THE ON-GOING “crisis” over general aviation’s future in Durban and the surrounding areas took on a new dimension recently when the National Airspace Committee, NASCOM, rejected an application by the Air Traffic and Navigation Services company (ATNS) to withdraw FAD 58, the current Virginia general flying area (GFA) and ATNS’ proposal to replace it with another GFA situated to the south of Amanzimtoti. In the main, the ATNS application and proposal were opposed by the Commercial Aviation Association of Southern Africa (CAASA) following an almost unanimous mandate given to it earlier by operators at Virginia Airport.
The proposal to substitute FAD 58 with a new GFA south of Amanzimtoti originally tabled before an earlier meeting between ATNS and operators, was dismissed on several grounds, not the least being that the proposed new area was about a quarter the size of the original one; that it was over terrain generally considered to be “unsafe” and a political “no-go” area, and that it was basically too far from Virginia Airport.
The CAASA motion to NASCOM to reject the ATNS plans was supported by the SA Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA). As a result, NASCOM decided to establish a “task team” of interested NASCOM members to further investigate the whole issue to see whether a better solution could be found for a replacement GFA. The work group was given approximately a month in which to find a solution, its deadline occurring as this edition was being printed. During the NASCOM meeting, SACAA suggested that more than one GFA be established with each GFA catering for a specific type of training, namely one for helicopters and the others for fixed-wing aircraft. It also suggested that consideration be given to establishing one or more of these proposed GFAs under the new TMA in place for the La Mercy Airport, which would allow training to take place closer to Virginia Airport than would be the case with other ATNS proposals.
As the withdrawal of FAD 58 was not approved, the proposed new TMA and La Mercy Airport CTR applications were also not approved. The NASCOM reaction to what was basically a CAASA-driven objection proved two major points. Firstly, despite what many in the aviation industry might think, the National Aerospace Committee had proved indeed that it has the interests of the whole aviation sector at heart, and not just a portion, specifically that of the airlines.
Secondly, the same can be said of the SA Civil Aviation Authority which, over the years has taken a lot of flak as a result of the perceived assumption that it – and for that matter, the other parastatals – was out “to get” general aviation and endeavour to eliminate it as far as possible as, unfortunately, has been the case in other African countries. In this context, one must realise that the SACAA and NASCOM must have been under a lot of pressure to approve the ATNS GFA proposals and thereby sweep a somewhat thorny problem under the carpet, in view of the growing need to get La Mercy fully operational by the set date of May 2.
When this “new” attitude towards general aviation is taken together with the statement made at the recent Airlines Association of Southern Africa’s annual meeting (see World Airnews, December 2009) by a senior member of the Department of Transport’s civil aviation division, that more attention should be given to the GA sector and fully recognise its worth, then general aviation can hopefully look forward to a brighter future, at least in South Africa.
Going back to the first of the two major points mentioned above, the dismissal of the ATNS proposals by NASCOM to a large degree also illustrated the strength of the Commercial Aviation Association of Southern Africa and its oft-declared objective of fighting for the sector’s rights. All the more the pity that more members of the industry fail to join the CAASA membership for the feeble excuse hidden behind the question of “What does CAASA do for me?” Let us just look at some of what CAASA has done not only for its members, but also the industry as a whole. For example:
In the SCORR (Special Committee on Regulations Rewrite) process, CAASA has managed to change the SACAA-proposed Part 91 requirements for fitting GPWS to the cheaper TAWS system, thus saving each operator approximately R400 000 per aircraft system.n CAASA also successfully opposed the re-introduction of ATNS en route charges for aircraft below 5 000 kg auw, thus saving the GA sector in excess of R8-million per annum.
The association saved each operator of new-type aircraft entering the country a minimum of R100 000 per aircraft by persuading the SACAA to dispense with sending inspectors to the overseas factories to issue initial Certificates of Airworthiness.
CAASA saved flight training schools using FAD 70E about R500 per flight by concluding an agreement with NASCOM that prevented the imposition of noise abatement measures in the GFA concerned.
A further saving of around R700 000 per aircraft was saved by finalising a 12-month general exemption with the SACAA to return the flight data recorder requirements for large aircraft manufactured before 1978 from 32 back to five parameters.
CAASA successfully lobbied the Parliamentary Land Affairs Standing Committee not to pass the Protection of Environment Bill which enabled the prohibition of over-flight over game or nature reserves. This is estimated to have saved the industry average costs incurred by having to divert around reserves, some R10-million per year.
These are just some of the instances where CAASA has been responsible for saving the general aviation sector – commercial and otherwise – vast sums of money each year. So, if the above does not answer the question of “What does CAASA do for me”, then disbelievers will not be convinced of anything. Instead they are relying on others for their wellbeing which can be laid squarely at the door of apathy. Bear in mind, too, that it is not only CAASA which is fighting for the rights of general aviation. If operators do not fit into the commercial aviation side of things, then how about AOPA, the Aero Club of SA and several other organisations which basically are equally vociferous in ensuring the right to fly? They also need support.
Back to Home Page..>>>
