AOPA Latest news
View our latest and past news items.
- Published:
 |
Aircraft Maintenance ("N" Registered Aircraft): New FAA interpretation could devastate GA |
This is relevant to "N" Registered Aircraft owners/operators who undertake aircraft maintenance on their aircraft.
AOPA US are reporting that on September 3, FAA attorneys released a legal interpretation of 14 CFR §43.3(d), effectively changing the FAA’s view of the standard maintenance supervision model that has been in place for the past 60 years. Without industry intervention to have the FAA reconsider its new view, the A&P experience-based training and owner-assisted maintenance models cannot survive.
Although the regulations allow for uncertificated people to perform supervised maintenance, it is vitally important to point out that only the holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may approve the work and return the aircraft or component to service. This is the catch-all that ensures safety in our industry. Only the supervising mechanic can make the logbook entry, and it is that individual’s certificate and liability on the line. Therefore, it is in the supervising mechanic’s interest to inspect the work and verify that everything was done properly and is truly airworthy before attesting to it in writing.
The Moss interpretation
FAA regulations under 14 CFR are the rules that those who operate under FAA jurisdiction must follow, or risk facing violation or prosecution. However, in cases where a particular regulation may be ambiguous, a request for interpretation may be made to the FAA chief counsel. The response, in the form of a letter or memo, becomes the agency’s legal position that FAA staff will follow. This means that enforcement actions against individuals and businesses will be based on both the text in applicable regulations, and any relevant legal opinions or interpretations made by FAA attorneys.
The Moss interpretation began on July 8, 2022, when Jonathan Moss, manager of the Little Rock Flight Standards District Office, requested an interpretation of 14 CFR §43.3(d), essentially asking if a supervisor must be physically present at the site of the maintenance, or if he may supervise remotely, through Zoom, FaceTime, live feed TV, photographs, downloadable video, or other electronic means.
It took over two years for the FAA to respond with an interpretation, and as is often the risk with asking for an interpretation, the response went much further than a yes/no answer to the question being asked. Included in the three-page Moss interpretation were two essential elements.
The first addressed the concept of remote, video supervision:
The Office of the Chief Counsel finds that the phrase “in person” explicitly requires physical presence. Virtual presence, through a live video feed or other technological means, cannot replace the physical presence of a supervising mechanic.
The second addressed the concept of supervision itself:
The phrase “readily available, in person, for consultation” contemplates a physical, hands-on approach to supervision. The certificated mechanic must be available, not just to answer questions, but to notice mistakes and take over if necessary.
The problem with the Moss interpretation
There are two issues with the Moss interpretation:
The first issue is concerning, but not necessarily devastating. The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel found that virtual technologies cannot be used in lieu of in-person supervision. This is surprising in a world where medicine—even surgery—is sometimes performed using remote technologies and, it should be pointed out, much of the FAA’s own supervisory work with the industry is done remotely.
The second part of the interpretation is what could have devastating repercussions for general aviation. "The certificated mechanic must be available, not just to answer questions, but to notice mistakes and take over if necessary,” as the new FAA interpretation states, completely discounts the concept of supervisor discretion and, in fact, does not acknowledge the text in 14 CFR §43.3(d) that specifically says “to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly.”
As soon as the Moss Interpretation was published, it became “the official view of the FAA” that will be enforced.
AOPA USA is putting AOPA’s resources into action.
- Published:
 |
Universal Permission to Travel Systems |
This information is pertinent to Pilots who are carrying non-British passport holders on flights to/from the UK and are completing an online General Aviation Report (GAR).
From September 2024, some visa national passengers will hold digital-only eVisas. These passengers will no longer have physical immigration documents for you to check.
If a ‘Valid Permission to Travel Found’ response is received via the Submit a General Aviation Report (sGAR) web service, please note that pilots, operators and agents are not required to make further checks for a visa or other immigration document. You will not be subject to any carriers’ liability in relation to that passenger’s permission to travel.
If a ‘Authority to Carry Granted’ response is received, for visa national passengers you should conduct a manual check by:
- checking for a valid, physical visa or other immigration document
and/or
- using a Sharecode, which passengers with digital immigration products can request from their UKVI (UK Visa and Immigration) account.
Please refer to the following link for more details about using Sharecode to check a digital-only product: https://www.gov.uk/check-immigration-status.
In all cases, you should continue to check that the passport or travel document held by the passenger is valid, genuine and in the possession of the rightful holder.
In addition, the Home Office are consolidating multiple contact points within the Home Office to a single point of contact: the new UK Border Force Carrier Support Hub.
This will be a 24/7 support function to answer all carrier queries related to a passenger’s permission to travel to the UK; security related queries, or technical support for submitting data to the Home Office. The Carrier Support Hub will go live on the 30th September 2024 at 10:00am (UTC).
You can contact the hub on the following telephone number: +44 300 369 0610 after the go-live date.
- Published:
 |
Use of Unleaded Aviation Gasoline in Spark Ignition Engines originally designed for Leaded Fuels |
The CAA are reminding the GA community that two CS-STAN (Standard Change) are already available which enable suitable aircraft to utilise unleaded aviation gasoline.
CS-SC202c and CS-SC203c can be used in conjunction with approvals from both airframe and engine manufacturers to utilise certain unleaded fuels and update manuals and placards as required.
AOPA have created a database of airframe and engine data to help owners to understand if their aircraft could be eligible (note this is for guidance only).
The CAA will be publishing a webpage with further guidance on General Aviation fuels in the coming weeks to help the community navigate the differences between similar fuels.
- Published:
| |
General Aviation Licensing Review: Phase 2 consultation responses published |
The CAA have published their consultation response documents for the General Aviation Licensing Review Phase 2 consultation. A summary of the responses received, the decisions made, and next steps can be found in the relevant consultation response document and on the consultation page:
aeroplanes including microlights and consultation page
balloons and airships and consultation page
sailplanes and consultation page
helicopters and consultation page
gyroplanes and consultation page
- Published:
 |
SD-2024/001: Active Carbon Monoxide Detectors in Piston Engine Aircraft Operations |
The CAA have published Safety Directive SD-2024/001 which requires a functioning active CO detector capable of alerting via aural and/or visual warnings to be present in affected piston engine aircraft when operating with passengers on board who do not hold a recognised pilot qualification.
This SD is applicable to all piston engine aircraft, but excludes:
a) Single-seat aircraft;
b) Aircraft with an open cockpit/cabin;
c) Aircraft performing aerobatic manoeuvres (see paragraph 7(a) of the OD), unless as part of a Safety Standards Acknowledgement and Consent (SSAC) operation (see paragraph 7(b) of the OD);
d) Aircraft with piston engines located above/behind the cabin (e.g. helicopters, gyroplanes) unless cabin heat is also provided via an exhaust heat exchanger or a combustion heater; or
e) Aircraft with only wing-mounted piston engines.
Installing or carrying an active CO detector on board does not require CAA approval. Active CO detectors can be permanently installed in UK Part 21 and UK non-Part 21 aircraft as a ‘standard change’ under the provisions of CS-STAN (Standard Change CS-SC107a) without any CAA involvement. Portable CO detectors can also be carried on board without any airworthiness approval. Regardless of which active CO detector is selected, pilots should ensure the device is functional, audible (and visible if equipped with a digital screen) and securely positioned in the aircraft before each flight.
- Published:
| |
Carbon Monoxide in Piston Engine Aircraft |
In February 2024 the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) launched a 4-week public consultation on carbon monoxide (CO) in piston engine aircraft, seeking stakeholder views on the barriers facing pilots in obtaining an active CO detector, the role that maintenance plays in combatting CO, the importance of protecting passengers from CO, and whether active CO detectors ought to be mandatory for some operations.
The CAA has now published the Comment Response Document for this consultation, which includes a summary of the responses received, the decisions made, as well as the next steps being taken.
The CAA will be issuing a Safety Directive requiring an active CO detector to be present in specified piston engine aircraft when operating with passengers on board who do not possess a recognised pilot qualification. The directive will be published later this month and will come into effect from 1 January 2025.
These are the three decisions that the CAA have made:
CAA Decision 1
The CAA will introduce a requirement to have a functioning active carbon monoxide detector, capable of alerting via aural and/or visual means, in specified piston engine aircraft when operating with passengers on board who do not possess a recognised pilot
qualification. The comments provided in this consultation will be taken into account when developing the requirement.
CAA Decision 2
The CAA will not, at this time, introduce mandatory CO concentration checks in piston engine aircraft maintenance programmes beyond what is already specified by aircraft manufacturers and UK Reg (EU) No.1321/2014 Annex Vb (Part-ML), Minimum Inspection Programme (MIP).
CAA Decision 3
The CAA will publish additional guidance on topics including: selecting an appropriate active CO detector, where and how to securely position devices in aircraft, how to respond to alerts, as well as guidance on exposure levels and thresholds for alarms.
- Published:
| |
Radiotelephony Manual (CAP 413) Edition 24 - Effective from 28 March 2024 |
Radiotelephony Manual (CAP 413) Edition 24 is now published. This future edition incorporates editorial changes and all Supplementary Instructions to December 2023. It is effective 28 March 2024.
Radiotelephony Manual (CAP 413) provides pilots, Air Traffic Services and ground personnel with a compendium of clear, standardised phraseology and guidance, for radiotelephony (RTF) communication in UK airspace.
NOTE:
CAP 413 Edition 24 was found to contain errors and has been withdrawn by the CAA. CAP 413 Edition 23 Corr is current at the date of this item.
- Published:
 |
Charles Strasser OBE 1927 - 2024 |
Charles Strasser OBE SBStJ MSc FCIM
1927 - 2024
AOPA are sad to hear of the passing of Charles Strasser, vice-president of AOPA UK on 10 June 2024.
Charles's aviation related activities included, being Chairman of the Channel Island region of AOPA UK, a member of and past Vice Chairman of the Jersey Aero Club, a Director of and past world President of IFFR (International Fellowship of Flying Rotarians), a member of the PPL/IR Network and a past St John Ambulance Air Wing volunteer pilot and Midland region co ordinator for the transportation of human kidneys for transplant.
He personally initiated and progressed on behalf of AOPAbringing into being the CAA CAP 667 9.2(c) recommendation that, to reduce the incidence of fatal GA accidents, airports and aeroedromes should not charge any fees for emergency and precautionary diversion landings - the Strasser Scheme.
Charles was born in Czechoslavakia but moved to the U.K. with his parents in 1938, aged 11. By the age of 18, he was a dispatch rider with the Czech Independent Armoured Brigade and led a convoy of allied troops into Kasejovice. He was made an honorary Czech citizen in 2021.
He became a successful businessman on his return to the U.K. and was actively involved in many charities. Charles was the regional coordinator for the Midlands St John Ambulance Air Wing. He was awarded an O.B.E. for humanitarian services in 2000.
An active pilot for many years, his Piper Seneca was a well known visitor to many airports and airfield throughout Europe and beyond. He held an FAA CPL and IR.
Charles made a significant contribution to general aviation and pilots will benefit for many years to come from his efforts to get a better deal for GA pilots. Charles was a tough but fair negotiator, not easily accepting bureaucracy and red tape.
AOPA has lost a member and the aviation community in general has lost much more.
- Published:
 |
IAOPA News Report - VFR Flight Plans within Schengen Area |
In a previous newsletter it was reported that there has been a relaxation of the requirement to file a flightplan within the Schengen Area. This gave rise to several questions from our members, so a few clarifications are appropriate.
No flight plan is required for VFR flights to or from a state within the Schengen area unless:
- The relevant state has a flight plan requirement for VFR flights;
- The flight crosses the airspace of a state outside the Schengen area; or
- The submission of a flight plan is mandatory under paragraph SERA.4001, part b, subparts 1, 3, 4 and 6 of Regulation (EU) No. 923/2012.
SERA.4001 Submission of a flight plan states:
(a) Information relative to an intended flight or portion of a flight, to be provided to air traffic services units, shall be in the form of a flight plan. The term ‘flight plan’ is used to mean variously, full information on all items comprised in the flight plan description, covering the whole route of a flight, or limited information required, inter alia, when the purpose is to obtain a clearance for a minor portion of a flight such as to cross an airway, to take off from, or to land at a controlled aerodrome.
(b) A flight plan shall be submitted prior to operating:
(1) any flight or portion thereof to be provided with air traffic control service;
(2) any IFR flight within advisory airspace;
(3) any flight within or into areas, or along routes designated by the competent authority, to facilitate the provision of flight information, alerting and search and rescue services;
(4) any flight within or into areas or along routes designated by the competent authority, to facilitate coordination with appropriate military units or with air traffic services units in adjacent States in order to avoid the possible need for interception for the purpose of identification;
(5) any flight across international borders, unless otherwise prescribed by the States concerned;
(6) any flight planned to operate at night, if leaving the vicinity of an aerodrome.
(c) A flight plan shall be submitted, before departure, to an air traffic services reporting office or, during flight, transmitted to the appropriate air traffic services unit or air-ground control radio station, unless arrangements have been made for submission of repetitive flight plans.
(d) A flight plan for any flight planned to operate across international borders or to be provided with air traffic control service or air traffic advisory service shall be submitted at least sixty minutes before departure, or, if submitted during flight, at a time which will ensure its receipt by the appropriate air traffic services unit at least ten minutes before the aircraft is estimated to reach:
(1) the intended point of entry into a control area or advisory area; or
(2) the point of crossing an airway or advisory route.
This last point deserves some clarification. You must therefore submit a flight plan for:
Any flight or portion thereof to be provided with air traffic control service;
Any flight within or into areas, or along routes designated by the competent authority, to facilitate the provision of flight information, alerting and search and rescue services;
Any flight within or into areas or along routes designated by the competent authority, to facilitate coordination with appropriate military units or with air traffic services units in adjacent States in order to avoid the possible need for interception for the purpose of identification;
Any flight planned to operate at night, if leaving the vicinity of an aerodrome.
Please note that many countries still explicitly require a flightplan when crossing the border. Always check the AIP. AOPA Holland has prepared a document which gives the current status. In practice the following block of countries all have relaxations in the flight plan filing requirement: Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary
Also note that other Schengen countries not only require a flightplan when crossing the border but also still officially require you to land at a designated airport of entry even for intra-Schengen flights. For instance Denmark.
| Schengen countries are Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden, as well as the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores. |  |
- Published:
 |
Reclassify general aviation airfields as greenfield not brownfield sites: Government Response |
As the number of signatures has reached over 10,000 the Government published this response on 16 May 2024:
"We are not seeking to alter airfield classification at this current time.
The Government recognises the importance of the General Aviation (GA) industry for supporting key services as well as training and commercial use.
Critical to GA’s success is the network of airfields which reflect the diversity in the sector, differing in size and infrastructure capability, ranging from smaller airfields focused on training and educational opportunities, to larger regional and international business aviation hubs. They all have an important role in supporting the aviation sector.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) emphasises that planning policies should recognise the importance of maintaining a national network of GA airfields and their need to adapt and change over time. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions, and each application is judged on its individual merits. It is for local planning authorities to make individual decisions based on the planning policy and guidance that reflect the local context and engagement with local stakeholders. The weight given to these considerations is a matter for the authority as the decision taker in the first instance.
The NPPF encourages effective use of land in meeting development needs, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. The NPPF states this should be in a way that makes as much use as possible of brownfield land.
Brownfield land is defined in the NPPF as “land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure”, with some specific exclusions.
Airfield buildings and their curtilage are currently regarded as brownfield land. However, as the policy above makes clear, it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage of a brownfield site should be developed.
Applications for planning permission to redevelop airfields must be determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Applications for the reuse or redevelopment of airfields must also be considered in the context of wider national policy and account should be taken of the Government’s General Aviation Strategy. The NPPF acknowledges the significant contribution aviation makes to economic growth across the country – expecting planning policies, where supported by robust evidence, to identify and protect sites which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities"
You can view the response online here.
If the number of signatories reaches, or exceeds, 100,000 the Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate.
- Published:
| |
New Safety Sense Leaflet: VFR into IMC |
A new Safety Sense Leaflet has been published providing guidance to general aviation pilots on the risks and mitigations associated with continued Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flight into Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).
This forms part of the popular Safety Sense series which are currently updating.