The Regulation of Corporate Aviation and Aerial Work

1. The Regulation of Corporate Aviation and Aerial Work Hoofddorp January 2004

2. How did AWGAS/HSC approach the challenge? • We developed a concept model • We formed a drafting group of regulators • The drafting group examined existing regulations • JARS • National • International • FARS • ICAO • We produced an approximation to the current National standards • We justified our choices with objective criteria • We checked compliance with ICAO

6. CAT ICAO Annex 6 Specific Task COPs Alleviated Appendices Corporate Aerial Work State B General Operating Rules State A State A State C State E State D State F State G The Model

7. CAT (JAR-OPS 1) Annex 6 Part I CAT (JAR-OPS 3) Annex 6 Part III Section II Specific Task COPs Alleviated Appendices Alleviated Appendices A R A R A R Minor Ops Minor Ops A place for everything and everything in its place JAR-OPS 2 concerned mainly with organisation, operational control, registration, training and manuals Responsibility for safety remains with the operator Registration is required Subpart ‘B’ contains International Appendices which comply with Annex 6 (respectively aeroplanes and helicopters) unless alleviated by ‘bilateral agreement’ ‘Bilateral’ agreement alleviation is written into the rule Generic text written at the level of General Aviation Objective and goal oriented rules - less prescriptive All of the operational rules are contained in JAR-OPS 0 However please note: Applicability addressed only at Corporate and Aerial Work Certification required for Aerial Work ‘Minor operations’ addressed Deals mainly with organisational issues etc. Minor operations are excluded (mainly) from this part but compliance has still to be shown with a small number of rules Discriminant is meant to determine any without organisation Codes of Practice (COP) produced by industry SOPs written in accordance with the COP enable safe operation Corporate aviation must be in compliance with ICAO Corporate (JAR-OPS 2) Aerial Work (JAR-OPS 4) Int. Appendices General Operating Rules (JAR-OPS 0) B

8. JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS JAR-OPS 1 COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORTATION (AEROPLANES) JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS JAR-OPS 2 GENERAL AVIATION CORPORATE (AIRCRAFT) JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS JAR-OPS 3 COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORTATION (HELICOPTERS) JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS JAR-OPS 4 AERIAL WORK (AIRCRAFT) The Proposed JAA Model

9. Registration as in ISO 9000 Similar to certification Requires audit before accreditation Periodic follow-up audits are usual Registration as in JAR FCL 125 Onus on Authority to accept the application Only further action is notification of changes Corporate Registration Continuum of Regulatory Approval and Further Audit

10. ISO 9000 FCL 1.125 Tailoring the Audit Process • Random sampling is flexible option but hit and miss • Data driven safety focus is a better approach • Incidents or accidents can indicate areas of concern • Recognising IS-BAO audits could alleviate workload Continuum of Regulatory Approval and Further Audit

11. ANPA Process • The ANPA issued on the 4th April 2003 (a full year after the last amendments to the proposed regulation) • Comment period was initially for three months but was extended to permit a number of States to submit their comments • Comments were accepted until the end of August • Comments were correlated, assessed and put into a comment/response document ready for the AWGAS/HSC to complete the comments in accordance with the procedures of JAR 11

12. Comment/response process • A drafting committee (IBAC and five NAA members) was reformed for the process of initiating the response to comments • Met in Paris on the 22nd - 24th • They put together proposed responses for a plenary meeting of AWGAS/HSC in Gatwick on the 18th - 20th November • AWGAS/HSC met in Gatwick and endorsed the work of the drafting committee with few changes

13. Next step in Process • Most of the recommendations of industry were accepted by AWGAS/HSC and will lead to recommendations for amendment of the model and the text in the proposed regulation • These comments and recommendations will be assessed by the CJAA & members of the Operations Sectorial Team (OST) in January • Following this meeting, progress for the proposed regulation will be considered by the OST and an NPA will be considered

14. Observations • As a general observation; the ANPA received more consideration from Industry than it did from NAAs • In general the proposed regulation and the model chosen was well received by the National Associations of Business Aviation • Industry comments were more positive and they demonstrated a better understanding of what was being proposed than States

15. Observations • Clarification at the time of the Paris meeting has removed most of the objections to the model and it is unlikely that it will change substantially in subsequent issues of the proposed regulation • Some States have even indicated that they will adopt the text of JAR-OPS 0 into their regulations for General Aviation (States outside Europe have also shown an interest in the set of regulations JAR-OPS 0 - 4) • Factional ownership was discussed in the light of the model - no concrete proposals have been made but the model is sufficiently robust to address this and other issues not considered at the time of conception

16. Amendments to the Model and Regulations • The addressing of the text in JAR-OPS 0 will be to the PIC and not the commander or operator (except where it needs to be specifically addressed at the owner or holder) • The model will be amended to provide filtering up to JAR-OPS 2 within JAR-OPS 0. This will remove the need for a minor operators appendix in JAR-OPS 2 and will simplify the text  • The 'corporate operator' (entity) will be sent to JAR-OPS 2 and business aviation will be addressed in JAR-OPS 0 only (they will also have to apply the text of the International Appendix (Annex 6 Part II and Part III Section III)) 

17. Amendments to the Model and Regulations • The discriminant is still somewhat of a problem and it will involve further work (not quite as simple as it first appears as all existing definition fall short of what is required) • We will continue to discuss the move to make Annex 6 Part 1 (CAT) Standards apply to this regulation – however, we doubt our competence to prescribe equipment for aircraft on foreign registers • We will continue to address the regulation at the 'operator' as we are clear that we have legal competence in this area

18. Amendments to the Model and Regulations • The text for quality assurance will be amended in the light of recommendations from a small group that has been set up to consider the matter • They will consider making the text more consistent with the IBAC text on SMS and the Norwegian text on Flight Safety Programs (which are more proactive systems with similar underlying principles) • The issue of Subpart J - Mass and Balance, will be reassessed in the light of comments on the ANPA and a small group led by GAMTA will be formed to propose amendments to the this Subpart

19. Any Questions

20. The Regulation of Corporate Aviation and Aerial Work