I sent Mr Baldwin and e-mail asking several questions and got this response.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email dated 26 May 2011 concerning issues linked to general
aviation. Pursuant to the Commission's Communication of 11 January 2008 on Agenda
for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation, the Commission supports a
proportionate regulation of this sector, including the safety aspects.
With regard to licensing, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is a
clear legal mandate in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 that requires pilots residing in the
European Union (EU), including pilots flying n-registered aircraft, to comply with the
European licensing requirements. This Regulation also mandates the Commission to
propose common rules in the area of pilot licensing and medical certification.
Secondly, you refer to the potential socio-economic impact of the proposed rules. The
proposals have been made to ensure that throughout the EU the same criteria and
procedures are applied to determine the technical competency of pilots. It is only through
common and harmonised requirements and procedures that we will be able to achieve
both a uniform high level of safety and a common undistorted market where pilots can
exercise everywhere in the EU their activities without hindrance.
As to several issues raised in your email including the medical requirements for pilots
and general aviation instructors, the current Commission's proposals are based on
currently existing Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR FCL 1 and 3) and were subject to a
wide consultation process during which interests of all stakeholders were duly
considered. The proposals were agreed with the sole aim of ensuring an appropriate level
of safety and provide with sufficient flexibility in order to disrupt as less as possible
existing national systems.
In response to your comment on Annex II aircraft, the decision to exempt them from the
FCL requirements – except in some cases when operated commercially - was taken by
the Member states and the European Legislators based on the principle of proportionality
and subsidiarity. This allows Member States to apply softer or more adapted rules to
Annex II aircraft but does not prevent Member States from applying harmonised EU
FCL.
Ref. Ares(2011)681438 - 24/06/2011
2
The same principle of distribution of competences applies to language proficiency
requirements, as the new FCL Regulation mandates only a certain language proficiency
level; however, detailed organisational aspects of who and how should perform the tests,
as well as their cost, are left to the Member States in line with the principle of
subsidiarity.
Concerning the review of instrument rating requirements aiming at their simplification,
this issue is the subject of a currently ongoing EASA task. A public consultation (socalled
Notice of Proposed Amendment for NPA) is due to be launched in the second half
of 2011 and the final EASA proposal could be transmitted to the Commission in 2012.
Please, feel invited to participate in this consultation and contribute to the swift adoption
of the appropriate EU rules.
With regard to your question on part M, the Commission already introduced in 2008,
with Regulation (EC) No 1056/2008, a first adaptation of the continuing airworthiness
requirements of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 which brought some alleviations to the
pre-existing requirements. The Commission has also mandated EASA to work further on
the matter and has underlined repeatedly that it was one of the priorities of EASA
rulemaking activity. EASA has initiated a number of tasks to propose alleviations where
considered possible, without impairing the level of safety, in particular task MDM.032
which has been recently concluded in the form of EASA Opinion No 1/2011. On the
basis of this Opinion, which I hope takes into account the concerns that you have
expressed, my services are currently working a further adaptation of the airworthiness
requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003. It is
expected that this amendment could be adopted in the second half of 2011 or early 2012.
This future regulation will provide another opportunity to address your concerns related
to continuing airworthiness.
You also referred to the need for harmonisation of night flying rules, which is indeed an
issue that needs to be tackled at EU level. We have moved ahead on this issue with the
new Standardised European Rules of Air (SERA), which will standardise the conditions
under which night VFR flying will take place if it is allowed at all by the Member State
in question. It was however impossible to decree that Night VFR would be allowed all
over the EU as many Member States felt that there is a need for flexibility in order to
take into account local conditions, such as geography or typical weather. The new SERA
rule is due to enter into force at the end of 2012.
In addition, on this subject EU-OPS1 contains strict limits for the commercial operation
of single-engine aeroplanes and prohibits such operations at night or under instrument
meteorological conditions (IMC) except under special visual flight rules. Nevertheless,
some Member States have authorised an exemption from the limiting rule, founded on
the need to maintain this type of operations on specific or remote areas and following the
enhanced standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
1 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and
administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4, as last amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 859/2008, OJ L 254, 20.9.2008.
3
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) allows since 2005 the operation of
single-engine aeroplanes by night or under IMC under certain conditions. EASA foresees
to study further this issue with the view of proposing harmonised conditions under which
the operation such operations could be allowed in the EU.
Further you commented on the plan to mandate the carriage of new radios that are
capable of operating in the 8.33 KHz channel division. Admittedly this is an expensive
mandate, but at the same time it is also an unavoidable measure. The growing congestion
in European airspace has led to a shortage of frequencies, which can be most efficiently
alleviated by splitting the available frequency band into smaller increments. This will
also benefit General Aviation operations as they will be able to continue to operate in
controlled airspace and to use the various radio-related services in uncontrolled airspace.
Unfortunately, unless all airspace users migrate to the new radios, none of these
advantages are achieved. Taking into account this possible financial burden, my services
have decided on a strategy of drawn out implementation over a period of many years to
minimise the cost. This allows radios to be swapped for new units as the old radios come
to the end of their useful age, hence reducing the additional investment need. The actual
date of final retrofit has not yet been decided, but is expected to fall around 2017 or
2018.
As regards differing access control measures at EU airports I would like to recall that EU
rules on aviation security provide for the possibility to create demarcated areas for
operations with smaller aircraft at EU airports. It is up to national authorities, based on a
local risk assessment, to adopt alternative security measures that provide an adequate
level of protection for such areas as long as these are separated from the rest of the
security restricted area of the airport. Depending on local circumstances and their risk
assessment, authorities therefore may or may not create such demarcated areas.
You have also mentioned the important issue of translation mistakes included in some
EU safety legislation. Let me inform you that both the Commission and EASA are
working together in order to improve the quality of translations and that my services are
at your disposal for addressing urgently any translation mistake identified.
Last but not least, concerning ageism, the rules contained in FCL Regulation for
commercial operations follow what is prescribed by ICAO. Nevertheless, in certain cases
- e.g. balloon pilots - some alleviations have already been made to address the concerns
raised by the general aviation, allowing these pilots to fly longer.
Finally, it is my conviction that the Commission has widely accommodated the concerns
of the general aviation community in the proposals described above.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)
Matthew Baldwin