Compulsory registration of airfields

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Hi Everyone

As many of you know already, there is a proposal from CAA to register all airfields in South Africa, which would mean that it will be an offence to take off from an unregistered airfield (except if you are flying a chopper). This will be a disaster for microlight airfields, most of which would never be able to comply with what is required to register the field, some physically but most financially.

This will include access control, fences, maintenance and layouts as per ICAO regulations for airfields, annual inspection fees, fire fighting facilities, safety managers and liability insurance etc. etc.

When CAA wanted to impose a law which would require us all to have transponders on our trikes, Rob Hill and I wrote a petition in the form of a letter, which people could sign and send to us, or directly to the CAA, we had hundreds of replies, and it effectively stopped the proposal from going ahead.

So what I propose it to do the same. To write a letter, outlining why it is important to have our airfields as they are. In fact, on top of that, why we should remove from the Department of Environmental Affairs the right to have any say in people putting private airfields up.

Why extra airfields would be safer than fewer, and questioning their bureaucratic logic behind the proposal (which excludes helicopters)

This mail is to start the debate, so that we can have clear reasons, a solid letter and as much support as possible. We all know we can't afford lawyers to fight for us, but we can comfortably fight it ourselves if we help each other to think logically, clearly and passionately.

I feel privileged to have been one of those who got to fly in one of the golden eras of flying. When safety was relatively high and paperwork and legislation relatively low and logical, but over the last 5 years this has changed dramatically, safety hasn't improved much, nor is it worse, but bureaucracy is stifling the passion out of my flying soul, and it saddens me deeply. I want to share the freedom of the sky with people, not the fear of office-flyers....

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Herewith the reasons as outlined by CAA for such a thing...

Registered Aerodromes



During the almost ten years of the Civil Aviation Authority’s existence, the number of licensed aerodromes varied between the 135 to 140 mark. These aerodromes were subjected to annual inspections according to ICAO- standards, with a marked improvement in compliance to civil aviation regulations and technical standards over this time.



According to incident and accidents statistics, however, there has been a continual rise in the occurrence of incidents and accidents on the (as yet) uncertified aerodromes, landing strips, etcetera mainly due to a lack of care, from operators of these aerodromes. The Commissioner for Civil Aviation finds this to be a reason for concern, because his ultimate mandate includes the safety of all civil aviation.



The Civil Aviation Authority of South Africa has embarked on a project to prepare the necessary regulations and technical standards, in anticipation of the compulsory registration of all places of departure and is now placing these on the web for comments and suggestions. Your input into this process will be highly appreciated and will ensure that the proposed regulatory environment is practical.



At this juncture it is envisaged that aerodrome owners will be registered into two groups, namely “registered aerodromes financially non-active; RAN” or registered aerodromes financially active; RA.”



RAN aerodromes will consist of ALL places of take-off from farms, rural areas, hills (gliders), etcetera, where no chartered or scheduled movements take place. The safety requirements for these aerodromes will be very basic, and should address Common Law duty of care requirements, with the intention that it should be “self-monitoring.”



RA-aerodromes will be those aerodromes where, for example, tourists are flown to, such as game farms and similar financially active flights. These aerodromes will have more exacting standards than RAN, but still less than those for licensed aerodromes.



Further motivation for the decision to register all aerodromes that are not licensed, is that cellular masts are erected everywhere in South Africa and, without a proper data base of existing aerodromes, assessment of potential cell mast sites or any other radio tower becomes prone to errors and subsequently a potential danger to aviation.



Comments and/or suggestions are awaited from any interested party, and can be sent to Louis Wood by fax, e-mail or phone at the following numbers:

e-mail; woodl@caa.co.za

Telephone: 011 545 1094
Mobile 083 461 6092
Fax 011 545 1451

[Fairy Flycatcher]

The proposal:

DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE INCORPORATION OF SA-CARS 139 SUBPART 5
Registered Aerodromes
1. PROPOSER
SACAA
Private Bag X73
HALFWAY HOUSE
1685
2. PROPOSER’S INTERESTS
The proposer has been established in terms of the South African Civil
Aviation Authority Act, 1998 (Act No. 40 of 1998), to control and regulate
civil aviation in South Africa and to oversee the functioning and
development of the civil aviation industry, and, in particular, to control,
regulate and promote civil aviation safety and security.
3. CURRENT regulation
No regulation to regulate the current unlicensed and future registered
aerodromes.
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
It is proposed that the following paragraphs be added:
Applicability.
139.05.01 (a) All places of departure not incorporated by the requirement of
Part 139, paragraph 1, and which are not licensed in terms of
Subpart 2, shall be registered with the Commissioner for Civil
Aviation as Registered aerodromes.
(b) All registered aerodrome owners shall be in possession of a
valid registration certificate, issued by the CAA in terms of
Part 139, Subpart 5. This certificate shall not be transferable.
(c) No pilot shall depart any aircraft, excluding vertical take-off
aircraft, but including those classified as Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS), from any aerodrome other than those
licensed or registered in terms of Part 139, subparts 1 or 2 or
this subpart.
139.05.02 Holders of aerodrome registration certificate(s) for nonfinancially
active aerodromes (RAN) shall maintain all
runways, taxiways and aprons as described in an evennumbered
SA-CATS-AH.
139.05.03 Holders of aerodrome registration certificates for financially
active aerodromes (RA) shall apply the standards as
described in an even-numbered SA-CATS-AH.
139.05.04 The duties of a Reporting Officer shall be as described in an
even-numbered SA-CATS-AH.
139.05.05 Fencing and aerodrome security shall be as described in an
even-numbered SA-CATS-AH.
139.05.06 Access to aerodromes shall be controlled as described in an
even-numbered SA-CATS-AH.
139.05.07 Safety audits shall be performed as described in an evennumbered
SA-CATS-AH.
139.05.08 Rescue and fire-fighting services shall be performed as
described in an even-numbered SA-CATS-AH.
139.05.09 A register of all Registered Aerodromes shall be kept as
described in an even-numbered SA-CATS-AH.
139.05.10 All aerodromes with a runway shorter than 1400 meters built
after 1998 shall have a copy of a “Basic Assessment
Report”, and those aerodromes longer than 1400 meters
shall have a copy of an “Environment Impact Assessment”
as required by the Department of Environment and Tourism.
MOTIVATION
The proposed regulation intends to introduce regulation of heretounregulated
aerodromes, ”airstrips” or any other place of departure of
aircraft heavier than air, excluding those with a capability to perform
vertical take-offs.
The primary purpose of this part is to impose a basic set of
requirements, especially in terms of Common Law Duty of Care, on
the owners or operators of any predictable geographical location
where aircraft depart, to identify an accountable person for each such
area and to publish all such details in the interests of safety.
It is also the purpose of this regulation to improve the safety of
operations on unlicensed, financially active aerodromes in the tourism
sector.
Further to this, it is essential for the Civil Aviation Authority to keep an
accurate database of all places of departure, in order not to approve
any obstacles such as cellular masts in the way of departing or landing
aircraft.

[Fairy Flycatcher]

There are also some proposed CATS on the CAA website, with some real gems like this one:

(b)The width of the runway shall be adequate for
the type of aircraft, according to manufacturer’s
recommendations, but not less than twice the width
of the main landing gear of any aircraft using the
runway.

Well, I guess that effectively stops anyone from using Nelspruit airfields should this go through, and Nelspruit is a licenced aerodrome.

OK, so I don't know everything, and its not my idea to preach to anyone, but nothing about this sounds like a good idea to me. Any ideas and opinions would be great!

Some brainiac at CAA, the same place which regularly loses licensing, AP and registration documentation, thought this was a good idea. Not policeable except maybe in Gauteng, possibly killing a huge section of aviation, but boy does it look good on paper

[old no 7]

I will fully support any initiative to stop this ludicrous bureaucracy.
If one were to analyse the accident records for the last 5 years, how many of the accidents are as a result of these so-called "unlicenced and dangerous" airfields?

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Chris - "Mauler" on Avcom is organising AOA (Airfield owners Ass..) get hold of him. This has been thrashed out plenty and Louis Woods came to Rand to present CAA's argument. He made a good pitch, but read Rocket's comments on the thread on Avcom. I am 100% against this whole deal... SORRY

[Fairy Flycatcher]

. I am 100% against this whole deal... SORRY

What are you 100% against? Working parrallel with other efforts to stop registration (if so, why)? Or the actual registration of airfields?

[RV4ker (RIP)]

. I am 100% against this whole deal... SORRY

What are you 100% against? Working parrallel with other efforts to stop registration (if so, why)? Or the actual registration of airfields?

Compulsory registration of airfields - Registration will change nothing other than decrease number of fields available and even further increase costs and bureaucracy...

[Papillon]

I will also support efforts to stop this from happening. It seems there's always something new for them to hastily put their red tape around. I did find Dave's (lamercyfly) contributions to the thread on "Ramp Inspections" somewhat interesting. Maybe CAA just don't like it when we're happy and want to make us miserable by looking for issues to torment us with (recent Rotax TBO issues / what to put in your venter trailer (ie fire extinguishers, signal strips etc) to tow behind your trike to comply and now this) When will it end.......

I wonder if it occured to Mr Woods to find out whether the increase in the number of accidents (which he still has to show took place at "unregistered airfields") is a function of the increase in the number of aviators? Likewise with road accidents......... more motor vehicles, more accidents!

[Tumbleweed]

According to incident and accidents statistics, however, there has been a continual rise in the occurrence of incidents and accidents on the (as yet) uncertified aerodromes, landing strips, etcetera mainly due to a lack of care, from operators of these aerodromes. The Commissioner for Civil Aviation finds this to be a reason for concern, because his ultimate mandate includes the safety of all civil aviation

Not going to pretend to have read any 'acts' so if I put my foot in it again but;

I would'nt want to own an active airfield with all this kak. Apparently the owner/ operator can be held liable for lots, but is'nt it common sense to catagorise or grade the unlicenced airfields and have different criteria for these? i.e.

For own use i.e. crop sprayer, recreational but not operating a commercial operation i.e. paying passengers, restricted to training and on certain types, resort strip not used for charging pax e.t.c.

Could'nt all strips be listed as they are at CAA and any user would have access to that info of that field and by using it, acknoledge that they have searched and aquired the nessicary info, which is part of a pre-flight anyway, but extends to and indemnifies the operator in the event of short runway e.t.c. Your license/ aircraft type, insurance e.t.c will determine where you may land.

It's a comforting thought to have 'alternative' landing strips in you gps along your route but to one day see white crosses along the middle made out of whitewash stones wont be lekker and then of course the operator is going to have to fund all of this, so landing fees will be the order of the day.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Could'nt all strips be listed as they are at CAA and any user would have access to that info of that field and by using it, acknoledge that they have searched and aquired the nessicary info, which is part of a pre-flight anyway, but extends to and indemnifies the operator in the event of short runway e.t.c. Your license/ aircraft type, insurance e.t.c will determine where you may land.

It's a comforting thought to have 'alternative' landing strips in you gps along your route but to one day see white crosses along the middle made out of whitewash stones wont be lekker and then of course the operator is going to have to fund all of this, so landing fees will be the order of the day.

It all goes about risk and liability. Nothing wrong with what CAA propose, but everything wrong with the way the law been drafted. Read it and then comment. It not long.

Simple question like
If you use CAA info and you prang because it not accurate who is liable?
What are the implications of registering with CAA as responsible person for 1 of these. Again if someone prangs who pays?

The various airfields manuals already have all the info. What more do you need?

Currently CAA battle to maintain a running watch over the 160 licensed strips. HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO MANAGE 4000+ without huge fees for little or no real benefit to anyone. Those who know of the fields already use them. Those who don't can find out easily enough. What is the point of the whole exersize?

[lamercyfly]

Hi RV.. how you doin?

About the point of this whole exercise, I am in little doubt..... so they know where to send the police to go do their dirty work of inspecting microlights for compliance to the new laws.

About who is going to do their inspections? Not CAA, no sirree, but the ever diligent SAP..

Of this I have no doubt. Of the CAA's integrity I have no doubt... Of the ability of their staff to be rational reasoning adults? I have no doubt.........

.......all of this borne of regrettable experience....

...Lots of sorry's have to come from the CAA's side before I shout their praises ever again....

Phone calls that don't get answered.... messages that do not get replied to...arrogance of their staff...Stupid, stupid laws (like part103 that says a microlight that flies above 3000feet ASL needs one altimeter Above sea level? )... like a trike MUST have a compass on, with a deviation chart nogal. Now I ask you, RV, will we have to have a Thermic Deviation chart as well, cause I know that my beloved compass swings worse that a midnight drunk or the Durban Bay Sarie Marie out at sea, when I fly in thermals.... Now, I know that I have put elswhere on this group my interpretation of the law which excludes trikes on VFR flights from having compasses, there are still clots from CAA who think they are on a mission from the minister ....... and before I forget, complete sets of documents that go 'missing', and we must just simply come up with another set of originals???

.... No, my friend, CAA owe the industry lots of apologies, meaningful apologies, before they get my respect again......

And now we have this airfields thing.. and What is going to be done about it???

I remember and old saying about 'some-one, no-one and everyone' or something like that......... you get my drift..

Cheers RV, and thanks for all your contributions.. I know you care.

[skybound®]

I remember and old saying about 'some-one, no-one and everyone' or something like that......... you get my drift..

Everybody's business is nobody's business.

[mcfly]

Someone told something to everyone but anyone should have told someone to do anything, so no one did nothing.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Howzeet Dave...

Ja. Louis did a hell of a sales pitch at Rand. Many arrived guns blazing and then left saying that it not a bad idea. I will try to post Rocket (Ron Wheelen's) responce. It sums it up very nicely. Load of BS IMHO... END OF STORY

PS
I share your feelings on CAA. They have a FEW good people, but the machine that CAA is needs plenty more.... CJ is trying, I just hope he outlasts the beaurocracy (sp?)