JUSTIN WASTNAGE / BRUSSELS
Business aviation faces a flurry of new regulations as a single European regulatory regime takes effect. Will it help or hinder operators?
The business aviation community is torn over attempts by Europe's regulators to make the region's skies safer and flying aircraft more efficient. A host of technological requirements for aircraft, ranging from reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM) to Mode S surveillance and 8.33kHz radio channel separation, is being introduced to ease congestion and increase capacity. The imminent creation of the European Union's (EU) first single regulatory body - the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) - is also intended to end confusion that results from having dozens of state-run authorities, with overlapping and sometimes conflicting rules.
But not everyone is convinced the new regime will boost business aviation's prospects. The USA's National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) worries that the cost of installing new equipment could prove a huge problem for many companies, and is resisting similar initiatives in the USA. "Business aviation is facing the proliferation of technology-led new equipment mandates, which pose a tremendous financial burden to operators," it says. In the UK, Graham Forbes, chief executive of the General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association, which represents the lower-end of the industry, is equally concerned: "Many operators are being daunted by the prospect of a wave of future mandates on technology," he says.
Older aircraft, such as early Learjets, are hit worst by the cost of introducing new avionics kit. But some manufacturers hope this will provide a fillip for new aircraft sales. "We are already seeing people returning Learjet 31As due to the cost of RVSM compliance," says Bombardier's regional vice president for sales in Europe Alain Ledoux. "But luckily for us, so far they are upgrading."
Compromise
Europe's equivalent of the NBAA, the European Business Aviation Association, thinks RVSM's benefits outweigh the costs. The reason is that it increases capacity by cutting the legal gap between aircraft from 2,000ft (610m) to 1,000ft and allows compliant aircraft to fly at a more fuel-efficient 28,000ft. "Because access is the most important factor in the congested European airspace, RVSM is very welcome," says chief executive Fernand François.
RVSM is only the first of a series of new regulations. From 31 March 2003, European air navigation agency Eurocontrol will require Mode S transponders to be fitted to aircraft flying under instrument flight rules. Because they assign aircraft digital signatures, they should improve air surveillance in dense traffic areas. Another change has been to increase the number of communications frequencies available to pilots by squeezing the gap between radio channels to 8.33kHz from 10kHz.
But probably the biggest revolution to hit the sector will be the arrival of EASA. Four years after it was first proposed, the EU looks set this month to formally approve its creation. Assuming all member states give their approval, a move expected within a year, EASA will create a single civil aviation safety authority for the entire region with the legal authority to make decisions enforceable throughout the EU. This is unlike the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), which can only make recommendations.
At start-up, however, EASA will only rule on certification and maintenance issues, not on operational ones, although that will follow. The JAA will continue to exist, with many of its 23 non-EU member states bound by bilaterals with the EU over air transport policy. This includes Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and EU candidate countries. National aviation authorities will become like Federal Aviation Administration field offices in the USA.
It is the way in which the various authorities communicate with each other that is giving cause for concern, however. For example, so as not to swamp the new agency with thousands of aircraft types, the second annex to the proposed regulations contains a list of older aircraft excluded from EASA airworthiness inspections. Responsibility for these aircraft will rest with the national authorities until they are transferred to EASA.
For charter firms using aircraft such as the Dassault Falcon 10 or de Havilland Beavers, the transfer period could result in one agency "dropping the ball" and airworthiness standards being compromised.
To ease the transition, EASA will be introduced in two stages. Firstly, certification and maintenance work will be handed over from the JAA to EASA next September, followed by operations and licensing a year later, if schedules can be met. The need for common certification is not contentious. It will only be necessary to obtain a single certificate before selling products throughout the entire European market. In launching the bill, European Commission vice-president Loyola de Palacio said: "Despite the harmonisation work led by the national administrations through the JAA, there are still major differences between national practices, and it is not unusual for a manufacturer to have to produce different versions of the same type of aircraft or of its equipment according to the country where it will be used."
This streamlining effort should be beneficial for business aviation, since many of the major manufacturers and suppliers are based in the USA. Standardised import requirements among European countries should make it easier for US and EU manufacturers to develop new products in the future. "If implemented as envisaged, a single certification authority would benefit not only the EU, but the FAA as well," says John Colomy, manager of aircraft certification staff at Air Brussels, the FAA's European liaison office. However, ahead of an official report, due in August, the FAA says transition to this new authority presents major challenges.
Compromise
FAA fears are also thought to focus on the possibility of political compromises in the final draft, which could lead to inconsistencies across Europe. An example of how differently EU laws are applied can be seen in recent examples of US-owned business aircraft being impounded in EU airports for cabotage, the carriage of passengers by an airline of one country within the frontiers of another.
Although the EASA process should make the free circulation of people and services within the EU and its neighbours easier, there are signs that customs officials could spoil the party. Famously, excise collectors in Nice, France, have taken the view that a US-registered airline picking up any EU nationals from another EU country constitutes cabotage. The crime is worsened when samples and prototypes are also transported, since the EU operates as one state, forbidding internal flights operated by a foreign commercial carrier. François says that these over-zealous customs officials have made European regulations appear unnecessarily cumbersome to some US business aircraft owners.
Inconsistency
This inconsistency arises in part because, unlike in the USA, where privately owned aircraft are operated under part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, there is no EU equivalent. Aircraft operated for business are therefore covered under the Joint Aviation Regulations on Operations (JAR Ops), which also cover airliners. One of the final tasks of the JAA has been to create JAR Ops 2 for corporate aircraft. In doing this it has created the Aerial Work and General Aviation Subcommittee (AWGAS). After strong lobbying, AWGAS recognised many problems in its original proposals, which merely adapted some JAR Ops for more categories than they were designed for.
For example, rules governing crop-sprayers had little in common with those of fractional ownership operators. At last year's European Business Aircraft Convention and Exhibition (EBACE), AWGAS pledged to peg its regulations as closely as possible to the International Standard for Business Aviation Operations (IS-BAO) norms, as documented by the Montreal-based International Business Aviation Council. "In mirroring IS-BAO, the regulations will just formalise what most operators do anyway," says Fran‡ois. The JAA is expected to unveil its latest JAR Ops 2 at this year's EBACE in Geneva this month.
This gives Europe the chance for a fresh start, says EBAA. JAR Ops 2 should then reflect the best practices of many corporate flight departments, rather than building on JAR Ops, which was the result of compromise between different national systems. AWGAS chairman Michel Gouet says the rules would be limited to the "minimum acceptable to operators and the authorities". EBAA is lobbying for a liberal interpretation of "corporate" aviation, with any new rules accommodating occasional flights under commercial rules, with small private aircraft owners to be classified as business aviation operators. More likely, however, is that general aviation will be covered by its own sub-part.
Aerial work and recreational flying will almost certainly be devolved to national authorities, which will be subject to inspection by EASA. This is causing consternation among the owner-flyer community, not least because, Claude Probst, head of the EC's air transport unit says, "general aviation is not the most important issue at the moment". Pamela Campbell, head of licensing issues for the European region of the International Council of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Associations (IAOPA), says that until the EU decides where regulation of general aviation lies, the organisation feels like it is treading water.
Last month, IAOPA's vice president Klaus Zeh demanded that all reference to general aviation be removed from EASA plans. Probst says that, should the EC decide not to regulate general aviation, arrangements would be left to the individual European states. Either national authorities or enthusiast bodies could undertake this. An example is the UK's new sportplane licence, the National private pilot's licence (PPL), which will be regulated jointly by the British Glider Association, the British Microlight Aircraft Association, GAMTA, the Guild of Air Pilots & Air Navigators and the Popular Flying Association, under a dedicated company, the Air Sports Licensing Group.
The wider issues of general aviation and flight instruction need to be assessed, says Probst. Air-taxi operators, for example, are concerned about the reduced number of applicants to become light aircraft instructors, after the EU-wide adoption of more stringent pilots licences. The proposals also detail phasing-in responsibility for operations and personnel licensing, so that eventually EASA would have responsibility for all aviation safety activities. The EC argues that, since the requirements imposed on aircraft operators vary depending on country, a level playing field is needed to eliminate disparities.
However, IAOPA is particularly concerned about phase two of the EASA plan. Since the JAR for flight crew licences (JAR-FCL) replaced national PPLs, costs have risen dramatically, says Campbell. The number of flight hours required to pass a JAR-FCL PPL is up from 30 to 45, and entrants are required to pass a full medical, including chest x-rays, which rules out many flyers. Indeed, the current cost of obtaining a PPL in the EU is estimated to be around Є10,000 ($9,100), compared to just over $6,000 in the USA. Many prospective pilots take courses in the USA, and some operators are beginning to use US-registered aircraft and crew in attempts to get around the higher costs.
Amendments
Lu¡s Cardoso Ribiero, JAA licensing team co-ordinator, is looking at the structure of the various JAR-FCLs. His team is drafting notice of proposed amendments (NPAs) to the FCL for smaller fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, medical flights and flight engineers. After three months of industry consultations, proposals are due in July - and it has yet to be seen how many of these NPAs make the transfer of authorities.
In a best-case scenario, therefore, where there is smooth transition and all the NPAs are incorporated into the new EASA essential operating requirements, manufacturers and operators should find their daily lives somewhat easier - just in time for 10 new EU entrants and the reorganisation of European air traffic control centres.
Eurocontrol's next task will indeed make RVSM seem like the tip of the iceberg.
Source: Flight International
