Light aviation is a vulnerable but essential sector of the industry as a whole. It should not come under threat from unjustified charges
All over the world, light general aviation aircraft of the type used for training, leisure, sport flying or personally flown transport have traditionally been excluded from paying airspace user-charges. But with the approach of fundamental changes to the way air traffic services (ATS) are delivered – and even the issue of who will deliver them is under scrutiny – the threat of airspace user charges for light aircraft is seen in the industry as a threat to the existence of a healthy training, leisure, sport and personal transport sector.
It is a fair bet that, in the USA, the world's largest aviation organisation by far – the US Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association - will enjoy lobbying success on behalf of its membership whatever changes the Federal Aviation Administration makes to ATS arrangements in the future. There will be no charges to light aircraft flying under visual flight rules (VFR) there.
Meanwhile, in Europe, the new Single European Sky regulation and funding systems are still being formulated. Draft user charging rules in the framework legislation are, however, at present looking more promising for GA than many had expected. Aircraft of less than 2t, if the current draft of the charging rules prevail, will not face charges for VFR flight. This is down to hard lobbying by the industry. And although it is clear that GA has won some battles, the war is not yet over. The framework legislation's intention is not interpreted identically by every party that could yet influence subsequent drafts. So, as the UK General Aviation Safety Council's chairman Roger Dunn says: "If other arguments prevail, GA as we know it could become a historical curiosity."
The classic "problem state" from GA's point of view is the UK. The UK Civil Aviation Authority tends to be a literal interpreter of legislation, so if it says that the costs of one aviation sector shall not be met by other sectors – which is what the charging framework specifies – the only organisation that could pick up the bill is the government. No matter whether GA under VFR actually costs anything for which it does not already pay through fuel tax or landing charges, the UK government is notorious for refusing to pick up bills for any sector of any industry.
In this case, however, it looks as if the UK authorities' case will be overpowered by pressure from countries like France that recognise the value of their GA sector, respect the rights of their citizens to enjoy light aircraft flying for training, personal development, enjoyment, sport or transport, and still have a thriving GA manufacturing base. Not just that: as Dunn observes, "the initial indications are that the [European] Commission will pay attention to the interests of all airspace users, and that its policies towards GA are likely to be positive". We welcome the Commission's apparent intent to abide by the spirit of its framework legislation.
Meanwhile, GA is going to face an increasing challenge from a completely different source in the near future, and industry as a whole is going to have to sort out how to handle this. The issue is the use of unmanned air vehicles. But however advanced UAVs are becoming in mission capability, reliability and controllability by their operators, development of a system for the three-way interface between UAVs, air traffic control (ATC) and traditional manned air traffic is in its infancy. Until it can be made to work, this will limit UAV usefulness in all but some military roles.
The challenges involved in operating UAVs in controlled airspace are considerable, but far less so in that ordered environment than in the free-flight, see-and-avoid world of VFR uncontrolled airspace. Air traffic control officers are now making it clear that UAVs should not require any different treatment than manned aircraft. That implies that they should be capable of reacting to ATC instructions, and that, since they cannot "see and avoid", they must be able to "sense and avoid" when not under advisory or other control. Just one problem this raises for GA is that UAVs must be recognisable as such, which implies carriage of a smart transponder, and the capability of VMC manned traffic to interrogate it. That means cost.
It is difficult to understand how the UAV community has allowed its products to become so sophisticated without giving real detail to the rest of the aviation community, with which it has to operate. This communication has to start in earnest soon.
Source: Flight International
