OR.GEN.001

The use of the terminology ‘place of business’ indicates that these rules are written from a commercial perspective. Although gliding federations and their clubs operate using appropriate commercial acumen and good practice in order to exist and thrive, they do not operate as for-profit commercial operations but rather organise activities for their members on a not-for-profit basis. The key distinction is that any financial surpluses in members' clubs are not distributed to 'owners' but are re-invested in the development of the club for members' benefit.

Proposal.  Change the wording “business” to “activity”.

OR.GEN.015

"The form and manner of application for an approval will be set by the CA."

Proposal.  The application should be guided by clear EU requirements to ensure that CAs do not add requirements to those required by the rules.

This is to ensure that the so-often quoted "level playing field" is not endangered by NAAs, ending up with (again) 27 different systems, such as is becoming evident with Part M!

OR.GEN.210 Personnel requirements

In reference to OR. GEN.200(b) the requirements must fit with the nature of the organisation.

Again, there exists a big difference in the structure and the way the management is done in a commercial company and non-profit air sport clubs/organisations. 

Nominating an “Accountable Manager” in a club/federation environment can be difficult where the elected board or club governing committee members share the associated responsibilities under national law, which have different requirements within a number of member states. 

General remark and proposal

As this document relating to ATOs is written from the commercial training viewpoint, the EGU proposes to create an alternative type of ATO: a "not-for-profit ATO" with relevant and proportional requirements.

This indicates that the following structure is required:

1. Commercial ATO

It is up to these organisations whether if it necessary to make a distinction between  “small” and “other”.

2. Not-for-profit ATO

For all the air sport clubs/federations  educating and training their members in their chosen sport and, further, the work is done primarily by the members-volunteers.

Proposal:

The EGU is prepared to work with the Agency to develop not-for-profit ATO requirements relevant to and acceptable to EASA and the sport of gliding across all member states. 

General remark: 

Most AMC/GM contradicts OR.GEN.200(b) where it is stated that systems/requirements will correspond to the size, nature and complexity of the activities.

We propose to make a set of rules / requirements appropriate and dedicated to air sports.

The proposals are disproportionate. As no formal definition of a “small” organisation exists, all related items should be reviewed.

The proposals are disproportionate. As no formal definition of a “small” organisation exists, all related items should be reviewed.

AMC OR.GEN.200 (b) – Size, nature and complexity of the activity

In this AMC a partial definition of a “small” organisation is provided. The wording “employed” is used - again indicating a commercial approach.

In a gliding club, training is given by almost exclusively volunteer instructors. It is highly inappropriate to describe their activities as “employment”. In some member states there are significant legal implications by doing so.

There exist some large clubs that employ full time staff mainly in supporting administrative and other roles. This employment covers the whole activity of the club (doing also other tasks than giving instruction) and the activity is carried out without a commercial goal. Those clubs comply with the legal status in a natioanl context.

In a club or federation environment, a figure of “20” has no logic (it is an arbitary number) as these instructors are volunteers taking part in the club activities in their own recreational time, for example during weekends or during holidays. So a large club can count, for example, 40 instructors with each of them providing differing but small proportions of their available recreational time over the whole year.

The same argument applies to the “FTE” or full time equivalent. This makes no sense in the volunteer environment.

AMC to OR.ATO.015 Application

The sailplane market is constantly developing. Sailplanes move constantly between clubs and between member states either through sale, new purchase or inter-club loan arrangements. There is no known reason why the approval would need to list the registration of aircraft used by the ATO. There is no safety case presented for this bureaucratic requirement, which would simply provide the NAAs with an excuse to charge money for every notifiable change to the glider fleet in an ATO. The gliders used in a training organisation are subject to EASA Part 21 and Part M rules; there is no need for additional bureaucracy in Part ATO. 

Proposal.

Remove the requirement to list the registrations of aircraft used by the ATO. 

For glider towing:

The requirement 1.a.(ii) is not practical for towing on small gliding airfields.

Further, the recent EU political decisions as regards the extension of EASA competence to aerodromes has removed most gliding aerodromes / airfields from this proposed extension. Therefore, the ATO proposed rules should not include any reference to aerodrome features for glider training airfields.

This is not a subject (airfield departure physical clearances) that should be included in ATO rules. 

Proposal:

Delete this requirement.