The business aviation community fears the consequences of planned new U.S. operating rules for fractionally owned aircraft, for which there are no corresponding requirements in Europe.

The FAA is due to codify new regulations for such aircraft in July, Administrator Marion Blakey said here at the recent European Business Aviation Assn. Conference & Exhibition. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the new rules, known as Part 91 Subpart K, was published earlier this year, after three years of debate. Previously, fractionally owned aircraft were covered by rules for shared or joint ownership or professional management in Part 91 Subpart F, which were widely agreed to be inappropriate for fractional ownership.

U.S. operators are worried that the new FAA standard may not be recognized in Europe, where fractional ownership is currently covered by JAR OPS1 commercial aircraft operating rules. The U.K. and French transport ministries stated in letters to the FAA during the Subpart K NPR phase that they would not recognize fractionally owned aircraft as commercial when operating in Europe. And although industry officials said they have detected a willingness in France to rediscuss the issue, the U.K. has shown no such inclination, and no JAA rule is yet either in preparation or planned.

OPERATOR CONCERN goes beyond fractional ownership itself to the very definition of corporate aviation, which European governments have yet to agree on (AW&ST Sept. 9, 2002, p. 52). Ian Clark, a partner with the London aviation law firm of Clark Ricketts, said that because the primary basis for the U.K. and French position is the fact that the operator is the professional fleet manager, and not the owner, virtually all corporate aircraft could eventually be regarded as commercial aircraft.

Indeed, some U.S. corporate aircraft have already run into trouble with customs authorities, particularly in France, for allegedly violating new value-added-tax regulations applicable to commercial aircraft. "We are headed for an impending clash . . . that could throw international business aviation into chaos," Clark warned.

JACK OLCOTT, president of the Washington-based National Business Aviation Assn., exhorted Europe to rethink its position and "take a close look at Part 91 Subpart K" as a basis for future rulemaking. "Don't assume you can isolate one element and not affect others." In the meantime, he urged European countries to apply the rule of the country of registry, at least for limited periods.

The FAA has not officially commented on the matter. However, Blakey said she was "fully aware of the international implications" of Subpart K and was preparing to fly to Brussels in June to address this and related business aviation matters.

Among the additional areas of concern is the transfer of responsibility for airworthiness from the JAA to the new European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA). It is feared that this move, set for Sept. 28, could lead to disruption in aircraft certification.

"Over $35 billion in aerospace trade between the U.S. and the [European Union] is at stake, and we hope there will be a smooth transition," Blakey said. She said she hopes the transfer will minimize variations in certification rules from country to country that add to costs and delays.

The European Commission's air transport director, Michel Ayral, assured her that implementing rules necessary to permit EASA to take over from the JAA are in preparation and are to be OK'd by September. "It's our desire to preserve continuity," he said.

Europe's rapidly growing fractional ownership fleet, which includes the Citation, is currently subject to commercial aircraft operating rules.

A related worry is the fear that the transition from JAA to EASA could lead to a further holdup in approving Europe's long-awaited business aviation operating rules, JAR OPS 2. JAA operations chief Georges Rebender said a core group of experts will recommend to EASA that business aviation operations be made an area of EASA responsibility, alongside airworthiness, but indicated this was unlikely to happen before 2005. This should ensure that JAR OPS2, currently at the Advance Notice of Proposed Amendment (A-NPA) stage, will be implemented fully by the JAA, avoiding delays.

Maintenance requirements, along with another sensitive issue--flight crew time limits--have been removed from the scope of JAR OPS 2 and will now be formulated in a new specification, ECARM. However, some other issues--such as whether aircraft based in Europe but registered elsewhere should be covered by the rule--have yet to be decided. Rebender acknowledged that the goal of having a formal JAR OPS 2 NPA ready by early 2004 would be "challenging."

The JAA operations boss also said an NPA for a proposed rule to permit commercial instrument flight rules (IFR) operations using single-engine turboprops is now in discussion, after having been cleared by the JAA, Rebender said. Although a new debate recently surfaced with respect to maintenance requirements, he remained optimistic that the new rule would enter force in the near future.

Security is another area of concern. Brian Humphries, chairman of the European Business Aviation Assn., said the heightened awareness of security matters in the EU even before Sept.11, 2001, had enabled European airports to begin relaxing procedures in recent months. However, access to U.S. airspace has become an issue, because of mandatory waiver requirements. Few operators can obtain blanket waivers, Humphries said, meaning that most are being forced to plan trips far in advance, diminishing the flexibility benefit of bizjet travel.

Other worries are personal data collection demands by the U.S. government and new cockpit and fixed-base-operator security standards. Operators do not think that applying airline requirements, such as reinforced cockpit doors or passenger screening systems, should apply to business aviation.