Roadmap for Regulation of GA

EASA MB 04/2012

     WP9a – General aviation


11 December 2012


EASA MB 04/2012

Cologne, 11 December 2012

Agenda item 9a: Roadmap for Regulation of GA

(Presented by: the Commission and the Agency)



Actions to be taken:


                                                                                            18 November 2012



- Presented by Commission and EASA -

This draft roadmap is a follow up of the discussions in the Management Board of EASA in September 2012 on the subject of General Aviation and also takes into account the meeting paper and the discussion on overregulation during the DGCA meeting in October. In the September Management Board the Commission took the initiative to present a roadmap to the EASA Committee on how the principles contained in these two previous papers could be put into practise, realising that besides the European Commission and EASA also the Member States and the General Aviation Community were addressed in the recommendations to implement or to assist in implementing the recommendations.

This paper lays down some basic principles as well as a preliminary work programme for such a new approach. It stresses in particular the need to base regulations on identified and relevant risks as well as on a need for regulatory protection determined by a clear risk hierarchy. The risk hierarchy is also linked to the type of activity within General Aviation.

Consequently the approach advocates a move away from the traditional manner of regulating first Commercial Air Transport (CAT) and then basing the General Aviation (GA) rules on a slightly reduced set of CAT rules. Instead the new GA rules should be more "tailor made" and more "proportionate" to the type of GA‐activity, with additional "risk modules" based on safety analysis added to a basic rule set for more risky GA activities.

The attached action items list will be updated twice per year as work progresses. The Committee is invited to discuss the draft roadmap.

1. Introduction

A discussion has been underway for several years now about the need to develop a more proportionate and effective regulatory approach to General Aviation (GA). In the past years some improvements have been introduced but more can and should be done. The problem predates the creation of EU competence in this field, but was brought to EU‐level discussion first with the

Commission communication[1] on General aviation in 2007, the European Parliament resolution[2] in

2008 and more recently the Commission paper for the DGAC meeting in Paris concerning Overregulation and finally the European General Aviation Safety Strategy developed under the auspices of the EASA Management Board. They all concurred on the need for more proportionate regulation, but also indicate a need to take a critical look at the effectiveness of traditional regulatory approach in today's aviation environment with already high levels of safety and safety regulation.

Furthermore there is a need to take account of the limited NAA resources and to correspondingly focus them better. In the September EASA Management Board, Commission took the initiative to develop a roadmap on how to turn these recommendations into concrete actions and to present it to the December EASA Committee.

The scope of GA activities is fairly broad, but the main scope of the Management Board paper – and consequently this roadmap – is on the lighter end of operations. This does not however exclude the eventual use of the same principles for all GA operations and even some non‐GA operations once sufficient experience has been gained.  

2. A new approach based on risk…

A reoccurring feature in recent discussions has been the need to focus regulation on actual risk and to prioritise rules that target the biggest and most relevant risks. Traditionally much regulation has been blanket regulation, which aimed to cover all possible risks by saying something about everything, although the vast majority of fatalities are caused by a small set of recurring causes. This has led to a situation, where persons participating in aviation only occasionally on their free time cannot actually remember all the rules, nor do they consider the majority of rules relevant to them. The resulting culture of indifference and non‐compliance is a major safety risk as those people who choose to ignore rules they consider irrelevant, tend to apply the same attitude to all rules.

We could of course simply condemn this behaviour and answer it with more frequent oversight and tighter regulations. However, the discussions on overregulation and on the GA safety strategy show that we have come to the end of that road. The NAA resources for oversight are simply not there and the rules alone don't seem to be a solution. It is more useful to think about the way forward. The end result could be a system of fewer, but better targeted and less burdensome regulations, less burden on national authorities, much more emphasis on the operational side (link between manufacturer‐ user) and same or better levels of safety. However this also requires more harmonisation of how Member States implement the regulations and it requires that Member States adapt their way of doing oversight. The Member States should have a risk based oversight and not a compliance based system as many still do today although that is not mandated.

Principle 1: All regulation should be screened against the identified risks and their relevance to overall serious accident numbers.

3. …and acceptable risk levels

As noted in the Commission paper on overregulation, which was presented at the DGAC meeting in

October 2012, we also need to consider what is meant by "a high level of safety" as described in Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation, before moving forward. A "high level" does not mean applying the same level to all activities. The safety requirements of an Airbus A380 used to transport large numbers of fare paying passengers are far greater than those for a piston single aircraft used for pleasure flying. Furthermore it has to be acknowledged that the levels of safety in a large and wellresourced organisation, employing professionals with extensive training and experience are bound to be better than for a private individual who can only afford to fly 20‐50 hours an year and who is his own SMS organisation. Anything else would imply that all that professional training and SMS's have had no positive safety impact.

Taking a broader look at societal priorities it is also evident that in a normal society we accept varying risk levels between different activities. No one would expect rock climbing or motorbike riding to be as safe as walking on a city street or taking the train to work. We also recognise that adults, who have sufficient understanding of the risks involved, may choose out of their free will to engage in risky activities in return for other benefits, such as physical exercise or bypassing traffic jams. When taking that risk they implicitly accept that the society will not provide them with the same safety levels as e.g. when taking the train and hence they take more responsibility for their own actions. This does not mean that the society would leave them totally on their own, but merely that the level of safety assurance is relative to the type of activity and the active choice of an informed individual engaging in that activity. Therefore it is reasonable to except private general aviation operations to demonstrate a higher level of acceptable risk[3] than commercial air transport, but obviously the same applies on a sliding scale also to other "interim" types of operations.

The General Aviation Safety Strategy introduced the concept of a risk hierarchy, which is useful as a basis for assessing the required level of risk averseness or acceptable level of risk. The higher a person is in the risk hierarchy, the higher the required level of regulatory protection is and the lower they are, the more aware[4] and accepting they may be considered to be of the risks:

Risk hierarchy

  1. Uninvolved third parties
  2. Fare‐paying passengers in commercial air transport (CAT)
  3. Involved third parties (e.g. air show spectators, airport ground workers)
  4. Aerial work participants / Air crew involved in aviation as workers
  5. Passengers (“participants”) on non‐commercial flights
  6. Private pilots on non‐commercial flights

Principle 2: All regulation should be screened against the backdrop of the above risk hierarchy and resulting need for protection.

4. The limits of effectiveness for prescriptive regulation and what should we learn from it

The United States has a long history of GA and a look at its safety statistics provides some revealing insight into the limits of traditional approach. From the late 1930's until 1978[5] we can witness a steady and relatively rapid decrease in the amount of fatal accidents. However at that point something happens and this positive safety trend levels out, so that only slow and somewhat uneven improvements take place after that. A similar development can be witnessed in a major European State with good statistics, albeit over a decade later. There may be several reasons for this phenomenon, but it is difficult to believe that safety would simply have reached its peak in GA. Although safety is currently good, it can probably be further improved if we find the right means.

A possible answer may be found by studying the main causes of fatal GA accidents in the US, UK, France and some other States[6]. Whilst precise statistical categories and order of appearance vary depending on country and year, the top‐5 causes of fatal accidents, which account for well over 80% of casualties, remain the same everywhere and in rough order of magnitude they can be classified as:

  1. Loss of control in visual meteorological conditions ‐ VMC
  2. Controlled flight into terrain ‐ CFIT. (Typically a non‐instrument rated pilot/aircraft scud running in worsening weather ending with hitting the ground, or a ground obstacle).

3.Low altitude aerobatics or buzzing

  1. Loss of control in instrument meteorological conditions – IMC (Often similar to the poor weather CFIT accidents above, except that to avoid CFIT, the pilot elected to climb into the cloud, where he then lost control)
  2. Forced landings due to pilot error. (Most often caused by running out of fuel)

If these could be eliminated, general aviation safety could be greatly improved. Almost invariably the cause is pilot error and only rarely something related to third party failings, such as airworthiness issues. However the most important lesson for the purposes of this roadmap is that all of these accident causes are already forbidden by law – yet they keep recurring[7]. It is evident that additional regulation would not change anything, but what we are tackling with is a very human mix of genuine mistakes and attitude problems. Hence, if we wish to improve GA safety further, we need to find more intelligent methods of reaching the pilots.

Another reason for seeking a new approach is that aviation has become very slow to adopt technological improvements. Traditionally most innovations have come from the less regulated sectors as lack of rigid certification requirements allows for affordable research and introduction of new concepts and technologies. If we look at the average certified GA aircraft today, we will see engine technology dating back to 1930's, aerodynamics that fall behind many 1940's examples and even where mechanical instruments are being replaced by more modern glass cockpits, their level of development and usability is much behind today's low‐cost consumer electronics. In addition to more affordable licensing rules, this has been behind the shift we are witnessing away from certified GA aircraft and into the area of less regulated ultralights, homebuilts and other Annex II aircraft.

Therefore in order to further improve safety and invigorate technological development, we need to move from prescriptive regulation towards a mix of non‐regulatory measures (e.g. educating and aiming at a culture change) and soft law, that makes extensive use of best practises and industry standards in the form of AMC's and Guidance Material.

This approach requires also a corresponding activation of the General Aviation sector itself[8] as authorities lack resources for widespread field work and in any case GA participants are more likely to be convinced of the need for culture change, if the message comes from inside the sector. Many States have had good experiences with working together with the GA representative organisations (e.g. national aeroclubs) to improve pilot's awareness and even to delegate authority tasks. The GA organisations need to become even more active in participating in regulation of their own sector, but also need to take more responsibility for ensuring compliance. The solution could perhaps involve the creation of a new type of "delegated entity" for GA sector to take more responsibility of regulation and implementation or "partial Competent Authorities" run by these organisations, in cooperation with EASA and State authorities. However a caveat should perhaps be made as regards oversight, where trust should not be allowed to totally replace independent control. The new approach should not delegate oversight totally to the GA organisations, but rather help the NAA's focus their resources more efficiently by allowing them to some extent focus on overseeing the "delegated organisations" instead of each end user.

Principle 3: In addition to more risk‐based regulation, we need also non‐regulatory means and an active engagement of GA sector to improve safety and speed‐up technological development.

5. The need for robust data and the need to understand that data

Making sound decisions requires a good understanding of the facts relevant to that decision. As safety of general aviation goes, we have a good idea of the number of casualties and also know many of the non‐fatal accidents and good many incidents. However the usefulness of that data is greatly limited by the fact that only in very few States there exist reliable figures about the amount of hours flown in in GA operations, against which the accident figures could be meaningfully reflected. Organising a proper, yet non‐burdensome, collection of that activity data should be one of the actions taken towards better regulation of general aviation.

However this lack of data should not be interpreted as an excuse not to do anything before more robust statistics have been developed. Today's data already points the way forward and in addition there is a certain urgency to revise the course. National authorities can ill afford to put more resources to oversight of general aviation, when CAT is an obvious safety priority. Also the general aviation community itself is suffering and activity levels are falling, because flying as a hobby is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. Apart from the loss of a recreational activity this puts also the recruitment basis and innovation potential of commercial aviation at risk

Principle 4: It is important to gather more meaningful data of GA safety, but also to take action where possible before such data is available. The data collection itself should be organised in a way that minimises the associated bureaucracy and administrative load.

7. Conclusions

The traditional approach to regulating general aviation has contributed over the decades to a considerable increase in safety levels. However the growing number and complexity of regulations has begun to have major side‐effects to the extent that new rules may now even have a counterproductive effect. Prescriptive regulation also has a negative impact on innovation and causes a major resource load on the national authorities and the regulated persons themselves.

Future regulatory policy should be more precisely targeted at the actual risks and avoid negative side‐effects. It should:

  1. Be based on risks that have been identified as most relevant for improving safety[9].
  2. Be more proportionate to the risk awareness and risk choices of individuals, protecting primarily those with least involvement and awareness[10].
  3. Utilise non‐regulatory means where useful[11].
  4. Engage the General Aviation sector itself in safety work to off‐load the authorities and better reach the GA community[12]
  5. Use only meaningful data as a basis for decision‐making[13]

The principles presented above need to be transformed into concrete actions. Some of them are of more general nature and concern the approach we should take towards regulating general aviation. Others are more concrete.

As noted in the Management Boards General Aviation strategy discussion, we should initially focus on the lighter end of general aviation and move upwards as more experience is gained. It is the lighter end that most suffers from the current situation and also where it is simpler to introduce the new approach.

Annex 2 presents a preliminary listing of on‐going or to be started concrete regulatory actions and a possible timing for them. They are linked to the proposals requested under actions 1, 5 and 6 of the General Aviation Safety Strategy and are without prejudice to already on‐going comitology work. Not all the proposals have been received at the time of writing, but they will be considered for the next update, including the proposals to be defined yet by the GA community.


  1. GA Strategy action items and actors
  2. Initial draft table with specific regulatory actions and their timing (to be dispatched later)


[1] COM(2007)869 final "An Agenda for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation"

[2] 2008/2134(INI) "European Parliament resolution of 3 February 2009 on an Agenda for Sustainable Future in

General and Business Aviation"

[3]N.B. This approach is also reflected by ICAO in Annex 6: "The Commission endorsed the philosophy....for the safety of operations in non‐commercial operations where travel is not open to the general public. In such operations the Standards and Recommended Practices need not be as prescriptive as those in Annex 6, Part I, due to the inherent self‐responsibility of the owner and pilot‐in‐command. The State does not have an equivalent “duty of care” to protect the occupants as it does for fare‐paying customers in commercial operations"

[4] Where the participants may not be sufficiently aware of the risks involved (e.g. participation in "adventure flights") the transparency of risk may need to be increased by adequately informing them that the level of safety they will encounter may not be the same as in CAT, in order for them to understand and accept the level of safety knowingly.

[5] GAMA Statistical Databook & Industry Outlook 2011

[6] Data collected amongst others from annual Nall Reports, NTSB statistics, Regulatory review of General

Aviation in UK (2006), "Sécurité de l'activité "vol à moteur de l'aviation générale" report of 2007 by French

DGAC, CASA Australia website etc.

[7] Another important lesson is that none of the five main causes of fatal accidents is one that actually endangers either commercial air transport (CAT) or third parties on the ground, hence necessitating segregation of GA from CAT. This is also supported by the US statistics, where according to the Nall report, out of the 1181 GA accidents in 2009, only 1 included a fatality to a third party and none collisions with CAT. When general aviation kills, it kills just general aviation people.

[8] See also the NTSB's 2012 "10 Most Wanted" safety improvements list as regards GA safety. NTSB too recognises that the safety development in private flying is essentially flat and one of the ideas proposed is to develop a joint effort between FAA and the GA sector organisations to increase understanding and compliance with rules and good airmanship practises.

[9] In accordance with Principles P3 and P2 of the attached GA Safety Strategy

[10] In accordance with Principle P1 of the attached GA Safety Strategy

[11] In accordance with Principles P5 of the attached GA Safety Strategy

[12] In accordance with Principle P6 of the attached GA Safety Strategy

[13] In accordance with Principle P3 of the attached GA Safety Strategy

AirBP - RocketRoute Fuel App

Τελευταία νέα


Η AirBP, παγκόσμιος προμηθευτής αεροπορικών καυσίμων, εγκαινίασε την 5η Οκτωβρίου 2016 ένα καινοτόμο τρόπο προμήθειας καυσίμων βασισμένο στην εφαρμογή RocketRouteFuelApp. Το συγκεκριμένο λογισμικό που έχει αναπτυχθεί σε συνεργασία με την εταιρεία RocketRoute, βελτιστοποιεί τη διαδικασία ανεφοδιασμού για τη Γενική Αεροπορία σε όλο τον κόσμο προσφέροντας εύκολη online πρόσβαση σε ένα ευρύ δίκτυο σταθμών αεροπορικών καυσίμων, με άνετες και γρήγορες μεθόδους πληρωμής και επιπλέον δίνοντας για πρώτη φορά τη δυνατότητα διαχείρισης των εκπομπών άνθρακα μέσω online συστήματος. Μέσα από την εφαρμογή μπορεί κανείς να προπαραγγείλει την ποσότητα καυσίμου που θα χρειαστεί, ενημερώνοντας ταυτόχρονα το προσωπικό ανεφοδιασμού από πριν με τα στοιχεία αεροσκάφους, την ποσότητα & το είδος καυσίμου, την αναμενόμενη ώρα που θα το χρειαστεί. Παράλληλα είναι ήδη καταχωρημένα στο σύστημα όλα τα στοιχεία πληρωμής/τιμολόγησης με αποτέλεσμα να γίνεται η διαδικασία ανεφοδιασμού στην πίστα πιο απλή & γρήγορη. Τα παραπάνω στοιχεία δεν είναι δεσμευτικά και μπορούν να αλλάξουν δυναμικά και την ώρα ανεφοδιασμού. Για πτήσεις εξωτερικού το πιο βασικό είναι η εύκολη, άμεση και απευθείας επικοινωνία με τον προμηθευτή πριν την προσγείωση καθώς και το ότι τα στοιχεία τιμολόγησης καταχωρούνται μόνο την 1η φορά επιταχύνοντας την όλη διαδικασία. Τα παραπάνω ισχύουν και για τις πτήσεις εσωτερικού καθώς ο προμηθευτής γνωρίζει από πριν πόσο και πότε θα υπάρχει ανάγκη για καύσιμο.

Η εφαρμογή είναι σχεδιασμένη για την παγκόσμια αεροπορική κοινότητα και προσφέρεται σε οποιονδήποτε έχει ανάγκη ανεφοδιασμού καυσίμων ανεξάρτητα αν ήδη συνεργάζεται με την AirBP ή όχι. Είναι άμεσα διαθέσιμη, χωρίς χρέωση, για συσκευές Apple & Android καθώς και από την ιστοσελίδα της RocketRoute ( ) για όλες τις υπόλοιπες συσκευές (π.χ. PC). Με την ολοκλήρωση της ηλεκτρονικής εγγραφής, μπορείτε να ελέγξετε την τιμή και να παραγγείλετε καύσιμο σε περισσότερα από 800 σημεία ανεφοδιασμού της AirBP παγκοσμίως. Η απλοποιημένη διαδικασία πληρωμής επιτρέπει την χρήση κάρτας AirBPSterlingCard ή άλλης πιστωτικής κάρτας. Επιπλέον οι ενεργοί διεθνείς πελάτες AirBP μπορούν να έχουν άμεση πρόσβαση στον ηλεκτρονικό τους λογαριασμό κάνοντας χρήση του κωδικού πελάτη GRN (GlobalReferenceNumber). Η πλατφόρμα RocketRoute είναι μια cloud-based λύση για ολοκληρωμένο FlightPlanning που λειτουργεί online μέσω της αντίστοιχης εφαρμογής και προσωπικών ηλεκτρονικών συσκευών. Η AirBP και η RocketRoute προσφέρουν τεχνική υποστήριξη 24 ώρες το 24ωρο, 7 μέρες την εβδομάδα.


 airbp5  airbp4




Πτήσεις Ελαφρών Αεροσκαφών Αλλαγές στη Νομοθεσία



  ΣΥΓΚΕΝΤΡΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΥΛΗΣ Αργύρης Μάμας Εκτελεστικό Μέλος του ΔΣ της ΑΟΡΑ Ελλάς


Δύο Ευρωπαικοί Κανονισμοί αλλάζουν το τοπίο της Γενικής Αεροπορίας σε όλη την Ευρώπη

Πρόκειται για τον Κανονισμό (Regulation) 245/2014 (AirCrew) που τροποποιεί τον 1178/2011 και για τον Κανονισμό (Regulation) 379/2014 (AirOperations) που τροποποιεί τον 965/2012

Είναι πολλές οι αλλαγές που επιφέρει η καινούργια νομοθεσία και η ΑΟΡΑ θα σας τις παρουσιάσει σύντομα..

Να σημειώσουμε ότι και οι δύο κανονισμοί δημοσιεύτηκαν το 2014. Όπως όμως συνηθίζεται στην Ευρώπη, τα κράτη μέλη έχουν το δικαίωμα να αναβάλλουν την ημερομηνία της πρώτης εφαρμογής της νέας νομοθεσίας, για ένα μικρό χρονικό διάστημα, ώστε να έχουν χρόνο να ενημερώσουν τους πολίτες αλλά και του Δημόσιους υπαλλήλους για τις αλλαγές που επέρχονται. Έτσι η Αγγλία ζήτησε αναβολή μόνον για λίγους μήνες. Άλλα κράτη για περισσότερο. Η Ελληνική ΥΠΑ ζήτησε το μέγιστο της επιτρεπόμενης αναβολής και άρχισε να εφαρμόζει την νέα νομοθεσία τον προηγούμενο Αύγουστο και συγκεκριμένα στις 25 Αυγούστου του 2016.

Πρόθεση της EASA είναι να καθιερώσει ενιαίους Κανονισμούς για τις πτήσεις της Γεν Αεροπορίας, που θα είναι οι ίδιοι σε όλη την Ευρώπη.

Ο πιλότος ενός ελαφρού αεροπλάνου, ανεξάρτητα από τη χώρα νηολόγησης, ακόμη και αν έχει μη Ευρωπαικό νηολόγιο (πχ αν έχει Αμερικανικό νηολόγιο) θα αντιμετωπίζει παντού σε όλη την Ευρώπη τους ίδιους ακριβώς νόμους.

Αυτό σημαίνει ότι από την 25η Αυγούστου, όλες οι 32 χώρες της EASA εφαρμόζουν υποχρεωτικά την ίδια νομοθεσία. Μιλάμε για 32 χώρες, γιατί εκτός από τις 28 χώρες της Ευρωπαικής Ένωσης, άλλες 4 χώρες (Νορβηγία, Ελβετία, Ισλανδία και Λίχνεστάιν) έχουν επίσημα δεσμευτεί να ακολουθούν την νομοθεσία της EASA χωρίς καμία αλλαγή. Η Αγγλία προς το παρόν λογίζεται ακόμη ανάμεσα στις 28 χώρες.


                             Post Address POBox 50513 at Post Office 54013

22   Anaxagora Str., 166 75, Athens, Greece, Tel & Fax : +31 210 9600732

                            Email :   web site :

Σήμερα, καμία Ευρωπαική χώρα δεν επιτρέπεται να αλλάξει την νομοθεσία αυτή, ούτε επιτρέπεται να επιβάλλει πρόσθετες υποχρεώσεις.

Η EASA αποδέχεται ότι οι πτήσεις της Γεν Αεροπορίας έχουν χαμηλότερο επίπεδο ασφάλειας σε σύγκριση με τις πτήσεις των αερογραμμών. Δεν έχει όμως αντίρρηση να γίνονται οι πτήσεις αυτές εφ όσον οι ενδιαφερόμενοι το αποδέχονται.

Βασικός κανόνας του ICAO, που έχει γίνει πλήρως αποδεκτός από την EASA είναι ότι οι κανόνες ασφάλειας πτήσεων των αερογραμμών, ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ να εφαρμόζονται ως έχουν στο χώρο της Γενικής Αεροπορίας. Ο χώρος της Γεν Αεροπορίας έχει ουσιαστικές διαφορές. Για αυτό επιβάλλεται ι οι κανόνες ασφάλειας πτήσεων της Γεν Αεροπορίας να είναι όχι ίδιοι, αλλά ανάλογοι, (proportional) των κανόνων που ισχύουν στις αερογραμμές.

Η ΑΟΡΑ παρουσιάζει σήμερα αναλυτικά τις αλλαγές που επέρχονται σε δύο σημαντικά θέματα Τις πτήσεις εθισμού και τις πτήσεις διαμοιρασμένου κόστους.

Όλα τα παραπάνω περιγράφονται με λεπτομέρειες στο ενημερωτικό φυλλάδιο που έχει εκδώσει η EASA



Πτήση Εθισμού (παλαιότερα τις λέγαμε «το βάπτισμα του αέρος») ή Εισαγωγική Πτήση (IntroductoryFlight) ονομάζεται οποιαδήποτε πτήση έναντι αμοιβής ή άλλου ανταλλάγματος, η οποία συνίσταται σε εναέρια διαδρομή μικρής διάρκειας, εκτελούμενη από εγκεκριμένο εκπαιδευτικό φορέα ή από φορέα που έχει συσταθεί με σκοπό την προώθηση του εναερίου αθλητισμού (αερολέσχης) ή της αεροπορίας αναψυχής με στόχο την προσέλκυση νέων εκπαιδευόμενων ή νέων μελών

Οι πτήσεις εθισμού πρέπει

(α). Να αρχίζουν και να τελειώνουν στο ίδιο αεροδρόμιο ή στο ίδιο πεδίο προσγειώσεων

(β). Να γίνονται πάντα με συνθήκες VFR μέρα

(γ). Να επιβλέπονται από πρόσωπο που θα έχει οριστεί από τον οργανισμό που οργανώνει τις πτήσεις και θα έχει την ευθύνη για την ασφάλεια των πτήσεων

(δ). Να γίνονται σύμφωνα με τους υπάρχοντες κανόνες πτήσεων

Είναι λοιπόν φανερό ότι σήμερα μπορούν να διοργανωθούν πτήσεις εθισμού, με έξοδα αυτών που θα πετάξουν. Το όφελος θα είναι διπλό. Από τη μια μεριά θα έρθει κόσμος στο αεροδρόμιο και θα γνωρίσει από κοντά το ελαφρό αεροπλάνο. Και από την άλλη οι χειριστές θα μπορέσουν να βάλουν ώρες πτήσης με μικρότερο κόστος.

Η ΑΟΡΑ πιστεύει ότι όλοι οι αεροπορικοί οργανισμοί μπορούν να χρησιμοποιήσουν την δυνατότητα αυτή άμεσα. Ειδικά με την ευκαιρία της Γιορτής της Αεροπορίας που πλησιάζει.


Πτήσεις διαμοιρασμένου κόστους είναι οι πτήσεις στις οποίες τα έξοδα της πτήσης μοιράζονται σε όλους τους επιβαίνοντες.

Οι λεπτομέρειες έχουν ως εξής

Παλιότερα και πριν το τελευταίο amendment ο μέγιστος αριθμός επιβαινόντων για πτήσεις διαμοιρασμένου κόστους ήταν μέχρι 4 άτομα . Σήμερα είναι μέχρι 6

Oεπιμερισμός κόστους εφαρμόζεται σε όλους τους τύπους αεροσκαφών

Ο χειριστής μπορεί να έχει οποιοδήποτε αεροπορικό πτυχίο. Επιτρέπεται PPL ή ακόμη LAPL

Ο επιμερισμός κόστους περιλαμβάνει όλα τα «έξοδα πτήσης» και μόνον αυτά.

Θέλει προσοχή η έκφραση «έξοδα πτήσης» (directcost) .

Αυτό έχει διευκρινιστεί από την EASAπου ορίζει ότι η έκφραση «έξοδα πτήσης» Directcostsπεριλαμβάνει

(α) για ενοικιαζόμενα αφη (πχ για αφη αερολεσχών) το ενοίκιο του αφους (περιλαμβάνονται τα έξοδα των καυσίμων) συν τα τέλη αεροδρομίου και handling, χωρίς να υπάρχει αμοιβή ή κέρδος

(β)για τα ιδιωτικά αφη περιλαμβάνονται τα καύσιμα και τα έξοδα του αεροδρομίου και handling, αλλά δεν περιλαμβάνεται η ετήσια ασφάλιση του αφους, η ετήσια συντήρηση κλπ και δεν υπάρχει αμοιβή ή κέρδος.

Τα άτομα που επιβαίνουν μπορούν να είναι συγγενείς, φίλοι ή οποιοδήποτε άλλο άτομο. Δεν υπάρχει υποχρέωση να είναι μέλη αερολεσχών κλπ

Οι πτήσεις επιμερισμένου κόστους επιτρέπεται να διαφημίζονται. Η διαφήμιση μπορεί να γίνει με κάθε μέσο. Στους πίνακες ανακοινώσεων των αερολεσχών, στις εφημερίδες ή στο internet. Θα πρέπει όμως πάντοτε να διευκρινίζεται σε κάθε περίπτωση, ότι ο πιλότος είναι εκείνος που θα αποφασίζει αν οι καιρικές συνθήκες, η κατάσταση συντήρησης του αεροπλάνου, κλπ επιτρέπουν την πραγματοποίηση της πτήσης, ανεξάρτητα από το αν υπάρχουν επιβαίνοντες ή όχι.

Σχετικά η λογική της EASAείναι ότι ΔΕΝ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΖΟΝΤΑΙ θέσεις. Ούτε ρωτάμε που θέλει να πάει κάποιος Ο χειριστής έχει πάρει την απόφαση να πάει κάπου, το ανακοινώνει, το διαφημίζει, και όποιος θέλει έρχεται μαζί του.

Υπάρχουν σήμερα και λειτουργούν σε όλη την Ευρώπη, διαφημιστικές εταιρείες που αναλαμβάνουν να φέρουν σε επαφή πιλότους με ενδιαφερόμενους πολίτες (παράδειγμα skyuber, wingly). Μπορείτε να δείτε τις υπηρεσίες που προσφέρουν στο διαδίκτυο. Οι εταιρείες αυτές δεν είναι εταιρείες αερομεταφορών, δεν έχουν AOC, ούτε αεροπλάνα ούτε πιλότους. Πληρώνονται για να φέρουν σε επαφή χειριστές αεροπλάνων με ενδιαφερόμενους πολίτες. Από ότι γνωρίζουμε υπάρχουν ήδη Έλληνες χειριστές που έχουν έρθει σε επαφή με τις εταιρείες αυτές

Είναι απαραίτητο ο πιλότος να μετέχει στο κόστος της πτήσης. Όμως από νομική άποψη, δεν είναι απαραίτητο να πληρώνουν όλοι το ίδιο ποσό. Πάντως στις πτήσεις που διαφημίζουν οι παραπάνω εταιρείες, προβλέπεται ότι όλοι θα πληρώνουν το ίδιο ποσό.


Αγγλική νομοθεσία για πτήσεις εθισμού και διαμερισμό κόστους

Civil Aviation Authority


Number: IN-2014/093

Issued: 29 May 2014

Cost-Sharing, Sailplane Towing, Parachute Dropping, Flying Competitions and Introductory Flights by Private Pilots

This Information Notice contains information that is for guidance and/or awareness.


Recipients are asked to ensure that this Information Notice is copied to all members of their staff who may have an interest in the information (including any 'in-house' or contracted maintenance organisations and relevant outside contractors).
Aerodromes: Not primarily affected
Air Traffic: Not primarily affected
Airspace: Not primarily affected
Airworthiness: Not primarily affected
Flight Operations: All AOC Holders and General Aviation Pilots
Licensed/UnIicensed Personnel: All ATO and Registered Facilities, and All Pilots


1.1 Amendments to Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012 (Air Operations) and Regulation (EU) No. I l 78/2011 (Aircrew) introduce provisions which permit certain flights that would otherwise have to comply with the rules for commercial operations to be carried out by pilots holding non-commercial licences in accordance with the operating rules for private flights. The flights that may be operated under these provisions are set out in Article 6(4a) of Commission Regulation (ELI) No. 965/2012 as amended by Commission Regulation (ELI) No. 379/2014.

1 .2 The amendment to the Aircrew Regulation that contains these provisions is already in force, thus holders of European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Private Pilot Licence (PPL) and Light Aircraft Pilot Licence (LAPL) licences are already permitted to undertake such flights. The associated provisions in the Air Operations Regulation will become effective coincident with the entry in to force of Part-CAT (Commercial Air Transport), Part-SPO (Specialised Operations) and Part-NCO (Non-Commercial Operations).

1                   .3 In line with its commitments to light touch and proportionate regulation as set out in CAP 1123 the CAA has agreed, following consultation with General Aviation (GA) Community stakeholders, to bring those elements of the European Regulation that are advantageous to the GA Community into force as soon as possible and make them applicable to UK national pilot licences and nationally-regulated aircraft. This will enable a consistent approach for EASA and nationally regulated "Annex Il" aircraft, and between the holders of EASA Part-FCL and UK national pilot licences.

1.4 The national arrangements being introduced by the CAA will be reviewed and revised by the CAA as necessary as the transition to European Regulations for Operations, Licensing and the Rules of the Air progresses. The coming into force of further provisions of European legislation in the future may necessitate the amendment of the terms of UK exemptions and the rules that apply to the activities set out in this Information Notice.

2        Scope

2.1 The scope of the provisions for these flights in the European Regulations and the scope the of the equivalent exemptions now being applied to the UK Air Navigation Order(ANO) is limited to 'other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft' (as defined in Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008) being operated on one Of the types of flight set out below:

  • cost-sharing by private persons;
  • introductory flights, sailplane towing, parachute dropping and aerobatic flights; and
  • competition flights and flying displays.

3          Cost-Sharing by Private Persons

3.1 The maximum number of private persons who must share the direct costs (and only the direct costs) of the flight is increased from four to six (including the pilot), and the requirement for those costs to be shared equally and for the flight not to be published or advertised is removed.

3.2    The Guidance Material GM2 Article 6.4a(a);(b) of the Operations Regulation states that:


'Direct cost' means the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft. There is no element of profit.

3.3 It should be noted that the sharing of annual costs is not permitted under this arrangement. The Guidance Material GM3 Article 6.4a(a);(b) of the Operations Regulation states that:

'Annual cost' means the cost of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over a period of one calendar year. There is no element of profit.

4         Introductory Flights, Sailplane Towing, Parachute Dropping and Aerobatic Flights

4.1 The holder of an EASA or IJK PPL(A), LAPL(A) or NPPL(A) that is valid for the aeroplane to be used may act as Pilot in Command (PIC) on introductory flights, parachute dropping, sailplane towing or aerobatic flights performed either by a training organisation having its principal place of business in the UK and approved in accordance with Regulation (EIJ) No. 1178/2011 (i.e. an Approved Training Organisation), or by an organisation created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation, on the condition that:

  • the aeroplane is operated by the organisation on the basis of ownership or dry lease; the flight does not generate profits distributed outside of the organisation; and
  • whenever non-members of the organisation are involved, such flights represent only a marginal activity of the organisation.
  1. 2The Guidance Material GM I Article 6.4a(c) of the Operations Regulation states that:

An 'organisation created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation' means a non-profit organisation, established under applicable national law for the sole purpose of gathering persons sharing the same interest in general aviation to fly for pleasure or to conduct parachute jumping. The organisation should have aircraft

  1. 3Article 2 of Regulation (EIJ) No. 965/2012, as amended by Regulation (EU) No. 379/2014, states that:

'Introductory flight' means any flight against remuneration or other valuable consideration consisting of an air tour of short duration, offered by an approved training organisation or an organisation created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation, for the purpose of attracting new trainees or new members.

  1. 4GM2 Article 6.4a(c) of the Operations Regulation states that:

The term 'marginal activity' should be understood as representing a very minor part of the overall activity of an organisation, mainly for the purpose of promoting itself or attracting new students or members. An organisation intending to offer such flights as regular business activity is not considered to meet the condition of marginal activity. Also, flights organised with the sole intent to generate income for the organisation are not considered to be a marginal activity.

  1. 5The Guidance Material GMI (Introductory flights) of the Operations Regulation states that:

'For introductory flights carried out in the territory of the Member State, the competent authority may establish additional conditions such as defined area of the operation, time period during which such operations are to be conducted, safety risk assessments to be accomplished, aircraft to be used, specific operating procedures, notification requirements, maximum distance flown, pilot qualification, maximum number of passengers on-board, further restrictions on the maximum take-off mass. '

  1. 6

The CAA recommends that organisations conducting introductory flights ensure that the guidance is adopted within the organisation's Operations Manual, or equivalent.

Important Note: The exemptions issued under the ANO for national licences and Annex Il aircraft are not valid outside the airspace of the UK unless validated or otherwise accepted by the relevant authority of the State where the flight is to take place.

5      Competition Flights and Flying Displays

5.1 These new provisions brought into effect by the Air Operations and Aircrew Regulations include competition flights and flying displays. However, the effect on aircraft flying in the UK is inconsequential because the ANO already deems such flights to be private. As agreed with the stakeholder consultation group the permitted upper limit of any prize(s) awarded will remain as E500.

6           References

6.1 Consolidated versions of the Air Operations and Aircrew Regulations can be reviewed on the EASA website. At the time of publication the amendments to the Regulations that bring about the changes referred to in this Information Notice are yet to be incorporated in to the consolidated versions. In the meantime the relevant amending regulations can be reviewed separately:

    Commission Regulation (EIJ) No. 245/2014, amending Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No. 379/2014, amending Commission Regulation (ELI) No. 965/2012.

6.2       Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material is available on the EASA website:

    AMC and GM to Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012

    AMC and GM to Part-ARO

7         Queries

7.1 Any queries or requests for further guidance as a result of this communication should be addressed to the e-mail address.

8          Cancellation

8.1           This Information Notice will remain in force until 21 April 2017.

Page 4 of 4