e u r o p e a n g l i d i n g u n i on - egu-info.org final agenda egu congress 2017... · 16...

E U R O P E A N G L I D I N G U N I ON

R e p re se n ta tiv e O rg a n isa tio n o f E u ro p e a n G lid e r P ilo ts

16 January 2017 1 (2)

ﾧ Secretariat: EGU c/o FFVV – 55 Rue desPetites Écuries – F-75010 Paris – France ﾧ Tel.: +33 1 45 44 04 78 – Fax: +33 1 45 44 70 93

To: All Full Members (Associations and their nominated Delegates and Alternate delegates) All Affiliated member associations All members of the Executive Board Presidents of the Europe Airsports EAS, the FAI/IGC and the OSTIV

24th EGU Congress 18.2.2017 Heathrow, UK – Final Agenda Date: Saturday 18th February 2017 at 09.00 - 17.00, hosted by the British Gliding Association

Venue: Renaissance London Heathrow Hotel – near London Heathrow Airport **) Bath Road, Hounslow

TW6 2AQ England UNITED KINGDOM

AGENDA 1. Welcome by the British Gliding Association

2. Opening of the meeting and roll-call

3. Approval of the Agenda

4. Approval of the Minutes of the EGU Congress 2016 in Graz

5. Report of the Executive Board over year 2016 a) Report by the President and General Secretary, see annex on item 5.

− Confirmation of full membership of the Hungarian Gliding Association

6. Technical work on European Gliding 6.1. To note technical reports on technical activities during 2016, see annexes on items 6.1 a)…c)

a) Airspace and Equipment

b) Airworthiness and Maintenance

c) Training

6.2. Status Report: EASA/EGU co-operation work “Part-GLIDING” - President of the EGU

a) Report on Gliding OPS in "Part-GLIDING" – by Technical Officers, see annex on item 6.2 a) - Discussion

b) Report on Glider Pilot Licencing requirements in "Part-GLIDING" – by Technical Officers, see annex on items 6.1 c) and 6.2 b) - Discussion

[ to be continued ...]

16 January 2017 2 (2)

European Gliding Union EGU - Congress 2017 London-Heathrow, United Kindom

[...continues ]

b) Report on Glider Pilot Licencing requirements in "Part-GLIDING" – by Technical Officers, see annex on item 6.2 b) - Discussion

7. Report of the Treasurer and Financial Report over year 2016

8. Report of the Financial Controllers

9. Vote on proposal by the Executive Board on Membership Fees for 2017 − Proposal is to maintain Membership Fees same as they were for 2016.

10. Vote on Budget for year 2017

11. Elections*) − Term-of-office of three years of 5 Executive Board Members is terminating. According to Clauses 8.1

and 8.2 of EGU Statutes, the Congress shall elect, at least five Executive Board Members.

12. AOB – Any Other Business 12.1. Iniative by the Dutch Gliding Federation (KNVvL) to discuss about possible adoption of Ultra

Light Gliding sports (ULG) under the EGU work, see annex on item 12.1 a) Introduction to the subject by Mr. Jan Forster, NL Delegate of the EGU b) Discussion and possible decisions, if any, by the EGU Congress.

13. Date and Venue for the EGU Congress 2018

14. Closure

EGU Congress dinner at 20.00 o´clock (at the meeting hotel – in the Wessex Lobby Room)

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: *) Three years term-of-office of the 1st Vice-President Mr. Andy Miller (UK), Treasurer Mr. Robert Danewid (SE), General Secretary Mr. Mika Mutru (FI), TO Airworthiness and Maintenance Mr. Howard Torode (UK) and TO Operations Mr. Henrik Svensson (SE) is terminating. All of them are officially nominated by their national gliding/aviation association as candidates for re-election. The German Aeroclub (DAeC) has also nominated Mr. Martin Kader, Mr. Andreas Peus and Mr. Jürgen Kubicki as Executive Board member candidates.

**) Practical information about hotel bookings etc. and for meeting registration was given in EGU Invitation letter, dated on 14th December 2016 and sent out to All Full and all Affiliated member associations and their nominated Delegates and Alternate delegates. Copy of the BGA Event Information booklet is annexed.

Please find herewith this final version of Agenda for the annual General Meeting – Congress 2017 of the EGU. Technical reports are attached. More detailed information about technical work will be given by EGU Technical Officers present at the Congress. Furthermore, financial figures over year 2016 will be distributed separately, soonest they are available.

ANNEXESS 5 – Report of the Executive Board: the President and General Secretary 6.1 a) – Report of the TO Airspace and Equipment 6.1 b) – Report of the TO Airworthiness and Maintenance 6.1 c) – Report of the TO Training, a combined report covers also item 6.2 b) 6.2 a) – Report of the TO Operations 7 – Financial report (will be distributed separately) 10 – Budget proposal for year 2017 (will be distributed separately) 12.1 – NL discussion iniative by KNVvL/Mr. Forster about Ultra Light Gliding (UGL) sports

[Total 2+15 pages]

16 January 2017 ANNEX EGU Congress 2017 – Agenda 1 (15)


Annex to Agenda Item 5

President´s Report It is my great pleasure to introduce the EGU annual report for 2016.

At the start of my last report, I speculated “2015 may well prove to be an important turning point in the regulation of European gliding”. I wrote those words following the first of a series of meetings with EASA during which we, the EGU, pleaded the case for a separate set of gliding-related regulations (Part-Gliding). As 2015 drew to a close, I also wrote that “… 2016 will be an extremely busy period for the EGU and its member bodies. Our work with EASA will be central to what we will be doing, and we are going to need to devote a considerable amount of time to it”.

This far, we were right on both counts – Part-Gliding has been our primary focus. It has not only consumed almost all of the EGU Board’s time, but also required substantial input from our members.

The Austrian Aero Club kindly hosted the 2016 EGU Congress in the picturesque surrounds of Graz. I would like to warmly thank them for looking after all of those that attended so well, and for enabling us to have a very productive meeting. It was a very important opportunity for EGU members to discuss and agree the basic position that the EGU should take during meetings with EASA.

Between the time of the Congress in February and the proper ‘kick-off’ of work on Part-Gliding, the EGU hosted a number of meetings for EGU members’ representatives to work on the detail of what we would want to have included in new gliding rules. We also took time during the meeting of the Nordic Gliding Federations to do the same. These sessions have been similarly invaluable and have enabled all of us to remain current as the work on Part-Gliding began to develop momentum. So, in 2016, we have spent more time working with EGU members directly than probably at any other time in the EGU’s history. I suspect that this pattern of engagement will continue in 2017.

Part-Gliding is currently structured around two work streams – Operations and Licensing and Training. Work on Operations started over the summer; Licensing and Training only started in October, the delay being due to resource constraints within EASA. Both work streams are populated by EGU and EASA staff, and representatives from a number of national aviation associations (NAAs).

Henrik Svensson leads our work on the Operations workstream. He has provided a more detailed report on the proceedings of the group elsewhere in this annual report. I believe, however, that the group is well on its way to developing a more practical and relevant set of rules for gliding operations. If we can keep aerotowing and aerobatics out of EASA’s definition of specialised operations, then we may well achieve everything we want.

In addition to making specific progress on the development of new rules, the operations group is also highlighting some of the challenges associated with the process of developing rules that are optimal for gliding. In simple terms, most NAAs are unfamiliar with gliding. Indeed, only a minority of the people in EASA have much of an appreciation of what it involves. As a consequence, they find it difficult to appreciate why it does not make sense to impose anything other than the simplest or lightest of rules on the sport. This issue manifests itself particularly when we are trying to argue the case for a major simplification or removal of a current rule. A reluctance to accept lighter rules may be down to a lack of confidence that a lighter regulatory structure can ensure the appropriate management of risk. When faced with such a dilemma, many NAAs will fall back to a cautious position and insist of detailed and more stringent rules than actually needed or appropriate.

In part, the EGU appreciates the position of NAAs – at the same time, it is not in the interests of the gliding community to press for rules that would give rise to inappropriate levels of risk. As a consequence, we have to present our case for rule changes as clearly and compellingly as possible when engaging with those NAAs that are involved in Part-Gliding. That is, however, only a small proportion of the NAAs that are part of EASA – all of which will have the opportunity to comment on the Part-Gliding proposals. It is important, therefore, for each and every EGU member to ensure that they have a close working relationship with their NAA; and, that they actively promote the principles behind, and the detail of Part-Gliding rule changes in order to obtain NAA support. If we do not get the support of enough NAAs, we will not get any meaningful change through Part-Gliding.

The operations work stream has gone relatively smoothly so far; licensing and training will not be as straightforward. As work has only just started on this work stream, it is still too early for us to know where big



issues might arise, or where NAAs’ biggest concerns/objections might be. The better our NAA relationships, the easier it will be to deal with them.

Given everything, I can safely predict that 2017 will be busier still than 2016. I am optimistic that it will be productive.

None of the work of the EGU would be possible were it not for the dedication of its Board members and the active support of its members. I would like to thank my Board colleagues for their effort over the past year, and their obvious desire to maintain the same intensity of work over the year ahead.

May I also express my gratitude to our members – for their support, and continued trust in the work of the EGU. I know that each and every one of them has many other issues that they must also attach a high priority to. I wish you every success in 2017 – have fun and stay safe.

Patrick Naegeli President, European Gliding Union EGU January, 2017

General Secretary´s Report In 2016 EGU´s Executive Board had the following composition (term-of-office in parenthesis):

- Mr. Patrick Naegeli, President, UK – (2015-2017) - Mr. Andy Miller, 1st Vice-President, UK; Technical Officer for Training – (2014-2016) - Mrs. Meike Müller, 2nd Vice-President, DE; Technical Officer for Licencing – (2015-2017) - Mr. Robert Danewid, Treasurer, SE – (2014-2016) - Mr. Günter Bertram, Technical Officer for Airspace and Equipment; DE – (2015-2017) - Mr. Henrik Svensson, Technical Officer for Operations; SE – (2014-2016) - Mr. Howard Torode, Technical Officer for Airworthiness and Maintenance; UK – (2014-2016) - Mr. Mika Mutru, General Secretary, FI – (2014-2016)

Additionally, Mr. Roland Stuck, EGU Honorary President (FR), has acted as EGU´s webmaster as in previous years. Also, in Graz, Mr. Jukka Helminen (FI) and Mr. Kristjan Sveinbjörnsson (IS) were elected as EGU´s financial controllers for 2016. Controller´s report will be considered under Agenda item 8.

In 2016 the Executive Board held five meetings – 21.2.2016 in Graz (immediately after Congress), 24.3.2016 by teleconferencing, 17.5.2016 in LSH Sportsschule Frankfurt am Main, 11.10.2016 by teleconferencing and 2.-3.12.2016 in LSH Sportsschule Frankfurt am Main. Teleconferencing has been found to be a both practical and effective and with one face-to-face meeting less than in previous years, one meeting more was successfully held. Additionally, as the EGU/EASA Part-Gliding work has required more attention, actual meetings were extended to begin already in previous evening with administrative issues and finance first.

Two special EGU Workshops – both concentrating on Licencing and Training matters, were held for preparations on EGU/EASA Part-Gliding work: 20.-21.5.2016 in Hannover, Germany and 29.9.2016 in Schiphol, the Netherlands. Workshops were prepared by EGU TO´s Andy Miller and Meike Müller.

As a part of well initiated EGU/EASA Part-Gliding –work, two groups of “EGU National Point-of-Contacts” were created for enabling direct and supportive networking between responsible EGU TO´s and national specialists of EGU Members and Affiliates: one for Gliding Operations and one for Licencing and Training.

Hungary applied full membership of the European Gliding Union 9.3.2016 and an affirmative decision according to EGU Statutes clause 5.4 was made by the Executive Board 11.3.2016. The EGU Congress 2017 is now asked just to confirm full membership of the Hungarian Gliding Association (current address Dagály u.11, HU-1138 Budapest).

Communication with Italy for recruiting them back to EGU continued in March-April, but despite of positive initial feedback from their gliding communication, it did not lead to an official application by any association.

Last but not least, we wish to thank the F.F.V.V and their staff in Paris under direction of Mr. Luc Guillot for holding the EGU Secretariat. Practical work done by Valérie Borzoni and Ginette Lesouëf is appreciated.

Mika Mutru General Secretary, European Gliding Union EGU January 2017



Annex to Agenda Item 6.1 a)

Report of the TO Airspace and Equipment Last year´s activities in regards to air space issues were observing and monitoring. No European Rule making task targeted air space directly. SERA A and B have been fully introduced. It was the discussion of how to integrate unmanned flying objects into the present working arrangements. Change might come through the EASA triggering Part-Gliding. The OPS and Licencing packages might suggest that there were changes in air space regulation.

Commercial Air Transport In the beginning of the year the numbers showed that Commercial Air Traffic grew in 2015 by an average of 1.5%. The October forecast for 2016 is 2,6%. The official number will be 2.9% but that is only to the fact that 2016 was a leap year. One day equalling .3%. The increases look huge, but we need to keep in mind that the movement numbers have not yet reached the 2008 figures. One can argue that the request for more restricted airspace cannot be based on movement numbers.

Due to different crisis in the Ukraine, Turkey, Syria the CAT traffic flow has shifted to the southwest of Europe generating terrific workloads in Spain and Portugal

The Seven year forecast ranges from 0.7 to 3.4% depending on the scenarios used in the prediction. Of course, there is also a wide regional difference. Statistics suggest that by 2022 just under 200.000 flights per year will be rejected per year due to an overload of the system. I do think that the Nations will do everything to overcome this gridlock. The effect is mainly on the higher altitudes not regularly used in Europe for Gliding and Paragliding.

SERA Part C The Single European Sky Committee has signed SERA Part C on the 23rd of February. The deadline on the NPA on the AMC and GM is still the 29th of February. Europe Air Sports inputs are available in the Comment Response Tool.

8,33kHz Radios Safety Assessment by Eurocontrol Eurocontrol has formed a working group to analyse the safety implications on the general introduction, deviations from the introduction and states not having a plan at all to introduce 8,33 kHz radios below FL 195 for all users. The group is looking at all aspects of the introduction of the 8,33 kHz radios and tries to identify safety critical points.

Pilots filling a flight plan for a VFR flight have to be aware that they have to state whether they are equipped with 8,33 kHz or not in order to be correctly handled.

European Gliding Union Airspace Group (EAG) (full report available upon request) A very small group of national Technical Officers Airspace attended the annual EAG meeting in Berlin. A very thorough discussion on the national air space regulation procedure gave inside knowledge and hopefully the good procedures can be transferred.

It is still the feeling of most TO that the available air space for Gliding is shrinking. Norway, Finland and Switzerland are having difficult times.

It is necessary to send the national and Union TO Airspace to this meeting as this is the only chance to exchange information and possible ways forward. Cross border activities work best if the differences are minor. Today this is a nice dream.

Reports issued in 2016: NETOPS 14 NETOPS 15 NETOPS 16 EAG Meeting 2016

Günter Bertram Technical Officer – Airspace and Equipment European Gliding Union EGU January 2017



Annex to Agenda Item 6.1 b)

Report of the TO Airworthiness and Maintenance

Overview of past period During 2016 there were continued developments to simplify European Airworthiness regulation applied to GA. New rules have been brought into law (October 2015) defining a simple and effective ‘Self Declared Maintenance Programme’ (SDMP) for sailplanes and ELA1 aircraft, emphasising the engagement of owners. While such changes are ultimately beneficial, the incremental adoption of each requires a detailed negotiation with all NAA’s, with frequent hiatus and mis-interpretation. EGU remains available to assist in the intent and interpretation of such changes if required.

Part ML/CAO (General Aviation Task Force 2) Hopefully, the final step to simplified Airworthiness rules will be Part MLight. From the outset, PML is designed as a separate code from Part M itself. It will be the ONLY code applicable to non-commercial operations of ELA aircraft and separation from the wide issues and requirements of Part M have been eradicated. Additionally, the amalgamation of the (separate) Airworthiness and Maintenance requirements using Part CAO to replace CAMO as a ’Combined Airworthiness Organisation’ will reduce duplication and complexity and enable engineers to operate more widely on a simpler range of personal approvals.

These developments are on a fast track for European Parliamentary signature during this month, and will hopefully enter into law with a transition phase running from early 2018. Some nations may find it possible to transition directly to this status incorporating the existing changes above (SDMP).

CS-STAN is being expanded to enable a wider range of repairs and installations in sailplanes using a reasonable paperwork trail which can be generated locally. This measure has been a key demand by EGU over recent years, and now enables running repairs to be carried out in the field with minimum necessary oversight.

Basic Regulation Review - NPA2014-12 EGU continues to suffer some frustration in gaining support our position for regulatory parity. Given the convergence of roles of sailplanes, motor-sailplanes and high efficiency microlight aircraft, EGU remains convinced that these standards should be harmonised to a single mass criterion. This can be further justified by the identical third party safety case and that the current regulation is over complex.



Current regulation requires unpowered sailplanes above a minimum of 80kg (empty) to seek EASA certification for single seat airframe (SS), compared to a limit of 300kg (SS, all-up) for comparable microlight powered aircraft. While we consider the current EASA proposal of 250kg (SS, all up) something of an improvement the whole issue is now becoming more widely political.

Personal Licensing under Part 66 - NPA2012-15 Latest information emerging from EASA suggests that while the EC Opinion was approved during 2016, but there remain complications in its administration. For the present we can only ass a two year implementation process final entry into law, which might still be triggered before end 2017. Thus a transition period from 2018 to 2020, might reasonably be assumed. EGU remain deeply concerned that the requirements for qualification of new engineers will lead to a shortage of new candidates.

Howard Torode Technical Officer – Airworthiness and Maintenance European Gliding Union EGU January 2017



Annex Agenda items 6.1 c) and 6.2 b)

Report of the TO Training Two work streams during 2016: Regulations for Training Organisation and the FCL aspects of Part-Gliding.

Training Organisations EASA published its opinion, No 11/2016, in October. Although a welcome improvement over the existing ATO requirements, this text was considerably different from the one which had been published in NPA 2015-20.

The EGU had responded positively to the NPA which, in essence, proposed Basic Training Organisations (BTOs), but the Agency, driven partly by EASA Legal, added back in several elements from the discredited ATO. The end result, Declared Training Organisation (DTO), is less than ideal but a welcome improvement over the existing ATO requirements.

Our briefing to EASA on the problems is below. The Agency responded by hinting that the AMC (Applicable Means of Compliance & GM (Guidance Material), still being drafted, may be able to reduce the difficulties.

FCL Aspects of Part-Gliding While ATO/ BTO/ DTO drew to a close, preparations for the FCL-requirements applicable for gliding have increased. Productive workshops held at Hannover in May 20.-21th and Schiphol in October 29th enabled us to produce a clear EGU description of what is desirable. This was used to produce an EGU position report which is further below.

Work has now started in earnest as EASA’s Rule Making Task RMT.0701: Revision of the Sailplane Licencing Requirements, initially lead by the EGU with our President in the chair. Two meetings will have been held by the time of this EGU Congress. Our principle challenges are National Authorities’ desires to be in control.

Annexes to this report on next pages: A. EGU Comments of DTO Regulations

B. EGU Position Paper for RMT.0701 Revision of the Sailplane Licencing Requirements

Andy Miller, 1st Vice-President Technical Officer – Training European Gliding Union EGU January 2016



A. EGU Comments of DTO Regulations As published in Opinion No 11/2016 & associated Annex.

1. A short extract from the RIA – 2.4.4.1 Safety Impact - illustrates a fundamental misconception. Option 3 — No training structure A minor negative impact on safety might be expected, as it will be more difficult to perform adequate oversight and standardisation of training.

The author has assumed that oversight by an NAA, with no expertise on sailplane training, over gliding associations, where the expertise lies, will give safety benefits. The EGU is not aware of any evidence to support this.

The RIA includes several other misconceptions.

2. DTO.GEN.115– declaration process The declaration requires a list of all aircraft to be used, and that any changes be notified within 3 days.

This is declaration for the sake of declaration, which can lead to audit for the sake of audit. It does not add to the quality of training, or do anything for safety. There is no requirement for an NAA to do anything with this list. Regulations elsewhere eg DTO.GEN.240(a), specify the requirements that training aircraft must meet. The 3 day requirement is utterly disproportionate for a volunteer, overwhelmingly weekend, sport.

3. DTO.GEN.210 – personnel requirements The DTO representative is loaded with responsibilities taken from the discredited ATO requirements

− compliance − adherence to a safety policy and implementation of measures − ensuring availability of resources − promoting safety

These burdens are unrealistic for a volunteer representative.

4. DTO.GEN.270 – annual internal review and annual activity report The activity report demands details that do not improve training or contribute to any meaningful NAA oversight. The specific requirement for training goals and status for all students is risible for a volunteer, sporting activity.

5. GM3 DTO.GEN.210 – personnel requirements A specified maximum ratio of students to instructors is utterly meaningless in a sporting club where both may come and go as they please. Is a student, whose home life permits her/him to attend one day per month, 12/365 of a student, or 1 student? Is an instructor who visits for a week long course 1/52 of an instructor, or 1 instructor? Gathering the numbers would waste management time and lead to endless audit arguments.

6. AMC1 DTO.GEN.215 – Facility requirements Gliding clubs have these facilities anyway; there is no need for a regulation requiring them to have them. Putting this detail in an AMC can lead to more useless audit activity and findings.

7. AMC1 DTO.GEN.230 – DTO Training programme The requirement for progress checks (g), is meaningless in a part-time, volunteer club where the final judge of a student’s progress is the student her/himself. If a club is concerned, it can offer advice and help (normally, please fly more). By contrast, if an NAA has an opinion about progress, it can do nothing other than keep out of the way.



B. EGU Position Paper for RMT.0701 Revision of the Sailplane Licencing Requirements

Summary EGU position on RMT.0701 “Revision of the sailplane licensing requirements” Patrick Naegeli President EGU

Background and context The EGU was formed in 1992. Its membership comprises the official national bodies responsible for gliding in the majority of European nations. The national gliding associations of the USA, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand are associate members. In total, the EGU represents in excess of 90% of active European pilots, and is directly networked with in excess of 95% of the global gliding community.

The EGU has two principal roles:

ﾷ Support the pan-national development and sharing of safety, technical, training and operational best practice.

ﾷ To directly represent gliding interests in pan-national regulatory, airspace and other forums

The EGU is able to call upon the world’s foremost gliding experts in any technical or operational field; it can access direct insights into the grass-roots impact of current/planned regulatory measures – in any one of its members’ geography, and collate information from the largest to the smallest of gliding clubs. In addition, the often de-regulated/self-regulated nature of gliding means that the EGU can also draw on those that have the greatest accumulated individual and organisational experience anywhere of developing and managing appropriate regulatory structures for gliding.

Work on the development of a standardised set of European regulations for gliding has been underway for several years. The EGU has closely monitored developments, participated directly in the drafting processes whenever possible, and provided constructive feedback throughout. The basic EASA rule-making process has, however, traditionally taken the regulatory approach from power flying, and sometimes even commercial aviation – both already highly formalised and significantly harmonised activities - as the starting point for gliding.

This broad approach has always made it very difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that gliding regulations end up with the required degree of simplicity and ‘light touch’ that is in line with the very simple nature of the sport. The choice of an inappropriate starting point makes the process of removing complexity and undue formality far harder than, in this case, the more practical alternative of adding it only where it is needed. The challenge has been further frustrated by an environment where the harmonisation of general aviation activities has often seemed to be a higher-order priority/overriding concern than establishing proportionate, appropriately evidence-based regulation.

As a consequence, gliding has faced an accumulation of unnecessary and inappropriate regulatory measures. These have often been arrived at without the required levels of scrutiny and impact assessment. The result is a regulatory burden that increases costs and compliance workload; establishes barriers and disincentives to participation; imposes significant changes to well-established and perfectly satisfactory operating procedures and behaviours; and, necessitates the redirection of scarce time and other resources to non-value added activities. In short, the regulatory trajectory that EASA is on is a genuine threat to the future of the sport. One can understand why this might not be evident to EASA and even to many NAAs – it is, however, all too obvious to those in national gliding associations and in clubs.

In June 2015, the EGU wrote to Patrick Ky to request the establishment of a specific programme to review and, where required, revise the full suite of EASA regulations pertaining to gliding. In order to provide working group members with the fuller text of our basic concerns, a copy of the EGU’s letter is included alongside this note. The EGU was very encouraged by Patrick Ky’s response to its request and the subsequent actions of his staff. RMT.0701 provides a unique opportunity to greatly simplify the regulatory structure for gliding – in short, to get things right.



EGU view of the scale of the required regulatory change under RMT.0701

The considered position of the EGU and its member associations is that a substantial overhaul of EASA gliding regulations is required if we are to re-establish things on an appropriate basis, and avoid long-term damage to the movement. The fact that gliding among the longestestablished branches of aviation, and is fundamentally a non-commercial, non-complex, cluboriented, volunteer-oriented, low risk – especially in regards to third parties - and traditionally very safe activity must be borne in mind at all stages in any rule-making task.

The EGU suggests that, prior to the drafting of new rules or amendments to existing provisions, a number of important design and/or scope changes will need to be considered in, for example:

ﾷ The basic principles that should guide the outputs of the rule-making process – and the ways in which those principles are then carried through to the detail of the regulations

ﾷ Fundamental elements of the licensing and training structure/procedures – to remove redundant elements, make the system simpler, efficient and practical without compromising risk management and safety

ﾷ Other rule-making programmes that currently cover gliding – in order to avoid the situation where gliding falls under an activity that is not part of Part-Gliding

ﾷ Individual nations’ abilities to permit variations in the way in which regulations are implemented – to, for example, allow for grandfather rights to be simply and straightforwardly attached to national practices and procedures on transition; permit the introduction of flexible measures designed to stimulate access and participation levels – and so avoid the need to impose universal measures where such things might not be reasonable or necessary

ﾷ Transition timescales to the new EASA structure – to ensure that they allow sufficient time for changes to be properly implemented given the different circumstances that exist across countries.

Examples of such potential changes are provided below. More may well come to light as work progresses.

The EGU appreciates that the work of RMT.0701 must go beyond a line-by-line read and change of the existing regulations. This is a consequence of the nature of the starting point used for previous gliding rule-making tasks. Nevertheless, the working group should not be dissuaded from taking the necessary, in some cases bold steps to get the right form of regulations.

Design/scope approach In preparation for RMT.0701, the EGU has worked closely with its members in establishing a common set of objectives for the outputs of the task force. The following items highlight some of the immediate things that the gliding community would like to see either guide the work or be included in/enabled through the revised gliding regulations:

Gliding licensing and training regulations must be based around the specific nature and requirements of gliding – and not the constructs that apply to power flying, including the power end of general aviation.

The highly formalized nature of power flying – in particular, training, instructing, and examining – is not an appropriate comparator against which to consider gliding. The fact that ‘it is what is done in the power flying world’ has no bearing on what makes most sense for gliding. The gliding community has attempted to adopt the EASA regulations that came out of the school of thought that one could deal with gliding in the same way as power flying. In so doing, however, it has uncovered a wide range of significant issues and flaws.

A single EASA Sailplane Pilot’s Licence – in essence removing the need for the LAPL(S).

The LAPL(S) was created in order to allow for pilots to be able to fly with an alternative medical to that required for an SPL. In almost all respects – training requirements, potential privileges, etc. - the SPL and the LAPL(S) are identical.



At present, glider pilots can only hold one licence type. If a pilot wishes to move from one licence to another, for whatever reason, they must incur the cost and effort of making an application to the appropriate authority.

It is our assertion that by issuing only one licence, and linking any variations in privileges to the type of medical held by the pilot, then we can eliminate the need for two almost identical licences and remove the administrative overhead/cost/etc. that arise every time a change is required. This would allow pilots to continue flying if, for example, they elect to obtain a LAPL medical instead of a Class II; or, easily upgrade their privileges in the opposite direction

A competency-based training system – to remove unnecessary complication and duplication from the existing training system.

EASA’s current licensing and training system is a mix of requirements, for example:

o Pre-training experience requirements for additional licence privileges, instructor and other ratings, and examiner certificates

o Defined training syllabi/course contents

o Specified minima for training time on particular course components

o Specified contents for assessment of competence/proficiency checks

There is undue complication and duplication in the system. This could be easily and usefully resolved by re-orientating the system around:

o A statement of pre-training experience requirements

o An overview of the required training content

o The principles of competency based training and assessment.

This would remove spurious training minima and put the emphasis on the issue of postlicence privileges and ratings on a candidate demonstrating the required standards during an appropriate form of assessment.

A simplified structure of license ratings and privileges – to reduce the administrative overhead of the system and remove the unnecessary use of examiners.

The current system has a mix of ratings, privileges and certificates. Some require the involvement of an instructor, some an examiner; some need only be recorded in a pilot’s logbook, some need the competent authority to issue a new licence entry.

We need a simplified system that properly aligns the issue and recording of privileges/etc. The EGU suggests that the working group considers:

o Permitting the issue of post-licence privileges (e.g. new launch methods, aerobatics, cloud flying, self-launch, TMG) to be carried out by an appropriately qualified FI(S), and that the formal record be in the form of a specified log book entry

o Permitting the issue of an FI(S) rating to be granted by an Instructor Coach once the training and assessment requirements have been satisfactorily met. A rating addition to the candidate’s licence would be done through the competent authority

o Permitting the issue of FE(S) privileges to be granted by an Examiner Coach once the training and assessment requirements have been satisfactorily met. A rating addition to the candidate’s licence would be done through the competent authority.

A simplified and more useful examining system – to reflect the particular nature of gliding and the practical needs of the gliding community.

The current EASA gliding examining system is a direct ‘lift’ from the power flying world and makes excessive use of examiners:

o Prior to EASA, most gliding nations used examiners only sparingly.

− Flight Examiners - were required in to test a candidate for the issue of the basic licence. That was, however, the limit of their activities. The addition of licence privileges was generally handled by an instructor, and then only after they had



satisfied themself that a candidate had received the requisite training and also demonstrated skills to the necessary standards

− Flight Instructor Examiners – few countries had a role equivalent to the EASA FIE(S). Instructors were trained and appointed by Instructor Coaches; revalidation requirements varied – but did not generally involve a specific FIE

− Senior Examiner – the appointment and continued oversight of examiners was handled by the simple promotion of a suitably experienced FE into the role of examiner coach. A process similar in form to that for the appointment of instructor coaches

o The EASA examining system is inappropriate in a variety of respects. The EGU proposes a very significant overhaul of the current structure:

− Simpler procedures for the training and appointment of FE(S)

− Simpler procedures for the training and appointment of SE(S)/examiner coaches

− The removal of the FIE(S) role, and a proportionate process for the training and appointment of instructor coaches

A simplified and more progressive licensing system – to reflect the particular nature of gliding and the practical needs of the gliding community.

Glider pilots vary considerably in terms of ambition and areas of particular interest. EASA regulations allow for a range of additional privileges to be added to the basic licence. Cross-country flying is a privilege included in the basic licence. There are, however, two main reasons why we should change the scope of the basic licence and defer the issue of cross-country privileges:

o Many pilots either have no ambition to fly cross country, or would prefer to punctuate their training at a point that would allow them to fly with the freedoms of a licensed pilot until such time as they would like to have their privileges extended

o Doing so would allow for a shortening in the time it takes to obtain the basic gliding licence. This would reduce the risk that we lose pilots during the training phase because of frustrations with being able to complete the cross-country element (e.g. due to unavailability of suitable aircraft, poor weather/time of year/etc.)

It should be noted that airspace appreciation and field selection and landing would still be taught to the required stand as part of the basic licence. It is only the cross-country navigation aspects that would be added as an additional, post-licence issue privilege.

The reassignment of the gliding-related component of the Training outside of ATOs task force to RMT.0701 – to avoid the imposition of unnecessary and unduly onerous regulatory provisions on gliding.

The evolution of the work on training outside of ATOs has been problematic for gliding from the outset. The most recent proposals around the DTO concept offer not practical improvement on the original, unacceptable ATO construct.

If we are to avoid another uniformed and entirely inappropriate imposition on the gliding community, it is imperative that RMT.0701 is given the task of constructing the optimal arrangement for gliding.

EASA FCL must allow for national discretion and flexibility – the EGU is strongly of the opinion that individual nations must be allowed a degree of discretion and flexibility over the implementation of licensing and training regulations. This will permit appropriate adaptation to local circumstances, and potentially greater access to gliding.

Of immediate concern is to ensure that the new licensing and training regulations should not do anything to restrict an individual nation permitting pilots to fly EASA gliders and exercise the full privileges of their licence under national medical provisions – clearly subject to any nationally defined limitations that need to apply under those specific circumstances.



It probably goes without saying that the overall aim in the structure of the new gliding regulations is that as many of the provisions as possible should be contained in the AMC or Guidance Materials, and as little as possible in the Implementing Rules.

Next steps The EGU has considered the degree to which its ambitions for RMT.0701 are aligned with the fundamental intent that was meant to underpin EASA rule making. We take comfort from the fact that Regulation 216/2008 explicitly states that any regulatory measures must be shown to be necessary, proportionate, and allow for flexibility and variation.

We respectfully propose that the RMT.0701 working group begins its work with

− A review and agreement of the above objectives and principles

− An early review of the current regulations in order to hone in on those areas most in need of review and redrafting

− Adjusts the scope of its work to also include the subject of gliding training outside of ATOs

− Gives urgent consideration to the need to extend the timing of the current FCL opt-outs until such a time as we can all be confident that the eventual transition can be made to take place in an orderly, unrushed, accurate and compliant manner

The EGU, and its member associations, greatly appreciate the creation of RMT.0701, and is committed to working with EASA in order to serve the specific needs of the gliding community more appropriately.

___________________



Annex to Agenda Item 6.2 a)

Report of the TO Operations

Air Operations Operating rules for sailplanes, as it is in AIR OPS is very complex (1679 pages) and it is difficult to find everything concerning how to operate with sailplanes in all different parts of OPS. During 2016 EGU started with EASA the work to create new rules for sailplane operations.

First step in our work with OPS was to identify the only needed parts in OPS for gliding, i. e. what we wanted to have in our operational rules.

Revision of the operational rules for sailplanes (EASA RMT.0698) The first working meeting concerning Revision of the operational rules for sailplanes (RMT.0698) was held in Cologne 10-11 May 2016. EGU was represented by Patrick Pauwels and Henrik Svensson. Jan Boettcher, EASA is Project Manager for the work with OPS for sailplane.

At the first meeting, we provided the position and concerns of EGU there we explained that one major proposal of EGU is to delete Part-CAT and Part-SPO for sailplanes and to establish AIR OPS rules of less than 20 pages, that is a simple rulebook for gliding.

After this first meeting we had a draft Regulation for AIR OPS sailplanes, a single document including annexes to this regulation. We still have some parts regarding commercial operation with sailplanes and special operations in the draft, and there will be further discussions how to proceed, and we will of course aim for a simple solution where we think that everything concerning gliding should be normal operation!

The second working meeting concerning Revision of the operational rules for sailplanes was held in September. We made some good progress in some areas, but we still need to find a better solution regarding special operations and we are also discussing the need for commercial operation during this meeting.

We consider that aerotowing and aerobatics outside of air displays are not specialised operations and we will continue to push our statement at the next meeting in November.

We also discussed the issue about non-members taking introductory flights and its relation to marginal effects on the total activity; this is an area we still need to make some more progress. If all persons become a day-member and fly an introductory flight – then it is no problem…

The third meeting of the expert group was in November 2-3, and here discussions focused on which kind of operation should be treated as specialised operations? Regarding sailplane towing and aerobatics outside of air displays, most of the attendees, including the representatives of EGU, believe these operations are not specialised operations but normal operations.

We continued the discussions about removing sailplane towing and aerobatics from special operations, and Jan proposed the following solution by adding information in AMC, which in practice mean that we can carry out sailplane towing and aerobatics as normal operation.

Next step was then the EASA AIR OPS Saiplanes Workshop which took place in Cologne December 8th . The most important questions for the workshop were these major topics:

Cost-shared operations – about direct cost or alternative option as direct and annual cost etc. Specialised operations – that sailplane towing, aerobatics etc. are normal operations Commercial operations – do we need a separate subpart ADD for com. Operations?

The participants agreed that we should aim for cost-shared operations as direct and annual cost etc. For specialised operations we all agreed that this is normal operation. For the big question: Do we need extra regulations for commercial operations or not? We had a long discussion and we ended up that there is no difference in operation, if we fly normal operation or commercial operation, and that additional regulations do not add more safety.



We could end up in a proposal where the only extra thing for commercial operation for sailplane will be a declaration and that we only will have to follow what we in the draft refer to basic operational requirements. The work in RMT.0698 will continue at our next meeting in January 2017, after that we will hopefully have a draft that we can accept.

Publication of the Opinion is planned to be in June 2017.

Henrik Svensson Technical Officer – Operations European Gliding Union EGU January 2017



Annex to Agenda Item 12.1

An iniative by the KNVvL for discussion Technical content of an email sent 27th December 2017 by Mr. Jan Forster - on behalf of the Royal Netherlands Aeronautical Association (KNVvL) – requesting to have this subject included into EGU Congress Agenda for discussion, is seen below.

Mr. Jan Forster, NL Delegate of the EGU is expected to give a short introduction into this subject after which the EGU Congress can discuss about it.

Dear EGU Members of the Board,

Talking about the agenda for the oncoming congress I would bring in the following item:

In most of the country's we are still losing members, it means we need to have new members, preferable young in age. We already know that people these times want to have the experience, most wanted; more and more experience and that means they want to do it quick (maximal effort of gliding) time efficient and last but not least cheap.

On the other hand, we want to keep our members longer and when we have a close aye for the seniors, they are quite happy to fly some more years, but they don't, and that is because gliders are to sophisticated for them (fast, they are not used with the avionics, flaps, retractable landing gear, etc.).

Since some years there are Ultra Light Gliders (ULG), easy to fly, slow,basic handling, light to rick, easy maintenance and cheap, a third or less from a 100000 €. or more gfk glider. Some of them are factory made and good enough to fly a 300 km triangle. In Germany they have a new department in the DAeC for ULG's, so far I know the only country. We can't stop them any more, the next day we will see them in the hills or dunes, flown by free birds, no member of any club, and than we are missing pilots from the same sort of sports.

If we take them in gliding as just a type of glider, than we can offer the new members a training on a simple dual like; AS-K 13 / AS-K 21 and going solo on the ULG, easy to go for Glider Pilot License. He or she will be a member with a membership fee possibly the halve of the fee by those who fly plastics. If he want to fly plastics, he has to change his membership and pay more. For the seniors, they can fly some years longer for a reduced price, in gliders they are used with, like Ka-8, Ka-6 and Skylark. And sure we have to over-win some items, like

ﾷ is it possible to have a special category in gliding for ULG's ?

ﾷ what about CofA's, who can do the maintenance ?

ﾷ what is the opinion of the EASA and the National authorities ?

It would be quite interesting to find out which way other countries will handle this and if we work Europe wide on this item, possibly it will become very fruitful !

I am quite happy to give a short pp. during the Congress.

Jan Forster

[ END ]

1 (4)

Copy of BGA Event Information booklet for EGU Congress 2017

Event information

European Gliding Union Annual Congress Renaissance London Heathrow Hotel

18th February 2017

(This is a copy of the same guide that was annexed in the Invitation 14.12.2016)

2 (4)


Arrivals Hotel room accommodation for Friday and Saturday can be arranged using the following link Book your group rate for British Gliding Association

To take advantage of the reduced rate (possible from 15th to 19th Feb) for room accommodation, rooms should be booked before the 27th January 2017.

Hotel location

Getting to the Renaissance Hotel

Arrival by air

Take a taxi from the terminal to the hotel. Cost around £10.

Or use the ‘Hotel Hoppa’ airport shuttle bus. Cost £4.50.

ﾷ From/to terminals 2 and 3 use bus H4/H7 ﾷ From terminals 4 and 5 use bus H54.

Or use the free bus service

ﾷ From the Terminals 2/3 bus station - bus 105, 110, 140 ﾷ From the Terminal 4 bus drop off – bus 555 ﾷ From the Terminal 5 bus drop off – bus 423

Arrival by train

Use a Heathrow terminal station and as per arrival by air.

3 (4)


Arrival by car

Follow the signs to the hotel parking at TW6 2AQ (hourly or day rates apply). The turn off at the Heathrow airport roundabout is close to the Customs building.

Event Schedule

Friday 17th evening

The hotel bar will be open!

BGA colleagues will be at the hotel on Friday evening and Saturday morning to welcome delegates.

Breakfast on the morning of Saturday 18th will be available between 6am and 10am in the Market Garden Restaurant within the Hotel.

Saturday 18th - annual EGU Congress

The EGU Congress will take place in the Inspiration Room ( 9 am – 5 pm )

Refreshment breaks are arranged for 10 am and 3 pm

A three course buffet lunch will be served between 12 midday and 1 pm

Saturday 18th EGU Congress Dinner (courtesy of the BGA)

The Wessex Lobby Room has been reserved for a private EGU Congress Dinner from 8 pm. The menu has been included below.

Sunday 19th EGU Executive Board Meeting

Provision has been made for a Sunday morning meeting for the EGU Exectutive Board from 9 am in Boardroom 2.

Sunday 19th – free time

Should any delegates wish to sight see in London on the Sunday before their return flight, the Heathrow Express train can be taken from all terminals to Paddington Station, central London. Train timetable can be found here https://www.heathrowexpress.com/timetable-schedule . The (lower cost) London Tube is also available.

London museums are all free to visit, and many of the theatres have daytime performances.

The official Visit London website is at http://www.visitlondon.com

If you have any questions about these arrangements, please contact Liz Pike at the BGA [email protected]

4 (4)


Dinner Menu

Salad Bar

Make your own Greek salad

Individual salads

Roasted chicory & beetroot salad with smoke paprika

Conchiglie Mediterranean pasta salad

Compound Salad

Roast butter-squash, chickpea & pomegranate salad

Moroccan chicken salad

Mixed leaves salad

Fish Platter, Meat Platter

Main course

Thai red chicken curry

Grilled lamb steak with rosemary jus

Pan fried seabass with fennel, tomato and salsa verdi

Garlic roast potatoes

Baby carrots and green peas

Spinach and ricotta tortellini with sundried tomato and parmesan cream

Lemon scented rice

Desserts

Baked vanilla cheesecake

Chocolate New Yorker

Cheese Platter

Fruit salad

____________________________

e u r o p e a n g l i d i n g u n i on - egu-info.org final agenda egu congress 2017... · 16...

Documents