CATÓLICA-LISBON

Part of ANAC’s mission is to “promote and defend competition in the civil aviation sector”, but this is not what we have been seeing in relation to private aviation and, in particular, ultralight aviation. The surprising examples revealed in the first part of this reflection show that ANAC seems to be more interested in the disappearance of the activity than in its development. 

This second part of the reflection focuses on (i) the economic impact, (ii) in examples of countries with sensible regulators, an (iii) ideas that could help us reposition ourselves as we deserve. 

The negative economic impact of a regulator without strategic vision 

When regulators interpret or apply the law in a way that destroys economic value, the results are clear to see. While general aviation and ultralight aviation are growing in other European countries, generating jobs and business (everything from small workshops to schools, restaurants, and hotels), in Portugal we are witnessing a whole set of obstacles reacted by the regulator that end up “exporting” aeronautical interest abroad. 

It is now common to see general aviation aircraft and gliders registered in Germany, for example, precisely to escape national despotism. Just visit the Tires aerodrome and you will see that over 90% of aircraft have foreign registrations, including those belonging to schools and flying clubs (note: in Portugal, registrations begin with “CS”). It is certainly no coincidence that so many entities avoid dealing with the national regulator. 

In general aviation, individuals and companies with legal identity in Portugal can perfectly well use the services of foreign regulators to certify their aircraft there. It is their right within the EU. And that's a good thing, because when this is possible, we are not at the mercy of discretionary and toxic legislation and/or regulation. For example, for registrations beginning with “D,” the German regulator renews flight certificates through certifiers accredited at the time of inspection, even abroad (i.e., here). Our loss of sovereignty is evident, not only because taxes go abroad, but also because of the added costs of travel and accommodation for certifiers. Apparently, all this is preferable to being dependent on ANAC's harmful bureaucracy. 

Unfortunately, it is more difficult for ultralight aviation, as it is local legislation and not European legislation as for general aviation, which is why there are differences between countries. It is a particularly active form of aviation because it is cheaper and tends to be simpler. However, it is still the most criticized in Portugal today due to ANAC, making it more expensive and, as we saw in the previous article, much more complicated. 

In addition to the aforementioned lack of regulation, which in itself is incomprehensible, and the difficulties in renewing flight certificates, which have also been mentioned, there are other harmful actions on the part of the regulator that have led to a decrease in aeronautical activity, to the point of ending the operation of some types of aircraft in Portugal. 

For example, “Group II” ultralights (aircraft with a fabric structure, which are particularly cheap and ideal for training) are now virtually extinct here. Although there are still some qualified instructors, today there is only one school left with a single aircraft of this type in training, and there is no guarantee that it will continue for much longer. And without new pilots, Group II is doomed to disappear. This is what has already happened to the group of pendulum aircraft, as there have been no schools or instructors for a long time. Similarly, as there are no schools or active instructors in Portugal for seaplanes, the few enthusiasts who are still rowing against the unfavorable tide of the national regulator are once again resorting to foreign regulators. 

The detrimental impact on aviation safety 

In addition to the economic impact, there are two other aspects that are probably important but may have been overlooked. 

The first is pilot proficiency. All these constraints mean that people are flying less and less, not least because some aircraft are grounded for months, sometimes years. This leads to a corresponding loss of proficiency on the part of pilots when their aircraft (or their clubs) are grounded for months without the necessary authorizations for the discretionary reasons already mentioned. Knowing that most accidents are caused by direct human error (over 85%), this attitude on the part of ANAC is creating a very dangerous situation in the medium/long term, and it would not be unreasonable to point the finger at those responsible and demand that they face the consequences. 

The other reason is the patrolling of the country. Every aircraft in flight is a sentinel ready to report any eventuality, as pilots in the air are in constant contact with control agencies and report all eventualities. 

Every year, there are situations of collaboration with firefighters, sometimes helping them to find the sources of fires more quickly, as has happened several times, for example, in the Benavente area. Or even taking firefighters on board aircraft so that they can give direct instructions to those on the ground, increasing their readiness and effectiveness. And all this at zero cost to the state, because pilots have shown themselves to be genuinely available in practice.  

Consequently, reducing recreational aviation activity means reducing all these important contributions (at zero cost) to the country. 

Seriously, does it make sense for ANAC to waste its time and resources creating obstacles to aeronautical activity when it would be so much easier to do exactly the opposite? 

Examples of good practices abroad 

In contrast to the obstacles described above, several European countries offer more flexible regulatory models and enlightened regulators, while maintaining exemplary safety standards: 

• France has detailed regulations for ultralight aircraft, which are self-certified. This modern regulatory approach encourages diversity and local development while maintaining well-defined technical criteria. 

• The United Kingdom also adopts a national approach to ultralight aircraft, integrating associations (e.g., BMAA, LAA) into certification with a clear and well-defined scope of action. This decentralized model ensures operational safety without imposing unnecessary checks. 

• Countries with smaller populations but a strong aeronautical spirit, such as Slovakia and the Czech Republic, have been very supportive of aeronautical development. It is no coincidence that many of the most advanced manufacturers are based in these two countries. Slovakia has local private operators that handle the entire certification process according to clear and stable rules defined by the regulator. 

• In Germany, the authority (LBA) allows all classes of ultralights and a sports license regime (SPL). In general, there is close cooperation between flying clubs and the regulator, and short deadlines for technical certification. This favorable environment also creates conditions for the development of a leisure industry. 

• Another inspiring example is MOSAIC in the US (Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification), which will be published later this year and will quickly surpass Europe. This regime will further reduce bureaucracy, which is already significantly lower than in the most advanced countries in Europe. MOSAIC will eliminate weight limits in favor of flight stability criteria, focus on technical capabilities, allow ultralight aircraft with four seats (eventually six), simplify medical requirements (as already exists in France), and also authorize certain air services, such as patrolling and aerial photography. In short, the US is betting on innovation with less friction, boosting the economy. Wouldn't this be an example to follow? 

In summary, countries that balance clear technical requirements with flexibility in enforcement and clear, stable rules tend to see dynamism in recreational aviation. 

Decentralization is needed! 

Proposals for improvement to Portuguese regulations 

To make the regulation of recreational aviation in Portugal more effective and dynamic, we can consider the following concrete measures: 

• Define performance indicators for regulators. Authorities such as ANAC should have clear objectives (e.g., increase in the number of national pilots, number of registered aircraft, number of schools or maintenance companies, etc.) and economic impact indicators. These targets, aligned with regional development policies, would make it possible to assess the relationship between the requirements imposed and the economy. In addition, a serious prior assessment of alternatives with economic agents should be required before creating new rules, in order to follow the EU's “think small first” principle  to avoid over-regulation and create conditions for economic development for small and medium-sized enterprises, on which most of the economy depends. 

• Strengthen oversight and appeal mechanisms. Currently, administrative appeals can only be filed after a final decision has been made, when the damage has already been done. There is an advantage in creating an independent ombudsman/auditor for regulatory agencies, who could review internal rules and practices. Alternatively, a general aviation advisory committee (with members from flying clubs, schools, and industry) could function as a prior review body. Having a swift administrative appeal process, without fear of “retaliation,” would encourage more thoughtful and transparent decisions. 

• Delegate and accredit external entities. As already mentioned, many EU countries allow accredited aeronautical associations to perform inspection or maintenance tasks under the supervision of the regulator. In Portugal, flight instructors, aeronautical engineers, or private certifying entities could be authorized to carry out inspections or audits, certifications, and compliance checks, following standards approved by ANAC. This decentralization would reduce bottlenecks in inspections and make supervision more agile. This vision is not incompatible with essentially self-declared recertification of ultralight aviation, as in many EU countries. 

• Simplify national legislation. Decree-laws and regulations that add obligations beyond European operational safety requirements should be reviewed. For example, eliminate the requirement for excessively high fences at aerodromes, in order to avoid abusive interpretations on the ground by those who think they are applying the law correctly; or the requirement for specific approval for small private recreational aerodromes, when these are already subject to simplified certification in other Member States. The aim is to adapt to European conventions (such as the EASA Basic Regulations) without introducing extra restrictions that are completely unjustified. The validity period for aerodrome certification should also be removed from the law. Bring national legislation into line with the minimum European requirements, without a single extra comma, and make use of all the exceptions and derogations provided for to boost the sector. 

• Foster dialogue with the aviation community. Setting up regular meetings with representatives from flying clubs, manufacturers, and pilots would allow problems to be anticipated before they lead to conflicts. Public consultation with relevant stakeholders must be qualitative, not merely formal: truly listening to the sector confers legitimacy and avoids future surprises (and protests/complaints). 

• Recognize and support technological developments. Portugal must move forward with the national implementation of ultralight categories with MTOW of 600 kg, in line with all other countries. It should also formally create the legal basis for water plans for seaplanes and appropriate legislation for autogyros and ultralight helicopters. These changes will open up opportunities for specialized schools, events, and aeronautical tourism. 

• Education and promotion. Finally, promoting a realistic image of recreational aviation (safe and accessible) will attract more citizens and investors. ANAC itself, for example, could publish positive safety statistics and details of operating costs to dispel myths and encourage well-structured recreational flights. 

Portugal can fly higher: from stagnation to innovation 

Strategic aviation regulation should serve to protect without hindering, balancing public and private interests. The examples analyzed show that ANAC has acted too restrictively in the field of ultralight aviation, and beyond, generating negative economic impacts and alienating all types of economic agents. Too correct this course, it is necessary to apply recognized best practices in Europe, such as cooperation with industry entities, agile licensing regimes, and supervision based on economic results, thereby increasing the accountability of the regulator itself. The public debate and constructive proposals here aim to contribute to a consensus: while maintaining safety, Portugal should facilitate innovation and growth in leisure aviation, benefiting the economy, local communities, and the national aeronautical culture.