90 SA Flyer Magazine
I
N a move to control corporate
aviation that appears to be unique
in the world, the SACAA has
created a new set of regulations
– and one that ies in the face of
ICAO recommendations.
WHAT IS CORPORATE
AVIATION?
As a signatory to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation,
South Africa is bound to give effect to the
standards issued by ICAO, as opposed to
the recommended practices, which are just
that – recommendations.
The ICAO standards split civil aviation
into three broad categories: commercial
aviation, aerial work and general aviation.
Commercial aviation is simply dened
as “an aircraft operation involving the
transport of passengers, cargo or mail for
remuneration or hire.”
Aerial work is dened as “an aircraft
operation in which an aircraft is used for
specialised services such as agriculture,
construction, photography, surveying,
observation and patrol, search and rescue,
aerial advertisement, etc.” Our own Air
Services Licensing Act bundles aerial work
together with commercial aviation, which
causes a number of regulatory problems
and inconveniences which hobble this
sector of South African aviation.
General aviation is dened as “an
aircraft operation other than a commercial
air transport operation or an aerial work
operation.”
It is worth noting that these denitions
relate to the purpose for which an aircraft
is used, not the qualications of the pilot.
Under pilot licensing, the basic rule is
that a pilot may not be remunerated for
ying an aircraft unless he or she holds
a commercial or higher pilot licence.
However, a pilot may (under Part 61 of
our CARs) y an aircraft privately or for
purposes incidental to his business or
employment with only a private pilot licence.
Corporate aviation does not have a
separate category of its own, but falls under
AOPA BRIEFING
The corporate aviation
community in South Africa
is a very unhappy group
of people. The passing
into law of the new Part
93 of the Civil Aviation
Regulations promises to
make it almost impossible
for most corporates, from
the small businesses to the
largest conglomerates,
to operate their own
aircraft, due to additional
restrictions, expenses and
complexities.
Part 93 regulations threaten many of
the benefits of corporate aviation.
CORPORATE AVIATION
IN THE CROSSHAIRS
Chris Martinus ‒ Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association – South Africa
91 SA Flyer Magazine
general aviation’s Part 91 and is dened
as “the non-commercial operation or use
of aircraft by a company for the carriage
of passengers or goods as an aid to the
conduct of company business, own by
a professional pilot(s) employed to y the
aircraft.”
Confusion frequently arises concerning
corporate aviation since commercial
pilots are employed for non-commercial
operations. ICAO Annex 17 clears this
up by adding the following rider to the
denition: “Note that corporate aviation is a
subset of general aviation.”
SAFETY AND DUTY OF CARE
The primary objects of our Civil Aviation
Authority and ICAO are to regulate and
promote civil aviation safety and security
as well as foster civil aviation itself. But
what is safety really? It is a term which is
bandied about, even by those in authority,
without having a clear understanding of this
supercially simple word.
There are substantial differences
between the level of safety accorded to
passengers of scheduled commercial
ights and pilots and passengers on
general aviation ights. General aviation
operations are typically performed by crews
less experienced and less skilled, with
less reliable equipment, to less rigorous
standards and with greater freedom of
action than in commercial air transport
operations. Indeed, that sentence comes
directly from ICAO Annex 6 Part II, which
denes general aviation operations,
including corporate aviation operations. It
is therefore accepted that the passenger
in a general aviation aircraft would not
necessarily enjoy the same level of safety
as the fare-paying passenger in commercial
air transport.
The safety priorities in general aviation
are in favour of third parties, in other words,
people on the ground and in other aircraft,
and in ICAO’s view this is enough to ensure
an acceptable level of safety for ight crews
and passengers.
Annex 6 clearly states that the
maximum freedom of action consistent with
maintaining an acceptable level of safety
should be granted to general aviation. In
this regard, there is no reason for South
Africa to go against the views of the other
190 member states who are signatories to
the Convention.
Perhaps most importantly, the
standards state that regulations do not need
to be as prescriptive as those set out for
commercial operations: “The State does not
have an equivalent ‘duty of care’ to protect
the occupants in general aviation as it does
for fare-paying customers in commercial
operations.”
After reviewing the safety record of
corporate aviation in the general aviation
sector, ICAO concluded that individual
operator responsibility and industry codes
of practice have been effective in achieving
an excellent safety record that is essentially
equivalent to large scheduled air transport.
AOPA BRIEFING
Some tweaks to the regulations might be necessary for
the few corporate operators who operate large turbojet
aircraft in the same environment as the airlines.
Prescribed takeoff and
landing distances, as well
as required emergency
services, preclude the use
of airports which have been
safely used for years.
92 SA Flyer Magazine
THE IMPOSSIBLE REGULATIONS
In the light of the above, it is absurd
that the new Part 93 of the CARs now
curtails most corporate operations due to a
multiplicity of factors such as:
• Prescribed takeoff and landing
distances preclude the use of
airports which have been safely
used for years;
• The requirement for re-ghting,
emergency services and airport
infrastructure at all destinations
closes the door to ights to the
very destinations required by
corporate operations;
• The requirement for six-monthly
pilot ight prociency renewals on
each and all aircraft operated by
the corporate is not only costly,
but also limits the number of pilots
available on an ad-hoc basis;
• The regulation is confusing and
self-contradictory, and in many
instances is equivalent or even
exceeds limitations imposed on
commercial operations under Part
135 or Part 121;
• The regulation requires that a
corporate operator has at least ve
dedicated employees in addition
to the ight crew, and includes the
company CEO.
These are but a few of the unnecessary
impositions upon operators of aircraft which
are essential for transporting personnel and
goods to destinations which are not served
by commercial operators, and in a manner
which is impractical to charter operations,
due to the ad-hoc and short-notice nature
of general aviation operations.
THE WHITE ELEPHANT
ICAO’s Annex 6 Part II is the
fundamental framework of our Part 91
which covers general aviation operations.
The fact that a few corporate operators
around the world operate large, complex
turbojet aircraft in the same environment,
the same airspaces and at the same
airports as scheduled commercial
operations has raised some concerns,
resulting in the conclusion that there is a
need for provisions governing the operator
rather than leaving safety to the owner or
pilot-in-command.
However, it appears that our CAA
has prised corporate aviation out of the
standards intended for general aviation
and created a stand-alone regulation more
akin to those intended for commercial
operations.
At worst, some minor amendments
to Part 91 may have been appropriate to
regulate the non-commercial operations of
large, complex aircraft. The creation of a
quasi-commercial category in Part 93 puts
us further out of step with good practices in
the rest of the world.
It is difcult to see any benets in
respect of safety and efciency for our
many corporate operators who have safely
and efciently been using their aircraft
in pursuit of their legitimate business. It
appears that our CAA has misdirected itself
in pushing this regulation through without
thorough consultation with those who are
adversely affected.
There are concerted efforts afoot to
have the new Part 93 set aside.
AOPA BRIEFING
j
1972 CESSNA 210
SALES
1972 BARON 58
VANS RV10
1999 AEROCUB MK1
1972 CESSNA 172 REIMS ROCKET 210HP
Airframe : 3320.8Hrs total time
Engine : 2014.8 HrsTT and 769.8 TSO
Propeller: 0 Time
S-Tec autopilot; 2 Kings KX155 Nav Com
King Transponder; HSI
Garmin GMA340 Audi Panel
Garmin GNC250XL GPS
King DME; King ADF
New paint job, windows and interior.
Aircraft will be delivered with Fresh MPI’s.
Price: R1 200 000 Ex Vat
Airframe:6175.6 Hours
Engine LH :273.7
Engine RH:2881.4
Equipped with standard King Audio panel,
2 x KX155 Nav Comms,
King ADF and King Transponder.
It also has a weather radar installed and
a Garmin Aera 500.
Aircraft will be delivered with Fresh MPI’s.
Price: R1 100 000 Ex Vat
Brand new RV10 fitted with a Overhauled
Lycoming IO-540 260HP engine with 3 hours on it. It
also has a brand new 3 blade Hartzell HC-C3YR-1RF/
F7693F Super Scimitar Propeller.
Equipment: Garmin GMA240 Audi Panel; Garmin
GTR225 Comm; Garmin GTR225 Comm; Garmin GTX
327 Transponder; Garmin Aera 500
2 x MGL Challenger IEFIS 10,4 Inch Glass panel
Ack 406MHZ ELT; Rosen Sun visors
Full leather Upholstery and Carbon Fiber trim
Aircraft will be delivered with Fresh MPI’s.
Price: R2 900 000 Ex Vat
Exact replica of a Piper Super Cub with 154 Hours
on the Airframe.
Fitted with the following:
A Lycoming O-320-E2D 160HP engine.
Sensenich 74DM6-0-56 Propeller
Narco Transponder
Airgizmo Garmin 296 Dock
Icom A200 Radio.
Perfect Bush plane!
Aircraft will be delivered with Fresh MPI’s.
Price: R500 000 Ex Vat
Garmin GMA 340 Audio Panel; King KX155
Nav Comm; King KY 196 Comm; King KNS 80
NAv System; Apollo GPS; King KR85 ADF; King
KT76A Transponder; JPI 430 Fuel Monitor
Airframe Total Time: 3690 Hrs
Engine is a 210 Horse Power Continental IO-360-
D1VB with Total Time: 740 Hrs
Propeller total time: 3690 Hrs -
Time since overhaul :90Hrs
Aircraft will be delivered with Fresh MPI’s.
Price: R750 000 Ex Vat
Contact: neil@proairmain.com or 082 846 9981
SA Flyer 2017|08
Book your introductory fl ight now
