84 SA Flyer Magazine

LTHOUGH the proposals

have been reworked from

time to time, and the

proposed amendments

redistributed among

various regulations

and technical standards, the result is the

same: Airelds will be subject to arbitrary

and expensive standards and be required

to provide emergency services and other

infrastructure.

Compliance with such regulations

would, of course, be expensive and

also create interesting new liability and

insurance issues, so the result would

inevitably be the closure of many of our

smaller airstrips – especially those serving

agriculture, tourism, retail and other

industries.

In particular, all airelds supporting

operations of aircraft between 450 kg and

5,700 kg and providing air services would

be required to be fully licensed.

We noted that ICAO has a

recommendation that aerodromes open to

public use should be ‘certied’. Although

few countries use the term ‘certied’ in their

legislation, this would include the common

term ‘licensed’ and whatever the term

‘registered’ ultimately is dened as by CAA.

Since CAA’s proposals differ

substantially from the ICAO

recommendation regarding ‘public use’

by imposing arbitrary aircraft weights and

limits, and using criteria such as training

activities or “operations associated with the

tourism industry” as the basis to enforce

licensing, it is worth exploring what ICAO

actually means by ‘public use’ and how

other countries interpret this.

AERODROME REGULATIONS IN OTHER

COUNTRIES

Most democratic countries permit the

use of unlicensed airelds when they are

not considered to be public use airports.

For example, Australian regulations

AOPA BRIEFING

Text: Chris Martinus ‒ Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association – South Africa

THE PRIVATE-USE

airelds saga

Last month we discussed CAA’s repeated proposals

to license and/or ‘register’ all currently unlicensed

airelds in South Africa. I am now going to look at the

nuances within ‘licensed’, ‘registered’ and 'certied',

what ICAO actually recommends, and the practices of

other countries with healthy general aviation.

RIGHT - The trend in the FAA and UK

CAA is one of deregulation when it comes

to airfields. Training is now allowed at

unlicensed airfields in these regions.

85 SA Flyer Magazine

previously required licensing for airelds

supporting private, aerial work or charter

operations using aircraft under 5,700 kg.

However, Australian standards now state:

“On 9 August 1991, CAR 89 was

omitted and CAR 92(1) was amended

by Statutory Rule 91/247, to allow pilots

engaged in other than regular public

transport operations to determine suitable

places for the operation of their aircraft.

Such a place is now called an ‘Aircraft

Landing Area’, which may be an aeroplane

landing area for xed wing aircraft or a

helicopter landing area for hover aircraft.

“There is no requirement to seek CASA

sanction for the establishment of an Aircraft

Landing Area. Unless specically requested

by the owner, the Authority will not normally

inspect an Aircraft Landing Area, or publish

its information in the AIP.”

CAR 92(1) puts the responsibility on the

pilot to ensure that the place is suitable for

use as an aerodrome, taking into account

all the circumstances of the proposed

landing or takeoff (including the prevailing

weather conditions).

This is very much the same as the

status quo in South Africa, although the

Australian rules refer to “regular public

transport operations”. This is no doubt

synonymous with scheduled airline

operations, but a bit more exploration of

the meaning of the word ‘public’ is in order.

The US FAA denition in this context is as

follows:

“Public use airport is an airport

available for use by the general public

without a requirement for prior approval of

the airport owner or operator.”

The FAA goes further and also denes

public airports as those which are publicly

owned, operated and funded. In the USA,

many privately-owned and operated

airelds receive FAA federal funding –

with the obvious purpose of making them

available to the public.

In the UK, an aerodrome may be

licensed as ‘public use’ where:

“... an aerodrome to be used as a

place of takeoff and landing of aircraft

engaged in ights for the purpose of the

public transport of passengers or for the

purpose of instruction in ying, subject to

the following conditions: The aerodrome is

licensed for public use and shall at all times,

when it is available for the takeoff or landing

of aircraft, be so available to all persons on

equal terms and conditions.”

These denitions make it clear

that licensing is only required for the

purpose of public transport, i.e. where a

passenger may purchase a ticket for ying

to that particular destination. This would

obviously not include, for example, where

a passenger is ying to a destination such

as a game lodge when the passenger is

a guest of the game lodge and subject to

permission or other requirements imposed

by the game lodge.

It is worth mentioning another aspect

of the UK regulations regarding the

restrictions on ying training. In 2010 the

UK amended their regulations to allow for

ight training at unlicensed airelds for

xed-wing aircraft up to 2,730 kg Maximum

Takeoff Mass (MTOM) and helicopters and

gyroplanes up to 3,175 kg MTOM.

Ray Elgy, Head of Licensing and

Training Standards at the UK CAA’s Safety

Regulation Group, said:

“I’m pleased that we’ve been able to

agree a change to the ANO to allow ight

training at unlicensed airelds. All the

safety data and evidence suggests that

there is no justiable case to require a

licensed aerodrome for this task.

“This is a good example of the CAA

following the principles of better regulation.

We responded to a request from industry

and, once we were content that safety

levels could be maintained, removed a

piece of regulation.”

Most countries, including Canada,

merely provide pilots with useful guidelines

to follow when using informal and

‘unimproved’ airelds.

In most instances, a policy of

deregulation is being followed.

Clearly the South African CAA is out of

step with both ICAO and its counterparts in

other countries. Their approach of loading

regulation upon complex regulation is not in

the interests of developing general aviation,

ying training or other industries such as

tourism. Indeed, the damage is likely to be

enormous, for once we lose our airelds,

tourist destinations that depend on them,

and other GA-dependent industries, will

certainly be lost too.

WHAT DO CAA WANT?

With all the years of negotiations and

back-and-forth discussions, it seems

that there are two concerns behind these

proposed regulations: some largely

unfounded national security worries

emanating from the National Aviation

Security Committee and CAA’s concerns

that they may be held liable in the event of

an accident involving foreign tourists.

In the rst case, national security is

not a basis upon which CAA can make or

enforce regulations. Aviation security is

not national security. National security is

something to be addressed by the police

and other security cluster agencies using

their own legislation, who as we discussed

last month, have for several years already

compiled their own aireld information.

Nor are CAA entitled to use the

regulatory process to shield themselves

from the consequences of their own

possible negligence, if any.

I hope that these proposals will nally

be abandoned and more focus placed on

growth and development of our airelds and

the economic benets, not only for aviation,

but also for those industries that are so

dependent on it.

Part II

Tourism will suffer should CAA

require all airfields to be registered.