Q:Could you describe COPA’s role within the general aviation (GA) community?

A: First, GA is all aviation activity that is not airlines or military. This includes for example medevacs, flight training, police, fire fighting, and oh yes, personal aviation.

Personal aviation, which COPA represents, is that portion of GA where aircraft are flown for personal transportation and recreation. Like a family car, it is a form of transportation for thousands in Canada.

Q: Why is the number of airports in Canada slowly contracting?

A: Many airports (certified aerodromes), registered and non-registered aerodromes used by GA are under pressure because there is no policy at any level of government that recognizes the need for a system of landing facilities to connect this country by air. The only document in play is the National Airports Policy from the 1990s, whose flawed goal was to divest all but the 26 major airports in Canada. This is not a system, but a limited string of airports serving a fraction of aviation. As a consequence, regional and smaller airports and aerodromes are subject to the whims of local interests and decisions that will destroy the system of airports over time. With no plan to prevent this from happening, it is logical to foresee a significant deterioration of the infrastructure in key areas of Canada.

We are seeing this at work in Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal as we speak, where Edmonton City Centre, Cooking Lake, Buttonville, St. Hubert and Mascouche are under threat. There is no plan to replace these important and very active GA airports that, among other things, serve as reliever airports for the airline airports. I doubt that the traffic from these airports would be welcome at the major airports and for various reasons most of the traffic cannot be absorbed by other airports. So, this activity will have to disappear and GA will decline significantly.

Q: Can GA activity coexist harmoniously with that of the airlines at major airports?

A: Coexisting is becoming more difficult because of security concerns as well as the attitude of some airport management. Capacity issues at the major airports make it increasingly difficult to accommodate smaller aircraft. Hence, landing fees and other restrictions are intentionally driving GA away from the major airline airports. As smaller airports close, the larger airports will become even more important as a destination for GA. GA can safely coexist if the will is there.

Q: What actions might be taken to assure that private aircraft operators retain meaningful access to key airfields over the next ten years?

A: Regarding security, designate and develop areas of an airport that are physically separate from airline operations and make them subject to reasonable levels of security so that GA can continue at these airports. Regarding fees, recognize the relatively minor impact that GA has on the infrastructure and therefore charge reasonable fees for this incremental use. Regarding access, provide runway approach and departure procedures that safely accommodate GA aircraft for minimal interference with airline operations. Ottawa International is an excellent example of the latter point, where a separate runway provides for complimentary operations.

Q: Post 9/11, have the airside security restrictions at Canadian airports been reasonable or too harsh for private operators?

A: It depends on the airport. While so far we have not seen unreasonable restrictions or requirements, there are proposals in discussion that would make it impossible for GA to access many major airports. An example is a proposal for everyone on airside (inside the fence) at airports serving the airlines to have a restricted area identification card (only available to employees) or be escorted at all times. This would be unworkable for many GA operators and certainly impossible for personal aviation.

Q:Have these restrictions unduly hampered operational flexibility?

A: Not so far.

Q: Do you see the level of security tightening further down the road?

A: As long as the world continues on its current path, I am afraid that we will see increasing pressure, be it from irresponsible media hype to create paranoia or from actual terrorist acts or threats, that will result in additional layers of security being imposed. The recently-introduced eAPIS program for entering and exiting the US by small aircraft is just one example of things to come. Our government refused to get involved in negotiations with the US government to reduce the requirements. I believe that this is in part due to a lack of understanding on the part of the security authorities of the contribution of GA to our economy and the negative impact that increasing security will have on our economy.

Q: Have the restrictions related to the Olympic games in Vancouver been excessive?

A: Yes. For our sector, the greatest problem is the length of the restrictions, and in a significant portion of the airspace there will be a complete prohibition for personal aviation. While this may be tolerable for a short duration, the prohibitions will be in place for a very long time (29 January until 24 March), including the period between the Olympics and the Paralympics, when there are few or no targets for the terrorists. This is unreasonable. Besides the loss of freedom, some aircraft will experience airworthiness issues from lack of use and pilots will lose currency during the grounding of aircraft.

Q: Do you anticipate any issues associated with the G20 meetings in Toronto next July?

A: I understand that a recent realization that the G20 cannot be accommodated in the Huntsville area means that it most likely will be held in Toronto. This is a concern. It was bad enough that the G8 in Huntsville will ground hundreds of floatplanes and other aircraft at the peak time of the year, but an expansion to Toronto would cause an even more significant disruption of air traffic in and around Toronto. Running the G20 to follow-on from the G8 will mean a more extensive period of restrictions in an area of the country with considerable GA activity that is normally at a peak at that time of year. Thousands of aircraft and pilots will be affected by the G20. It is clear that our government does not appreciate the impact of their decisions when they offer to hold these conferences near major centres of aviation activity. This is most unfortunate.

Q: Could airspace regulations related to special event security be simplified in any particular manner?

A: Yes. Through meaningful dialogue with representatives of the industry it should be possible to create reasonable restrictions commensurate with clearly identified threats. This has not been the case so far. We want to do our part to ensure adequate security, but prohibition of GA “just to be sure” is not the way to go. Significant economic damage is done each time these prohibitions occur.

Q: Given Canada’s demographics, what degree of reduction do you foresee in the pilot population over the next 20 years?

A: I do not have a firm number, but it is reasonable to assume that if nothing is done to encourage people to get into this field, there will be a significant decline from the baby boomers retiring and few young people coming into the system. An additional factor is our changing population. Many immigrants come from countries where GA does not exist and therefore it may not occur to them that aviation is available as a career, a form of transportation or hobby. We all have a role to play in making the public aware of aviation, its importance and its potential so that these new Canadians can appreciate, support and engage in aviation.

If our changing demographics is not enough to deal with, a major contributing factor is airport and flight training school closures that are making it increasingly difficult to get training and then to engage in flying. We have lost a number of flight schools in recent years. Young people need conveniently located training facilities in order to reduce their overall costs, including accommodation and transportation to and from the facility.

Q: What measures could be taken to mitigate that expected decline?

A: Airports must be recognized by those who decide their fate that they are valuable, among many other reasons, for flight training, and consequently schools can be encouraged to locate there. Similarly, airport managers must realize the value of schools to their future (generating pilots for the airlines who then use their airport) and ensure that incentives are in place to attract and retain them.

Q: What incentives might be employed to encourage the expansion of flight training activities?

A: Decades ago the federal government encouraged people to get into aviation by providing rebates on their training. We need to return to this incentive program. In addition, although there is some minor tax relief for training costs, it should be broadened to make aviation training a more financially achievable option for young people.

Q: Canada's economy is highly dependent upon it aviation industry. Are its policy makers adequately aware of this?

A: No. It is difficult to believe that, in a country where a majority of its land mass is inaccessible for most or all of the year except by small aircraft, there is no policy in place that recognizes the value of GA to our way of life and that it is so hard to get the government’s attention to the plight of GA. COPA has been pushing for many years for a long overdue review of the National Airports Policy and development of a GA policy. The government remains reluctant to recognize that the multi-billion dollar industry is threatened by this lack of recognition.

Q: Aviation is seen by some as a playground for the privileged. How can those who hold that opinion be enlightened?

A: This is a broad brush with which all of GA is painted. When, for example, the public and politicians were made aware of the impending closure of Buttonville airport, they responded with comments about rich boys and toys. In fact rich boys and toys is a minor portion of the activity. Buttonville is the most heavily used airport by government of any airport in Canada, in addition to extensive training of tomorrow’s airline pilots, mechanics, and so on. I wonder if a critically ill child whose life is saved by air transport from a GA airport in a remote part of Canada to a GA airport near a specialty hospital is “privileged”?  If those airports or aircraft were not available what would happen to these “privileged” people? Or what about a community that is evacuated by GA aircraft from a GA airport near an uncontrolled forest fire? Are they “privileged”? One major difference between developed countries apart from the third world is that in every one of the third world countries GA is virtually non-existent. It is logical to conclude that Canada, with its vast regions accessible only by GA aircraft, would deteriorate toward third world status if GA declines.

Q: What do you think Canada's GA scene will look like in a decade?

A: That entirely depends on whether or not municipal, provincial and federal governments realize that in order for aviation in general to be healthy and continue to contribute to Canada’s quality of life, general aviation must be healthy. The pilots and mechanics for the airlines come from GA. From GA airports that are so vital to the air transportation system come many of the passengers and cargo to feed the hubs. Without the lower end, the upper end will suffer. This is fact. Just look at China, where a lack of GA has made it very difficult to grow their airline industry. China is very dependent upon others, including Canada, to provide training for its pilots and in some cases occupy its cockpits. Furthermore, China realizes that developing GA is the key to its aviation independence. If we are not careful Canada will have to become dependent on other countries, including China, for pilots in the not too distant future. /p> GA will not entirely disappear. There will be pockets of activity, but I am concerned about the system that connects this country. Left unchecked, a spiral effect from airport and flight school closures will see a significant contraction of aviation activity. For a country so rich in aviation history and a demonstrated contribution to making Canada a world class country, this would truly be a shame.