Regulation is inevitable in modern societies, but its weight can be so heavy that it becomes an obstacle to economic and social development. In the European Union, there is official recognition of this problem, with commitments to reduce regulatory burdens by up to 25% (and 35% for SMEs). In a sector such as civil aviation, where safety is essential, the challenge is to design and apply proportionate rules that promote new activities and attract enthusiasts. This reflection discusses the current role of ANAC (National Civil Aviation Authority) in recreational aviation.
Regulators are economic agents
In Portugal, as in other economies with a Roman or French tradition, regulation tends to be “de jure,” with rules defined a priori by the state and strictly followed. In common law countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, the United States), a “de facto” approach prevails, where the driving forces of the sector propose practical solutions that are subsequently legislated. Experience shows that an excess of “de jure” rules can ignore the real needs of stakeholders and create fruitless bureaucratic processes, hence the overregulation already assumed by the EU.
When legislators relinquish flexibility, regulators themselves gain too much power over the sectors they oversee, and this is risky because it depends too much on people and their common sense (or lack thereof). The downside of rules is not only felt in excessive bureaucracy. In the case of ANAC, the problem also lies in the discretionary way in which its employees have decided on the interpretation of the law. Although ANAC does not reject dialogue, there are consistently episodes of excessive or simply poorly applied regulation, with harmful consequences for the entire sector.
Suspicious decisions about regional aerodromes
ANAC's supervision of aerodromes is a good example of excessive zeal that is harmful to the economy, and the arrogance of the closure of the municipal aerodrome of Mirandela is a good example of this. An ANAC inspection at the end of 2023 found alleged “non-conformities” and decided to close the aerodrome to leisure flights. Requirements such as repainting markings and, astonishingly, building a 2.4-meter fence around the entire perimeter were pointed out. The Amendoeira Aerodrome in Montemor-o-Novo is under the shadow of the same threat, and its closure would be a fatal blow to national gliding (gliders).
Such a requirement is not at all common at aerodromes across Europe and has therefore been strongly criticized without any result. For example, the Prievidza aerodrome (Slovakia), used for major glider events, is even international (!) and has no fence at all, as do many aerodromes in France that we know well. And the municipal aerodrome of Seia in the municipality of Guarda is also not open to private aviation.
It is not clear why these two aerodromes cannot be used by private aviation, but are authorized for civil protection and medical emergency flights, with aircraft significantly larger than leisure aircraft, which shows that there is no fundamental safety problem. This is discrimination that is suspicious, to say the least.
But the lack of interest in the sector's economy evident in ANAC's decisions is not new.
The closure of the Covilhã aerodrome in 2011 was also suspicious, as it was reportedly located on land owned by INAC (the name of the regulatory body before it became an authority). Seeing a regulator as an active party in this type of deal is enlightening in itself, with the aviation community fully aware of the interests that were at play at the time. What is certain is that someone benefited from the destruction of this equipment, as the building was constructed right on top of the runway and could have been built elsewhere. And this despite the fact that, just a few kilometers away, the University of Beira Interior offers the most reputable aeronautical engineering course in the country.
Until very recently, we had more than a hundred aerodromes and airfields scattered throughout the country. They were all authorized or certified in due course and were used for many years. However, successive waves of suspicious enforcement of legislation led to the expiration of these licenses, in complete disregard for the basic principle of grandfathering (acquired rights). In fact, in just a few years, we went from having more than a hundred aerodromes and airfields to just over two dozen. And even those are now under threat from incomprehensible bureaucratic measures. Not because of major defects, not because accident statistics are attributable to them, but simply because of discretionary and suspicious decisions by the regulator!
As a result, with no known record of accidents resulting from the poor condition of the infrastructure stubbornly closed by ANAC's bureaucratic fury, Portuguese pilots find themselves trapped in an increasingly smaller number of available runways, unlike what we see in the rest of Europe. Interestingly, in northern Europe, despite the greater financial resources of its citizens, the authorities are concerned about the unnecessary expenses that their decisions may lead to, and scrupulously use the exceptions and derogations that European legislation allows them. This is exactly the opposite of what happens here, as we shall see.
In practice, Decree-Law 50/2010 imposes Herculean rules for the licensing of aerodromes and, worse than that, expiry dates for such licenses. If the idea is to put an end to aeronautical activity and the associated economy, ANAC is on the right track. Worse still, and somewhat suspicious, is the fact that ANAC ignores European standards, or interprets them in the most restrictive way possible. Article 2, which refers to the scope of European Regulation 2018/1139 on aerodromes, states that these may be exempted if they do not register more than 10,000 passengers and more than 850 cargo operations per year. But ANAC ignores this!
Is the idea to create difficulties so that someone can sell facilities?
Suspicious restrictions on ultralight aviation
Suspicious restrictions on ultralight aviation
The lack of specific regulations in Portugal has blocked the sector's progress, and we know who is to blame. We just don't know why. For example, unlike other EU countries, in Portugal there is no legislation for:
- ultralight aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 600 kg - current legislation does not exceed 450 kg, and the industry no longer even manufactures these models, so fleet renewal cannot take place;
- towing gliders by ultralight aircraft, when these are not only permitted but preferred in other EU countries;
- water aerodromes, i.e., under current law, existing seaplanes can only land at conventional aerodromes and never on water (!);
- autogyros, which is why existing ones are registered in other countries;
- ultralight helicopters, also only possible outside the Portuguese registry.
In short, the absence of adequate legislation has meant that various forms of ultralight aviation, and not only that, have been relegated to bureaucratic limbo, some with no return. This legislation is part of the mission of the regulator paid for with our taxes, but someone is not doing their job, creating conditions for the sector to be at a competitive disadvantage. If this is the case in all sectors, our fate can only be one of continuous impoverishment, not because of any ineptitude on the part of private initiative, but because it is bound hand and foot by the regulator itself. If that is the goal, then congratulations are in order for its effectiveness. But there is more.
Bureaucracy and suspicious certification costs
In addition to barring access to new aeronautical technologies in ultralight aviation, and beyond, ANAC has also created obstacles to the certification and renewal of existing aircraft. For example, in recent years, the periodic recertification of ultralight aircraft, required every three years, has become so complex in Portugal that it has led many pilots to give up flying to avoid falling into illegality. In addition, the application of the rules changes with each passing month, even though the law remains the same. Just ask APAU (Portuguese Ultralight Aviation Association) about the Herculean task of helping to overcome the real obstacles imposed by the respective ANAC department.
Instead of simple processes like in all other EU countries, there are overly zealous inspections focused on purely bureaucratic issues rather than safety, as one would expect, more typical of dictatorships than of a free and democratic country. ANAC has been following the motto “we can't make life easy for them,” and I am quoting. The resulting excessive financial costs and incomprehensible technical difficulties, in some cases more typical of airline aircraft than leisure aviation, are leading even more owners to sell their aircraft abroad. The result is a further reduction in activity in a sector that in many countries already represents small local industries, with manufacturers, schools, maintenance, skydiving, air tourism, catering, and hotels.
On the other hand, there seems to be a persistent misconception that recreational aviation is a privilege of the rich or dangerous. In fact, these modern ultralights have advanced safety systems, such as ballistic parachutes, and very low landing speeds, so the vast majority of accidents occur due to disregard for the rules, as with any other motor vehicle.
In financial terms, an ultralight aircraft costs the same as a car, with prices to suit all budgets. Many are jointly owned, which is similar to co-owning a car. Operating costs are also modest: a trip to the Algarve can cost around €50 in fuel (and does not require tolls!), and maintenance costs are even lower than the normal costs for motor vehicles. If the legal obstacles invented by ANAC are aimed at those with more money, in reality, they end up missing the mark. In other words, ultralight aviation is as accessible as any other motorized activity, and if there is any entity trying to make it elitist, it is ANAC itself. Does this make sense? In other EU countries, there is a struggle for the growth of the sector as a way of contributing to the economy by creating jobs.
Suspicious bureaucracy also in inspections of flight schools
ANAC has implemented a system of systematic inspections of flight schools that, once again, focuses exclusively on dubious bureaucratic routines and without any concern for the quality of teaching. Shouldn't ANAC be more concerned with the existence of new students and their proficiency?
And for those who don't believe it, take the case of the newly created Ultralight Pilot School at the Águeda Aero Club. This school had its dossier approved at the end of 2024, and even before it had time to offer its first course to the market, it was inspected, and a whole list of non-conformities was identified! It will most likely never even take off.
It seems unbelievable, but it's true!
As this text is already quite long, I will leave my comments on the economic impact, examples from abroad, and what we should do to recover our competitive disadvantage for the second part of this reflection.
Paulo Cardoso do Amaral, Professor at CATÓLICA-LISBON