johnwvincent

Aviation & Brexit 2

On the road to the Brexit many questions remain unanswered. I’m writing this article responding to several assertions that I’ve seen made in the social media world. On aviation, here I’d like to add my perspective given that the subject is not straightforward or simple.

The European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA has a membership that extends beyond the EU Member States. International cooperation has been a key activity of the European Commission and EASA since its establishment. This is quite rational and reasonable given that civil aviation is one of the most international businesses in the world. One role EASA has is to promote European and worldwide standards. Its long been recognised that regulatory fragmentation has a detrimental impact on all aspect of civil aviation, including safety.

The EU has written agreements with many Countries[1]. There are working arrangement, bilateral agreements, memorandums of understanding and examples of technical cooperation. Four non-EU European States are EASA Member States. If a Country is not an EASA Member States it is called a “Third Country”. This term is significant because it’s used extensively in existing European aviation legislation.

In 2006, Switzerland become a member of the EASA. It was the fourth non-EU country to adopt EU aviation safety legislation after Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. These four non-EU countries are represented in the Agency’s Management Board and their nationals are eligible to work for the Agency in Cologne.

Reports suggest that the door to EASA membership is open to the UK. This proposal of Agency membership is greatly favoured by industry bodies and many of the UK’s international partners. The benefits are notable, and it does provide for a degree of continuity for an industry where long-term planning is essential. The traveling public would benefit from that continuity too.

An integrated aviation safety system in Europe isn’t just an abstract concept, it’s a reality. We learn from each other’s experiences and that learning is fed directly into day-to-day aircraft operations. Its not hyperbole to say that Europe is the most advanced aviation region in the world.

The UK’s history is one where we have made immensely significant contributions to the development of aviation safety regulation in Europe. In my view the benefits of continuing along this road outweigh, by a huge margin any speculative benefits of regulatory divergence.

Over the next year, negotiations will address the detailed agreement to describe the way forward for UK-EU civil aviation. Building on our positive achievements would seem to be the wisest and safest course of action.

[1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country/map

Aviation & Brexit

There’s several recent articles written about Aviation and Brexit. Some are better than others. All raise vital points for discussion. Here, I thought I’d write this page to deal with one or two anomalies that often crop up.

Brexit is going to complicate aviation in Europe. Absolutely no doubt about that fact. However, the earth will not stop rotating and all planes will not stop flying on one day.

In aviation there are international bodies, intergovernmental bodies and the European Union. With full agreement by the Member States, from its origins in the Treaty of Rome through all the Treaties, the EU has expanded its range of activities. Now, before any further discussion it’s useful to look at the division of competences within the EU. Transport is a shared competence between the EU and EU countries. That means the EU countries exercise their own competence where the EU does not exercise, or has decided not to exercise, its competence.

Thus, changes in European aviation didn’t happen in one massive swoop, they are on-going and will be on-going for a long time into the future. In all aspects of aviation, the EU and EU countries can legislate and adopt legally binding acts, but they don’t have to unless there’s a need.

By 1992, the foundations of a common transport policy had been laid[1]. The notion of a shared competence continues to be important throughout subsequent developments.

Another key point is to remark is that transport should not been seen in isolation. As European policy developed so the environment became more prominent. Aviation and policy related to research and innovation should not be separated. Also, consumer rights is a key component. This meant that not only did the Member States and European Commission need to work closely together but the different directorates of the Commission had to coordinate too.

Now back to international bodies, intergovernmental bodies and the European Union. Grandmother of them all is ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal. It’s sometimes referred to as the House of the States. 192 of them to be precise. ICAO has a regional structure. Its European office is in Paris. To complicate even more, the Paris office is shared with, the European Civil Aviation Conference[2]. ECAC is an intergovernmental organisation that was established by the ICAO and the Council of Europe. So, even if no EU aviation interest existed there is a set of institutions addressing European aviation. And I haven’t even mentioned EUROCONTROL.

Much of what has been written recently refers to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This EU body came into operation in September 2003. It had been discussed, debated and theorised over a decade or more. Built on the foundation of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), initially EASA took over the task of aircraft certification. Gradually, the remit of EASA was expanded.

This happened in a way that was fully aligned with the notion of shared competence. The European aviation system is not a federal system as it is in the US. EASA and the National Aviation Authorities work together. One maybe tasked to write new rules and the other would be tasked to implement those rules.

If we take the subject of licencing as one example of the work of EASA and the NAAs. In civil aviation, pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers need licences to work.

I’ve seen it written that post-Brexit, licences issued by UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will no longer be valid for operating in the EU when the UK ceases to be an EU member state. However, in an international context it’s not that simple. Today, EASA licences are issues by the NAAs, including the UK CAA. These licences are fully compliant with ICAO Standards and Recommended practices. As such it would be difficult for a European State, as an ICAO Member State to not recognise UK issued licences without some good technical reasons.

Where the UK may need to re-establish its competence, if it did drop out of the EU system would be in the field of aviation rulemaking. Even then it could just copy the output coming from the EU and EASA in Cologne and put a UK label on it.

The situation could get exceedingly messy. In this next year, methodical, patient and smart civil servants in both Brussels and London need to put down on paper exactly how the new arrangement will work. That can’t wait too long because eventually the auditor will come knocking on the door and ask all sorts of difficult questions.

[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/transport_en

[2] https://www.ecac-ceac.org/

Fair Markets

There are those totemic Brexit issues that keep surfacing. Maybe they are not the ones that are top of the list on your way to work or the supermarket, but the media are fixated by topics like the British Passport.

So, let’s talk about passports. Listening to a Government Minister on the radio this morning its like they had no choice but to award a major contract to a foreign company. Well, that’s the first misguiding steer of the day. Other European countries make this a matter of security and thus set aside from the single market procurement rules. It’s just another example of Brexiters giving a false steer to get themselves off a hook.

The move to buy future British passports from a European company may be perfectly justified based on quality and value for money. Those who carp about an affront to nationalism need to think carefully about what they are suggesting. Even if Brexit happens, in a post-Brexit world Government procurement will still need to be fair, open and consider the need for a “level playing field” for contractors and suppliers.

One of the most basic tenants of trade is the notion of reciprocation. In other words, I’ll buy your goods and services if you buy my goods and services. The assumption being that we all want the best goods and services supplied at the best price.

True that a large section of Brexiters are out and out nationalists. As such they don’t care much about getting the best possible deal if its restricted to the Country’s borders. Having a stamp on it to say that its 100% British is the only consideration even to the extent of damaging our export markets.

European procurement rules give us access to a market place worth 100s of billions. It would be an almighty foot shooting exercise to cut ourselves off from that market.

Fishy parrot

Without a doubt the Brexiteers have betrayed British fishing. On the table is a proposal for Britain to effectively remain in the EU Common Fisheries Policy for almost two years after March 2019. Yes, this is a practical and pragmatic measure in a long and detailed negotiation but its runs in the opposite direction to the one pushed for by the likes of backbench MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Ministers have defended their position by asking the hard core Brexiters, who like to think they run Britain, to hold fire and play a long game. This is much like asking your favourite football team to carry on loosing because one day over the horizon they might just win.

All this political theatre continues apace even when there’s no clear Fisheries Policy to replace the one we have now.

It’s bazaar to see angry fishing protesters throw dead fish into the Thames river outside The Houses of Parliament in London. Perhaps a nice meal for a passing gull or Conger Eel. Today, indeed there are such fierce fish in the river Thames[1]. It’s a good sign of how much this major tidal river has been cleaned up over numerous decades.

I don’t need to say that; British rivers were in an alarming state before Britain joined the EU. Concerted environmental action[2] across Europe has improved the situation markedly even though problems remain. The Thames clean-up campaign has been an internationally success. This most British of estuaries supports over 120 species of fish, is a key nursery ground and plays a big part in supporting North Sea fish stocks. I don’t know what the protesters think is going to happen if Britain leaves the EU. The management of fish stocks will continue to be a complex issue that no one Country can monopolise.

Brexiteers will betray the fishing industry. Brexiteers will betray the framers. Brexiteers will betray every single British subject (or citizen). Its just a matter of time. Doesn’t matter if its March 2019 or 21 months later the betrayal is inevitable.

It isn’t dead fish we should be picturing but the dead parrot[3] of Brexit.

[1] http://thames-explorer.org.uk/knowledge-base/wildlife/forna/fish/

[2] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/basics/health-wellbeing/clean-water/index_en.htm

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Parrot_sketch

Wrong turn

Let’s be clear. Brexit is built on a fantasy. It’s a massive disruption aimed at the wrong target.

Yes, we know the world has changed since the formation of the European community. Yes, we know China and India are growing more rapidly than Europe. Yes, we know no one likes the language of rules and regulations. But to use these three as reasons for unilateral separation from our nearest neighbours is as likely to succeed as a five-year-old is to master quantum physics.

Global connectivity, interaction and interdependence are growing. Like it or not, no one Country is going to be able to halt social and technical “progress” unless its willing to make its people poorer. There’s always the dark ages option.

Sure, this makes people like me, over 50, uncomfortable and romantically starry eyed about so called simpler times. My career started in the pre-digital world where computers were filing cabinet sized number crunchers only States and big companies could afford. Today, with talk of Artificial Intelligence not as science fiction but as science fact, its hard to know what will happen next.

For these reasons, and more major institutions need a radical shift in gear. It doesn’t matter if they are international, regional, national, city, town or village we need to do business differently.

So, where Brexit pits one against another it’s a hundred percent wrong.

In the background

Here, I thought I would write a few observations having recently talked to several people who supported Brexit. Conversations that were as civil as if they had happened in a church vestry.

Although the language used in published Brexit document, either from Whitehall or the European institutions is dull, measured and technical it’s soon turned into emotive hyperbole by the media. The mundane horse-trading that is part of normal negotiations is hijacked by brain numbing capital headlines. Sterile legalistic words suddenly become personal attacks and vengeful actions.

Its like there’s an insatiable need to turn administration into high drama. None of this media magnification and political hype helps the process one little bit. Its happening and all parties are doing it, but the aggression and sharpness is greater on the pro-Brexit side.

What I find astonishing is the emphatic and dogmatic way in which some of those who voted to Leave the EU speak and write. Language is coloured by absolutes. There’s little attempt to understand that a considerable number of people disagree with leaving the EU.

Gross stereotyping is happening on both side of the argument. If anything, this just has the impact of hardening the attitudes of those committed to each camp. Leavers are accused of being xenophobes. Remainers are accused of being disrespectful.

Finding words to characterise the situation, what comes to mind is that it’s like a mock civil war being fought in thick mud. Life changing and messy but recoverable if some good will can be found.

It seems both camps agree we have an incompetent Government implementing the process. Upheavel without benifit is a costly way to roll the clock back.

As huge generalities, a couple of points are clear to me. These get more acute the older people get. One: the British people never like being told what to do especially when its written down. Order is preferred over chaos but don’t make too many rules. Two: complaining is not the natural British way. Bottling up unhappiness’s until they explode is far more the British way.

Brexit will fail because its twisting and turning and tying itself up. Most fundamentally it’s not dealing with the real reasons for people’s unhappiness. The public will give their vedict in the end. In fact, they may do that sooner than the pudits think.

These notes may be extremely useful if there is a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

Uncertain rules

Simon Whalley’s[1] analysis shows that there’s a lot that remains uncertain. Even with the UK exploring the terms on which the UK could remain part of the European Aviation Safety Agency [EASA] there is no assurance of success. If an accommodation is achieved there’s still the thorny problem of being subject to rules that will be put in place without a UK vote for or against.

It might be that the undeclared strategic aim of the UK Government is to diverge from the European framework of rules. That would make EASA membership a transitional arrangement.

Given my experience, I’m forced to look at the evolving situation as the past gone into reverse. In the 1990s we were slowly but surely moving away from British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCARs) towards European ones as being organised by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). This progressive movement, of over more than a decade, created the stepping stones that made EASA possible. If we put all that into administrative reverse it will take a couple of decades to get to a situation of greater autonomy. Even that will not mean absolute control given the UK’s obligations within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the large number of bilateral agreement that will need to be put in place to replace the European ones.

I don’t deny that divergence may have one or two benefits. However, I will agree that the costs of divergence far exceed any of the potential benefits or, at least, that is the experience of the past.

Take the case where there is a major fatal accident of a civil aircraft on British soil. Post-accident, there is the potential to change aviation rules faster if the only consideration is a domestic outcome. Divergence will then certainly then arise quite rapidly. What can be bad about that? Well, there are a couple of issues. Rapid rule changes can be highly politically driven running the risk that the true nature of a technical problem is not addressed. Also, given the extremely rare occurrence of fatal accidents there’s a lot to be gained from aggregating information. If all energy and effort is focused on national problems much can be missed. In other words, the accident that others have maybe the accident you have tomorrow, if you don’t pay attention.

Pro-Brexit reporters have commented; if Australia and New Zealand can do it why can’t we? That is; to not have an empowered regional organisation addressing aviation. Also, such remarks have been addressed about the Gulf States. Look at these large aircraft operators and they don’t have an EASA, do they?

The truth is complex. A lot of these simple analogies don’t stand up to scrutiny. In fact, at international level more and more regional groupings are being established and recognised by ICAO. Also, the highly integrated and interconnected nature of design, production, maintenance and operations in Europe does mean we are not like any other global region.

Although we (UK) are in reverse gear let’s hope that a handbrake turn takes place before we hit the barrier.

[1] https://www.aerosociety.com/news/brexit-and-easa-a-way-forward/

Anti-Social Media

Transformations often occur without any grand plan. Worlds change, events come and go, and chance plays its hand. Leaps forward in technology have give us a level of interconnection that few imagined only a decade or so ago. But there it is, social media is a part of our landscape like it or not. And its not going away.

Having participated in the debate about Brexit for the last couple of years certain thing become evident. There not all negative but the trend is a dangerous one.

The “liberal” hope for technologies like the INTERNET has always been that communication would give us a greater understanding of each other. The benefits for education are huge. From that a well of good would bring people together rather than push them apart. Like the benefits of travel. The more we know about our neighbours the more we would find common cause. This is true but there’s a flip side too.

Whereas face-to-face lots of social norms come into play, in the electronic cloud this is not so much so. Rudeness and vulgarity are still not acceptable in public. Stupidity is shunned when met in the flesh. Bigotry is questioned.

A side effect of all the technology we have accumulated is that it requires so little of us. Immediacy and proliferation means throw away comment and clicks of approval or disapproval costs nothing. In the worst cases people can hunker down in isolated corners and bombard the world with their prejudices and narrow-mindedness.

In politics, the fences surrounding camps are strengthened. Impenetrable walls are erected to preserve cherished beliefs. Although some of this is not new it does make it more difficult to cross boundaries and explore original ideas.

Ironic that these liberating technologies bring out the most illiberal instincts. To throw in a solution would be a step too far. The road of travel is a dangerous one but somehow, we must learn to behave differently. It’s a continuous learning.

In addition, having said that, policing plays its part. Means are needed to put a cost on bad behaviour. Persistent trolls and campaigns that dive to the depths of vulgarity should be under pressure. Free speech is not freedom to say anything.

PM at a lectern

The much-billed speech on Britain’s future relationship with the EU is out. Prime Minister, Theresa May stood at a lectern and read a winding text that dipped into the live subjects of the moment. Watching a recording of her big speech was like watching an Open University seminar. Last year, to appease her Party, Theresa May used the slogan: Brexit means Brexit. This has gone. Many of the costs of leaving the European Union were addressed. There was little, if anything about the benefits of leaving.

So, if Brexit happens here are a few of the troublesome problems seeking solutions.

There’s a positive recognition that a “level playing field” is essential for an EU-UK relationship to be sustainable. The devil is in the detail and on that front much remains to be discovered.

She continues to say that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is ruled out of deciding disputes between EU-UK. Its clear that the ECJ plays a part but what part is yet to be determined.

The Prime Minister stressed the importance of a good deal on the flow of “data” between EU and UK. This aspiration makes good sense if only a whole new way of working didn’t have to be set-up in one year.

She accepts that people will still want to work and study in EU countries. However, there’s no clarity on how such movement will be relatively easy.

Looking at ways the UK could remain part of some EU Agencies is to be welcomed. However, our membership will be inferior to the 27 EU Member States in the three mentioned: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Divergence from the EU on Agriculture seems inevitable. Its assumed that the maintenance of high standards continues to be the UK’s goal. An assumption like this could get traded away in the need for a future deal with Countries like the US.

The Prime Minister suggested that she wants to remain part of the science and innovation framework programmes. There will be a major cost to this objective.

Overall, I would quote Benjamin Franklin: “Necessity never made a good bargain.” The UK needs a good deal, but it will be inferior to membership of the EU. May’s speech is well crafted as political theatre. She has got people feeling good about accepting an inferior situation.

Smart move

Over the last couple of decades there’s been a freeing up of civil aviation in Europe. It’s the reason for that £40 return ticket to a sunny destination, weekend city breaks or an adventure. At the same time, bar a small number of tragic events, it got safer to fly. That’s a remarkable achievement. Each of us can get to more places more cheaply and more safely than ever before. As is human, its easy to take this all for granted as if it would have happened whatever we did. Now, that’s a big mistake. Behind the scenes, huge efforts were made to change aviation and its associated regulation.

Europe has been remarkable successful liberalising markets and getting competition to give the passenger what they need and want. For those of us who remember the mediocre service and high cost of flying with State airlines in the 1980s, the transformation is clear. For the millennial generation who take international traveling as a given its difficult to image a world any different.

So, what has been the key to this achievement? Yes, the entrepreneurial spirt of those who established the low-cost carriers played its part. However, their efforts needed a transformation of the environment in which the business of flying took place. This is where the European Union (EU) has been particularly smart.

The liberalisation of aviation markets as a matter of competition policy is one thing but it’s not enough on its own. Just liberalising markets can be a disaster. It can mean a race to the bottom of the barrel and commercial pressures that chip away at good industry practices.

That’s why regulation is not only beneficial but it’s essential. Now this article will not consider competition policy, but it will discuss aviation safety regulation. Because the civil aviation industry cannot thrive unless safety is a priority.

In Europe, discussions on the establishment of a European aviation safety body date back to as early as 1996, but it was only in 2002 that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was established. The Agency started life in an office in Brussels and then it moved to Cologne in Germany in 2004.

EASA did not come out of thin air. Previously, there was cooperation between the EU and the administrations of many European states within the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). Having realised much in the way of harmonising standards, JAA was a club like organisation and had reached its limits, particularly on the legislative front, for its lack of authority.

The EU’s competences in transport are set out in the EU treaties. These treaties provide the basis for actions the EU institutions can or cannot take. Transport is a ‘shared’ competency. What that means is that either the EU or the Member States may act, but the Member States may be not act once they have acted through the EU. On this front, EASA was established by the Regulation (EC) 1592/2002. It was designed and built on the experiences and cooperation of the former Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). It works with all the national authorities.

With these developments, there’s no doubt consumers have benefited from a wider range of choice, both in locations served and in quality and type of service. Most of all aviation safety is number one.