IAOPA General Statements
Opening Remarks | Opening Address | Resolutions Committee | Keynote Address | Remarks | General Aviation Security in the Philippines | General Aviation Security in Italy | United States General Aviation Security | ICAO CNS/ATM Developments | Protecting and Promoting Airports | Israeli Association of General Aviation | AOPA Lithuania | User Fees—Different Approaches | User Fees | Impact of Fees
Kevin Psutka welcomed the delegates to the 23rd World Assembly in Toronto, and noted that he had arranged nice weather for everyone over the past two days, and now we have to work, it is raining! He added that he looked forward to a successful Assembly.
IAOPA President Phil Boyer also welcomed the delegates to this 23rd World Assembly in Toronto and thanked Kevin Psutka and COPA for making it all happen. He then called the Assembly to order, saying that this was his 8th World Assembly as President and noted that this was a time of change: new faces; new AOPAs; and plenty of new blood, which was good.
The aviation environment is changing—UAVs are a growing concern, microlights are on the increase and light sports aircraft are becoming ever more popular. We need to consider the core members of IAOPA who we serve. Some of them use MLS; people are changing; and the Governments are changing.
His recent visit to Aviation Day in Brussels clearly showed how Europe is growing, and of course the rapid approach of EASA and SASAR.
Since 9/11 and even before, there has been a greater attention to security, with airport access critical. He added that Toronto was the most expensive airport in the world!
Key points of increasing concern were:
- User fees: Even the US is facing these now
- AVGAS the shortage of this problem is on everyone's lips
- ADSB: Different systems are being used in different countries
- The wrong concept of General Aviation: It needs defining accurately—it is everything except Commercial Air Transport and the Military
- New organizations such as EASA and SESAR
- Acquiring and keeping members
The President summed up his address by saying the above items will be discussed during this World Assembly and he looked forward to useful and productive sessions.
John Yodice, IAOPA Legal Counsel and Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, read out the names of the delegates who would form the Resolutions Committee as follows:
- Martin Robinson, United Kingdom
- Lennart Persson, Sweden
- Arinori Yamagata, Japan
- Ruth Moser, IAOPA Headquarter, USA/li>
- John Sheehan, IAOPA Headquarter, USA
Resolutions being presented must be handed in by end of business on Tuesday and the Resolutions Committee would meet on Tuesday evening.
Phil Boyer stressed the importance of the Resolutions and suggestions from the Assembly.
John Sheehan also welcomed everyone to the 23rd World Assembly and reiterated the President's comments regarding the Resolutions. He had received answers from a number of delegates in reply to his e-mail asking "what are the most critical issues today" and for ideas for both the program for the Assembly and also for the resolutions. He added that he had already received seven draft resolutions and these will be handed out.
John Sheehan was pleased to announce that 24 countries had registered for this World Assembly, including a number of new attendees. He added that 5 AOPAs attended the first World Assembly, so we have come a long way! John Sheehan gave a short presentation outlining the beginning, structure, and work of IAOPA as follows:
- Chicago Convention of 1944
- Civil Aviation meant 'Airlines'
- IAOPA formed in 1962
- ICAO Observer in 1964
- Now 63 Affiliates
- There are now 189 ICAO Contracting States out of a total of 207 in the World.
- Facilitate movement of international General Aviation and Aerial Work
- Represent GA/AW in international forums
- Develop common policies need to be looked at every two years
- Publicize GA/AW
- Eliminate barriers/restrictions
- Publicize the good news of GA
- Educate international groups
- Assist member affiliates
- Promote safety for GA
- Provide services for GA/AW
Since Toulouse 2004
- Positions and new positions
- Influence: IAOPA aims to exercise influence
- 63 Affiliates
- New members:
- (Bermuda) Not technically a Sovereign State. UK had agreed to their provisional membership.
- Enquiries from others: IAOPA is currently discussing with Afghanistan
- Language Proficiency: Communicate in English or the language of the country you fly over
- Cost Benefit Analysis
- Flight Crew Licensing Review: Frank Hofmann worked with this panel for two years
- ELTs: More to come on this from the assembly's keynote speaker
- Aviation safety
More positions taken
- Aviation Security: IAOPA was member of Security Panel at ICAO on the new Annex
- Operational Standards—Annex 6
- Engine/component overhaul requirements
- Facilitation: Help from Lars Hjelmberg was appreciated
- UAVs: New concept, no pilot in the aircraft—what is ICAO's position? How to see and avoid? What airspace will they use? A great many questions to be answered!
- Bulletins: Sent out every three months
- eNews: Sent out in the months between the bulletins
- Press releases
- Position papers
- Web site
- GA DVD
- IAOPA brochure
- ICAO: 6 Regions, including Europe. 34 AOPAs in Europe. We watch what is happening in Europe
- Other Regions
- European Union/ECAC
- Aviation press
- > 450 individual service requests filled
- Available to affiliates by:
- Telephone and facsimile
- Web site
- Policy support
- User fees
- The price to participate
- Equipment: New 'black boxes' Mode S/ADSB
- Environment: Europe most sensitive—IAOPA needs to pay attention to developments in Europe.
- Phil Boyer
- John Sheehan
- Ruth Moser
- Frank Hofmann
Telephone: 1 301 695 2220
Web site: firstname.lastname@example.org
Address: 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701, USA
John Sheehan appealed to the delegates asking them to let him know what is going on in their countries. He is always looking for news!
William Voss expressed his pleasure in being asked to speak at this IAOPA World Assembly. He said he had grown up flying little aeroplanes and was flying before he could drive a car. He noted that it was a very different world today, with the new more sophisticated aeroplanes. He gave an overview of his work at ICAO as follows:
- ICAO Process
- Safe, secure, efficient international civil aviation
- Current work items of interest to the General Aviation Community:
- Language proficiency
- Annex 6 Part II
- Safety Management Systems.
- Provisions proposed 2006
Except as below, all aircraft require 1 ELT of any type.
Note: ELTs must transmit on 406 MHz. Cospas-Sarsat System will cease processing 121.5 MHz ELTs from 1 February 2009.
- All aircraft with C of A after July 2008 require 1 automatic ELT (406); all aircraft should carry an automatic ELT.
Relevant issues for GA
- Deletion of specific requirements for designated areas and long range over-water (LROW) flights:
- Areas of high risk now less likely to be only geographically designated
- Dynamic aspects now more relevant
- Flexibility in ELT type allows carriage of most suitable ELT for LROW operations.
Benefits to GA and SAR providers
- For users:
- No retrofit costs
- 406 MHz ELTs: Global coverage, precise location, early detection, less false alerts, stronger signal.
- More lives saved; although more expensive it is far more reliable.
- For SAR providers:
- Less rescuers' lives at risk.
- Less operational costs.
Language Proficiency: A difficult issue, but there is a sound reason for its introduction Communications
- A review of 28,000 safety reports (ASRS)
- Over 70% of problems cited involved message exchange—the ICAO has much trouble with this.
- Communication errors represent largest category of problems.
- 1% of communications are compromised by inaccuracy.
- Aeroplane and helicopter pilots (PPL, CPL and ATPL): Pilots shall demonstrate the ability to "speak and understand" the language used for radiotelephony communications (after March 2008)
- The "speak and understand" ability shall be demonstrated to level 4 of the ICAO rating scale
- Recurrent testing will be required for those below level 6 (recommendation: every 3 years for level 4 and every 6 years for level 5). Everything is fine till something goes wrong, so a minimum standard is essential, but it will be expensive for industry.
ICAO Level 4
- Language proficiency requirements apply to pilots who are engaged in international flights. Pilots shall demonstrate proficiency in at least one of the language(s) offered in the airspace which is used.
- A petition from IAOPA to relax testing requirement for VFR flight in E, F and G airspaces was not accepted by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission.
- The ICAO language proficiency requirements are limited to oral communication and Level 4 is an operational level, not a perfect level.
Annex 6 Part ll
There are three Sections:
- General: Paragraphs added to Foreword to explain the revision. Definitions added where required; and applicability revised to reflect the new sections.
- Basic General Aviation Operations: Applicable to all international GA operations. Most provisions from current Annex 6 Part II. Modernized and made performance based where appropriate. Responsibilities assigned to PIC. This is based on the level of proficiency you reach, paying attention to safety. IAOPA helped write this!
- Corporate, Large and Turbojet Operations: Applicable to large and turbojet aeroplanes, recommended when
- Configured with more than 9 seats; or
- 3 or more aircraft are operated by pilots employed to fly them.
- Most responsibilities assigned to the operator.
- Requires management systems including:
- Operations Manual
- Safety Management Systems (SMS).
Safety Management Systems
The ABC of SMS: this may not touch GA much, but it is important and ICAO really believes in this. There is a place for both large and small operations for the system.
- Complement the regulatory approach to the management of safety with a performance based approach:
- Collection and analysis of routine operational data
- Data-based identification of hazards
- Data-driven prioritization of risks
- Data-driven allocation of resources to mitigate prioritized risks.
- What is in it for the small organization? A persuasive [double] misconception:
- SMS only works for the big guys—this is a myth!
- SMS is a burden for small operations
- Why is SMS important? It will allow the small organization to:
- Realistically address those deficiencies that available resources allow to address, instead of ticking boxes
- Sensibly allocate [always meager] resources
- Do more with less, safety-wise
- Improve the relationship with the regulator.
- ICAO knows this is a big issue and has taken a co-ordinating role in the regulations. UVS International is putting the information on the Web site so everyone can see what the regulations are.
Good news on ELTs
- A meeting is planned in August with the Maritime and SAR organizations, to reach a decision on whether personal location beacons are a good thing. ICAO is trying to listen to what people are saying.
John Sheehan: Are Safety Management Systems applicable for private operators—surely these are for AOC holders only?
Reply: Yes, these are intended for AOC holders but there is a place for them for non AOC holders. There is guidance material out there. So if no AOC, then it is a good idea to have SMS.
Ram Pattisapu: If a signatory to ICAO does not follow the rules, what is the recourse?
Reply: ICAO is not a Regulator, it is a co-ordinating body. However, if a State is issuing certificates that are not in accordance with the SARPs, our threat is transparency - we can inform other contracting States of this fact. Also, in 2008 there will be further transparency as this information will be available to the press.
Peggy van Ootmarsum: All FTOs in The Netherlands are compelled to install SMS, it was a financial burden and is getting very expensive.
Reply: States have the ability to go beyond ICAO and introduce SMS if they wish. But it should not be a big paperwork exercise, nor should it be a burden. It should be kept as simple as possible.
Kevin Psutka had pleasure in introducing Franz Reinhardt to the Assembly. His work in Transport Canada was of particular interest to all pilots as he was responsible for the wording of the regulations with a link to General Aviation. He added that he was the highest government officer who was a GA pilot who owned a Mooney and held an IR.
Franz Reinhardt said that as Director of Civil Aviation he thanks the Assembly for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Director General of Transport Canada, Merlin Pruce, who sends his regards and regrets that he is unable to join you. However he was pleased to have met with a number of delegates at the reception.
Franz Reinhardt said he was pleased to welcome IAOPA to Canada and to Toronto. Canadians are proud to share their country with you and happy to host the World Assembly of an organization dedicated to promoting general aviation. As the international representative for general aviation worldwide, IAOPA has greatly increased the awareness of their respective government authorities and the public as to the nature and needs of general aviation And can be proud of having grown to 63 countries around the world. Growing from an interim organization that included COPA and AOPA US to becoming a permanent organization by 1964 with accredited status by ICAO is a significant achievement. IAOPA organization is to be applauded for its program to promote a better understanding of general aviation worldwide.
Canada is also recognized for having one of the best civil aviation programs in the world—it's important to remember the value of air travel to the strength of the nation. Air travel is now the standard for most people traveling long distances. It is an essential instrument that connects Canadians to each other and to the world.
Canada also has the second largest population of licensed pilots in the world, including aeroplane, helicopter, glider, gyroplane, balloon, and ultra-light pilots. Over two thirds of its pilots are involved in general aviation. General aviation is becoming the largest supplier of pilots to commercial aviation sectors. Three years ago, ex military pilots provided the airlines with their new pilots. Tomorrow's airline pilots will most likely be people who are flying in the general aviation environment today.
Transport Canada has committed to meeting ICAO standards for personnel licenses and establishing pilot permits to serve unique Canadian needs. In addition, Transport Canada joined with a number of other countries to extend the validity periods for non-commercial pilot medicals.
Franz Reinhardt's agency also facilitates foreign pilots flying in to Canada through Foreign License Validations Certificates, Limited Term Pilot Licenses, as well as issuing Canadian Licenses based on foreign documents. It accepts ground and air training completed in foreign States towards the issuance of Canadian Private Pilot Licenses. Transport Canada also facilitated the international movement of amateur-built aircraft between Canada and the United States.
Franz Reinhardt then recognized and acknowledged the achievements and efforts of two Canadians who are active with IAOPA, Kevin Psutka, President and CEO of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and Vice-President for North America for IAOPA, and Frank Hofmann, the IAOPA Representative to ICAO. Kevin provides input on issues that may potentially affect Canadians. Frank also represented the private pilots on the ICAO Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel discussions, and has been directly involved with the ICAO Air Navigation Commission on the 406 ELT issue.
Together with the National Search and Rescue Secretariat and DND, Transport Canada has been evaluating the safety implications of the discontinuation of the satellite monitoring services of 121.5 VHF/243 MHz frequencies in 2009, and is trying to find a way to replace the current satellite monitoring service available to pilots.
While 406 ELTs offer the option of satellites providing nearly immediate detection of a problem, there are other ways in which aircraft involved in emergency situations can be identified and services alerted. While there may be some parts of Canada in which a 406 ELT might be the only option, the fact remains that other technologies may be able to provide the needed service in many parts of Canada's aviation environment. Transport Canada continues to work with its stakeholders to identify those other alternatives. It has not mandated 406 ELTs nor do has plans to make this the only option available to Canadian pilots and aircraft owners. However, it is working on regulations and may require to have a system, provided it obtains the required result.
First and foremost, Transport Canada is a safety organization. The long-standing focus on safety has contributed to fewer accidents and fatalities, despite increases in traffic and aircraft movements, expected to grow by 3.5 percent by 2009. Canada has the second largest civil aviation fleet in the world. More than three quarters of Canada's aircraft fleet is general aviation, and the number of light recreational aircraft or personal aircraft increases every year with 68,000 on the register. It is important that people have the right perception of GA.
Participation at the Aviation Safety Conference in Montreal this past March reminded ICAO and other States that more focus is required on providing program assistance for safety and accident-prevention for general aviation. In addition, the requirement for appropriate levels of regulation and assistance for light sport and very light jet aircraft was raised.
Recent initiatives that will leave a significant mark on international general aviation include working with industry and civil aviation authorities from States that are actively developing a comprehensive proposal to modernize Annex 6, Part II. Including provisions to reflect elements of a fully functioning safety and regulatory system, which Canada has had for years for general aviation operations, is important in this work. The provisions will also address safety and security aspects.
In addition, with regards to aspects to business jets and turbine powered personal aircraft, Transport Canada and NAV CANADA have been working with ICAO to develop standards that will allow the implementation of the Required Navigation Performance—or RNP—concept, and to determine where the RNP concept can be of benefit in Canada. Some States are using RNP already—useful for guidance in mountainous terrain. While aviators must expect regulatory bodies such as Transport Canada to enforce regulatory requirements, enforcement actions are focused on activities that have significant safety implications. While pilots and aircraft owners have an obligation to adhere to all regulatory requirements, Transport Canada's enforcement work is directed to the activities that pay the greatest safety dividends. That means that most of its enforcement work is dedicated to the activities with the greatest safety implications. Transport Canada is currently drafting documents focusing on real safety hazards, and introducing a confidential reporting program similar to the UK CHIRPS.
Transport Canada has the regulatory structure in place and has authorized the use of Global Navigation Satellite System—or GNSS under IFR in Canada for en-route, terminal and approach phases of flight, thereby benefiting safety, efficiency and capacity. Many Canadian aircraft operators are already equipped with GPS avionics. GPS permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path, thus allowing operators to choose fuel-effective routes. GNSS also supports better instrument approaches at many airports, including vertical navigation when augmented, reducing delays and diversions. GNSS-centered performance-based navigation enables a seamless, harmonized and cost effective navigational service from departure to final approach.
Many people don't think about how important the many small general aviation airplanes and airports are to their personal quality of life. It is often overlooked just how much their own personal needs are met thanks to these pilots and airplanes that work day and night to meet those needs. More emphasis needs to be put on general aviation as part of a national transportation system. Perhaps a new name is needed for this sector. In Canada some groups refer to it as personal aviation. Promoting general aviation services could make the public aware of the services provided by personal aviation. Despite the organizational review underway at Transport Canada, it will continue to promote Personal Aviation.
The aviation industry is globally growing, and sharing of information and best practices are now more important than ever. While Canada is not mandating formal or structured safety management systems for individual general aviation pilots or aircraft owners, it does recognize that fundamental SMS principles can help to improve the safety of all aviation undertakings.
The establishment of SMS is all about the fostering of a safety culture amongst managers of commercial aviation operations. After all, since the commercial operators of tomorrow are expected to originate from the group of general and personal aviation pilots, Transport Canada actively encourages all pilots and owners to be aware of SMS principles and practices and to adopt the appropriate safety attitude and practices into their own flying, so as to nurture this most important safety culture. Checklists for all GA pilots and for safety of their passengers are provided with SMS, and the ability to analyze why things happen. However with SMS, one size does not fit all!
The history of aviation has been one of continuous change and both the regulator and the regulated will have to work together to keep ahead of the changes. There will always be challenges, but Franz Reinhardt said he believes that aviation in this country is fundamentally sound and the future is bright. And there are the people in the room to make that bright future a reality.
Transport Canada looks forward to continued positive working relationships with COPA on a national basis and IAOPA on an international level, and to continued contributions and dedication from individuals such as Kevin Psutka, Frank Hofmann and Phil Boyer, as President of the International Council of AOPA. As active partners, all work together to promote personal aviation in Canada and the world. Working in partnership is vital. Key to this partnership is continuous and ongoing dialogue with, and between industry organizations and government. To be affective, engagement must reach broadly and deeply. Only in this way can a partnership that embraces the complexity and the growing influences of the 21st century be built.
Gerry Amurao told the Assembly that the security measures in The Philippines are only a token of the past. As at any airport, security practices are conducted by security officials of the airport, and no other security personnel are permitted. However, since 9/11 and other numerous aircraft accidents and incidents brought about by unlawful intervention, extreme security measures are now in place both for the airlines and for general aviation, and also in land and sea transportation.
Current security practices affecting general aviation include
- Airports all over the country now have perimeter fences
- Comprehensive arrangements for acceptable procedures for planning of flights, including:
- Flight plan and passenger manifest to be submitted to Philippines National Police
- Flight plan and passenger manifest to be filed at the Flight Operations Briefing Station who forward it to:
- ATC Office for dissemination to Ramp Control for aircraft start-up and ramp movement
- Clearance delivery station, IFR/VFR flight clearances for departure and en-route clearance
- Airport control tower for take-off and landing.
- Pre-flight 360°: Pre-departure procedure is done at request of Police for one policeman to inspect the aeroplane and cargo for prohibited items, dangerous materials or drugs. Also for passenger identification.
Only when the policeman gives the 'go signal' may the pilot call Ramp Control for start-up clearance and then get clearance from Flight Operations Briefing who relay the message to ATC for taxi clearance and finally the take-off instruction.
Voluntary security measures taken by general aviation operations.
- A litany of procedures that seem very tedious, but form the only way The Phillipines can ensure safety in so far as terrorist threats are concerned.
- AOPA-Phillipines vehemently objected to many other proposals (remnants of martial law), and thanks to the theirs and other associations the procedures have been narrowed down.
- The procedures are a compromise between the wishes of the Security Office and our own voluntary suggestions to ensure safety of operation regarding terrorism.
The Plus Factors
- The privilege of ingress and egress of all airplanes at The Manila International Airports all over the country.
- After proving to the authorities that pilots can comply with those requirements, government has relaxed many of the required taxiing procedures mentioned above and exempted two-seat airplanes and multi-engine flight training (with only instructor and student) from police clearances.
- Helicopters on money transfer and payroll flights or VIP flights do not have to undergo the routine procedures and can depart from their respective hangars.
These are just a few of the alleviations we achieved through dialogue with the authorities.
- The Philippines are considered to be one in the South East Asia Region that has not experienced aircraft accidents brought about by lawless elements, even long before 9/11. This is the main reason why Phillipine pilots still enjoy flying under the blue sky of the whole of the Philippine Archipelago.
- Gerry Amurao said he could probably predict that air travel is getting safer as the years go by, more especially with the imposition of the Air Transport Office (ATO) regarding training and licensing of airmen, as well as general aviation and aviation facilities improving and upgrading.
- The matter of airport security in the past is only a token compared with the present, and there were years when many hijackings and bomb explosions during flight that destroyed airplanes resulting in loss of lives. So, between the security then compared with now, Gerry Amurao states he is more inclined to support the new measures, at least in our own country and region.
Worldwide aviation security concerns have increased considerably since September 2001. While government officials have not developed comprehensive security programs for general aviation, airspace restrictions have been imposed in many countries. Voluntary measures by general aviation operators have kept increased security measures to a minimum in most countries, but the threat of more stringent security programs is apparent. The program will include:
- Current security practices affecting GA around the world
- Voluntary security measures taken by GA operators
- Future trends in your region
- Measures to reduce increased security regulations.
The request to make this presentation begins stating that "government officers have not developed comprehensive security programs for General Aviation . . . . "
Massimo Levi disagreed with this Statement, saying that in Spring 2002 Italian officials developed comprehensive security programs for General Aviation and also admitted that, in the beginning, they did a real good job.
The Government arranged a series of meetings of a dedicated "inter-ministerial security committee" (composed of personal "security" assistant to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Interior delegate, the Police Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, a representative of the foreign airline association in Italy, a representative of the national airline association, a representative of the Airport Handlers Association, the Aero Club of Italy and finally, AOPA Italy and the IBAA).
This Security Committee, among the rest, decided, concerning General Aviation, the following measures to be applied as of January 2003:
- all persons cleared to enter the areas where the aircraft were kept had to be identified,
- all aircraft had to be protected,/li>
- all persons and goods near an aircraft had to be inspected.
Responsibility for the applications of the rules was given to the airport managers/airfield managers/aero club presidents/and to the legal representatives of aerial work companies (this in Italy includes Air Taxi companies). In theory, personnel of these companies/structures were supposed to undergo a specific training program, that at the time did not exist, and still does not exist.
Security Measures to be taken: All subjects with a General Aviation activity or taking care of parking or keeping aircraft must constantly keep under control the parking areas or the airfields and be sure that aircraft are properly locked and that keys are kept in a safe place accessible only to owners or operators.
Each structure should keep an up-dated list of the people cleared to have access to the aircraft. This information should be made available to CAA Inspectors and/or Ministry of the Interior's staff (includes the Police, immigration offices etc). Passenger transport on board of aircraft belonging to flying clubs is authorized only if the transported people are known to the pilot or the company/flying club staff who are responsible! Pilot data should be kept registered in a dedicated register book in the respect of the "privacy" regulations. This register is available to Ministry of Interior's staff (Police), Immigration, etc.
Aerial Work companies and air taxis should have their own security program in accordance with the above basic regulation. Companies should declare in advance where and how they operate from and what sort of infrastructures they intend to use in case of operations away from their usual operating base. In this case, Aerial Work companies should also explain in their security program how they intend to protect their aircraft.
Airport handlers should have similar programs explaining, in addition, how they intend to protect transit and foreign aircraft activities. General Aviation aircraft operating from airports open to Commercial Air Transport traffic should be separated from this, or at least, the following security measures should be granted:
- control of the authorized personnel to load and unload the airplanes,
- inspection of all the airplanes prior to their use,
- airplanes parked should be constantly key locked and made inaccessible to non-authorized personnel.
Commercial Air Transport Airports should grant proper separation between GA passengers and CAT passengers… in case this separation could not be granted GA crew and passengers should undergo the same security controls of the CAT, but transfer to / from aircraft should be done with a dedicated vehicle.
Massimo Levi said he believes that in "emergency moments" what was decided by the National Security Committee was reasonable and would not have created problems if anyone did correctly his part of the job. But unfortunately, Italy is a country where regulations are not made to be respected, but to be interpreted.
What happened? Just a few examples:
On major airports: GA traffic could not be economically separated from CAT, as a consequence many airports simply decided to get rid of GA, creating all sorts of impediments to landing rights. Parking places have been restricted, procedures have been complicated, airport offices have been made unreachable. The NOTAM office in Florence is virtually made unreachable, unless the pilot is from Florence and has a permanent airport badge (its cost being in excess of 100 $US).
Massimo Levi gave the following example: You are in Venice and you want to leave with your passengers in a 172? If you are at the end of a 50 people line at the security controls you must wait your turn—and if your bags contain something prohibited as "carry on luggage" on an airline—well, you'll better make somebody a present because your bag will not be cleared!
Smaller Airports: Most Ministry of the Interior people do not know what a small airport is—by consequence they decided that all small airports had to be kept under control by the "army!" Ministry of Interior made an agreement with the Ministry of Defense and, one morning pilots discovered that all airports were under "army" control! From this point on, everything depended on the intelligence of the local commanders.
There are airports such as Milan's where the soldiers are more than welcome, discrete, well educated, helpful on many occasions and perfectly trained, but others where the soldiers are ignorant, arrogant and do not know the basics of education.
There are airports where, if one is not "a member of the club", one cannot board an aircraft—Massimo Levi told that he had problems to reach his airplane because he was simply a "transit pilot". Pilots also found airports where passengers had to hand over a photocopy of their ID because otherwise they were not going to be allowed in. At other airports police authority wrote an airport order stating that "in order to allow tax controls on private aircraft pilot and passengers, a written statement with all the data had to be filed and handed to the authority".
Massimo Levi continued by saying: Let's not speak about airfields. Airfields have been submitted to a new security regulation by the "Ministry of Interiors". In the beginning the order was simple: all airfields must close! Then slowly, we could argue the order and preserve most of the airfields by convincing the handlers to accept full liability: potential terrorists do not use light aircraft for their purpose. Nevertheless, when Mr. Bush visited Rome in June 2004, all GA was grounded within a radius of 100 NM for almost a week!!! The same happened when the Pope died and many heads of States visited Italy (few days before to a few days after and no-one knows why). The fun part of this is that "mountain airstrips" have been prohibited (landing on glaciers, to be more specific), and we have been able to modify this requirement a few weeks ago, following three years of discussions.
In spite of the above problems, Italy probably has the best regulation in Europe for "intra-European flights", in fact between the countries in the Schengen area, there's nothing to do but to file a flight plan and go—and if the other country accepts this (such as Germany and Austria) pilots do not even have to file a flight plan, and can just start the engine and go. Also, between countries outside the Schengen area, but within the European Union, pilots just have to file a flight plan an hour in advance of the take-off time and indicate that pilot and passengers have the required travel documents.
Massimo Levi told of another personal experience: A few weeks ago I had to file an official complaint because three pilots from a northern aero club were prevented from taking off from an airport in southern Italy because the Customs and Immigration and Police did not believe that Malta was part of the EU! How it ended: the three pilots just took-off and no-one stopped them!
He continued by saying that since the London bombings in July 2005 a new regulation has been enforced. If student pilots want to learn to fly they must have a Ministry of Interior's clearance. This has become a major problem. To check students out, the Police Department takes three to four months, and if there's doubt about the student's intentions during this period he/she might consider that golf is a better sport than aviation!
A second problem concerns the many American and Canadian pilots who would like to fly while on holiday in Italy. No-one knows the procedure for these pilots. Police cannot check out foreigners, and diplomatic authorities do not know what to do.
Future Trends: Difficult to say. IAOPA Italy believes the ICAO should take a stronger attitude against these practices but, considering that most of the problems are caused by ignorance and stupidity, it is not clear what a stronger ICAO action could obtain.
United States General Aviation Security
Andy Cebula, Executive Vice-President Government Affairs, AOPA USA
Andy Cebula said that he really wondered what they had in the USA to complain about, compared to what he had heard about the security problems being experienced in both the Philippines and Italy!
He gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the General Aviation Security arrangements in the United States as follows:
Impact of September 2001
- All aircraft grounded
- Airspace post 9/11: restrictions imposed on different sectors/areas
- Security premise, what is the general public/media/government's view of GA
- Security approach: aviation security in the US:
- airports: there are 18,000 landing facilities in the USA
- Transport Security Administration (TSA)
- general aviation security guidelines
- Airport security
- what type of security requirements does your airport have (examples)
- Aircraft security: methods used by members for security of their aircraft
- Airport Watch: January 2005
- GA security DVD: this is going to be re-distributed shortly. As many members to be exposed to it as possible.
- AOPA USA recognized by TSA in protecting the nation's transportation systems
- Broad community support
- being pro-active
- Airport Watch makes 3rd anniversary
- New DVD on Airport Watch
- Big members concern in the US
- do issues relating to homeland security/airspace restrictions threaten GA operations in the nation's airspace? 91% say yes
- Washington DC special restrictions
- Washington defenses:
- Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) (inner area) introduced immediately after 9/11. Need flight vetting to enter to land at the three airports within the area
- Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ (outer area) 90 miles across—in place before Iraq war; FAA wants these to be permanent.
- Presidential Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR)
- 120 in 2005
- 71 to date, anticipated to be 140 in 2006
- Security enhancements
- passports, finger prints, enhanced pilots' certificates
- new airman's certificate implemented 2002. From 2004 requires photo
- Flight training. TSA's alien flight training rule
- Flight training security
- identity of individual - validated by photo ID
- only authorized personnel issue keys
- FAA should maintain aircraft owner data base.
Efrat Yaron, Israel: Our problems started long before 9/11 and have now become impossible. One guy wanted to take his kid on a short flight in a 152 and a guard told him that he had to fly with him, or the flight would not take place. The pilot pointed out that there was no seat for him, so the guard said the kid would have to get out of the aircraft so he could fly in the aircraft, or there would be no flight. The security people are not good enough they are not qualified to do the work.
Another pilot wanted to take a visitor (foreigner) for a flight to Haifa in a 172 but as the guard was not qualified to undertake the necessary checks on the person concerned, he had to go to Tel Aviv to be checked before he could fly.
Another member flew to Crete, then, before returning, filed a flight plan correctly for the flight back to Israel. When he called up on returning he was told he could not land in Israel and would have to go back to Crete. He did not have the fuel for this. So he was escorted by 2 F15 s to a military base and surround by armed guards on landing. His flight plan was later found by ATC, with pictures of flowers on it! ATC subsequently apologized to the pilot admitting that he had done everything correctly!
John Sheehan asked Gerry Amurao if he felt that the government of the Philippines were listening to their concerns?
Reply: I believe so. Increasing influence is really effective. Even the president is interested in aviation.
John Sheehan asked Massimo Levi if it would help if he threw a party (not a serious question!)
Reply: I would say the rules are not so very different. We need to educate people and make them understand that we are not terrorists.
John Sheehan asked Andy Cebula if the Airport Watch program had made any impression on the TSA. Is it working?
Reply: It is a good tool, but we face ignorance from people particularly from the media trying to push up their TV ratings, by touching an airplane and then producing pictures of 'terrorists having access to GA airplanes'.
Ram Patisapu said that the airspace in India is dominated by the military and they try to convince the regulators that more regulation is required for GA. The airspace is already overregulated, and he asked if ICAO could help?
Reply from John Sheehan: IAOPA has spent the last 3 years working with ICAO on Annex 17 convincing them that GA is different from the air carriers. He added that States should look at Annex 17 to see what has been added. Also, he said that the new Security Ground Manual will be out in September.
Bill Voss explained what was happening at ICAO regarding CNS/ATM. He pointed out that the organization needed to look at which systems would work together—this whole area had been equipment driven in the past and we need to get away from that.
Global Air traffic Management, what is it and how did we get there
How to put the whole thing together has been quite an adventure. We used to be very much driven by equipment, but we are getting away from that and going for performance, which is good news for you. There are certain traffic flows that dominate the world, major traffic flows - ATM Homogeneous ATM areas, giving the ability for separate rules. We are working on a worldwide system that basically achieves interoperability and seemlessness based on physical interconnectedness; common requirements, standards and safety across all regions. We need to 'tone down' on regional variations.
ICAO is leading a transition from a system based on equipment to one based on performance, and measuring performance by meeting expectations:
- Capacity-access and equity: A global ATM system should provide an operating environment that ensures all airspace users have the right to access to the ATM resources needed to meet their specific operational requirements, and that the shared use of airspace by different users can be achieved safely.
- Cost effectiveness
- Efficiency: Participation by the ATM Community
- Global interoperability: The ATM system should be based on global standards and uniform principles to ensure the technical and operational interoperability of ATM systems that facilitate a homogeneous and non-discriminatory global and regional traffic flow. The old systems—FANS for example, required different standards for all, which was not good. Now interoperability is required. VDL 2 is in use with the airlines, there is no VDL 3 and VDL 4 is in use in the upper airways. There are currently two systems, but only one is needed for global use.
Participation by the ATM Community: The ATM Community should have a continuous involvement in the planning, implementation and operation of the system to ensure that the evolution of the Global ATM system meets the expectations of the community. Basic things that need to be done around the world: find out how to hold users accountable, and to start repaying benefits from what has been done.
Example of GPI—Performance Based Navigation—similar to SESAR in Europe, with reduced costs for operators and ANSPs.
- Near Term—Evolution Phase 1: based on what there is today and involving available procedures and capabilities, but also identifying potential gap requirements that focus on near term work program activities.
- Medium-Term—Evolution Phase 2: based on what is known today; involves application of emerging procedures and capabilities and identifies gap requirements and drives R&D.
- Long-Term—Evolution Phase 3: based on concept expectations; involves application of new procedures, processes and capabilities; and fills the gap requirements and sustains continuous improvement R&D.
ICAO is now focusing on the following: less Standards, more implementation. Air Navigation Bureau Technical Officers are interacting daily with regional offices throughout the world addressing new developments.
Conclusions: The goal is more global ATM systems designed around performance; we must meet the expectations of the users; and the ATM concept in the long term. ICAO is focused on implementation.
Lennart Persson, Sweden: in your 5th slide on the right hand side, it says "except for RNP 4". Is there any reason for that?
Reply: Good question, I have no idea. International consensus is a tricky business—we want only one plan for change, and it must be good if it saves us money.
Andy Cebula, USA: Concerning Search and Rescue, in the concept of performance driven capabilities, it is difficult for GA pilots to assess what equipment is needed.
Reply: We realize that the user community wants to know what to buy. We found out that SAR is governed by many agencies in many places, and we are only doing the clean-up work on the 406 thing. So "performance based" did not make it through first time round. In a perfect world we would have agreed it in damage control but we expect to see performance based with us, and we like what the Canadians are talking about.
Andy Cebula, USA: 70,000 GA aircraft are equipped now with RNAV/GPS. Will these aircraft be brought into the RNP as the basic capability, so that GA does not have to re-equip?
Reply: I would imagine that most of the standards are going to be able to be met under new certification guidance material for those boxes that are already out there—RNAV 11s. So as long as the aircraft can be operated under the fairly tight tolerances and have procedures by which States can determine these tolerances, that will be it.
Peggy van Ootmarsum, Netherlands: What is new concerning the Known/Unknown Traffic under the European Single European Sky project?
Reply: ICAO is very supportive and has been since the 1950s. We should not be preoccupied by boundaries and airspace levels. It is a good thing. ICAO is clearly involved in the idea of 'functional blocks of airspace'. I have no idea how it is going to play out because of the politics and the way people live, but it is going to be quite a show. The concept of functional blocks of airspace is absolutely sound and ICAO supports the idea.
Comment from John Sheehan: IAOPA is opposed to the simplification of the airspace classification as we would lose airspace categories D,E and F. We would rather not give these up.
Peggy van Ootmarsum, Netherlands: AOPA Netherlands is working to "higher" the airspace below the TMA over Schiphol. This is currently 1500 ft and we are proposing it to be 3,500 ft.
Martin Robinson, UK: congratulated the speakers for the interesting set of presentations and good information we had received during the morning. He had a question for ICAO: When will ICAO begin collecting statistics again?
Reply from ICAO: Firstly, ICAO had no business to ask States for this information. However, over the next two years, in accordance with Article 21 they will be working on The Basic Registry of Aircraft, which will bring in GA aircraft. This needs to be done to overcome the "flags of convenience" that are currently out there. So over the next few years we will be working on keeping a track of where aircraft are.
Gerry Amurao, Philippines: Referring to the ICAO comment "less Standards more Implementation" he said that they had installed ELTs in their aircraft, but there was no capacity in the Philippines to pick up the signals from the ELT. They already have 121.5 but are going to have to change to 406. What should they tell their Authority to do about this?
Bill Voss: Authority needs "to hold its breath" at present. Wait for ICAO to send out the additional guidance material.
Note from John Sheehan: Just because ICAO lays down these standards, it does not mean you have to follow them at domestic level. You may file a difference on any item your State does not wish to adopt.
Presented by Arinori Yamagata, Vice President, AOPA Japan
The Basic Knowledge about General Aviation in Japan
- The possession rate of aircraft is very different from other countries.
- Numbers of aircraft with reciprocating engines (mostly GA) registered in Japan is less than 700, but private aircraft registrations are less than 100, due to problems with the tax system.
- There are less than 10 airports for GA only in Japan.
- There are about 100 shared (GA/airline) airports.
- There are extremely few parking areas, less than 10 at shared airports and less than 60 at GA airports.
- Most Japanese people have a negative feeling about private aircraft.
- Access to Airline Airports
- Basically in Japan we can land at any airport. However, there are restrictions at big international airports such as Narita, Haneda, Chitose, Kansai, etc.
- Walking outside at airports is prohibited.
- Most other airports are free.
- Landing at local airline airports
- Landing fee \1050 (10 US $)
- One night parking fee \ 840 (8 US $)
- Com. Assistance fee \15 to \250.
- Night 24 hour watch is done. Generally speaking a visit is welcomed by the airport staff.
- Negative features associated with airports (worst possible example for public airports for GA, Tokyo City Airport (in the Tokyo suburbs).
- Prohibition of sightseeing air tours
- Prohibition of the new aircraft requirements
- Number of take-offs and landings are limited
- Prohibition of transient aircraft taking-off/landing on Sundays and holidays.
- Prohibition of flight training.
- The final purpose is to close this airport and to make it into a park.
- Dealing with airport problems
- Airport support groups
- Their desire is an airline airport not GA.
- Enthusiasts advise opponents, but supporters are mostly silent.
- An extreme example is the President of Narita Airport, who made threats when planning a second runway at Narita Airport.
- To become a supporter of the airport, we must be aware that we risk our lives.
- Most airport opponents are political radicals.
- There are a lot of citizens' groups who assist only on their rights and forget their duties.
- It is said that compensation paid to the Fishery Organization when making Kansai International Airport is equivalent to $100 per one sardine!
- Government fears friction with citizens' groups and the mass media usually supports the citizens' groups in most cases.
- For the mass media to oppose the government is popular and "stylish".
- Why so many off-shore airports exist in Japan
- In cases of off-shore airports there are few opponents to movements for construction, although the cost of construction is large. The work is easy to proceed for the government. The repayment of the huge construction costs will be the responsibility of posterity. Examples of off-shore airports: Nagasaki, Kobe, Kitakyushu and Chubu Airports.
- Political actions
- In Japan to revise the law once decided is very difficult.
- The Medical Certificate in Japan for a PPL holder is rated for one year. To extend it to 2 years would require a resolution in Congress.
- Creating new categories and market
- At present we have almost no laws for ultralights, but they are confined to a narrow space and licensing is entrusted to its organization.
- The situation is almost the same as in Europe more than 20 years ago.
- Law for sports aircraft doesn't exist. Japan will become a good market for sports aircraft manufacturers all over the world.
- If law for sports aircraft is provided, and if the aircraft meet this law, they can land at any local airport. We would like backing from IAOPA to realize this. The old pilot who survived WWII said "If we had insisted on our flying rights after the war, we would now be flying more freely".
- Success stories in supporting and saving airports
An airport in "downtown" is moved to the suburbs. With work from us on the public administration, the airport, which is convenient for GA is left in the downtown area. Hiroshima Nishi Airport in Hiroshima City core is an example of this. The airport was sold to Hiroshima City and is now a prosperous GA and Commuter airport. Kohnan Airport in Okayama City is the same case.
Background and a few facts: The Israeli Association of General Aviation also acts as The Aero Club of Israel in conjunction with the FAI.
The IAGA Communit
See maps of Israeli airspace in the presentation on the Web site. Israeli airspace is 450km long, 16 - 100 km wide, with many restricted, closed and prohibited areas.
- The Golan Heights is a restricted zone.
- No GA flights permitted beyond N 33°.
- Flight over Palestine territory at 8,000' and above.
- Many other no fly zones.
- No CVFR flight on ATS low routes even in VMC.
- Very tight security measures, even for private pilots.
- Lots of bureaucracy on foreign visitors' private flights.
- Prior notice plus full personal ID details even for non-Israeli official VIP guests and visitors.
- Zero "risk taking" attitude and no CVFR for foreign pilots.
Security—a few examples
- The whole airspace is controlled mostly by IAF (no VFR flights).
- Unwritten restrictions base on real time warnings.
- Temporary imposed restrictions by IAF operations.
- Military facilities / CTRs are off limits.
- Paranoid tight security measures at airports.
- Navigation competitions allowed on Saturdays and holidays only.
- 48 hours prior notice and approval for non-standard routes.
- Only one civilian, LLBG very busy facility for IFR/ILS training.
- Mandatory flight plans even on published routes. Strict en-route flying.
State of Israel: Civil Aviation Authority/Israeli Airport Authority/Israeli Air Force
- No long term planning and no protection of the environment of GA landing sites from unwarranted intrusions by non-aeronautical activities.
- No assurances that fees derived from authorized activities are used for the benefit of the landing sites being used.
- Restrictions placed on GA at the only large international airports in center.
- No GA friendly policies (in other countries too). Expensive landing and parking fees. (Cyprus/ Turkey).
- No GA "Airport Improvement Plan" designed at improving the infrastructure needs of GA towards the national and local planning authorities.
- The needs of GA are not duly taken into account in the various "Transport White Papers", issued at local, regional and national levels.
- Even abandoned airfields and strips are prohibited for use by GA.
- The value of GA airports— Overregulated by government
- Access to airline airports—Restricted and complicated
- Negative features associated with airports:
- Fees: Tendency to rise dramatically in the future
- Restrictions: No UL landings at controlled AP.
- Limited operational hours, low priority for GA.
- Public perception.
- Dealing with airport problems:
- Airport support groups
- Political action
- Success stories in supporting and saving airports: LLHZ
- Fighting for approval of the Association as a strip operator and allow us to conduct members 'fly-ins to a few abandoned strips.
- Establish a quarterly meeting with head of CAA.
- Making IAOGA representative body part of GA decision making and rolling.
- Preventing and revoking the closure of main and central GA biggest hub, LLHZ.
Arunas Degutis is a member of the European Parliament and Transport and Tourism Committee. The following is a transcript of his speech.
For those who have gathered here, it is no secret that GA all around the world is experiencing a difficult time, as proved by the statistics which speak for themselves. For such decline there are many objective and subjective reasons. I think that objective ones are not the issue to be discussed here, though we should try to identify the factors which could be influenced by ourselves.
There is nothing significant to add to the themes which are being discussed here, because of my rather modest experience managing a comparably small association of Lithuania, which has very specific problems.
The area in which the Lithuania Association is operating is very tiny, that's why there is very little experience I can present at this conference. On the other hand, we have to react to the changing conditions and legal bars very promptly, at the same time being very flexible.
Lithuania like most other countries doesn't have exceptions using excise tax free fuel, but together with the Ministry of Finance, AOPA Lithuania worked out the taxing regulations which allow all GA pilots and operators for business purpose flights to use cheaper, excise free fuel.
Members of our association, including those registered abroad enjoy 70% discount rate for using all international airports situated in Lithuania. We established GA terminals and built three hangars over 3,000 square meters, fitted out for airplanes in Vilnius Airport. One of the hangars will have a heated floor based on geothermic energy. For our needs we rented over half a hectare lot for parking, established briefing, ground handling service and refueling for piston and jet driven airplanes. This particular project is an example opposite to the current situation for GA in European countries.
We are here not to exaggerate our achievements, but to share good practice examples and to offer our knowledge in this particular field.
Being an MEP for already two years, I can share my experience of GA in our region. Shortly after I started working in the EP, together with Sylvain De Weerdt, we formulated a question concerning GA to the Commissioner for Transport, Mr Jague Barrot. I was astonished how little is known to the MEPs regarding this particular sphere of aviation. GA for them is nothing more than a sports activity or even exotica. No wonder that while solving global economic problems, they don't pay much attention to the issues concerning GA. This can be compared to the situation in the USA where, on the contrary to the EP situation is different and many members of the Senate and Congress are certified pilots.
Though the influence of the EP seems to be limited, all my questions regarding the politics of using the Excise in the European Union were answered very competently, which helped us a lot in solving GA problems in the national scale. However, we cannot influence other countries.
But the question I want to raise is why in some European Union countries, where the acting directive allows using excise free fuel, there are no existing rules letting us use the directive? The more important thing is whether it is known that these exceptions couldn't be any longer applicable at the end of this year. I have no information that anything is being done to extend their validity.
There are many representatives from different lobbyist organizations representing different fields of aviation, which have many questions to me as a member of the Transport Committee. But I have never met any GA representative except for Sylvain De Weerdt. Working in this field in the EP my experience is small, but on the other hand my voice would be heard if I had strong and motivated arguments for the members of the Commission. So far regarding the issues of GA in Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe faction, I work alone.
Being a member of the third biggest faction in the EP, I often choose to prepare the documents concerning or close to GA. As an example now, I am Shadow Reporter regarding EASA and SASAR questions (New generation Europe Air Traffic Management system). What I want to stress is that not only professional aviation lobbyists should come to me defending GA interests. Otherwise, being there alone I wouldn't be able to raise the issues concerning GA.
I don't want to take up more of your time, but the last thing I would like to offer is to set a concrete mechanism of co-operation, which would allow me to use my unique situation being a member of the European Parliament for another three years.
John Sheehan, United States: said that there are many ways to solve problems. Speak with someone else who has similar problems, but is perhaps addressing them in a different way, as we have just heard from our last speakers.
Peggy van Ootmarsum, Netherlands: We tried to get tax exempt fuel in The Netherlands but the Minister for Finance wouldn't listen to us.
Arunas Degutis, Lithuania: we were not in the EU when this all started. The excise tax on automobile fuel makes a big difference to the budget. Aviation fuel does not. It is only general aviation private flights that pay the excise tax, commercial/business flights are exempt. This can only be claimed back by pilots flying for business.
Malcolm Chan-a Sue, Guyana: Persistence is needed! We had an airport that was about to be built in 1996, but they got nowhere with it. It never got off the ground. Studies started in 1990, but nobody could agree. Now Phase 1 has started and it is growing. When completed, the concrete runway will be 5,500 x 100ft, big and strong enough to take up to an Airbus 218. This is a private airport, financed by the Association, but the EU was so impressed that they are giving us a grant of €1.5 million! The agreement was signed in Austria two weeks ago. Everyone has a problem, and this is why it is so good to come here to share our experiences. If I can help anybody, I would be very pleased, as it is important for GA.
Carlo Golda, Italy: A question to all three speakers. Up to now we have had a permanent discussion with the authorities. They have power - we are free people. We felt the time had come to have an aviation policy to handle legal questions, self defense litigation to give us the power to fight for our rights. The Authority reacted because they were afraid of going before a judge. Has anyone else had this experience?
Arunas Degutis, Lithuania: You have to fight for your rights. Try to collect signatures, fight for your image.
Efrat Yaron, Israel: As a lawyer I cannot agree with you more. In Israel, whenever it is a case of consideration the court will never put its own mind in front of the officials. In cases that are very clear like when they wanted to close the City Airport, this is in a plan which is in accordance with the structure in the law for airports in Israel, so they failed in court. But before they went to court, the principalities around the City Airport managed to persuade the Head of the Civil Aviation Authority that this is a dangerous airport. But when we went to court we were able to get rid of him. This was one victory in court. We also have a committee that is above the CAA consisting of airline captains and other people and they have the ability to overturn decisions made by the CAA. They are very powerful and most of the time we win. Remember, going to court is only one way to solve a problem.
Kevin Psutka, Canada: In Canada we consider that it is not always a good thing to go to court, but to try to find some other way. However, we have a unique situation which has kept our freedom to fly in this country. It is an accepted point that the Federal Government has overall jurisdiction over all things aviation, including aerodromes and airports and the regulations for flying in Canada. But this is challenged from time to time and we get many requests from people for such things as wanting to have a private airstrip near their home, and communities will try to assert their own zoning by laws to determine that they will deny you this. The government should be stepping in here. But if they intervene in all these cases, they would be swamped by their own jurisdiction at the federal level, so they don't get involved. Someone has to take it to court. COPA has been very successful over the years by creating a 'war chest' through members' contributions, which is a 1 Million C$ special action fund, that enables us to take all these cases that go to court at appeal level, which is where the Federal Government steps in. However, out of every 10 cases that come up each year, 8 of them will get solved before they ever get to court. This is all because in having this 'war chest', it is enough to make them realize how serious we are about defending our rights. So this fund is very important to us in this country to defend our freedom to fly.
Ernst Hauff, Belgium: We have more and more military airports that were established during the 'cold war'. Our aim is to protect this infrastructure for our children and for our economies. My question is: "do you see the possibility of forming a trans-European alliance with other associations such as IATA, to form a policy that puts emphasis on the preservation of this aviation infrastructure and the airports, for use for general aviation by club members"? We need to co-operate as defenders at EP and national level. The Transport Committee of the EP could look into this. How can we help to support each other's ideas?
Arunas Degutis, Lithuania: it is difficult to get the EP to maintain existing airports as it costs too much money to maintain them all, and other forms of transport are also asking for money. The EP is very much in favor of supporting the railways.
Martin Robinson, United Kingdom: We in IAOPA (Europe) have had discussions with a member of the European Commission who Stated that the European Commission has no competence in the field of general aviation. How can we help the Commission to develop these competencies?
Arunas Degutis, Lithuania: I would be happy to help, and I will try to organize some meetings to rectify this situation.
John Sheehan, United States: Very good thoughts! When Phil Boyer was in Europe he challenged the Transport Commissioner, asking him how can we get help? We need to come up with numbers, showing just how much General Aviation does for not just each nation, but in the whole of Europe. They have done it in the US. We need to get started in Europe. Collect statistics which show the VALUE of general aviation.
User Fees—Different Approaches(Status update 2004 - 2006)
Sebo Woldringh, Vice President AOPA Netherlands
- Deregulation by Central Government National Aviation Authority (NAA).
- Relationship between NAAs and GA sector is changing.
- Responsibility is moved to Provincial Government.
- Control over all airports will be the responsibility of the provinces:
- Lack of knowledge
- Conflicting interests
- Schiphol Airport remains NAA's responsibility.
- Deregulation vs GA
- Every province can now make its own regulations and sets its own pricing
- GA has to talk and negotiate with 12 provinces
- Opportunities to promote themselves (tourism, small and medium enterprises).
- AOPA is actively approaching the Provinces.
- Help them to understand the issues
- Promote GA and make them think in our direction.
- AOPA is fighting to:
- Keep as many airfields as possible
- Not limit use of existing airfields
- Keep the costs as low as possible
- Open military airfields for civil use (EHTW)
Relations between Government and GA sector—Most important
- In the past . . . Rarely on speaking terms.
- Now . . . Tentative negotiators.
- Future . . . Professional partners.
User fees 1
- Cost of flying still very high
- Also compared with other countries in Europe
- Due to
- No subsidies from NAA, COC
- Operational costs:
- Avgas $15 / gallon
- Landing fees $ 10 up to 50 (for a 172)
- Landing costs as relative to noise category of planes
- Extra fees depending on noise restrictions.
User fees 2
- All rules and regulations make it more expensive.
- PPL theoretical knowledge exams cost up to $1,000.
- Medical (Class 2 PPL) $ 250.
- A PPL will cost up to $ 7,500 (within 2 years). Into a negative spiral.
User fees 3
- AOPA is actively trying to diminish the cost of flying by:
- Promoting the use of microlight aircraft (MLAs). Less noise—cheaper.
- Promoting noise abatement
- Trying to reduce NAA's involvement
- Less inspections of maintenance companies and FTOs.
Achievements of AOPA NL
- Enhancing the relationship between GA and NAA.
- Helping Provincial Government.
- Getting all GA representatives (like aero clubs and non-powered aircraft representatives) working together.
- Helping to reduce costs of flying.
- Promoting aviation safety awareness. Never put cost before safety.
The big issues under consideration in the US: Should the FAA ATC system be funded by user fees?
Last year AOPA started the fight
- Funding system works; huge growth of FAA budget.
- Aviation national asset, deserves taxpayer support.
- No to user fees.
- Congress must be Board of Directors.
- Define future system and cost.
- Identify cost reductions.
US Congress must act by October 2007!
- Extend current taxes.
- Create new user fee funding system.
- Determine FAA spending?
- Define their role in management of oversight.
FAA's Budget (per year)
- Airport improvements: $ 3.5 Billion
- ATC enhancements: $ 2.5 Billion
- FAA operations: $ 8.2 Billion
- R & D: $ 138 Million
- Total:$ 14.2 Billion
How the FAA is Funded
- 23% taxes from US citizens: General Fund
- 77% taxes from aviation users: Aviation Trust Fund
How the FAA is Funded by Aviation Users
- General aviation fuel tax.
- Airline ticket tax / segment fee.
FAA Administator Marion Blakey Sells Fees:
Bahamas, Barbados, Brunei, Guinea-Bissan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Namibia, Samoa, Sao Tome, Tuvafu and the USA. The above list represents the ONLY countries that DO NOT charge for actual cost of ATC Services.
Other ATC Systems
Fiction: FAA is behind other ATC providers because they are not privatized or user fee funded.
Fact: Modernization reduces costs:
- Outsource the Flight Stations.
- Eliminate unnecessary or redundant nav. aids.
- Consider replacing today's costly RADAR system with ADS-B
Airlines and NAS
Fiction: The airlines only use 69% of the ATC system.
Fact: Airline operations are the true driver of FAA costs.
- It 's not just about counting "radar blips".
- General aviation is an incremental user.
- Fact: It's how and when operations occur.
All is not equal between general aviation and the airlines:
- Hub and spoke
- Rush hour scheduling
- All weather operations
This is No Fiction:
"Each user of the system drives certain costs" James L. May, President, Air Transport Association.
Air Transport Association
"Congress must determine and impose a specific schedule of mandatory user charges, directly and proportionally linking the system costs". ATA Feb./06
Fiction: Airlines can do a better job of an air traffic control system oversight than Congress.
Fact: The airline industry has proven in recent years they can't run their own businesses so they are telling Congress what it must do.
Very Light Jets?
Fiction: FAA claims that "thousands of tiny new passenger jets will begin flying around the country soon" New York Times Feb/06
Fact: From FAA's own R & D Contractor: "VLJs are an emerging market in aviation and we (MITRE) are looking at their impact on NAS operations, but that at this point, the impact on the ATC system is not known".
Fiction: VLJs will blacken the skies and create a severe burden on the ATC system.
Fact: 1,433 VLJs by the year 2011.
AOPA Lining up Congress Support against User Fees. AOPA member Congressmen oppose user fees. Representative Robin Hayes (R-NC)—"every time an airliner 'cranks up' it uses the system, while there are thousands of GA aircraft flying using nothing but the air, which I hope is still free."
Darrell Issa (R-CA) "I know there has been a lot of talk about user fees as a means to fund the FAA. If the FAA is planning to impose general aviation user fees, they will not have my support.
Rep. Tod Tiahrt (R-Kan): "If FAA plans call for user fees for general aviation, they will not have my support. In fact, I will work against any effort to impose user fees on general aviation.
AOPA (USA) Strength + 407,000 members.
Power of local voice
Col. William Dunn, USAF Reserve. "I actively use the airspace system, flying my aircraft extensively in the conduct of my medical practice and national eye research protocol, in addition to managing numerous property investments across the country. I ask you to please exert all efforts to oppose user fees and instead support excise taxes as the way to fund our aviation system".
Personal Aviation Fleet 2005
- 78% of all aircraft in Canada.
- 14,573 certified.
- 8,811 non-certified
- 4,463 basic ultralights
- 876 advanced ultralights
- 3,120 amateur builds. (Like new sports category in the USA)
- 352 owner maintained (de-regulated).
Two Greatest Fee Irritants
- Airport fees have crept in and up over the past 10 years.
- NAV CANADA user fees.
- Transport Canada sold or gave away almost all of its airports in the past 10 years.
- When Transport Canada owned the airports, COPA negotiated a $.05 per liter tax on fuel instead of landing fees.
- Many new owners of airports kept tax in place, renaming it a fuel concession fee and also introduced landing fees.
- Fees vary and there is no single place to find them.
- COPA is trying to convince the government to force airports to list their fees in the Canada Flight Supplement. We are preparing to go to court with a good case to make our point.
- COPA has a "Guide to Public Airports" to help educate airport managers to the impact.
- To help deal with the lack of information and lack of government support, COPA has developed "Places to Fly".
Nav Canada Fees (CAPS)
- Into the mid 1990s government sold the air navigation system (ANS) for $1.5 Billion.
- Contract is through a Board of Directors:
- Government, airlines, unions and corporate aviation are on the Board
- COPA was offered a seat, but declined it - reason was that you cannot throw stones from the inside, and we would only have one vote.
- COPA was in favor or privatized ANS as long as we are not adversely impacted.
- COPA considers the fuel excise tax to be our contribution to the ANS, similar to the US fuel tax for the Aviation Trust Fund.
- Canada: 42 cents/gal. (US)
- US: 22 cents/gal. (US)
Compared with the US
- Comparison based on average personal aircraft (172) flying average number of hours per year (50), burning 8 gals./hour.
Comparison with US (Canadian $)
- US aircraft owner pays $90 per year in fuel tax to Aviation Trust Fund.
- Canadian aircraft owner pays $178 in fuel excise tax and $77 for NAVCAN's flat annual charge - total: $255 per year.
- Excise tax on fuel was considered the fairest, closest proxy to actual use of the system by general aviation.
- The entire industry, including NAVCAN, lobbied the government to either transfer some of the tax to NAVCAN or reduce it so that NAVCAN could collect an equivalent fee on fuel.
- Government refused to dedicate tax (goes to general revenue, not spent on aviation) and they forbid NAVCAN from collecting any levy on fuel—considered to be taxation and only governments can tax.
- Faced with this rejection, NAVCAN looked at alternate ways for smaller aircraft to contribute.
Defining our Segment for NAVCAN Charges
- NAVCAN differentiated general aviation small aircraft from other sectors by applying an annual charge to aircraft weighing 3 tons or less.
- Also differentiated our segment by applying the lowest annual charge to all aircraft "not used for business purposes, i.e., exclusively for recreational purposes".
Current Charges for our Segment
- Annual charge $72 plus 7% Goods and Service Tax - total $77.04.
- Applies to all recreational aircraft weighing more than.617 tons /1,360 pounds (flat annual charge).
- Quarterly charge applies to all foreign aircraft that fit NAVCAN's definition.
- Small general aviation aircraft are the only sector that pay whether or not they use the system.
- Many personal aircraft fly only VFR and never use anything, including weather services, but are forced to pay for ANS availability.
- A balance was achieved in 1999:
- Some never use the system while others use it extensively. Balance achieved.
New Daily Charge
- $10 per daily departure (take-off or touch and go) at 7 busiest airports
- Annual maximum $1,200.
- New charge is in addition to annual charge.
- This is the first step to "pay-as-you-go".
Objectives of New Fee—As of this year
- Encourage small aircraft to use reliever airports.
- Generate $250.000.
- Real reason is to appease the international airlines who want general aviation to pay its fair share.
- Section 35(1)(b) of the CANSCA:
- "charges must not be structured in such a way that a user would be encouraged to engage in practices of diminished safety for the purpose of avoiding charge."
- There can be no doubt that the charge will encourage pilots to avoid 7 airports, with a direct bearing on the issues relating to fuel management and recurrency training for example.
Unreasonable and Unsafe
- Section 35 of the CANSCA:
- Changes for recreational aviation shall be neither unreasonable nor undue.
Unreasonable and Undue
- Since what was developed in 1997 was a balanced approach toward charges for general aviation, it is reasonable to conclude that any additional charges, no matter how minor, would unbalance the methodology that was developed and therefore be inconsistent with the charging principles.
- Under the terms of the Commercialization Act, COPA has the right to appeal to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA).
- CTA decides if any of the charging principles were violated.
- COPA urges that safety will be affected and that the new daily charge is unreasonable and undue.
- NAVCAN responded they are a self-regulating entity and therefore have the authority to determine the rate structure and the quantum (amount) of fees.
- NAVCAN further agrees that the CTA has no right to make decisions on the structure or amount of the charges.
- NAVCAN is doing what monopolies do.
- If the CTA agrees with NAVCAN, the charging principles that help protect us from high fees would be rendered useless.
- Arguments to the CTA have been made in writing. No hearings are permitted.
- A decision is expected before the end of July.
Kevin Psutka concluded that they were at a cross-roads as to how general aviation will be treated in the future. Privatization has done good things for the country. But users have to pay.
John Sheehan: We have seen the common view, with different challenges being approached in various ways. He complimented the three speakers for their presentations and resulting solutions.
Martin Robinson, UK: Europe is under considerable pressure with the considerations of the Single European Sky, but he said that he had recently received the final version of the draft of the charging Regulation. It was now clear that there would be no VFR charges for general aviation aircraft of less that 2,000 kg, and it was unlikely that there would be any ANSP charges for aircraft over two tons. The beneficiaries of the system should pay. The airline passengers are the beneficiaries of that system. We had a discussion regarding the number of VORs and DMEs we were going to need and then we will pay for whatever we need. Also, GPS is there. The air navigation system in Europe costs €5.72 billion per year, and we pointed out to the Commission that the amount they would get from general aviation would be very small in comparison. ICAO has also been quite helpful as well, stating that Member States must have accurate data on the number of aircraft movements. They do not collect the data in most of Europe, so this was useful. ICAO principles say that a State must not charge a dollar if it costs a dollar to collect it.
John Sheehan: Noted that there are two ICAO documents, they are not Standards, but advisory documents for Air Navigation Services or Airport Services, the latter contains some very good comments that were put in 30 years ago long before he was involved with IAOPA: making the point that if you are going to charge general aviation, then you should do it so that you will allow general aviation to "prosper and grow".
Martin Robinson, UK: One final point: For the non-member out there, 'no change', so what did IAOPA do? This is a very hard sell for us!
Phil Boyer, IAOPA President: asked Kevin Psutka if, in hindsight, looking back over the past 10 years when this first raised its head in Canada, he would have done anything differently to protect themselves from the dilemma they are now facing?
Kevin Psutka, Canada: The COPA Board did try to achieve this principle prior to the act coming into force, and get some definitions of: 'safety', 'unreasonable/undue', who to, before it came into place, but they ran out of time. The government pressed on and we had to find out just what these terms meant. It was considered better to stay on the outside and not to be on the board. It is a two-edged sword.
Andy Cebula, USA: If there is ever any question on the words being used—you must have it in black and white, get them written down. Don't bank on the same people being in 'the same room' in the future.
Sebo Woldringh, Netherlands: I think we can all become too busy fighting other groups when we should have been looking more at what the government is doing.
John Sheehan: Pick your fights carefully and build on them. Don't fight potential allies.
Ram Pattisapu, India: Why are airlines at odds with general aviation? What would it benefit the airlines if we paid thousands of dollars? In India, flying means the airlines.
Andy Cebula, USA: Airlines are driven by the cost it takes to provide service. We are currently looking at 7 airlines in bankruptcy and how to help with their costs? Considering business aviation, security is a 'pain in the neck' and it is just a competition for the highest paying passengers.
Kevin Psutka, Canada: The concept of privatization still has strong support in Canada. The solution was to replace ticket tax by a system where each passenger pays a fee to NAVCAN, resulting in a better deal for the passengers than in the old days.
Malcolm Chan-a-Sue, Guyana: What is to stop someone putting a charge on the use of GPS, which is free at present?
Kevin Psutka, Canada:We have four ground stations in Canada and they provide the data in the GPS data base. This is the responsibility of NAVCAN who are spending money to maintain the GPS system, and would justify fees.
John Sheehan: The US provides the basic signal free of charge, however there is no assurance that this won't change. However we are the smallest users of the GNSS system, it is the truckers, railroaders and other forms of surface based transport who are the major users.
Randy Kenagy, USA: Accommodation without charge as shown on the FAA's Web site: "The US government has made a pledge to provide without charge, access to GPS and its augmentations". (15 December 2004) and it won't change for 2 and a half years.
John Sheehan: Reflect on what we have heard today—do not go for an information overload! Select three items that you can take home with you to your AOPA—think about if there are any Resolutions forming in your mind from today's discussions. Remember, all Resolutions have to be handed in by noon Tuesday (20/6).<< Back to Top