EASA CRT application - Comments
EASA   Comment Response Tool
You can save this page as HTML and then open it in Microsoft Word for further editing.

Title Authority and Organisation Requirements - Organisation Requirements
NPA Number NPA 2008-22c

EUROPEAN GLIDING UNION (EGU@online.be) has placed 19 unique comments on this NPA:

Cmt# Segment description Page Comment Attachments
1064 B. Draft Rules - III. Draft Opinion Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 1 - OR.GEN.001 Competent authority 4

OR.GEN.001

The use of the terminology ‘place of business’ indicates that these rules are written from a commercial perspective. Although gliding federations and their clubs operate using appropriate commercial acumen and good practice in order to exist and thrive, they do not operate as for-profit commercial operations but rather organise activities for their members on a not-for-profit basis. The key distinction is that any financial surpluses in members' clubs are not distributed to 'owners' but are re-invested in the development of the club for members' benefit.

Proposal.  Change the wording “business” to “activity”.

 
1066 B. Draft Rules - III. Draft Opinion Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 1 - OR.GEN.010 Definitions 4 - 5

OR.GEN.010

Only definitions in relation with FSTD are mentioned.

Proposal.  All possible and necessary definitions used in this Part OR are provided here. In addition, a precise and justified description of “small” and “other” organisations should be provided.

The terminology “employed” is generally not applicable to air sport organisations as the activity is carried out by their members who are almost exclusively volunteers including instructors and examiners. Some very large clubs employ a few staff members to support the voluntary activities of the members, but without commercial goals.

 
1069 B. Draft Rules - III. Draft Opinion Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 1 - OR.GEN.015 Application 5

OR.GEN.015

"The form and manner of application for an approval will be set by the CA."

Proposal.  The application should be guided by clear EU requirements to ensure that CAs do not add requirements to those required by the rules.

 

This is to ensure that the so-often quoted "level playing field" is not endangered by NAAs, ending up with (again) 27 different systems, such as is becoming evident with Part M!

 
1072 B. Draft Rules - III. Draft Opinion Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 2 - OR.GEN.200 Management system 7

OR.GEN.200 Management system:

(b)

It is identified here that the MS shall correspond to the size, nature and complexity of the activities and the possible hazards/risks inherent in these activities.

This principle is challenged throughout this NPA. Many of the proposed requirements will be impossible to implement in a gliding or air sport volunteer club environment. The list of requirements is far too prescriptive and pays little recognition to the in-built safety-conscious culture of gliding clubs without having to fill in long daily check lists. The days are not long enough nor the number of people available and willing to do all this support activity! The proposed SMS would be a challenge for any large commerical operation, but for gliding clubs it would be "the straw that breaks the camel's back."


Proposal:  

A set of appropriate requirements dedicated to air sport clubs/organisations, to be developed between EGU and EASA during the next review stage.

 
1076 B. Draft Rules - III. Draft Opinion Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 2 - OR.GEN.210 Personnel requirements 7

OR.GEN.210 Personnel requirements

In reference to OR. GEN.200(b) the requirements must fit with the nature of the organisation.

Again, there exists a big difference in the structure and the way the management is done in a commercial company and non-profit air sport clubs/organisations. 

Nominating an “Accountable Manager” in a club/federation environment can be difficult where the elected board or club governing committee members share the associated responsibilities under national law, which have different requirements within a number of member states. 

 
1077 B. Draft Rules - III. Draft Opinion Part-OR - Subpart ATO - Section 1 - OR.ATO.005 Scope 9

OR.ATO.005 Scope

This article describes a number of different types of training, but no differentiation is made in regard of commercially organised training (where training is a business goal of the company) against a not-for-profit organisation where training is provided by and on behalf of the members without any commercial goal.

Proposal. 

There is a need to make a clear distinction between commercial and not-for-profit organisations. The legal status of the organisation may be the determining factor.

 
1099 B. Draft Rules - III. Draft Opinion Part-OR - Subpart ATO - Section 1 - OR.ATO.005 Scope 9

General remark and proposal

As this document relating to ATOs is written from the commercial training viewpoint, the EGU proposes to create an alternative type of ATO: a "not-for-profit ATO" with relevant and proportional requirements.

This indicates that the following structure is required:

1. Commercial ATO

It is up to these organisations whether if it necessary to make a distinction between  “small” and “other”.


2. Not-for-profit ATO

For all the air sport clubs/federations  educating and training their members in their chosen sport and, further, the work is done primarily by the members-volunteers.

 

Proposal:


The EGU is prepared to work with the Agency to develop not-for-profit ATO requirements relevant to and acceptable to EASA and the sport of gliding across all member states. 

 
1079 B. Draft Rules - III. Draft Opinion Part-OR - Subpart ATO - Section 1 - OR.ATO.010 Legal entity and financial resources 9

OR.ATO. 010 Financial resources

In item (b), the ATO is requested to prove its financial status. In an air sports club/federation environment this request is irrelevant. Of course clubs/federations need adequate financial management but this is built up from a completely different approach than that required in a commercial organisation. Air sports club members fund the planned activities of the club/federation.

 

The Agency should not be concerned with 'consumer protection' through economic regulation as it is not within the scope of the Agency. Requiring financial resources to be adequate and verified for an ATO can only be interpreted as a 'consumer protection' measure, and is therefore unacceptable, particularly in the gliding and air sports worlds.

Proposal:  Delete this requirement. 

 

 
1082 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart GEN 23

General remark: 

Most AMC/GM contradicts OR.GEN.200(b) where it is stated that systems/requirements will correspond to the size, nature and complexity of the activities.

We propose to make a set of rules / requirements appropriate and dedicated to air sports.

 
1084 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 2 - AMC to OR.GEN.200(a)(1) Management System 24

AMC OR.GEN.200 (a) (1) Management system

In the club environment it is not necessary to have a formal management / senior management structure.

The existing structures fulfil all needs, including a proportional level of safety management.

 
1086 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 2 - AMC 2 to OR.GEN.200(a)(2) Management System 24 - 25

The proposals are disproportionate. As no formal definition of a “small” organisation exists, all related items should be reviewed.

 
1087 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 2 - AMC 1 to OR.GEN.200(a)(3) Management System 25 - 26

The proposals are disproportionate. As no formal definition of a “small” organisation exists, all related items should be reviewed.

 

 
1088 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 2 - AMC 1 to OR.GEN.200(a)(4) Management System 28

The proposals are disproportionate. As no formal definition of a “small” organisation exists, all related items should be reviewed.

 
1089 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 2 - AMC 1 to OR.GEN.200(a)(7) Management System 29 - 31

The proposals are disproportionate. As no formal definition of a “small” organisation exists, all related items should be reviewed.

 
1090 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart GEN - Section 2 - AMC to OR.GEN.200(b) Management System - ATO 36

AMC OR.GEN.200 (b) – Size, nature and complexity of the activity


In this AMC a partial definition of a “small” organisation is provided. The wording “employed” is used - again indicating a commercial approach.

In a gliding club, training is given by almost exclusively volunteer instructors. It is highly inappropriate to describe their activities as “employment”. In some member states there are significant legal implications by doing so.

There exist some large clubs that employ full time staff mainly in supporting administrative and other roles. This employment covers the whole activity of the club (doing also other tasks than giving instruction) and the activity is carried out without a commercial goal. Those clubs comply with the legal status in a natioanl context.

In a club or federation environment, a figure of “20” has no logic (it is an arbitary number) as these instructors are volunteers taking part in the club activities in their own recreational time, for example during weekends or during holidays. So a large club can count, for example, 40 instructors with each of them providing differing but small proportions of their available recreational time over the whole year.

The same argument applies to the “FTE” or full time equivalent. This makes no sense in the volunteer environment.

 
1091 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart ATO - Section 1 - AMC to OR.ATO.010(b) Legal entity and financial resources 39 - 40

AMC OR.ATO.010 (b) Legal & financial resources

All requirements in regard to the financial situation of an ATO are clearly written with commercial organisations in mind. In a club or federation environment these requirements are simply not possible, nor appropriate.

Proposal. 

Delete these items where related to not-for-profit organisations.

Please see our comment under OR.ATO.010.

 
1094 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart ATO - Section 1 - AMC to OR.ATO.015 Application 41

AMC to OR.ATO.015 Application

The sailplane market is constantly developing. Sailplanes move constantly between clubs and between member states either through sale, new purchase or inter-club loan arrangements. There is no known reason why the approval would need to list the registration of aircraft used by the ATO. There is no safety case presented for this bureaucratic requirement, which would simply provide the NAAs with an excuse to charge money for every notifiable change to the glider fleet in an ATO. The gliders used in a training organisation are subject to EASA Part 21 and Part M rules; there is no need for additional bureaucracy in Part ATO. 


Proposal.

Remove the requirement to list the registrations of aircraft used by the ATO. 

 
1097 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart ATO - Section 1 - AMC to OR.ATO.135 Aerodromes 48

AMC OR.ATO.135  Aerodromes

Once again this is written for commercial training organisations.

The requirement under item d) to have an air traffic control service is disproportionate, unnecessary and economically and operationally impossible in the a vast majority of cases in gliding. Most of the airfields from which gliding takes place are outside controlled airspace and outside the control of ATC is most EU countries. Most air sports activities, including gliding, take place on non-procedural aerodromes and other operating surfaces.

 

Further, the recent EU political decisions as regards the extension of EASA competence to aerodromes has removed most gliding aerodromes / airfields from this proposed extension. Therefore, the ATO proposed rules should not include any reference to ATC facilties for glider training airfields or operations.

 

If the proposed rules for ATC are sustained by EASA in its Opinion then the economic impact on gliding clubs will be so severe as to make glider training uneconomic if not in many cases terminal, as the cost of providing such services would be totally disproportionate and in fact unworkable for the nature of gliding operations.

Proposal. 

Delete this requirement.


 

 
1098 B. Draft Rules - IV. Draft Decision Part-OR - Subpart ATO - Section 1 - AMC to OR.ATO.135 Aerodromes 48

For glider towing:

The requirement 1.a.(ii) is not practical for towing on small gliding airfields.

 

Further, the recent EU political decisions as regards the extension of EASA competence to aerodromes has removed most gliding aerodromes / airfields from this proposed extension. Therefore, the ATO proposed rules should not include any reference to aerodrome features for glider training airfields.

This is not a subject (airfield departure physical clearances) that should be included in ATO rules. 

Proposal:

Delete this requirement.