EUROPE AIR SPORTS

The Association representing European National Aero Clubs and Air Sports Organizations in Regulatory Matters with European Authorities and Institutions
Ren Meier, Programme Manager: Haldenstrasse 18, CH-2540 Grenchen Tel: +41 79 333 63 93 e-mail: r.meier@europe-air-sports.org

Report on a Meeting Attendance

Meeting and date: EASA General Aviation Seminar Cologne, 1 and 2 October 2013, Horion-Haus Ren Meier ca 250 participants, from NAA, manufacturers, maintenance organisations, air operators, aircraft operators. Unfortunately no participants list was available.

Reporter: Other participants:

1.

Summary The Agency prepared a programme fully laden with various topics important to General Aviation (GA), more focussed on our kind of activities than on the Business Aviation (BA).Part of GA. At the end of all the sessions I am not sure if real progress was made: Implementation of the hard law and interpretation of the soft law still are tasks of the national authorities. Several remarks of scepticism were placed, particularly by Jan Fridrich and Werner micro Scholz.

2. 2.1

Agenda Welcome, overview & EASA update remarks, Carl Thomas, EASA GA Section Manager with some general remarks and precisions as the original plan with speakers from FAA could not be maintained because of the US political situation.

2.2

GA Safety record / EGAST / EASA Safety plan, Michel Masson, EASA, EGAST secretary Nothing new, it was the well known repetition of we do not have sufficient data, our data are not good enough ect. My comment to this: What about IORS? Greg Bowles of FAA said FAA is not in a better position because it collects data about GA aircraft via a questionnaire whose sending back to FAA is not compulsory. A helpful hint: Use EGASTs specialised leaflets # 1 to # 11 covering various aspects of GA operations.

.3

GA Roadmap, Athanassios Tziolas, EASA, and Julian Scarfe, Europe Air Sports The GA Roadmap we all know was well presented and accepted: Everybody now is speaking about the risk hierarchy. The necessity of extended application of BR 216/2008 art. 14.4 and 14.6, flexibility provisions, was discussed, provoking a statement of an austrocontrol speaker reminding us of the limited duration of such a solution, just to reduce our expectations...

.4

ASTM /ARC update, Boudewijn Deuss, EASA, and Gregory Bowles, GAMA EASA with CS-23 and FAA with FAR Part-23 will try to synchronise their respective provisions. Coordination with ASTM also is needed. CS-VLA, CS-LSA and CS-23 should be merged by 2016, these were the most important conclusions.

2.5.

Standard changes update and examples, Alberto Fernandez, Manfred Reichel, Cristina Angulo, EASA Slow progress, not much happened. To be honest: Nothing particularly important to be reported. It is an old topic. The outcome as per today simply is disappointing.

.6

New capabilities arising from new avionics, Hette Hoekema, Jannes Neumann, EASA

page 1

speech recognition, touch screens, weather data via satellites, collision avoidance (FLARM, PowerFLARM and others), Airport Moving Maps and Charts, eye-movement measurement to recognise pilote fatigue, the usefulness and the limits of synthetic vision were the topics, bright new ideas, but some might increase the work load on not so well-trained pilots. A carefully balanced approach between education and regulation is needed. Pilots will make use of all new devices available, better education/training is therefore more promisiong than further regulation. The speaker recommends reading the EGAST leaflet on Navigation with regards to the probable increase in workload mentioned above. Other future solutions: The get me home button (nearest airfield with Garmin products) and full internet also were presented. Jannes Neumann added some FLARM-related elements stating that the Agency applies a more flexible approach now: FLARM may be used as advisory tool, and that any risk assessment is a pilots task. Tecnam as manufacturer agreed with the process, time is more important than money the company added.

.7

Permit to fly, Maximilian Maas, Stefano Fico, EASA We received background information more important for manufacturers than for operators. The speakers stressed that for product optimisation field experience is needed. Interestingly several times when complicated and in many cases contradictory provisions were addressed Carl Thomas answer was we are bound by the Basic Regulation or we have to follow these rules. A clear answer to the question who is entitled to fly a non-certified aircraft?: The ones figuring on the list of authorised persons known to EASA.

.8

New developments and technologies, Wes Ryan, FAA, by phone As loss of control is the most frequent accident cause new prevention solutions must be found: The visual stall warning device presented could be a cost-effective solution for GA aircraft. Wes Ryan said that distraction may be the cause of the many stall accident happening during the base to final segment of a flight. Other new developments (ADS-B, VDL, LPV...) were not dealt with.

.9

Non-ETSOd glass cockpits on VFR day and night, Stefano Fico, EASA More a topic for manufacturers than for operators. Non-ETSO EFIS exist for VFR by day and at night, however, it is not for free.

.10

Discussion and wrap up session Directed by Carl Thomas, answering questions of Werner micro Scholz and of Jan Fridrich who asked questions about the absence of information on CS-LSA and on ASTM-LSA aircraft. Julian Scarfe added to this discussion that both sides say, it is not according to our regulatory system. No progress will be achieved when these positions will be maintained.

.11

Single European Sky, Catherine Gandolfi, EASA Catherine Gandolfi presented the entire complex of SES, SESAR, SESAR JU and European Air Traffic Management (EATM) Masterplan, 2nd edition. I do not repeat the titles of the regulations she mentioned, one thing, however, is of importance to us: She said that ICAOs airspace classification with the 7 airspace classes will strictly be followed. On page 33 of EATM Masterplan, 2nd edition we read that European airspace will operate as an efficient continuum with two airspace categories... and we remember that in another edition it was clearly stated that the reduction from 7 to 3 classes has 2018 as time limit, the reduction to 2 classes should be in place by 2024. In 2001 already Eurocontrol launched an initiative to reduce to 3 airspace classes by 2010, and to 2 by 2015...

.12

NextGen replaced by Part-M, Part-21, TC and STC topics, Andreas Winkler, austrocontrol The speaker reminded the audience to only carefully instal more than one appliance covered by an STC and to Contact in any case the STC holder to avoid surprises. An uncoordinated installation may ground an aircraft when a new configuration no longer corresponds to the TC.

.13

Single engine in IMC, Ralph Menzel, EASA The task started years ago, under JAA. It is now on the Agencys Rulemaking Programme, RMT.0232 and 0233. Hundreds of Cessna Caravans, Socata TBM variants and Pilatus PC-12 are flying, but still we do not have a solution in Europe simply because of something like fundamental opposition. A tragedy in my eyes. At least the speaker explained that by the end of 2013 an NPA will be published.

.14

Operational Suitability Data (OSD) for manufacturers, , EASA

page 2

Sailplanes, powered sailplanes, balloons, ELA 1 and ELA 2 are not subject to these provisions. As whole OSD are not a bad thing because manufacturers will be obliged to deliver aircraft data to simulator manufacturers when simulators are required for pilot training.

.15

Unleaded fuel / automotive fuel, Stefan Ebert, EASA Not very much happened during the last years, that was the main message of the speaker, many fuel grades are available today, but only low quantities are required, therefore availability at aerodromes is more a question of distribution. How to get rid of the lead in the fuel while maintaining its qualities still is the question to be answered. We have to pay attention to the provisions of Part-M when considering a change of the fuel we use and also when we interprete e.g. information about the engine is certified for this and that fuel: Is only the engine certified or the whole system?. This has to be clarified to avoid surprises.

.16

New requirements for flight testing and flight test manual, EASA The speaker presented a comprehensive overview of future requirements. He stressed the fact that these requirements are valid for test pilots having been educated at test pilot schools as well as for pilots who test an aircraft. Werner micro Scholz asked for templates for smaller manufacturers and added that documentation costs are very high.

2.18

Closure, Carl Thomas, EASA GA Section Manager Carl Thomas thanked the presenters and the participants for the active contributions. The next seminar will be organised according to the outcome of the feedback process coupled with the event I presented here.

3.

Other information: All presentations will very soon be available on the Agencys website, events, past events page. Please send me a message if you need further information.

4.

Lessons learned In some areas progress is achieved quite easily, FCL for instance. This is not true for aircraft maintenance and certification. We all know Jan Fridrich. His remark that he does not believe in quick-wins in the near future thinking of his experience made, is not wrong. Many of the participants are of the opinion that EASA wants to harmonize too much: To do this with US FAA surely is fruitful, but any other extension only adds complexity. creating a monster was repeatedly heard, but were not attending a Frankenstein film The automotive industry is leading in these areas also was a sentence we heard several times, be it in connection with navigation, collision avoidance, obstacle detection. Someone probably should tell the Agency that any extension of the area of influence increases complexity, requires much effort to achieve common understanding based on agreed terms and definitions. At last, we will have to insist on the necessity of having a clear verdict on what are commercial and what are non-commercial operations. We need a clear answer to this question now, it is many years old now, it is not acceptable that tricky airspace questions are more swiftly settled than a relatively simple economical one: If the scope of an organisation is to make profit the operations are commercial, if we speak of a not for profit organisation its operations are not commercial. Is it not as simple as that?

CH-2540 Grenchen, 3 October 2013 Distribution Europe Air Sports Board Members

Ren Meier

page 3