Category: Aviation

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 6

IMG_1076As in “The Prisoner” the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have told the UK Prime Minister: I am not a number.   The Westminster Village is beginning to look more like The Village in the cult 1960s British TV series[1].  I don’t like being right on such matters.  But my last Blog did imply posturing in respect to EU-UK negotiations is the purview of Number 10 Downing Street.  No others will be tolerated doing so in this UK Government.  We now have populist politicians on both sides of the Atlantic using all the tools of the trade to reinforce their power.  The extent to which people support this post-Brexit pathway to the future is extremely questionable.  One of my objections is that placing faith in powerful men hasn’t produced good outcomes in history.

Another objection, and more pertinent to the topic of aviation is that a failure to engaging with the complexities that are challenging our societies will just result in lost years of banalities, evasion and superficiality.  It’s my firm belief that “Europe”, wherever you put the boundaries, will only continue to be successful in meeting those challenges by encouraging creativity, imagination and innovation but in a stable environment where certain failures can be tolerated.  Truly learning from failure has been the stimulus for transformational benefits time and time again.

Now, the UK is not doing well, but neither is the Eurozone’s as GDP increased by only 0.1% in the fourth quarter of last year.   Plundering history to wrap us in a wall of nostalgia will do nothing to improve both our economic and environmental quality of life.  Focusing on Climate Change is going to require civil aviation to be radical.  Incremental progress, at great expense, is often a means to avoid change.  I’m sorry to say that has been the record of the Single European Sky (SES)[2] project in Europe.  Brexit or no Brexit, it makes little difference in respect of the future of how our airspace is best used.  Geographical boundaries are false boundaries when it comes to tackling Climate Change in the air.

Maybe this is a time for the UK to be like the grit in the oysters.  Taking everyone’s problem but, in standing outside the constraints of conventional intergovernmental processes being able to bring a fresh look at sustainable aviation.  That would be a better way than to grip nostalgia for a golden past.  The fundamentals of air traffic management were invented not more than 15 miles from where I’m siting[3].  So, let’s use history, without getting all starry eyed, and jointly build a sustainable future together.   EU-UK negotiations need to be open to this prospect.

Be Seeing You.

[1] https://www.portmeiriononline.co.uk/the-prisoner/c140

[2] The Single European Sky (SES) is a European initiative to improve the way Europe’s airspace is managed.

[3] https://www.historiccroydonairport.org.uk/

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 5

It’s like the sun rising at high latitudes.  Slowly the light starts to emerge.  Information on the direction EU-UK negotiations may take is slowly finding its way into the public domain.

The fact is that until the end of this year existing agreements between the European Union (EU) and third countries continue to be applicable to the UK.  That’s a great breathing space but it will be a short lived one.  Campaigners posturing and saying that a Brexit deal would deliver the: “exact same benefit” as EU membership – well that’s now defunct.   This week, political statements see an end to frictionless trade with EU Member States[1].  How much of this new posturing is for the detailed negotiations to come is unclear?  Even the roles of those doing the posturing may change as the UK’s Prime Minister (PM) will carry out what is expected to be a wide-ranging cabinet reshuffle.

Media talk of an “Australian Model” for post-Brexit arrangements is simply talk of a No Deal Brexit by another name.  The language used is aimed at calming those who still shudder at the thought of walking away from the table.  In fact, there are long-standing ties between the EU and Australia[2].  There’s a working arrangement between the respective aviation authorities, but it’s limited in scope[3].  In practice, in my experience there’s been good communication between the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia (CASA)[4].

On a completely different subject, but one that impacts aviation and travel markedly, there’s the subject of time.  The act of withdrawing from the EU means that the UK doesn’t have to follow its neighbours.  In March, last year, the European Parliament voted to stop changing the clocks every year.  EU Member States will need to choose to stick to what is now Winter Time or Summer Time.

On Sunday 31 March, I’ll be looking forward to putting my clock forward one hour.  But what will we (UK) do in 2021?  Will we continue with the same ritual every year or will we join our European colleagues and fix our time?  There are industry concerns that variations in the time differences between the UK and EU Member States adds complexity for UK businesses large and small[5].  It certainly would make scheduling aircraft routes more challenging.   Maybe this subject will be addressed in any new agreements on air connectivity or maybe not?

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-confirms-plans-to-introduce-import-controls

[2] https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/610/australia-and-eu_en

[3] https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country/countries/australia

[4] https://www.casa.gov.au/

[5] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5801/ldselect/ldeucom/15/1502.htm

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 4

The act of withdrawing from the European Union (EU) has been underway for a week.  Already there’s considerable confusion over the UK’s longer-term relationship with European Member States.   Differences of political opinion are evident over what’s to be discontinued and what not. Hopefully, the next steps are being guided by the Political Declaration (PD) agreed between the EU and the UK in October 2019.

It’s worth noting the reality of the current situation.  The Withdrawal Agreement (WA)[1] is a Treaty[2] which governs the terms of the withdrawal of the UK.  It will continue to apply, even if there’s a Brexit “crash out” at the end of the year.

Going forward in this period of transition isn’t necessarily reversing the past.  That said, the past must be respected.  But you might say: why?  Let’s stride off into the sunny uplands with a blank sheet of paper in our hands.  Unfortunately, that’s like walking into a snowstorm armed with only a tube of toothpaste.  My metaphor is about changing aviation rules, regulations and standards.

One aspect of transport systems is their relative long lives.  Given that investments in aviation are high, most products are designed and produced to be in service for more than a couple of decades.

Another aspect is the need for parts of the aviation system to interoperate safely with other parts.  Landing an aeroplane in Manchester shouldn’t be radically different from landing one in Munich, or Manila for that matter.  Fixing one is the same task in any of those cities.

What I’m saying is both European and British rules, regulations and standards must comply with their international counterparts.  That doesn’t mean these no scope for differences, but it does put some constraints on what can be practically done, especially in a limited time.

The EU and the UK have set out their opening positions for their future relationship on aviation.  For the above reasons and more, I have no doubt that there will be a degree of convergence over the next few months.  The cancellation of laws applied during this period of withdrawal can only happen if something viable is put in their place.

Meanwhile aviation organisations are updating their Brexit public information[3].   That said, words like “termination” are avoided because no one knows what the situation will be in 2021.

[1] The Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community.

[2] A treaty is a formal written agreement entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations.

[3] https://www.easa.europa.eu/brexit

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 3

“Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.[1]”  It seems strange to me that the first and only time I have ever been in the London O2 arena was 20 years ago when it opened as the Millennium Dome. In that 20 years, I moved from aircraft certification to aviation safety and research to playing my part in setting up a new European Agency in Cologne.  And then retiring back to the UK.  The millennium events were full of ambition, imagination and hope.  As we enter the 2nd decade of the 2000s, the experience of Brexit makes no sense in that context.

This week, on behalf of the EU, the European Commission adopted a draft negotiating directive for a new partnership with the United Kingdom (UK)[2].  This material includes the following for Transport and Aviation:

  1. b) Aviation safety
  2. The envisaged partnership should facilitate trade and investment in aeronautical products, parts and appliances through cooperation in areas such as certification and monitoring, the production oversight and environmental approval and testing. Negotiations should be based on both Parties being satisfied with the other Party’s requirements, regulatory processes and capacity to implement them.
  3. Nothing in the envisaged partnership should entail reciprocal acceptance of the standards and technical regulations of the Parties. Rather, it should limit duplication of assessments to significant regulatory differences and allow, to the extent possible, reliance on the certification system of the other Party. It may also specify modalities, based for example on the respective experience and knowledge of the other party, for the respective level of involvement of the authorities. To facilitate the achievement of the objective set out above, the envisaged partnership may also provide for regulatory co-operation.
  4. The acceptance by one Party of findings or certificates of the other Party shall only take place when, and as long as, the first Party is able to establish and maintain confidence in the other Party’s ability to discharge its obligations in accordance with the envisaged partnership. The envisaged partnership should include appropriate cooperation mechanisms to verify on a reciprocal basis the continued fitness and ability of the regulatory bodies involved in its implementation.

However awkwardly written, none of this negotiating text should be a surprise.  This is what the European Union (EU) might say to any 3rd Country.  Given that the starting position for the UK is alignment then aspects of the above should be achievable without great stress.  However, there are subjects like; initial airworthiness (design certification) where the UK has not been fully competent since September 2003. A demonstration of ability, capacity, experience and knowledge on that subject will likely take more than 11 months.  Much of that depends on the degree to which the slogan: “take back control” was intended.

No doubt the above negotiating text on aviation safety is well researched and reasoned and that the background thinking exists in internal documents within the EU.   Since Brexit, British diplomats no longer have formal access to internal documents and information so there’s likely to be a lot more dinners and lunches in Brussels restaurants.

Yes, the UK has formally left the EU, but it hasn’t left numerous other European institutions.  One of them is an intergovernmental organisation based in Paris called the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)[3].  The predecessor to the European Union Safety Aviation Agency (EASA), the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) were established by ECAC in the 1990s.  It will be interesting to see what role the UK will play in this ECAC in coming years.  Will it be more vocal?

[1] Quote from: Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership/future-partnership/guide-negotiations_en

[3] https://www.ecac-ceac.org/about-ecac

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 2

Watching UK Prime Minister Johnson’s speech[1], made in Old Royal Naval College at Greenwich yesterday, there’s no doubt the setting was impressive.  The words were not so impressive.  In fact, they were downright confusing. Phrases like: “Free trade is the only certain way of uniting people in the bonds of peace” are peculiar given that the UK has just left one of the world’s most successful projects for free trade and peace.

There were jaunty references to being like Canada, or Australia or something akin to these two Commonwealth States.  The vision painted by Johnson had none of the precision or artistry of the walls in the recently restored Painted Hall[2].   Even so, there was an echoing theme that the UK wouldn’t follow any rules other than its own.

The reference to a country that’s bigger in physical size but smaller in population and that has a larger neighbour to the south, is interesting from an aviation perspective.  It’s true that Canada has its own aviation regulatory structure.  It hosts the international organisation that is responsible for aviation standards, namely ICAO.  In addition, it has major aerospace design, manufacturing and maintenance companies as well as international operators.

However, Canada’s free trade agreement (CETA) with the European Union (EU) doesn’t eliminate all tariffs and quotas.  Built over many years, for aviation there is a level of mutual recognition between Canada and the EU.

In 2011, an agreement on civil aviation safety between the EU and Canada entered into force[3].  Part of this agreement includes detailed working arrangements.  This international cooperation was agreed when both sides demonstrated to the other that they had the regulatory competence and capacity to satisfy each other’s needs.  The work is by no means finished.

So, yes perhaps it is the case that carbon copy rules, or complete harmonisation between parties is not the only route to mutual recognition.  Usually, regulatory differences exist not because parties want them to exist for their own sake but that each party has a different set of experiences.  In design certification, the reason for a great number of rules and standards can be traced back to accidents and incidents.  Not everyone has had the same history or operates in the same environment (social, political, economic and so on).  Regulatory maturity is only established over decades.  Then regulators can assess each other’s systems and decide that arrangements, like accepting each other’s certificates can be done safely.  What I’ve described doesn’t happen overnight.  A conservative, with a small “c”, approach is taken to aviation safety because the consequences of getting it wrong can be tragic.

[1] https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1224435858985472000?s=20

[2] https://ornc.org/our-story/royal-hospital/painted-hall/

[3] https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/bilateral-agreements/eu-canada

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 1

The UK flag has been taken down at the European Union (EU) Council building in Brussels.  This is one of the actions that marks Brexit.  After almost 50 years of EU membership and 3 years of acrimony over the vote to leave, the UK has formally left the EU.  Now, the EU and the UK enter a transition period during which detailed talks take place[1].   The transition period is due to end on 31 December 2020.  So, time is short, and ambitions are high.  If there’s a pragmatic upside to these events, it does make it more difficult for national politicians to use the EU as a scapegoat.  That said, given the propensity to use blame as a way of avoiding accountability then no doubt a new target will be found.

As we enter what will be another frantic period, both parties to the EU-UK negotiations are setting out their shop windows.  The consequences of this, is that, and so on.  What’s unusual about these negotiations is that there are two parties start with free trade and a level playing field but talk of erecting barriers as they go.  Usually, it’s the other way around whereby the aim of detailed negotiations is to remove barriers.  To any dispassionate observer this does seem to be wacky.

In the aviation sector, will the UK continue to participate in the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) systems and comply with European regulations?   In the short-term there’s time for a transition but a transition to what in 11 months?  In the long-term, a relationship on aviation is to be determined but what are the aims and objectives?

Based on my experience of setting up a new international Aviation Agency, I’d make the following simple recommendations:

  • Recognise that aviation regulation is both social and technical. The political domain must heed the technical and vice-versa.  The public demand mutual respect.
  • Respecting aviation’s legacy at the same time as being innovative in regulation requires a deft touch. Products have long lives and technology advances rapidly.  Avoid excessive prescription accepting that some is necessary.  Be clear about performance objectives.
  • Treat all 3 of these capabilities as equally important, being: Reactive, Pro-active and Prognostic. The first inevitable because the last is imperfect.  Day-to-day the most important is what you are doing – now.
  • Big or small, the Boardroom and the shop floor have equal importance. Top-down: safety is number one.  Bottom-up: actions directly impact safety.  Never create too many complex layers between these two parts of an organisation.
  • Don’t take on more actions than your regulatory system of processes and procedures can work effectively.  Trying to satisfy everyone ends in disappointment.  Trying to sweep concerns under the carpet ends in tragedy.
  • Embrace new knowledge but don’t become allured by aggressive marketing. Verification and validation can’t be skipped just because of the confidence of the promoter.

There’s much more that can be said but the six items above come to mind.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership_en

Brexit & Aviation 118

For the British politician the 31st January 2020 is a big event.  For most people in employment, the Brexit confusion and uncertainty continues at least for another 11 months.  Social Media is a good indication of the conversations people in aviation employment are having.  One question raised yesterday has been raised many times: After Brexit will the EASA licences that were obtained in the UK still be valid? 

Despite the name, these mandatory licences are not issued by EASA in Cologne but issued by European Union (EU) Member States applying European rules.  National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) have this responsibility.  The European system requires EASA and the NAAs to work together.   In order to get an EASA Part-66 AML (Aircraft Maintenance License), an applicant needs to show a basic knowledge in relevant aviation subjects.

Having common rules throughout EASA Member States means that they accept an EASA licence that is granted by one of those States.   In addition, States across the globe, who have a relationship with the EU can choose to accept an EASA licence.   That’s what happens in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where most of the world’s Airbus A380 aircraft are based, for example.

So, the EU and the UK are entering a transition period during which UK aviation will continue to participate in the EASA systems.  That means compliance with EU regulations while the longer-term EU-UK aviation relationship is worked out.   Currently the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) website has a statement[1]:

Engineers transferring their Part-66 licence to other Member States: While the CAA will continue to accept and process Part 66 transfer applications under existing EASA transfer arrangements until the UK leaves the EU, the procedures adopted by the receiving NAA and recognised validity of the licence during the transfer process may vary amongst EU member states. Applicants who require continuity of validity throughout the transfer process are therefore advised to apply at least 3 months prior to Exit Day and should also consider engaging with their intended receiving NAA to identify any potential issues.

Clearly, there are numerous combinations and permutations of situations that can arise for engineers working on aircraft.   Given the history of licencing it’s highly likely that an arrangement will be worked out for next year, 2021.  For now, each individual aircraft engineer needs to check their situation dependent on where they are working and on what aircraft they are working on, at what time.

This will put extra stress on global regulatory oversight activities too.

[1] https://info.caa.co.uk/brexit/licensed-engineers/

Brexit & Aviation 117

2020 is the year of the Rat. The Chinese New Year in starts on Saturday, 25th January.  This is going to be a pivotal year for those born in 1960, like myself.  I hope that all the Rats out there are going to be as ambitious, creative and intelligent as astrologically predicted.  Certainly, that would help with Brexit just days away.

Brexit Day is Friday, 31st January.  It’s like passing through a one-way valve and not so much a bell ringers paradise.  Or even a reason for fanfares.  It’s the date of entry into force of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement (WA), or at least it should be.  Thus, the UK will leave the EU in a fully legal way.  Nevertheless, EU law will continue to apply in the UK for the period of the WA.   That is, that the UK will remain bound by EU treaties.  Also, the EU will ask its partners to treat the UK as if it were still a Member State for all those existing treaties[1].

The biggest impact of the end of the month is that there will no longer be the possibility of revoking the Article 50 TEU[2].   From then on, the way back for the UK to re-join the EU is provided for in Article 49 TEU.  In that foreseeable but unlikely case the UK would be viewed as an applicant State.

In addition to the above, from the 31st the UK loses its institutional representation in the EU.  So, no more British members of the European Parliament, or European Commissioners or European Council members.  Interestingly, at the time of the signing of the Lisbon Treaty the EU had 27 Member States and now it’s returning to that number.

Outside the EU, will the UK be better placed to tackle the major challenges that all States face, including globalisation, climate change, energy security, terrorism and organised crime[3]?  That’s the big open question.  The UK will leave the EU on 31st, but there remains a lot of complex negotiations to come.  This is the start of the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

So, is there general happiness and contentment?  No.  In fact, businesses continue to be cautious and concerned.  In particular, the aerospace industry has been alarmed by talk of major regulatory upsets[4].  What will the institutional framework be for the future?   How will it be staffed and funded?  Businesses would like to know where the UK Government intends to go next[5].   It remains difficult to plan if there’s only a scant idea of the intended destination.  That said, Brexit is not bad for everyone.  Germany has seen an increase in interest from British businesses.

[1] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/brexit-transition-period

[2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf

[3] https://twitter.com/wef/status/1218937427936583681?s=20

[4] https://www.ft.com/content/a89dfdea-3d07-11ea-a01a-bae547046735

[5] https://www.iod.com/news-campaigns/news/articles/IoD-calls-on-Government-to-publish-Brexit-negotiating-objectives

Brexit & Aviation 116

On your marks, get set and go.  The starting pistol hasn’t been fired yet, but the players are on their marks.  It’s a 100-meter sprint.  Or should I say a 109.361-yard sprint to the end of the year.

The EU27 Member States are having their preparatory discussions on their future relationship with the UK[1].  At the same time statements are drifting out of British Minister’s offices containing rhetoric more suited to an election campaign.

Croatia’s presidency of the Council of the EU[2] is up and running until 30 June 2020 when Germany takes over.  The EU’s “Internal EU27 Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom” has published slides that illustrate the likely situation after the 31st January.   They recognise that transport, including aviation will be a fundamental component of the EU-UK relationship.  It’s clear that UK aviation operators will no longer have the same access rights as EU Member State operators.

Now, according to The Financial Times the British Chancellor is saying[3]: “There will not be alignment, we will not be a rule taker, we will not be in the Single Market and we will not be in the Customs Union — and we will do this by the end of the year.”

These words maybe for public consumption because to an extent they speak the obvious.  One exception is the notion that the UK will not be a “rule taker”.  Naturally, this can be interpreted in many ways, even in this year, when the existing Withdrawal Agreement becomes law.  Because that agreement has the affect of taking European rules and making them UK rules.

In trading with large markets, like the EU and US there’s going to be the obligation to meet their standards.  It seems obvious to say but that means having rules that are either taken from those parties or that are acceptable to those parties.  Call that what you like but it is taking rules.  Never in the past did the UK Parliament approve every single new or modified rule that the was part of compliance with an international agreement and it’s likely that will continue.

EU aviation rules are designed to be compliant with international standards and recommended practices.  There is scope for the UK to deviate from the existing arrangements.  The question should be asked, as to; why and what are the benefits in doing so?

Meanwhile, as the scene is set for the next step in these vital international negotiations, the daily news in the UK is far more trivial; a £500,000 crowd funding exercise for some big bongs in London is filling the airwaves and newspapers.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/seminar-20200115-transport_en.pdf

[2] https://eu2020.hr/

[3] https://www.ft.com/content/18ddc610-3940-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

Brexit & Aviation 115

It’s January.  There’s no doubt that we have entered a new political era in the UK.  It’s 13 days into the new decade.  Although the basic issues haven’t changed much the manner of the debate about what might be possible has changed beyond recognition.  Unlike in 2017, the UK General Election (GE) has given us a solidly “Leave” Parliament.  Whatever most of the people in the Country may think or wish, the lawmakers we have are predominantly Eurosceptic.

The UK’s pro-European movements will keep fighting for their views to be represented in UK politics.  There’s an important place for those who would have preferred to “Remain” in the European Union (EU), but their voice is diminished.  Now future of relationships on trade, transport and security must be determined within the lifetime of this new UK Parliament.  Given the size of the political majority, I assume it will last for 5-years.

Most experts with experience of Government negotiations know Brexit won’t be “done” in 2020[1].   British businesses, including aviation will not be fully ready for next December.  Any EU-UK deal agreed this year will probably be limited in scope[2].   No one, outside a small group on Ministers, knows if that will include international aviation.

The European Commission (EC) Task Force for Relations with the UK has just published slides that show how they see the start of negotiations.   These slides were provided for information purposes to the Council Working Party (Article 50) on 13 January.  They show the huge gap between a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the Single Market.

British MEPs are arriving at the Strasbourg Parliament for the last time[3].   On the agenda this week are such subjects as an EU-China Agreement on aspects of air services.  It does seem strange that the UK will no longer be part of the debate on such subjects post-Brexit.  Surely there will be a continuing interest in such debates.

In the news is the fact that Europe’s biggest regional airline Flybe are fighting for survival less than a year after being bailed out by an industry consortium.  Some deny that this is Brexit related.  Others disagree: “Brexit and the way the government’s aviation taxes hit a regional airline like Flybe have been a double whammy,” says Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw[4].   They fly from Exeter airport.  The company, as a member of the European Regions Airline Association[5] based in Surrey, no doubt supports the view that the aviation industry shouldn’t suffer the brunt of political inadequacies.

Note: 15/01/2020.  Flybe has been saved from a potential collapse after the UK Government and company shareholders agreed to provide emergency funding.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-brexit-will-not-be-done-by-this-year-2020-1?r=US&IR=T

[2] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/getting-brexit-done

[3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/infos-details.html?id=17301&type=Flash

[4] https://www.benbradshaw.co.uk/

[5] https://www.eraa.org/sites/default/files/180214_pb_brexit_brochure_feb18_0.pdf