TO ALL HAA MEMBERS AND HISTORIC AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS
HAA BRIEF ON SELF-ADMINISTRATION AND ADVENTURE AVIATION
BACKGROUND
I wrote to the HAA in July shortly after receiving a very encouraging letter from Andrew Haines, the Chief Executive of the CAA. Mr Haines pointed towards pending changes in the CAA and invited the HAA to fully participate in the evolvement of a new structure.
I am sure most of you are aware that during the latter part of this year developments within the CAA have been moving rapidly, and these have pointed the way towards a “new look CAA” as to how we will be regulated and administered by the Authority in the future especially where General Aviation is concerned. The Grant Shapps Red Tape Challenge has spurred on the CAA to bring into effect changes as quickly as possible without compromising safety.
You may recall that we had been studying the New Zealand system of Adventure Aviation regulated by NZ Part 115. Under the UK system that we have been used to for the past 50 years where the CAA is both regulator and administrator of General Aviation, we saw the NZ model as a way of achieving some of our aims and we were encouraged by the CAA undertaking its own study of Recreational Aviation in their RA2 paper. Extending our studies further afield we discovered that the Australian War-birds Association was doing things in a remarkably different way by separating the regulatory and administrative responsibilities. We considered that we might achieve more if we were to persuade the CAA to incorporate the way they do things “Down Under” into our existing regulations by modifying BACAR’s and CAP632.
The HAA has been in discussions with the General Aviation Oversight Manager – Mike Barnard who has in turn been in contact with his Australian contemporaries in Canberra. Following a “think-tank” meeting on the 6th August Mike Barnard steered us toward the Australian War-bird model of Self-Administration as a possible solution for the historic aircraft industry to reduce bureaucracy and cut costs.
Then events took another twist.
In September Mike Barnard invited us to look very closely at the Australian system as he felt it would “appear that the self-administered framework aligns well with HAA’s aspirations for the operation of ex-military aircraft in the UK” unquote. This was a clear signal to the HAA of which way the CAA wanted us to go.
As luck would have it the former CEO of War-birds Australia Ltd and ex-CEO of AOPA Australia who had set up this system for CASA a few years ago, had just re-located to the UK. His name is Steve Crocker and he is available to lend the benefit of his experience and advice to the CAA and the HAA.
This turn of events led the HAA to look more closely at Self-Administration and consider implementing such a system here in the UK. At a meeting with Mike Barnard, Neil Williams Head of Airworthiness Policy and Strategy, and Chris Finnigan Manager Flight Operations Inspectorate GA, the HAA presented an outline proposal on Self-Administration that was very well received. The CAA suggested the HAA firm up its proposal for serious consideration.
Subsequently the draft proposal was presented at an Extraordinary Council Meeting of the HAA on the 20th November and subsequently ratified by the HAA Regular Council on 5th December. It was a unanimous decision that the HAA should pursue Self-Administration with the CAA as far as possible.
The HAA is now engaged in preparing a full proposal to the CAA on Self-Administration for the historic, heritage and war-bird and ex-military aircraft for presentation in 2014.
WHAT IS SELF-ADMIN AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
Simply put, Self-Administration is where the industry acts on behalf of the Regulator as the body responsible for safety and oversight of all activities and operations within the industry sector it represents.
Under Self-Admin the HAA would be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the category furthermore it would be responsible for safety management, flight operating procedures and engineering processes. These processes would be detailed in a manual called the Exposition and Self-Administration Manual (ESAM).
The proposal may suggest that all historic, heritage, war-bird and ex-military aircraft in the UK should be issued with a new type of Certificate of Airworthiness subject to HAA administration. Under a delegation from the CAA the HAA would appoint suitably qualified persons to issue certificates on behalf of the CAA. Adventure flight operations would also be approved by the HAA in the ESAM delegated powers.
Existing and future CAA legislation and regulation, including Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material, would be used to enable Self-Admin of historic aircraft operations. A Maintenance Review Board (MRB) would need to be set up, comprising of industry experts as appropriate to the task and using agreed processes and procedures set out in the CAA approved ESAM. The role of the MRB would be to approve Maintenance Systems, amend current Maintenance Systems and deal with any maintenance issue that will be brought to its attention. The HAA would conduct re-training for Appointed Persons who would work to issue certificates as per the HAA Airworthiness Procedures Manual.
The HAA Adventure Aviation Compliance Guide would be distributed to operators to assist them to demonstrate compliance with CAA agreed requirements. This would enable operators to carry passengers under a system of “informed consent” for payment without the need to hold an Air Operators Certificate (AOC) and would be considered to be Non-Commercial Air Transport. (CAT). The essence of this is that the HAA believes that Adventure Flight Operations should not be considered as CAT. The model used by the Australian AWAL is working well and many hundreds of flights are conducted each year.
The CAA is already considering the recent amended EU Regulation 965/2012 that will allow by way of derogation certain commercial operations in aircraft other than Annex II and complex motor-powered aircraft. We consider that Adventure Aviation could be included in this derogation and certainly as far as historic aircraft are concerned it would be an essential part of Self-Admin.
Self-Admin would give this industry the responsibility to manage its own affairs whilst complying with CAA regulations.
PROGRESS AND KEY ELEMENTS OF THE HAA PROPOSAL
The HAA has set up a Regulatory Working Group under the Chairmanship of HAA Secretary Russell Mason. Initially the HAA RWG will be studying the Australian system of Self-Admin to see how it would work in the UK under present aviation law and regulations. The HAA RWG will prepare for the CAA a Statement of Intent, hopefully by the end of January 2014, in which it will outline how it intends to research and prepare a full proposal for Self-Admin. The Working Group will then focus on “Initial Airworthiness” along with operational controls that can be introduced as part of the Airworthiness process. The HAA will work with the CAA through a series of workshops to prioritise the remaining Self-Admin responsibilities and to develop and incorporate them on a progressive basis. This could take anything between 12 and 15 months to achieve.
All the required manuals, procedures and processes Australia developed have been made available to the HAA through the generous support of AWAL and CASA. The Australian model modified by the HAA to suit UK legislation will be used from the outset to “plug-into” a larger future structure. It is essential that the structure should provide for the progressive addition of responsibilities as they evolve. When any new legislation or regulations are introduced the HAA would continue its Self-Admin responsibilities in compliance with the new regulations.
The first step is for the HAA to present to the CAA the Statement of Intent to show how the concept of Self-Admin will be developed and this will be done within the next few weeks.
WHAT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITIES IF THE HAA UNDERTOOK SELF-ADMIN FOR THE INDUSTRY?
Responsibilities that the HAA could administer on behalf of CAA under Self-Admin:
· Initial Airworthiness;
· Continuing Airworthiness; and
· Operational Authorizations.
Initial Airworthiness
a. Issue HAA Permits to Fly (The terminology to be decided)
b. Issue Operating Limitations for attachment to Permits
c. Appoint a Person for issue of Permits and attachments
d. Train Appointed Persons (AP’s) for issue of Permits and Operating Limitations
e. Provide guidance to APs for risk assessment with respect to an aircraft type using a safety analysis Permit Index (PI) system.
f. Provide guidance to APs for risk assessment with respect to a particular aircraft
g. The HAA would need to provide assistance to the operator to design and promulgate special routes and procedures for higher risk airports and aircraft.
h. Have available for inspection by the CAA in accordance with the ESAM copies of documents relating to the issue of Permits, special maintenance approvals, Maintenance Review Board conducted etc.
Continuing Airworthiness
a. Convene and conduct a Maintenance Review Board (MRB)
b. Issue and review a System of Maintenance for a type
c. Approve a System of Maintenance to a particular aircraft
d. Determine LAME requirements with respect to type
e. Assess and Approve LAME training courses
f. Authorize a LAME with respect to type via (Regulations) and or AMC and GM
g. Determine Approved Maintenance Organization requirements with respect to type
h. Monitor safety information and trends
i. Promulgate safety information with respect to aircraft type
Operational Authorizations
a. Determine Pilot requirements with respect to aircraft type.
b. Authorize pilot privileges with respect to aircraft type via AMC and GM
c. Promulgate flight crew safety information with respect to performance and handling of an aircraft type
d. Determine Pilot requirements with respect to type of operation
e. Authorize pilot privileges with respect to type of operation under EASA and UK NAA pilots’ licenses using associated AMC and GM
f. Design and promulgate special routes and procedures for higher risk aircraft, in the interest of the safety of other airspace users and persons and property on the ground
g. Determine operator requirements for specific approved purposes
h. Provide advice to operators with respect to compliance all applicable regulations AMC and GM
i. Promulgate safety information with respect to aircraft type and type of operation
j. Issue approval for Adventure Flights, as per the tasks and processes set out in the ESAM.
WHAT ABOUT THE COSTS?
The Australians found that through Self-Admin they were able to manage the finances better than CASA. By being responsible for all charges to cover the administration of operations and maintenance, AWAL was able to cut the cost of all operations compared with the previous system of CASA charges. In addition CASA was able to reduce its own costs and meet the budget targets set by National Government which at the beginning of this Millennium faced the same fiscal problems our Government is facing now.
Under Self-Admin, owners and operators, restorers and maintainers will find that their costs can be reduced and the bureaucracy brought down to a more satisfactory and acceptable level run by the industry itself.
The cost of running a Self-Admin system would be born by the owners and operators through a system of charges for the services provided eg approvals, permits, safety training and conferences etc. A Self-Admin system would not need a huge staff to run it. The HAA envisages that in the same way the AWAL is managed, there would be a part-time or full-time employed CEO with an Engineering Director and Admin Assistant. The remaining responsibilities and functions would be drawn in as the need arose to carry out surveys, audits and monitor activities on a pay-as-you-go basis. The costs of Self-Admin would therefore not require the staffing levels nor overheads that the CAA has under the current system, and could only result in less cost to the stakeholders in this industry.
A UNIQUE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES
The current situation that has arisen largely because of the present Government’s aim to cut costs, presents to the general aviation industry unique opportunities for change. In the historic aircraft industry we have been saying for a long time now that we need a system of regulation and administration that is tailored to the specific needs of the industry. We also have been campaigning for safety at the right cost and to do away with regulations that demand zero risk and require safety at any cost.
We have highlighted that the restoration and continuing airworthiness of historic aircraft was being throttled by burgeoning charges imposed by the CAA for their services. We have also argued that these services would be better performed by people within the industry who know what historic aircraft are all about, and by people who have the knowledge, skills and expertise which those within the CAA responsible for safety oversight do not have.
This is our opportunity to take on these responsibilities and look after ourselves with less bureaucracy and at much reduced cost. This is an opportunity not to be missed, and the HAA intend to do what they can to make the most of it. We hope you would agree and support us in this initiative.