Zoals al enige tijd bekend zal er naast de bekende Charlie, Echo of Golf-airspace ook U-space gecreëerd gaan worden: Unmanned-airspace. AOPA zit altijd op het vinkentouw als er nieuwe delen van het luchtruim gedefinieerd worden, of delen anders ingedeeld, of anders in tijd beschikbaar komen, of….want meestal heeft dat consequenties voor de GA en meestal niet ten goede.

Zo ook nu kwam AOPA erachter dat men al vergevorderd is om U-space zodanig vorm te geven dat het nagenoeg verboden gebied wordt voor GA. U-space reikt van 0 tot 500 ft AGL. Regelmakers hadden bedacht dat daar toch geen GA vliegt, want altijd boven 500 ft of zelfs 1000 ft boven bebouwing. 

AOPA heeft kenbaar gemaakt dat landen en stijgen in de buurt van luchthavens toch echt vanaf 0 ft gebeurt, of dat trauma- en politiehelikopters ook nog weleens onder de 500 ft vliegen, of de verplichte lesstof het oefenen van noodlandingen verplicht stelt, of dat paramoteurs meestentijds ook laag vliegen, of…….

Zie onder voor een intern verslag van de rechtstreekse communicatie tussen AOPA en EASA: 

<citaat>

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment the draft U-Space-regulation, also for the very open and constructive telecon on Friday afternoon.

So far we believed that our common objective is the integration of drones/U-Space into the conventional airspace structure of manned aviation.

But now we have the impression that in the draft regulation the opposite approach has been chosen, manned aviation has to integrate itself into the U-Space and to bear the cost and restrictions. 

Article 12 states that manned aviation has to receive prior permission when entering U-Space. The authors of the regulation assume, that manned aviation does not operate in the lowest altitudes because of SERA.5005 f, but this is a grave misconception: 

-              For motor-powered General Aviation it is correct to state that it is in general not the intend to operate below 500 ft GND (or 1000ft GND above cities), except for take-off and landing in the vicinity of aerodromes. Nevertheless operations below these limits occur: Emergency and precautionary landings, simulated engine failures and emergency landings with descends to just a few meters are part of the routine training syllabus in flight-schools, Aerial Work operations in agriculture, etc. These events may be rare per pilot, but statistically clearly relevant enough in order not to be ignored in safety considerations.

-              HEMS operators, Military and Police operate regularly, spontaneously and unpredictably below 500ft 

-              Flights of glider aircraft (sailplanes and hang-gliders) are a constant battle between thermal upwinds and gravity. When the upwinds are too weak, spontaneous landings on meadows outside of aerodromes are standard procedure. Especially hang-gliding depends on flying at very low levels at mountain ridges. A prior permission can´t be requested, there is also nothing like a 4D flightplan that would enable a UTM-system to create protected zones in advance. 

-              We also miss a concept for the safe vertical separation of manned/unmanned aircraft operating at the edge between U-Space and Conventional Airspace. As terrain-elevation varies in Europe on short distance, also the airspace limits “above ground” vary, so that vertical safety buffers need to be planned like between the various layers of conventional controlled and uncontrolled airspace.

Therefore we can´t accept Article 12 as currently drafted, and we firmly believe it will not be accepted also by the rest of the GA community.

To make the U-Space regulation acceptable for GA, we strongly recommend to include text in the Regulation assuring that conventional manned aviation will be handled safely when entering U-Space:

The special operations, emergency situations and safety issues described above have to be addressed in U-Space Operational Concepts. We also need assurance that U-Space will be designed in a way that aerodromes, helicopter landing sites, aerial sports zones, etc. will not be covered by U-Space vertically, and that sufficient horizontal safety-distances will be maintained.

We also require assurance that the positive U-Space business-case for UAV-operators will not cause a negative business-case for GA. In cases when a disadvantage can´t be avoided, appropriate compensation measures e.g. for additional communications-equipage must come in place.

I look forward to our continued dialogue!

<einde citaat>

En zo zijn er wel meer dossiers waar AOPA aan de voorkant probeert in te grijpen. Dat lukt vaak. Soms niet. Maar meestal is het ver voordat de doorsnee vlieger er iets van gaat merken in positieve of negatieve zin.

DAAROM is het van belang dat AOPA namens veel leden kan spreken en een sterke achterban vertegenwoordigt.