Helicopters, in general, are not our main focus at Air Charter Guide. But when asked by EBAN to write a column about this segment of the market, we discovered that in some respects it didn’t matter. Some of the problems that European helicopter operators are facing are common to general aviation as a whole. Many are not, and range between security issues, JAR-Ops maintenance issues, concern about JAR-Ops 3 and prohibitions and restrictions over operating areas. I’ll try to be succinct.

Air Charter Guide resurveyed its advertisers and listees in Europe and discovered the following information:

- The United Kingdom appears to be strictest in its enforcement of the current JAR-Ops draft as well as its own security concerns;

-The UK Department of Transport is considering legislation requiring helicopters to only land at major airports, as well as instituting searches of occupants, and prevention of off-airport operations;

- Northern Europe in general is stricter, both in terms of regulation and JAR compliance from its own NAAs than southern Europe;

- Operators in certain countries straddling these general dividing lines report that laxer countries are availing themselves of the opportunity in many cases to compete for business with clients from their stricter neighbours;

- Ireland is charging navigation or ATC fees at airports. One such operator was recently assessed 10,000 Euros for various sorties to and from a racing event in Galway.

Landing permissions can be horrendous. Heli-Holland reports that for each landing it is required to obtain permission from the landowner, the city council, the civil aviation authorities, as well as the police. The company’s estimate was about a day of work just to obtain the necessary permits. At least it

got them.

Besides fuel costs, and the maintenance compliance with CAME, the single biggest fear of operators was the single engine restrictions of JAR-Ops 3. Essentially this forbids use of any rotary-wing craft with fewer than two engines over congested areas, or, as I understand it, into designated heliports. Big problem. (An even bigger problem if you happen to be making a living out of helicopter charter or own a single engine helicopter.)

But that’s the JAA, and without any real power of enforcement, the question becomes: How liberal is your country and your own NAA on this subject? Also mitigating things a bit is your choice of sortie escape route. London operators have been over flying the Thames to avoid the ‘congested’ aspect of the restriction. It would seem that the bigger queston is down the road: What will EASA do, and what recourse do you, the operator have if things don’t lean your way?

It sounds like JAA didn’t follow what the US FAA and EASA both require to varying degrees, which is that an economic impact study precede any regulation. And clearly any government authority shouldn’t glibly ignore the existence of 475 single engine helicopters, nor the surveillance work, survey work, transportation and EMS value that they provide.

But the JAA, in really is only a body of ‘suggestion,’ soon to be dismembered. And EASA has even suggested that it may start ‘from scratch’ when it comes to regulating. Given the current adjustments by aviation, not to mention the effort and time invested by the JAA, it’s no wonder that associations like EBAA are arguing for the use of the various JAR-Ops as at least a basis for further regulation by EASA, and that JAR-Ops not be peremptorily scrapped. Yet the single engine helicopter issue must be given more serious consideration than it has so far.

Ultimately, I think that the strength of the helicopter operator’s argument is in the utility of his machine. After all, any aircraft with the versatility to accomplish what today’s modern helicopter can do deserves some respect. In the US, a recent effort to encumber EMS operators with unnecessary flight and duty time was subordinated to the more obvious priority of saving lives by air rescue. The squeaky wheel got the grease.

European operators have to get out and promote their role to society at large – through their associations and individually. If helicopters or fixed-wing general aviation aircraft are viewed as toys of the wealthy, the politicians and bureaucrats will doubtless stick it to us. It’s the same all over the world. But to the extent that the helicopter can serve the police, aerial survey work, EMS and critical rescue work, there will tend to be less focus on the well-heeled passenger, for whom no tears will fall if he has to take a taxicab.

EASA is gradually taking shape. It’s important that operators of helicopters participate in the early stages of any regulation. The ‘ABIP,’ or Advisory Board of Interested Parties, is potentially an important proxy for this kind of thing because it advises EASA on economics and broad policy. I am told that EASA also holds periodic meetings with 200 to 300 industry participants at its headquarters in Cologne. The next scheduled meeting is November 17th. I would urge you all to go!

Fred Gevalt, The Air Charter Guide