|EASA||Comment Response Tool|
|Title||Authority and Organisation Requirements - Explanatory Note and Appendices|
|NPA Number||NPA 2008-22a|
|116||A. Explanatory Note - II. Consultation||4 - 5||
The European Gliding Union is a registered, non-profit association of 23 European gliding federations representing more than 80 000 glider pilots. Gliding is a fundamentally volunteer-managed and resourced sport that in each of the EU member states is organised in a club-federation structure. All activities, including those associated with flight training and safety management, competitions and the promotion of the sport are organised by club and federation (mainly) volunteer members. All this is carried out as not-for-profit activity without commercial goals.
As the EGU studied this NPA – which is a complex document and not easy reading for 21 of our members who are working in a ‘foreign language’ – it was disappointing to note the approach taken by the drafting group that developed the proposals. The proposals are written with commercial organisations in mind and without any consideration for the air sport sector. Other than some side remarks about gliding, it appears that a full study has not been made of the impact of the proposals on the sport of gliding. The associated RIA does not represent the impact on gliding.
The EGU is not "against change" per se, but is opposed to change that is ill-conceived, poorly informed and which does not have a robust rationale based on a sound safety case. Which is the case with these ATO proposals.
Neither the EGU, nor its associated body Europe Air Sports, was invited or involved in any drafting working group to develop these proposals for training organisations. This absence of involvement is at variance with the experience of EGU on other matters such as Part M, FCL etc. The result therefore is a set of proposals with which the EGU is very unhappy.
Turning to the mitigation of risk, whilst the EGU understands the need for standardisation across member states for detailed rules for commercial air transport and complex aircraft training, there is no safety case that requires the application of any increased level of regulation of gliding operations and training than already exists nationally. Therefore the aim should be to develop rules that develops a standardised continuation of existing safety management within gliding and air sports.
The gliding community, like other air sport communities, finds as a result of long experience and empirical evidence that safety is increased through the adoption by the air sport of self regulation and high levels of pilot 'currency'. Prescriptive, and particularly ill-conceived regulation / rule-making has an adverse effect on recreational attitudes to safety. The costs associated with regulatory burdens reduce the amount of flying carried out by air sports' pilots. The long term negative effect on piloting skill and therefore safety is well understood by the gliding and other air sport communities.
The proposed rules do not appear to be in accordance with or consistent with the Commission Communication (COM (2007) 869 final) of 11 January 2008 - endorsed by the EU Parliament in Resolution 2008/2134/INI. This Communcation emphasises the importance of proportionate regulation particuarly in respect of sporting and recreational aviation (see para. 3.3 COM (2007) 869).
Although this NPA states that all rules/applications should be appropriate to the kind and size of the activities, many of the IR and AMC/GM requirements in this NPA are completely excessive, disproportional and in a number of cases simply not possible to execute within the sport of gliding. Further, some of the proposed rules, such as the requirement for ATC at airfields conducting gliding training, will have a significant and in many cases terminal economic impact on gliding clubs. This will lead in turn to adverse social impact through reduction of participation in gliding.
The draft Implementing Rules appear at first sight to be relatively benign, with some good intentions. However, when combined with the AMC/GM material they become a highly prescriptive, inappropriate, ill-conceived, unsupportable and bureaucractic combination for gliding and airsports.
It is therefore the view of the EGU that NPA 2008-22 is inappropriate for gliding. The EGU believes that the Agency should identify exactly what risks it proposes to mitigate through rulemaking and propose a separate set of proportionate rules that both meet the Agency's standardisation and safety aims and are proportional, appropriate and acceptable to gliding and other air sports. The EGU is prepared to support that activity.
|117||A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and decision - Structure||10 - 14||
It is appreciated that the Agency is making an effort to help stakeholders comply with proposed rules. It would be more useful to have a proportionate and simple set of rules applicable to gliding and other air sports. If such a tool is required, the Agency should ensure that the new tool is easy to understand and operate, and must be free to users.
Proposal. Create proportionate rules which are applicable to gliding and other air sports users, with easy and free-of-charge access to any supporting tools that are required.
|118||A. Explanatory Note - IV. Content of the draft opinion and decision - Transition measures||16||
Item 44 et seq
"A ‘Cover Regulation’ will take care of all transitions."
The EGU is very clear that the proposed rules must ensure that it is possible to transfer all rights and approvals etc, which are held by gliding clubs / federations under national regulations, into the new rules without any adverse financial consequences or burden and without additional continuing administrative burden.
|119||A. Explanatory Note - V. Regulatory Impact Assessment||16 - 17||
The EGU is disappointed that no appropriate and specific impact assessment study has been carried out on “Non Commercial/Non complex aircraft”, and more specifically on gliding and other air sports.
In the data there are no figures referring to:
- number of air sport pilots
- number of air sport clubs or training facilities
- number of aircraft used by air sport clubs
In the impact study there is only an extrapolated calculation made for FTO/RFs within powered flying organisations. All impacts on the regulatory, social and economic issues are considered and calculated without any reference to gliding or other air sports. The EGU realises that it is a challenging task to develop a full RIA for sporting aviation, but it is clear that this sector within GA is numerically larger and infinitely more diverse than commercial aviation, is funded almost solely through participants' disposable taxed incomes and is particularly vulnerable to increased economic and bureaucratic burden.
The EGU has not been consulted by the team that developed this RIA (see General Comments earlier). The EGU believes that this is an unfortunate and unacceptable situation which now needs to be rectified.
|120||Appendix II - Explanatory memorandum to Part-OR||21 - 24||
In addition to a general request to review the concept as applicable to air sports, an exchange of views between the EGU and the Agency would be highly desirable regarding the relevance and interpretation of “small” and “other” organisations as applicable to gliding clubs and national associations / federations.
There is no formal definition given in the opinion in OR.GEN.010. The details mentioned in the AMC 1 – OR.GEN.200(b) are unclear.
Proposal. A review of this approach should be carried out to identify clear definitions.
|121||Appendix IV - Regulatory Impact Assessment - Table of Contents||60||
Page 60 and onwards
As already mentioned in the general comment, this study needs an update.
The specific effect and impact of these proposed new rules on air sports must be taken into account.