76 SA Flyer

The State of South

Africa blundered

heavily into the first

quarter of 2016,

much like a huge

old three-ring circus

coming to town on

its final tour.

AST year’s circus was

very disappointing. The

dog and pony show

failed to amuse the kids.

The ringmaster with

his toothless old lions

and scornful laughter

also did not impress. The

new show with the Three

Stooges from the Finance Ministry tanked

badly, causing several spectators to leave

the tent, vowing never to return.

The scal roller coaster behind the big

tent careened on its rails, the anguished

passengers screaming as they realised that

the last steep slope ended in the junkyard.

As evening came, the last lights went

out, the growling animals settled in their

cages and the trapezes hung motionless.

But within the caravans and trailers

laagered together, there was tension,

intrigue and dissent. Money was running

out – drastically. The spectators were

fewer, but the competition for their hearts

and minds – and money – was ever greater.

What to do?

THE FLYING TRAPEZE

At centre stage in the circus is our

national airline, South African Airways. It

was bleeding cash ever more profusely,

after years of consuming billions in citizens’

money. Panicked meetings revealed

that not only was the fairytale goose not

laying any golden eggs, but the state of

bankruptcy was so severe that there was a

real risk of directors going to jail.

Pilots who had the temerity to contradict

their CEO’s feeble excuses that they, the

pilots, were the problem were ruthlessly

bullied and framed. When the press got

hold of all this information, the courts were

drawn in to try to shut them up.

Back at the Civil Aviation Authority, any

phantom of public consultation had been

buried and the regulatory committees had

devolved into a Punch & Judy show. Safety

issues were long gone from the agenda.

Only regulations that fortied special

interests or covered up the CAA’s inability

to comply with international standards or

issue invoices would pass through the

system.

Again, any dissenting voices would be

bullied into silence. CAA even had several

of their employees issue summonses

against AOPA-SA on the imsy basis that

criticisms of CAA’s processes and functions

were defamatory. Naturally, these were

vigorously opposed by AOPA.

PROPOSAL TO ‘REGULATE’ AIRFIELDS

Back in 2008, the CAA proposed

amendments to Part 139 of the Regulations

that could criminalise any ights anywhere

in the country – other than from licensed or

‘registered’ aerodromes.

In order to license or register such an

aerodrome, the proposal stipulated that

there would not only be the usual onerous

requirements of payment of fees and

regular inspections, but also require re and

medical vehicles and personnel among the

myriad other required compliances.

The proposal was based on the premise

that the regulations would be aligned with

those in Australia, but that turned out to be

a complete misrepresentation. Australia

places no restrictions on unlicensed landing

areas other than for regular commercial

operations with aircraft exceeding 5,700 kg.

There were obvious negative

implications for the thousands of formal

CHRIS MARTINUS, PRESIDENT AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION – SOUTH AFRICA

Th e CAA launches

ANOTHER AT TACK on airelds

Losing unlicensed airfields would kill general aviation.

And the proposition that they are unsafe is unfounded.

www.sayermag.com

and informal unlicensed landing areas

in South Africa. Quite aside from private

or recreational use, agriculture, tourism,

health and emergency services, rural

elections, wildlife management, security

and law enforcement among a host

of other economic activities rely upon

the largely informal network of airelds

around Southern Africa. They also provide

essential access to remote areas amidst the

crumbling road and rail networks.

The 2008 proposal led to the formation

of the Aireld Owners Association (AOA)

which strenuously campaigned against it,

since it would simply result in the closure of

most airelds. The consequent economic

impact and major disruption of general

aviation was not justiable under any

circumstances, especially since the number

and severity of accidents at unlicensed

landing places is negligible compared to the

accident rate at busy licensed airports.

The proposed amendment was

accordingly dropped, but a great deal of

hostility towards smaller airelds remained

at CAA. Even applications for licensing

were refused on baseless ‘safety’ grounds.

In one instance, an aerodrome licence

application was refused and the decision

of CAA’s Poppy Khoza taken on appeal

to the Civil Aviation Appeal Committee.

During testimony under oath, Ms Khoza

justied her decision on vague safety

grounds. The Appeal Committee instructed

her to gather all accident statistics in the

general area and to submit these to them

for their scrutiny. Unsurprisingly, almost

all the accidents occurred at Lanseria

Airport several miles away and none were

attributed to the many unlicensed airelds

in the area.

The Appeal Committee accordingly

overturned her decision to refuse an

aerodrome licence.

In addition, there was an attempt

by Lanseria and Grand Central airports

to persuade the Minister to ‘declare

a moratorium’ on the development of

new airelds in the Gauteng area. Swift

opposition from AOPA and ALPA put that

idea to bed – until now.

CHRIS MARTINUS, PRESIDENT AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION – SOUTH AFRICA

AOPA BRIEFING

BELOW - Around 70 unlicensed airfields would be lost in this section

of the Lowveld, 60 nm from Hoedspruit, if the proposal went through.

Aviation Direct/EasyPlan

78 SA Flyer

THE AIRFIELD PHOENIX RISES AGAIN

In mid-2015 CAA’s Manager, Mr Gawie

Bestbier, once again proposed almost

identical amendments to Part 139 which

would outlaw aircraft, weighing between

450 kg and 5,700 kg, from anywhere other

than a licensed or ‘registered’ aerodrome.

Included again were the onerous and

expensive requirements for registration

which most aireld operators would not be

able to afford.

The consultative regulatory committee,

CARCom, swiftly ruled that the proposal

would be dealt with by the so-called

Aviation Infrastructure Subcommittee,

which would be chaired by Bestbier.

The CARCom secretariat gave all

members notice that the Subcommittee

would meet at 09h00 on 20 July, 2015, in

the main boardroom at CAA’s head ofce

in Midrand. AOPA let a number of affected

parties know about the meeting. We also

notied them that the Civil Aviation Act

provides that membership of CARCom

subcommittees is unlimited.

Shortly before 09h00 on the appointed

day, AOPA’s delegate arrived at the main

boardroom. The only other people there

were two managers from Lanseria Airport,

who both seemed a little confused. After a

cellphone call, they stated that the meeting

had been cancelled and they left. At the

same time, several interested parties

arrived. A quick check veried that there

had been no notice sent out cancelling the

meeting.

However, by 09h20, neither Bestbier

nor any other CAA representatives had

arrived in the boardroom. Thereupon, and

in terms of the sections of the Civil Aviation

Act that govern CARCom Subcommittee

meetings, those present elected Armand

Greyvenstein (Vice-Chairman of AOA) to

chair the meeting. An attendance register

was drawn up and signed by all those

present.

AOPA tabled its prepared written

submission, which advanced that the

proposal to amend Part 139 be rejected

in terms of CAR 11 with the attached

comprehensive written reasons. This

submission was unanimously accepted.

The meeting was wound up at

approximately 10h00 and as the delegates

left the boardroom, Bestbier was seen with

a group of CAA personnel in the passage

outside.

At the next CARCom meeting, AOPA

advised that Greyvenstein was unable to

attend and that either it could submit his

report for discussion or hold it over until the

next meeting. The CARCom Chairperson

belligerently asked if Greyvenstein was a

CARCom member. The reply was that he

had chaired the AI Subcommittee meeting.

Subcommittee chairpersons are de facto

CARCom members. Mamabolo shouted

that she would only accept apologies from

CARCom members and as such would not

accept anything from Greyvenstein.

Bestbier thereupon reported that the AI

Subcommittee had accepted the Part 139

amendment proposal (grammatical errors

included) and recommended that it be

gazetted for public comment.

COMMENTS, COMMENTS, COMMENTS

The prescribed call for public comment

was duly gazetted and the proposal

published on the CAA website with the

prescribed 30-day period for comments

ending on 12 March, 2016.

In addition to notications from AOPA,

an article on the aviation website AvCom

notied affected parties of the period for

comments. The Experimental Aircraft

Association joined the fray and sent a draft

comment to all its members. Other aviation

bodies also joined in and the response from

pilots, aircraft owners/operators and aireld

owners was overwhelming.

Many hundreds of comments and

objections – most of them with very

comprehensive justications – ooded the

email servers of CAA and AOPA. It was

a ne example of the aviation community

standing together to defend their rights.

AOPA and AOA were working feverishly

to collate and arrange the multitude of

objections and reasons into a nal blitz

before the period for comments elapsed.

The preparations for the grand nale

turned out to be unnecessary – CAA folded.

In an email sent to CARCom members on

the morning of 11 March, 2016, one day

before the closing date for comments,

Bestbier indicated that the proposal was

withdrawn for “review and redraft in order

to provide for better alignment with best

practice and development initiatives”.

The old circus has left town – for now.

Well done to the SA General Aviation

community. We are proud of you.

It was a ne example of the

AVIATION COMMUNITY

STANDING TOGETHER

to defend their rights.