Dear Mr. Kneepkens, thank you for your deliberate answer dated ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• 3C: Declaration signed by the natural or legal person managing the aircraft and endorsed by the owner(s), based on proportionate rules. In the course of evaluating the different options, you heavily discuss the need to regulate “fractional ownerships” which are now neither clearly commercial or private. This perspective seems – and the wish to regulate more heavily - to influence the rest of the discussion. Let me again quote your document, since it already answers the question I raised: In case of options 3A and 3B, the owner will be assured by the AOC process that the operator possesses sufficient organisation and competence. However, also in case of option 3C this confidence will be reached since the proposed declaration, which has legal value, contains all the elements (including the name of the accountable manager or responsible natural person) necessary to demonstrate that the organisation managing the operations on behalf of the owners is taking operational control. Furthermore, non-commercial operations of complex motor-powered aircraft are not driven by competitive pressures and the operational safety standards are to a significant degree under the control of the owners, which unavoidably take care for themselves and their invited passengers. In this case then the power (ownership) and interest (himself/herself is a passenger) of the owner can be a powerful tool to maintain sufficient levels of safety, even in the presence of the declaration instead of the certificate. Well, as you describe here, caring for your own life and that of your valued passengers makes a better safety incentive than heavy regulation – and it clearly shows in the numbers. From there the argument of the Agency continues: In fact, the data summarised in paragraph 2.3.2.5 on the safety of business aviation clearly shows that the rate of yearly accidents in the EASA 27 + 4 for air taxi (i.e. 5/year), corporate (i.e. 0.7/year) and owner-operated business aviation (i.e. 1.9/year) are lower than the rate for commercial air transport by large aeroplanes (i.e. 20.5). This safety record for corporate operations is at least equivalent to large scheduled airline operations and demonstrates the industry’s long term voluntary application of good safety practices. Given this safety record, there is no evidence that a more stringent certification scheme, in addition to the good practices already applied by the industry itself through its codes of practice, will lead to a substantial increase of the safety levels. Well, I have to say it flatters me to have confirmed by your Agency that we (corporate and owner-operated operators) have a better safety record than commercial air transport by large aeroplanes. I think this is worth pointing out to the public media since the common perception is certainly different. But what is really remarkable is, that you concede that “there is no evidence a more stringent certification scheme … will lead to a substantial increase of the safety levels.” It could not have been said any better. Seite 6 von 38
And let us not go into the question why all the regulations do not produce a better safety record for commercial air transport by large aeroplanes and which responsibility EASA has for this. Looking at your document, would you please explain how you come to the conclusion in your letter that there is a safety issue which might be improved by stricter regulation and that we are proposing to endanger safety by requesting to not applay Part-NCC to aircraft below 5,7 tons – as the rest of the ICAO world does it? 2.2.2 Have all economical impacts been “duly taken into account”? NPA 2009-02g does consider the economic impact. The following categories are discussed: • Rulemaking and standardisation costs • Oversight costs • Regulatory costs for the operators • Additional demand (e. g. for consultants under option 3B) Very clearly, the impact on airport operators have not been taken into account in this study. Unless there is another impact study – which we assume – this impacts has not been taken into account. Besides the economical impact on airport operators there is certainly an economical impart on the usability of light jets for the operators once they are not able to use small airports any more. Let me repeat: we do not propose to jeopardize safety. The current regulations allow the use of small airports and your agency has confirmed “that there is no evidence … that a stricter regulation will lead to a substantial increase of the safety levels”. So I have to sum up that not all economical impacts have been duly taken into account in NAP 2009-02g and it thus is not a sufficient basis for Part-NCC, Part-ORO and Part-SPA. But before we continue, we would like to comment on the economical impact on the operator which is evaluated at EUR 90k per year for the small corporate and owneroperated owner in 2007 number (which are now certainly higher). (“Cost of labour inside this organisation is assumed to be in the range of 60 k€ (2009)/year. Cost of consultants is assumed to be 90 k€ (2007)/year. ”) We would like to elaborate on two perspectives: • To which percentage is the use of small aircraft increase by this costs? • What do we estimate as future costs for operators? For the interested non-flying reader, we have given picture examples of typical aircraft below 5,7 tons in the appendix. Since our argument related to the impact of your regulation on operating cost, we first want to give the interested reader an estimate Seite 7 von 38
Page 1 and 2: Bahnstraße 37 47877 Willich Europe
Page 3 and 4: Independently of the clarification
Page 5: Let me direct your attention to the
Page 9 and 10: Independent of the impact on operat
Page 11 and 12: 2.2.3 Appropriate Impact study for
Page 13 and 14: Appendix 1: Types of small aircraft
Page 15 and 16: Multi (twin) engine piston Ranging
Page 17 and 18: Multi-engine turboprops Ranging fro
Page 19 and 20: Small twin engine jet Ranging from
Page 21 and 22: Appendix 2: Text of proposed rule m
Page 23 and 24: describing how changes not requirin
Page 25 and 26: Appendix 3 Map and list of German a
Page 27 and 28: Anspach/Taunus Anspach HE SLP EDFA
Page 29 and 30: 900×20 Chemnitz/Jahnsdorf Chemnitz
Page 31 and 32: 480×30 371×20 Helgoland-Düne Hel
Page 33 and 34: Leutkirch-Unterzeil Leutkirch BW VL
Page 35 and 36: 800×40 Pinnow Pinnow MV SLP EDBP 4
Page 37 and 38: Stölln/Rhinow Rhinow BB SLP EDOR 4

Dear Mr. Kneepkens, thank you for your deliberate answer dated ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?