Transcript EGU Presentation - EUROPEAN GLIDING UNION

Status of the Harmonisation of
European Regulations in Aviation
R.Stuck, EGU President
EGU Congress
Copenhagen, 25 and 26 February 2006
European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)







In July 2002 the EU Council and Parliament have
decided to apply common rules to aviation and to
establish EASA
Objectives: ensure a high and uniform level of
protection of the European citizen and facilitate
free movement of goods persons and services
Basic regulation of EASA is Regulation (EC)
1592/2002
EASA regulations are not converted into national
laws and apply directly
EASA operational since September 2003
EASA is located in Cologne
Website:www.easa.eu.int
The Basic Regulation 1592




Principles
(scope, objectives, definitions)
Substantive requirements
(basic principles, applicability, airworthiness,
environmental protection, operations and licensing,
recognition of certificates, etc…)
Organisation of EASA
(tasks, internal structure, working methods,
financial requirements, final provisions)
The Scope of Reg 1592 has been recently extended
to licensing and operations. The amended Reg 1592
(COM 579) will be submitted to the EP
Annex II of Regulation 1592






Aircraft excluded from the European regulations:
Gliders with structural (maximum empty) mass of
less than 80 kg when single seater or 100 kg when
two seater, including those who are foot launched
Ultralights aeroplanes with minimum speed <35 kts
and maximum take-off mass of no more than
300Kg for a land plane single seater or 450 kg for
a land plane two seater (+ 5% with rescue system)
An EGU request to have light gliders (MTOM <
300kg and 450kg) exempted like ultralights
aeroplanes has been declined
In COM 579 the Commission asked the EASA to
investigate if certain types of ultra light aircraft
should be subject to European Rule ?
In the new version of Reg. 1592 the exemption
also applies to licensing and operations !
Rulemaking Procedures












Rulemaking Directorate (Dir. C.Probst)
Essential Requirements (ER), adopted by the EP
Implementing Rules (IR), adopted by the EC
For any change EASA must issue a Notice Per
Amendment (NPA)
Stakeholders (we!) must be consulted
Evaluation of the answers by an independent WG
EASA issues a Comment Response Document (CRD)
Stakeholders may comment again
EASA issues an Opinion (draft of new regulation)
which is submitted to the EC
The EC issues a communication to the Council and to
the EP, stating if they accept the proposal
Publication of the new regulation in the OJ
Regulations may be complemented by AMC and GM
Tasks of EASA






Certification (initial airworthiness)
Maintenance (continuous airworthiness)
Licensing (pilot proficiency) and medical
Operations
Long term: Airport Operations
Long term: Air Traffic Services
Certification







Certification is regulated by Regulation (EC)
1702/2003 which is already in force
Benefit: an aircraft certified in one country is
certified de facto in all other EU countries
The approval regulations for gliders has been
copied directly (JAR 22 = CS 22 )
Engines and propellers of SSG and SLG remain in
CS 22
According to Part 21 all instruments installed in a
glider must have an EASA form 1
This is a problem for some instruments
(variometers, GPS, PDA’s)
EASA has accepted to consider these equipments
as standard parts not requiring a form 1
Maintenance





Maintenance is regulated by Regulation (EC)
2042/2003, which is already in force for
commercial aviation
Will be valid for sports aviation per 28 September
2008 (most NAA opted out)
Annex 1, called Part M describes the technical
requirements for all aircraft below 5.7 tonnes
Based on concept of continuous airworthiness
The owner is responsible that the aircraft is
maintained in airworthy condition. He may also
delegate this responsibility to a Continuing
Airworthiness Management Organisation
Maintenance
Principles of Part M




A Pilot-Owner is allowed to perform limited
maintenance tasks and to issue a release to service
(CRS) for these tasks
Every aircraft shall be maintained in accordance
with a maintenance programme approved by the
Competent Authority
The Certificate of Airworthiness is not time limited
if associated with a valid Airworthiness Review
Certificate (ARC)
Repairs shall be carried out using data approved by
the EASA or by an approved design organisation
(DOA)
Maintenance
Maintenance Organisations



A Maintenance Organisation (Subpart F
Organisation or MOA) is allowed to perform all
maintenance tasks and to issue a release to service
A Continuing Airworthiness Management
Organisation (Subpart G Organisation or CAMO) is
allowed to manage the continuing airworthiness of
aircraft under contract, to approve maintenance
programmes and to perform an airworthiness review
including a physical survey
A CAMO + is allowed to issue an Airworthiness
Review Certificate (ARC) in case of a controlled
environment
Maintenance
Uncontrolled Environment





The owner is responsible for the continuing
airworthiness
Maintenance task except those defined in appendix
VII can be done by the Pilot Owner
Tasks listed in appendix VIII can be released by
the Pilot-Owner
Once a year an airworthiness review including a
physical survey has to be done by a CAMO
The CAMO can only issue a recommendation to the
Competent Authority to issue the ARC
Maintenance
Controlled Environment






The owner has a contract with a CAMO + to
delegate the responsibility of the continuing
maintenance
He has to report the flight hours on a regular basis
The CAMO+ will issue written orders for
maintenance tasks according to the approved
program.
Tasks can be fulfilled by a MOA or by the pilot
owner
Once a year the CAMO+ performs an airworthiness
review. This can be done twice on a document basis
and the validity of the ARC can be extended
Every 3 years the CAMO+ issues a new ARC after a
physical survey
Maintenance
The problems



•
•
•
•
Part M is complicated (treats gliders like aircraft
with MTOM up to 5.7 tonnes !)
Part M does not take into account the situation
existing in most countries where the gliding
movement has benefited for many years from a
large delegation (proven to be safe, and cost
effective)
Part M will increase the bureaucratic and financial
burden:
Maintenance program required for each individual
glider
Flight hours to be reported regularly if Subpart F
and G are separated
Written orders to be issued for maintenance work
More paperwork for getting an ARC in the
uncontrolled environment (2 procedures)
Maintenance
The consultation process





In November 2004 EASA has mandated an
independent consultant (Air Euro Safe) to conduct a
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of Part M.
EGU answered this consultation
EGU organised a meeting of their working group
maintenance with EASA in April 2005 in Frankfurt
In April 2005 in Friedrichshafen we told to P.
Goudou (Pdt of EASA) that we do not accept Part M
In June 2005 EASA has issued NPA 07-05 in June:
Only minor changes concerning gliding were
accepted
EAS has set up a Task Group in charge of preparing
the EAS answer and lead by Jannes Neumann.
Maintenance
The EGU-EAS action





Europe Air Sports, the EGU as well as many national
Federations and Aero Clubs have criticized Part M
in their comments to NPA 7/2005
At a workshop organised by EAS on 4 and 5 Nov
2005 in Cologne, most representatives of the
various air sports clearly rejected Part M
Sir John Allison, Pdt of EAS, met privately M.
Probst from the EASA Rulemaking Directorate
As a result EASA accepts to re-discuss Part M
They have set up a working group in charge of
“rethinking the implementation means today applied
in airworthiness” (see below MDM 032)
Licensing
The consultation process


•
•
•
In May 2004 EASA published the NPA 2/2004,
with a draft of ER Licensing and 15 questions to
the ‘stakeholders‘
Only few of these questions concerned air sports:
For which categories of aircraft shall the pilots
licences be regulated?
Shall only Essential Requirements (ER) be written
or also Implementing Rules (IR)?
What kind of Medical shall apply?
Licensing
The EGU proposal



After consultation of their members EGU
proposed a dual system of licences:
1. A EU-licence that allows free movement across
Europe. Air sports organisations should be allowed
to issue this licence. Medical standard may be
different from the ICAO Class 2 Standard.
Assessment by General Practitioner Only few of
these questions concerned air sports:
2. An ICAO -licence that allows flight outside the
EU and that is issued by the national authorities.
(requires a ICAO Class 2 Medical)
Licensing
The EASA answer







End of November 2004 EASA published the
Comment Response Document CRD 2/2004
They proposed to introduce a "Restricted PPL" for
air sports.
They accepted to introduce medical standards
different of those of ICAO for this RPPL
In this case General Practitioners (GP) could be
suitable examiners via Implementing Rules.
However flight in airspace with a high traffic
density could be restricted.
EGU has objected to such airspace restrictions
related to the RPPL and to the name „restricted“
EASA submitted their Opinion 3/2004 (draft of
modification of Reg 1592) to the EC
Licensing
The Commission answer






End of November 2005 the Commission published
their answer (COM 579)
They accepted to create „recreational pilot
licence, tailored more closely to this category of
airspace users. This license would be issued by
assessment bodies approved by the Agency or by
the competent national authority. Sports
federations could for example fulfil this function“
For recreational pilots „the medical certificate
may be issued by a general medical practitioner“
The amended Reg 1592 is now submitted to the
Council and to the EP
A working group has been set up to draft the IRs
(see MDM 032) The draft is due September 2007
The EGU working group on licensing is working on a
proposal for these IR’s
Operations




In NPA 2/2004 EASA has also published Essential
Requirements on Operations
In their answer EGU has asked EASA to lay down no
Implementing Rules for gliding
In their Opinion EASA proposed to keep the IRs at
high level ( JAR Ops 0) for all air sports
In COM 579 the Commission has also accepted this
proposal which is included in the new version of Reg
1592 submitted to the council and to the EP
Operations




A working group has been set up to draft the IRs
(see MDM 032) The draft is due September 2007
The Operation Working Group of EGU will have to
make a proposal for the IR’s
EGU still works on an harmonisation of the most
important gliding procedures (EGU-internal
recommendation)
EGU has also collected statistics on accident (useful
for our negotiations with EASA)
MDM 032



•
•
•
•
•
EASA published recently the Terms of Reference
of Multi Disciplinary Measure (MDM) 032
Working group in charge of developing a concept for
the regulation of aircraft other than complex motor
powered aircraft, used in non commercial activities
The mission:
Develop the concept of a regulation for these
aircraft (similar to LSA ?)
Develop IR’s for the recreational PPL
Develop IR’s for the operations
Rethink the implementation means today applied in
airworthiness. Adjustment to ER and development
of different IR for airworthiness
If needed propose a modification of Annex II of
Reg 1592
MDM 032
Timescale







Start of work March 06
Interim report on the concept July 2006 ( A-NPA)
Opinion to modify Reg 1592 to introduce the new
concept airworthiness, March 2007
Opinion to modify airworthiness not linked to the
change to Reg 1592: March 2007
Elements for NPA for IR for RPPL: September
2007
Elements for NPA for IR for operations: September
2007
NPA to change airworthiness IR and associated
AMC linked to change in Reg 1592:September 2007
MDM 032
List of Experts


















Leroy Alain EASA Certification ( Chairman)
Altmann Jürgen EASA
Akerstedt Hans EAS
Fridrich Jan EMF/ EAS
Newby Graham PPF/ EAS
Roberts David EGU/EAS
Stuck Roland EGU/EAS
Schuegraf Rudi EAS
Taddei Bertrand EMF/EAS
Konrad Jo IAOPA
Pedersen Jacob IAOPA
Wilson Mark ECOGAS
Daney Claude Alain ECOGAS
Barrat Reiner Christie CAA Norway
Le Cardinal Hugues DGAC France
Forbes Graham CAA UK
Morier Yves EASA Rulemaking
Sivel Eric EASA Rulemaking
Airspace
The Single European Sky Project




In 2003 Eurocontrol was given a mandate by the EU
to harmonise the airspace structure in Europe in the
future there will only be 3 categories of airspace:
I(ntended), K(nown) and U(nknown), later I and U
only
The EGU was involved in the discussions and has
sent a position paper
Upper Division Level: FL 195. According to ENPRM
05-0012 the airspace above FL 195 is Class C in
most countries (i.e open to VFR flying)
Lower Division Level (FL Z): decided on national
basis => Status Quo
Airspace
Airspace classes for VFR flights

See and Avoid, the basic principle of VFR is as valid
as ever (see Dutch report)
We need to keep enough Class G airspace
But we need also to avoid Class E to become Class D
airspace !
The EGU has requested ICAO to consider the
abolishment of the requirement for VFR-VFR
traffic information in Class D airspace (TMZ)
UAV’s are becoming a major problem for VFR flights

Fees and charges: VFR will not be charged for ATC




Airspace
Equipments




Low Power transponders
8.33 kHz radios
ADS-B
FLARM
Conclusion

EASA has a positive attitude towards Air Sports
They have realized that they cannot regulate Sport
Aviation like Commercial Aviation
They are ready to accept a large degree of self
management
We are recognised as competent partners (they
need us)
Problem: lobbying by the NAAs and AMEs
Excellent collaboration with EAS

More info on:





www.egu-info.org