johnwvincent

Production

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was formally established on 27 September 2002 and become operational one year later. The main objectives of the EU were strongly supported by the aeronautical industry. It was to create a body capable of ensuring a uniform, high level of aviation safety and independent of national interests. This included the free movement of aeronautical products and the automatic recognition of certificates. EASA was given the power to carry out legally binding certification tasks, overcoming the limitations of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA).

In the UK, organisation approvals have transitioned from national requirements BCARs[1] and JARs[2] to European rules as Regulation EU No 748/2012. Part-21 subpart G of this Regulation concerns the production of aircraft or engines or other products. This certification of production organisations[3] is for the demonstration of their capability and means to meet their airworthiness obligations. It’s also a way to confer specified associated privileges.

It is worth noting that organisation approvals issued or recognised by the UK in accordance with the JAA system, and valid before 28 September 2003, where accepted as complying with the above EU Regulation. So, for production organisations operating in Europe, the transition from the JAA systems to the EASA system was a progressive development.

Today, European National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) need to have the resources necessary to undertake the approval of organisations. Once initiated, this means that the NAA and approved organisation have an on-going relationship for, at least, as long as any of their products are in-service.

The EASA Form 1 is the Authorised Release Certificate released by a Part-21 POA holder for stating that a product, a part, or a component was manufactured in accordance with approved design data.

Post March 31, 2019, Regulation EU No 748/2012 will not apply in the UK. However, for continuity it may be adopted as part of a Withdraw Agreement and taken-up in UK legislation. In the case of a “no-deal” scenario the situation is unclear. Any of the privileges that come from a European POA remain in doubt. I assume we will have a National POA with National privileges that may or may not be accepted/recognised by others. With an accepted/recognised Authorised Release Certificate products are deemed airworthy. Without one they are not.

[1] British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR).

[2] Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs).

[3] Production Organisation Approval (POA).

Licences

There is a buzz in the media about commercial pilots’ licences.

It’s almost as well to start with the question: why do pilots need a licence? The roots of pilot licencing go to the earliest days of flying. Quickly it was realised that specific attitudes, skills and knowledge were essential to be able to fly safely. To start with licences were not mandatory. That changed markedly when civil aviation became commercial. The need for mandatory licencing was well established in the 1940s when the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) came into being.

Today, Article 32 “Licenses of personnel” of the Chicago Convention is clear:

a) The pilot of every aircraft and the other members of the operating crew of every aircraft engaged in international navigation shall be provided with certificates of competency and licenses issued or rendered valid by the State in which the aircraft is registered.
b) Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse to recognize, for the purpose of flight above its own territory, certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its nationals by another contracting State.

Today, the EU Basic Regulation and its implementing rules apply in the UK. Today, we have a harmonised system with mutual recognition in 32 European States[1]. We respect and recognise each other’s pilot licences.

Tomorrow, post March 31, 2019, the EU Basic Regulation will not apply in the UK[2]. Tomorrow, UK law may be a straightforward copy of the exiting EU law. At that time mutual recognition is not guaranteed unless an agreement is in place.

So, EU will need to decide – will it recognise a National licence from a “third country” that uses the “same” rules? Will any recognition be dependent upon rules continuing to be harmonised? What level of standardization auditing will maintain confidence that the system works?

I can’t answer these questions (yet).

POST: It’s 3-years on from this posting. A licencing imbalance has prevailed during that time. As of 1 January 2023, the UK will cease to recognise EASA-issued licences and certificates for the operation of UK (G-registered) aircraft. Whatever happened to hopes for mutual recognition? Pilot licensing | BALPA

[1] Licences issued by the National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) according to a set of common rules applied by the European Aviation Safety Agency, known as EASA – Flight Crew Licensing (EASA-FCL).

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf

Mettle and Mulligrubs

My last post had a glimmer of optimism about it. As the week progresses the basis for that optimism is subsiding. Slowly but surely. One cause is the endless, wholly erroneous diatribe of macho language that bleeds from the Brexit supporters. So, much effort and energy are being expended provoking conflict, heightening tensions and blaming others.

Constant uncertainty of the Brexit clock ticking is doing damage, even as we speak. The health of manufacturing confidence has reached a low. Contingency measures are kicking-in as companies move out of the UK. Hard working, tax paying, long-standing EU nationals are drifting away.

As real impacts are being felt by real people, so our politics seems more unreal. The UK is divided between people who are head-down studying, training or working and frantic groups that are fighting ancient battles. Politically Left or Right there’s a myopic obsession infecting public life.

Former governor of the Bank of England, Lord King has branded Brexit preparations as: “incompetent”. He’s coming from a position of supporting Brexit. My answer to him is the earthy historic phrase: you can’t make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear. The poor of preparation started the day an “advisory” referendum was proposed and driven through by a gambling PM.

Now, we have the ridiculous situation of the Brexit secretary Raab saying those in Parliament worried about warnings of damage to the UK car industry: “show more mettle”. Again a 17th century phrase. Maybe it’s time to revive some other historic words and phrases from that era.

Government is telling a: “Banbury tale” which is a form of: “cock and bull” story. That’s a ridiculous story, or a tale that rambles on without going anywhere. How apt for Brexit. Particularly considering that David Cameron’s constituency was in Oxfordshire.

I’m always astonished how many Brexiters are “mulligrubs”. That’s people in an exaggerated bad mood all the time. How they keep it up being so sullen when they “won” the referendum in 2016 is beyond belief. That word rolls off the tongue so maybe it’s worth reviving.

The political media is full of “pickthanks”. That’s gossiping tell-tales who spreads malicious rumours to carry favour. I can see why that one died. There are better words for such people but many of them are not to be used in polite company.

Brexit isn’t an answer to our current predicament. It’s a symptom of a much deeper problem. The longer we avoid that reality the worse the situation will get. Regrets are not enough. We need serious action to rethink. Sign-up[1].

[1] https://www.peoples-vote.uk/

Brexit and Aviation 30

The summer holidays are ending, and the prospect of autumn is all around. Fortunately, the summer weather continues, and the BBC PROMS[1] have one more week to run. The House of Commons returns on Tuesday, 4 September[2]. Already, UK MPs are lining up in front of the media with 101 opinions on where Mrs May is right, wrong, sad, mad and maybe the only game in town.

Where the political pendulum will settle is anyone’s guess. To give it a jolt there’s the Party conference season to come too. I’ll be down in Brighton this year.

In the statements coming from negotiations in Brussels[3], last week there’s some constructive and positive sounding words. The UK’s White Paper contains the recognition of the European Court of Justice as the ultimate arbiter of EU law. This sticks in the throats of Brexit fundamentalists. But it is pragmatic, as it’s the only way that 27 remaining EU Member States can be bound. This does open the door to the UK’s wish to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

Typically, several airlines release their late spring schedules for the following year in September. That task is going to be tricky this year given the uncertainty that continues as negotiations unfold. The schedule from 1st of April 2019 will likely mean that tickets sold will have terms and conditions saying this is subject to a new regulatory environment.

In my view the notion that UK airlines will be unable to fly into and out of the Europe is not plausible[4]. There’s been a lot of sensationalist media coverage and some badly written papers about what is theoretically possible as a worst-case scenario. There may be fewer routes, higher costs and restrictions, but it’s overwhelmingly in the interest of both sides that flights continue post-Brexit. It’s clear that the EU is not going to ignore its own legal framework, but parties reciprocate when it’s in their interests to do so.

What my advice? Plan a good winter break somewhere in Europe. The days of cheap flights to unusual destinations maybe ebbing away. At least from us in the UK. It’s sad to see such a curtailment of freedom of movement. The blame lies firmly on the shoulders of a generation of unimaginative politicians.

[1] https://www.royalalberthall.com/

[2] https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

[3] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-5403_en.htm

[4] http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/308215/easyjet-remains-confident-on-brexit

Brexit and Aviation 29

The negotiations continue but the water is muddy brown and impenetrable. EU-UK technical level meetings took place on Wednesday and Thursday this week. The assurance has been given that there are few remaining issues with the Withdrawal Agreement and the future relationship discussions. On Friday there’s to be a principals’ meeting with Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s Chief Negotiator, and Dominic Raab, UK Secretary of State for Exiting the EU.

Raab is confident a deal between UK and the EU is: “within our sights.” But the news this week has been up and down like a yo-yo. One minute there’s optimism and broadly 80% of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement is concluded. Next minute we must remind people that a “no deal” scenario is getting closer and closer. There’s so much day-to-day game playing that it’s difficult to be either optimistic or pessimistic.

I must congratulate presenter Hannah Fry. Last night, by chance, I watched her BBC 4 programme called “The Joy of Winning”. That was an hour well spent. She successful opens our eyes to game theory. Not an easy thing to do in a way that keeps people watching. Adventures in maths don’t normally top the viewing figures. For this one-hour I’d recommend you give it a go.

Made me think – is anyone applying game theory to the Brexit negotiations? And if they are what does each side judge to be a win?

Switching to Aerospace. A win for Europe’s Aerospace sector would be either no Brexit or an outcome that maintains much of what has been won over decades. Europe’s Aerospace is a success. It employs at least 120,000 people in the UK[1]. The fact is the industry is highly integrated within the EU. Billions are done in international trade. And a common rulebook makes that work.

UK Brexit Secretary Dominic Raaab maybe an improvement on his predecessor. In these final months, I hope he has a sound winning strategy that is a win-win for both the UK and EU.

A so called “no deal” Brexit would be an unmitigated tragedy. It would be evidence of abject failure in negotiations. It would signal to the world a grave weakness at a time of pressure and venerability.

Is “no deal” part of a game? Like the MAD that we lived through in the 1980s – that’s the Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War. I don’t suppose we will know until the UK Government papers are released in 30 years’ time. I prefer to think that it is a form of game theory otherwise I must concede that we are run by ideological extremism in favour of Brexit at any cost. Not a nice thought to end the week on.

[1] @ADSgroupUK

Britain deserves better

Post-Brexit Britain will be more bureaucratic. The recently published Government papers are full of new regulatory regimes, doubling up of registration and extra processes for British business and consumers. When Ministers say, like Dominic Raab: “the UK will be better off outside the EU in any scenario…” we all know these are meaningless words. It’s his job to say that sort of nonsense even if this is turning reality on its head.

For the Conservatives it’s too late to change direction. They know that their negotiating strategy has fallen apart. Focusing on the negative, like threats of a “no deal” have done, has alienated potential partners. During negotiations, blaming people for intransigence has been a diplomatic blunder of the first order. It’s reinforced the solidarity of the potential partners.

The first batch in a series of Technical Notices on “no deal” assume a great deal of good will on the part of the EU. Some of them ignore the constraints that apply because of existing legislation in Europe. In an emergency, circumventing Regulations can be done but its going to be hard if the only reasons are ideological and pressures are like a game of Russian roulette.

The UK voted to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016. The world of early 2019 will not be the same as the world of early 2016. Populism remains but its not gathering any head of steam. It’s a minority of ideological radicals who keep pushing their cherished project. We don’t have to accept their view of the world.

We need a #PeoplesVote. But we need a positive campaign about the benefits of European solidarity. A campaign must present the facts and expose the lies of the last referendum. Britain deserves better.

Brexit and Aviation 28

The EU has already produced a series of notices on “Brexit preparedness”. It’s now the turn of the UK to publish notices. Taking the current course, the UK plans to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. What happens at that point remains a subject of much debate and discussion. Many hours of media time are dominated by speculation and those desperate to influence public opinion.

Brinkmanship is the apparent escalation of threats to achieve one’s aims. For brinkmanship to work, both sides escalate their threats. We never seem to be on the brink of anything good. Most “brinks” are on the edge of catastrophise, cataclysm, disasters, ruin, suffering or harm.

Pro-Brexit people often dismiss any such talk as, so called: “Project Fear”. That’s disingenuous because it’s an unscrupulous attempt to hide what brinkmanship is by definition. A threat, or outcome that no one sensible wants is ineffective unless it’s credible. It’s no good blaming anyone for this dreadful state of affairs. If the doctrine of – nothing is agreed until everything is agreed – continues, then this is what will happen.

Also, its foolish to think that this situation will only exist in the UK – EU relationship. It’s most likely to be encountered whenever the UK is negotiating with a larger Country or region. So, if Brexit happens we had better get used to it.

Naturally there’s the potential for errors or misjudgements. History is littered with brinkmanship gone wrong. It always better to have a life jacket than not have one but whether it will be any use or not is quite another matter.

Today, civil aviation is not on the list of how to prepare if the UK leaves the EU with no deal[1].

There are some inferences that can be taken from the notice on “Regulating medicines”. Basically, that’s the UK will continue to apply and accept the application of EU regulations even if there’s no deal. Ideally, the UK would like to remain part of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

An attempt at humour, and the Bacon Lettuce and Tomato sandwich scenario after Brexit, fell flat. That said, most of the scenarios for no deal Brexit are Bl**dy Ludicrous Threats (BLTs). Better to stop this folly altogether and adopt a more practical, pragmatic and proportionate approach to EU Membership.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal

Brexit and Aviation 27

In civil aviation, deal or no deal, the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944, which provides for implementation of the measures necessary to ensure the safe operation of aircraft will continue to apply in all European States.

Deal or no deal, The UK will remain a member of European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) and EUROCONTROL. But even before REGULATION (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation a great deal of work was being done to harmonise of technical requirements in Europe.

Deal or no deal, the 508 million of the current EU28 want high levels of civil aviation safety and common technical requirements in Europe. Simply put the public demand will continue to be to strives to improve safety and protect the environment. European skies see over 10 million flights a year and that’s growing.

Frankly, to do any different would be a grave dereliction of duty. Each European country is unique. However, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you are from, if you are a passenger on an international flight you expect the same level of safety as everyone else. Competition can drive improvements in industry but no one sensible or sane competes on safety grounds.

So, talk of “no deal” isn’t of any usefulness because there will always be a deal of some kind.

Tomorrow Ministers are set to publish the “no deal” Brexit plans that have been worked-up. Whether this is healthy or unhealthy isn’t so much about what they contain as the state of mind that produced them in the first place. The irrational beliefs at the heart of Brexit have little to do with practical reality. The honest practical reality is that there will be deals.

No half-way houses

What do you do in a deeply divided country like ours? They say perception is all. Spend just 5 minutes reading Hard Remain Tweets and then 5 minutes reading Hard Leave Tweets. These two communities will NOT reconcile in anyone’s lifetime. We have Internationalist English and the Nationalist English. They live in different worlds and their beliefs are poles apart. They delight in insulting each other in ever more creative ways. Both believe the other one is sabotaging their dreams. Strong deals, good deals, bad deals, weak deals or no deal, whatever the final deal a large proportion of the English population will object to it even if they haven’t a clue what it means. We all know the status-quo is not tenable but where do we go from here? The traditional “bell curve” of politics is taking a holiday. That’s where once many politicians looked to position themseleves with the central moderate majority.

Let’s be clear that at a time of such troubles we need to get back to fundamentals.

“The first duty of the Government is to afford protection to its citizens.” My interpretation of the word “protection” takes in: safety, security, justice, economic wellbeing, social solidarity and environmental protection.

This is where the two camps are NOT equal. Wherever you are, you do need to pick a side. Appeasement has a poor history in all nations.

A quick look at the Brexiters priorities leave no doubt, in my mind that they are authoritarian and unscrupulous. Here’s a range of thing they want to do: One Party rule. In Parliament, shut down the House of Lords, as they say; no second house needed. More popular referendums to keep politicians on a leash. Returning capital punishment. Pulling up the draw-bridge to all but the wealthy. Privatisation of the BBC, NHS and other public bodies. Wholesale deregulation. Drastic cuts in welfare to let people sink or swim. Making dissent and protest crimes of treason. This list is a sample from Brexiters current on-line discussions.

Public safety, security, justice, economic wellbeing, social solidarity and environmental protection, will all be in jeopardy if they succeed. An outcome that “will be regretted for generations” is on the cards right now.

Let’s be clear the opinion to remain as an EU Member State is no longer the status-quo. The world has moved in the last two-years. A new dynamic exists in Europe as we face the challenges of Trump, Russia, China and the huge tech giants who dominate our lives. Nationalist voices will continue to make noise but that should on a level playing field with moderate voices.

If democratic States are to thrive and ordinary people not lose out, Government and its institutions must listen to their people. There is a growing demand and support for a #PeoplesVote. Let’s have that vote and show that the real deal is the one people want.

Brexit and Aviation 26

On my desk is coaster that says: “30 Years MOR Scheme 1976-2006”. It has the Civil Aviation Authority logo above the words. Now that was worth celebrating. Three decades of Mandatory Occurrence Reporting in civil aviation in the UK[1].

It would be difficult to put a number on the number of potential accidents and incidents prevented by the learning that has flowed from thousands of MORs. Nevertheless, there are certainly people who have been spared the fate of being involved in life threatening events.

1976 was my first year of paid employment. It was a glorious hot summer. In the autumn, I started an apprenticeship with no idea that the path of my career would lead to me working with MORs.

At that time, I was working out how to do engineering drawing and make precision items using machine tools. If remember right, being on a flat roof at Yeovil College experimenting with a solar water heater. Working out how to stop it leaking and pump at the right times.

Not my biggest interest but aviation was around me given the presence of Westland Helicopters in the town. That company had its own apprentice training school. Many of the college apprentices like me worked for small engineering companies that depended on Westland’s.

I recollect this because, at that time, my memories of a fatal aircraft accident were of the one that led to the establishment of the MOR system in the UK. In 1972, British European Airways flight 548 crashed in Staines killing 118 people on board[2]. This was a British aircraft, operated by a British company on British soil. A sad and tragic event. I plan to go to see the Trident memorial window in St Mary’s Church in Staines. The 118 stars in its border represent those who died.

The UK has contributed considerably to shaping the rules that now apply in Europe.

When I arrived in Cologne in 2004, the Directive 2003/42/EC was in place. This wasn’t the strongest piece of legislation and although it required EU Member States to have an MOR system it was weak on getting people to share information. That’s one of the big benefits of such approaches. It’s to learn from others so that you don’t have to experience the same problems.

Now, to give it the full title we have: Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation, amending Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1321/2007 and (EC) No 1330/2007 Text with EEA relevance.

Yes, that’s a mouthful but the text of the Regulation is invaluable to make a system of collecting and sharing MORs throughout the whole European aviation system. Will the UK continue to participate in this European system post-Brexit? Everyone assumes it will but the answer to the question how is – no one knows.

[1] https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/Make-a-report-or-complaint/MOR/Mandatory-occurrence-reporting/

[2] https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19720618-0