AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2012 - I1

Seeking a change
IAOPA working at ICAO to reduce the impact of rescue and firefighting costs
By Craig Spence, Acting Secretary General For some years now IAOPA has been seeking a change in Annex 14, Vol. 1, which would permit States to treat the rescue and firefighting (RFF) requirements for general aviation airports differently from the requirements meant for commercial operations. The IAOPA representative on the ground at ICAO, Frank Hofmann, has been successful in getting the attention of the RFF working group and they have agreed to examine ways to ease the impact of this costly requirement on general aviation and those airports that only serve general aviation. Everyone agrees that safety needs to be the bedrock of all national general aviation programs and serves as a foundation for its development and ability to continue to thrive. However, many of the safety programs put into place for the commercial carriers can in fact choke general aviation and add significantly to the cost without any improvement in safety. RFF at general aviation fields is one such example. RFF requirements create a significant burden for general aviation pilots and airport operators because of the aerodrome landing, parking, and handling fees levied on these operations to fund the aerodrome fire brigades. Additionally, the expense required to maintain a fire brigade at a small general aviation aerodrome frequently restricts the operating schedule for these facilities in an effort to avoid the associated RFF expenses. Annual expenses for maintaining a sunrise-to-sunset, partial-week RFF capability at small general aviation aerodromes easily may exceed $150,000 (two firemen, equipment depreciation, training, supplies, et cetera) annually. At the most recent meeting of the ICAO RFF working group, IAOPA again presented a discussion paper. The working group asked questions and discussed IAOPA’s request to have certain airports, aircraft, and operations excluded from the requirement to have RFF present on the field as per Annex 14, Vol. 1, Chapter 9. Sixteen AOPAs submitted information about the status of requirements in their respective countries, and in response ICAO has decided to pursue additional research on the topic by conducting a survey that will be sent to each State. Once the results are known, the ICAO Secretariat will consider how best to address concerns expressed by IAOPA. IAOPA will continue to work with the Secretariat and will be preparing additional supporting materials including a discussion paper that will be presented to the Airports Panel at its meeting in December. Our goal is to have language included in the Annex stipulating that the requirements should not be applied to airports serving Category 1 aircraft (fuselage length under 9 m). Although most States already appear to have some exclusion for general aviation to the requirements, a number of States insist strongly that RFF has to be on the field if/when the airport is open. Many local AOPA affiliates have been working to educate regional and state regulatory bodies of the differences between general and commercial aviation. This is good since individual AOPA contact with the State regulators is ultimately the only way forward. For more information on IAOPA’s efforts and to read the working paper and other supporting documentation, check our website (www.iaopa.org). Stay tuned for developments on this and other initiatives that IAOPA is undertaking to keep GA flying.

Support your AOPA
AOPAs around the world promote and act as advocates for general aviation and aerial work activities. This is only possible through the support and input of their members. If you are not a member, contact your local AOPA for membership information. IAOPA world affiliates are listed on the back of this page.

www.iaopa.org

SEPTEMBER 2012

http://www.iaopa.org http://www.iaopa.org

AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2012