR) as part of the Aviation Package.

Process-wise, as a result of the publication, the Council and the European Parliament have

respectively launched discussions and negotiations in the Aviation Group and in the

Committee on Transport and Tourism.

This is one of the Dutch Presidency’s priorities. The time-frame is

➢ Adoption of the new BR between 2017/Q1 and 2018/Q1

➢ Entry into force between 2017/Q2 and 2018/Q3

➢ First new implementing rule made under the new BR between 2018/Q4 and 2020/Q4.

Content-wise, most of the EAS high level principles established with our members in 2014

are taken into account. Let’s have a look at them.

Proportionality is effectively one of the pillars of the BR as proposed by the Commission.

Further to the essential requirements, the Commission intends to adopt implementing rules

for making detailed provisions simpler and easier for sports and leisure aviation – for pilot

training organisations and for light unmanned aircraft used for recreational activities.

Among the key issues, the definition of ‘commercial operations’ has been deleted from the

BR. Only the definition of ‘commercial air transport’ has been kept according to the ICAO

set of definitions. In doing so, there will be no confusion between our activities or actors

and CAT activities or actors.

This fundamental principle is recalled in the explanatory memorandum. The introduction

of ‘a scalable framework’ as identified in the GA safety strategy is precisely one of our

major expectations.

The permit-to-fly is recognised as a permanent derogation to the essential requirements

on airworthiness (Article 17 (2)(b)).

Under Article 58 and Annex VI of the proposal, our organisations might act as qualified

entities with the legal capacity to carry out certification and oversight tasks.

A prerequisite to the accreditation by the Authority will be to implement “adequate

arrangements for the prevention of conflict of interest”.

The new BR as proposed introduces an additional means to demonstrate compliance with

the common rules by an organisation, personnel or an operator – by means of a declaration

(see Article 3 (7)).

Wherever allowed, a declaration will be a shorter and cheaper process than the traditional

certification process. But our members should also be aware that this is a two-sided issue:

one is sunny, another is shady.

Some points need to be clarified. Here are some examples:

Tailor-made rules = Keep rules simple and respectful of our rights

Performance-based approach = Keep rules proportionate to the risk to third parties

Relying on interested parties = Give responsibilities to GA stakeholders

Cost saving = Keep regulatory costs to a minimum;

Contribute to make our activities affordable

7

➢ ‘Continuous airworthiness’ has been changed into ‘continuing airworthiness’, which

is questionable;

➢ Aeromodels are not identified as such. They are embedded in the unmanned aircraft

category, which must not jeopardise recreational and sports operations;

➢ The list of aircraft excluded from the scope of the BR (referred to as the new Annex

I) has been amended and welcomes the new category of electric light aircraft with a

MTOM not exceeding 540 kg. At first sight, this is an improvement of the current

list, but at second sight this might be a Pandora’s box, releasing a lot of new

proposals;

➢ The specific case of the amateur-built aircraft is not fully tackled.

Well, the new BR is promising, but it can also worry some of us.

EAS will keep a permanent relationship with its members in the coming weeks to assess

what is good for them and to influence the on-going negotiation process.

OCCURRENCE REPORTING – a briefing from Jean-Pierre Delmas

Dear Sport Pilot,

The regulations on Occurrence Reporting came into force on 15 November 2015 for General

Aviation, and we now need to understand what we have to do to comply.

The European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission decided to extend

the existing commercial air transport system of collection and analysis of occurrences, to

all General Aviation.

Grounds for that decision were mainly as follows. On one side, remaining accidents in GA

are rare, but subject to investigations in many European countries. On the other side,

incidents and unsafe acts are more frequent, but they are not always known and are rarely

investigated. And experience has shown that accidents are often preceded by safety-

related incidents and deficiencies revealing the existence of safety hazards. So safety

information is an important resource for the detection of potential safety hazards.

In the October issue of EAS Newsletter, we presented to you the principles of the “Just

Culture” and the “Safety Culture”.

Now, ready to practise? What are you expected to do?

First, consider the correct list of occurrences relevant to your type of flying: aeroplane,

helicopter, sailplane or balloon.

Please note that almost all listed events are worth a report, according to common

sense or airmanship.

Second, find the form to fill in, on the website of your organisation or on the website of

your civil aviation authority.

Please, keep in mind when selecting the site where you are going to report: it is

better to process local safety issues at a local level.

Third, make a clear distinction between a fact which is worth an open report to the

mechanics or the owner, for check or repair (in case of a bird strike, for example) and the

circumstances all around the event which could be worth a confidential “Occurrence

Report”.

An Occurrence Report is an occasion to draw lessons for all involved parties (ATC,

airfield management, flight preparation, aircraft design...) and all aspects especially

human factors.

Fourth, note that a pilot who doesn’t report is not automatically guilty.

Only 10 events, among 24 in the aeroplane list, are observable facts, for example

failure of the aircraft structure, runway excursion...

8

The remaining 14 events are to be reported only if the pilot judges the situation is

worth a report.

Example of a “near” collision: the subjective judgement made by the reporting pilot

can be different to that made by the pilot of the other aircraft involved. In the case

of “abnormal” vibration, or a flight control not functioning “correctly”, two

successive pilots on the same plane can have different feelings and then different

judgements.

What are training organisations expected to do?

For example, ATO are requested to collect and process occurrences that are reported.

But ATO are free to implement a system that they think is appropriate for collection and

processing of occurrences, for example a home-made system or external ones. However,

the organisation remains responsible for protection of reporters’ data and anonymity.

Implementation and management of the system and procedures are part of its Safety

Management System for an approved organisation.

Official documentation is available; the Regulation is here and the Implementing

Regulation is here. The Commission’s website on Aviation Safety Reporting is at http://www.aviationreporting.eu/index.php?id=270

TECHNICAL OPINION ON EASA A-NPA 2015-10 - Introduction of a Regulatory

Framework for the Operation of Drones – Dave Phipps, Aeromodelling Adviser

Following on from René Meier’s article in the October issue of the EAS Newsletter which

outlined the EASA proposals for the ‘Introduction of a Regulatory Framework for the

Operation of Drones’, the EASA Technical Opinion was published in December.

As René reported, EAS was concerned that aeromodellers (who represent by far the largest

group of participants within air sports) would be swept up within any regulations brought

in to try to control the proliferation in the use of ‘drones’. The suggestion made by EAS

was that model flying performed safely in a club environment must remain inside “Annex

II” of the Basic Regulation and thus continue to be regulated nationally.

EAS was also concerned that the future regulation of drones could potentially jeopardise

the safety of members flying manned aircraft under visual flight rules (VFR). The onus

was on those developing drones for

operation in manned airspace, to ensure

that they were fitted with reliable see and

avoid technology, able to see and avoid non-

cooperative aircraft (that is, aircraft that are

not fitted with equipment such as

transponders).

EAS was also very clear that there should be

no attempts to mandate the installation of

new equipment for existing airspace users,

or to introduce revised visual flight rules to

the detriment of existing airspace users, in

order to integrate drone operations.

Following a meeting in September of EAS Board Members and Aeromodelling

representatives from some Member States, René submitted a detailed and coordinated

response to the consultation on A-NPA 2015-10. In all, there were more than 250

respondents to the consultation, who submitted 3,400 comments between them.

The Technical Opinion issued as a result of the consultation includes 27 proposals for a

regulatory framework based upon the three categories of operation introduced in the NPA:

1. ‘Open’ Category – Low risk. Safety is ensured through compliance with operational

limitations, mass limitations (as a proxy of energy), product safety requirement and a

minimum set of operation rules.

9

2. ‘Specific’ Category – Medium risk. Authorisation by a national aviation authority is

required, possibly assisted by a qualified entity following a risk assessment performed by

the operator. A manual of operations lists the risk mitigation measures.

3. ‘Certified’ Category – Higher risk. Requirements comparable to those for manned

aviation. Oversight by national aviation authority (issue of licences and approval of

maintenance, operations, training, ATM/ANS* and aerodromes organisations) and by EASA

(design and approval of foreign organisations).

* ATM – Air Traffic Management; ANS – Air Navigation System

EASA has made it clear in the Technical Opinion that model aircraft will not benefit from

a distinct definition from unmanned aircraft. However, the Technical Opinion does state

clearly that ‘the intention is to develop rules that will not affect model aircraft flying’.

Thankfully, EASA has also taken into account the good safety record established by model

flying over several decades and recognises that it is a well structured activity. The value

of model flying associations is also recognised and evidently EASA consider that the

education provided by such organisations, to give their members a ‘minimum knowledge

of aviation regulations’ should be accepted as sufficient.

For the aeromodellers, a key proposal is number 21, which states that:

‘National or local arrangements for the operation of unmanned aircraft should be deemed

to be approved by the competent authority (‘grandfathered’) or used as a basis for the

issuance of an operator approval.’

The Technical Opinion outlines an intention to ‘grandfather’ the national or local

arrangements for model flying, possibly by issuing authorisations to model-flying

associations based on existing procedures. This goes a long way towards addressing the

concerns raised by EAS to protect the established rights of model flyers.

For our members operating within manned airspace, the Technical Opinion gives no

indication that there will be any additional equipment requirements or changes to the VFR

rules for existing airspace users in order to integrate drone operations.

The Technical Opinion represents just one step on the path to develop rules to regulate

the operation of all unmanned aircraft and EAS will continue to monitor and pro-actively

engage with the ongoing process.

EUROPE AIR SPORTS GENERAL MEETING 2016 - BORDEAUX 9 - 10 APRIL 2016

Our General Meeting will take place this year in Bordeaux. The facilities of the “Aerocampus Aquitaine http://www.aerocampus-aquitaine.com/” will be used for the accommodation

and meeting place. A tentative programme has been established and will be forwarded to

our members soon with additional details. The agenda and the content of the

presentations is also in preparation and some important guest speakers are expected,

including Mr. Patrick Ky, Executive Director of European Aviation Safety Agency and Mr.

Patrick Gandil, General Director of Civil Aviation France.

The tentative Agenda is as follows:

Saturday 9th April:

09:00 - 12:00: First plenary session, including a coffee break

12:30 - 14:00: Lunch at Aerocampus

10

14:00 - 18:00: Second plenary session, including a coffee break

20:00 - 23:00: Gala dinner at “la Maison du Fleuve” on the river Garonne.

Sunday 10th April:

09:00 - 12:00: Final plenary session, followed by formal General Assembly and votes.

KEY CONTACTS

President David Roberts d.roberts@europe-air-sports.org

General Secretary – central EAS

management & administration

Pierre Leonard p.leonard@europe-air-sports.org

Programme Manager and

regulatory work

René Meier r.meier@europe-air-sports.org +41 79 333 63 93 Skype meierswitzerland

Newsletter Editor Diana King d.king@europe-air-sports.org

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER!

If you would like to receive future issues of the Newsletter direct to your inbox, please sign

up on the Europe Air Sports website at http://www.europe-air-sports.org/