Category: Aviation

Aviation & Brexit 9

So what next?  Amongst the topics to be discussed by the UK and EU will be Transport and building our future relationship after we leave the EU[1].  This does seem broad and general and late when considering the timescales involved.  This comes after UK Government Ministers meet with aviation industry representatives to talk about Brexit[2].  So, at least a view of national aviation interests has been heard by Ministers and officials.

It remains the case that a great number of people are in the dark over Brexit preparations.  The “wait and see” approach is meaning that investments are being held off.  It’s likely, a transition will come in time but its impossible to know its magnitude either for March 2019 or January 2021.  So, for the moment, the general attitude seems to be: everyone for themselves.  Make whatever contingency measure you like as it will not be the Brexit negotiators who will take responsibility for the outcome.

To follow-on with a calm note, I’ll put the question; who remembers 28 September 2003?  It’s the date of an abrupt transition in the world of airworthiness.  It was the time at which the EU Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) came into force.

To quote: “The Agency shall undertake the certification tasks incumbent upon it pursuant to Article 15 as from 28 September 2003.”  In one day responsibility transitioned from a national authority to a European Agency.  EASA had to carry out on behalf of Member States the functions and tasks of the State of Design, Manufacture or Registry when related to design approval.

Yes, I remember many dissenting voices clambering to say how that day would bring about chaos and disaster for civil aviation.   Also, I must remark that a considerable number of them were politicians in the UK.  Now, it was a bumpy ride but because of good will on the part of most authorities and organisations the transition worked.

So, what are a few of the differences between now and then?

  • One: It took at least 20 years of planning and the whole Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) experience so that this first Basic Regulation could enter into force;
  • Two: Happy or unhappy, everyone who needed was pointing in roughly the same direction 15 years ago;
  • Three: International partners were well informed as to what was happening;
  • Four: A sound legal framework defined roles and responsibilities and
  • Five: Dispute resolution mechanisms were clear.

From all this, it can be concluded that it’s more than concerning that we (UK) are where we are, with less than a year to go to leaving the EU.  The lack of clarity in direction and different Government departments with different agendas does not bode well for the next couple of years.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/topics-for-discussions-on-the-future-framework-at-forthcoming-meetings

 

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aviation-industry-welcomes-brexit-roundtable

 

Avition & Brexit 8

Now we have seen the consequences of a UK Government Minister misleading Parliament it’s time to take a Minister’s words seriously.  Chris Grayling the Secretary of State for Transport recently answered an MP’s written question with these words:

“During the time-limited implementation period, the UK will no longer be an EU Member State. However, as set out in the terms of the agreement, common rules will remain in place. The EASA basic regulation will therefore continue to apply, so all UK-issued certificates, approvals and licences will be automatically recognised as valid in the EASA system (and vice versa).  As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech last month, beyond the implementation period we will want to explore with the EU the terms on which we could remain part of the relevant agencies, such as EASA. This will form part of the negotiations with the EU and Member States on how best to continue cooperation in the field of aviation safety and standards post-exit.[1]”

The concussion I draw from this is that there’s no need to cancel next year’s foreign holiday because it looks like business as usual, even if we (UK) have left the European Union.

To verify this conclusion, I had a look at the: “Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community” published a month ago.  It’s not much help as there’s no specific mention of aviation or the EASA Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.   However, agreed, and thus coloured in green, is the statement in Article 122 that: “Union law shall be applicable to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period.”

So, until 31 December 2020, it’s like we (UK) have many of the obligations of a Member State but no so many rights.  The UK will not participate in a European Parliament election in 2019.

What is unclear is the plan for the first day of 2021 and beyond.  Yes, there’s an aspiration to continue to play a part in the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) but nothing much else.  The need for common and proportionate safety standards will not go away.  The European Union has brought benefits for both UK consumers and the aviation industry.  Better to stay than go.

[1] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2018-04-17.136090.h

 

Aviation & Brexit 7

Generalities are all well and good.  In so far as they are constructive and positive they set a direction of travel.  This is pertinent to the words of the UK Government in respect of the future of aviation safety regulation.  If assurances are correct and negotiations are successful, then UK organisations should experience a gradual transition and not a sudden disruption after March 2019.

Unfortunately, there are some square pegs being presented to round holes.  Most of these are associated with the “red lines” that we are told are the policy for the UK Government.  Three are: regulatory autonomy, an end of European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction and an end to the free of movement of people.

Currently, there seems to be conflicting indications as to any flexibility on these positions.  If they are hard and fixed, then this means an end of participation in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).  However, that contradicts the statements from Transport Ministers that the UK wishes to remain an EASA Member State.  So, for civil aviation, will there be a rounding of the square peg?

My focus tends to be on the part of the aviation industry that does; development, design, manufacture, maintenance, repair, and overhaul.  In fact, airworthiness was the original remit for EASA back in 2003.  Since then, that remit has been progressively extended in a way that involves both EASA and the National Aviation Authorities (NAAs).

Today, EASA works on just about all aspects of aviation safety regulation, including; aircraft operations, the licencing of pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers, airports and even environmental noise and emissions.

A full hard Brexit would mean the all internationally required regulatory work would return to the UK.  To meet this the levels of activity, capabilities and resources of the UK CAA would need grow substantially.  This would be true even if the whole exercise was just to rubber stamp foreign certificates and host their auditors.

You might say what a waste of taxpayers’ money.  Maybe not so.  Both EASA and UK CAA work on a cost recovery basis for a large part of their annual funding.  Now, that’s the real rub.  To fund the newly acquired workload UK industry fees and charges would likely increase.  Because industry would continue to be active across Europe then it would then end up paying twice.  Not what the Brexit advocates promised; duplication of activities and costs but with no tangible benefits.

Given this scenario and considering corporate due diligence, international organisations will be looking at the costs, benefits, and risks.  So, what kind of contingencies are being considered?  For some organisations it will be to move their Principal Place of Business and approvals to an EASA Member State.  Defining the term: “Principal place of Business[1]” was one of the tasks taken up in the early days of EASA.  This is to ensure the correct Authority is identified before an application for organisational approval can be accepted and a valid approval issued.

Let’s hope that a firm agreement on continuity will mean this contingency is not needed.

[1] http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&catid=1&id=7872&mode=detail&pagetype=65

 

 

Aviation & Brexit 6

Where are we now with Brexit?  This month, a couple of statements have been put in the public domain.  One of them is the European Commission’s publication: “Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU aviation safety rules” from 13 April 2018.  This European Union (EU) paper describes the situation with respect to the UK as a non-EU country without a new agreement in place.  However, it’s clear that public statements from industry, the Government and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) all indicate a desire of the UK to remain as a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).  That wish will need to be implemented in some manner or form.

In the longer term, there’s some expectation that a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) could be signed between the EU and the UK as a non-EU country.  This would be used to detail the cooperation between the EU and UK, including any mutual acceptance of certificates.

In the shorter term, it’s possible to imagine a Working Arrangement (WA) between EASA and the UK CAA that would address continuing technical matters.

Either way any new agreement is a matter for the EU and the UK Government.  It may or may not be in place during the much talked of implementation period after March 2019.

The UK is unlike other Countries in that it has been a founding member of both the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and EASA but will be the first to plan to leave the EU.  Nevertheless, in the European aviation field the UK remains a member of intergovernmental bodies like; ECAC[1] and EUROCONTROL.

It is worth noting that the JAA Cyprus Arrangements ceased in 30 June 2009.  Other non-EU States that were part of the JAA had to find new working arrangements with EASA after that date.

Today, four non-EU European States are EASA Member States and have a seat on the EASA Management Board.  The Management Board is responsible for the definition of the Agency’s priorities, the establishment of the budget and for monitoring the Agency’s operation.

It is possible to imagine the UK becoming the fifth.

If this is not achieved, and no unique or emergency measure are in place then significant difficulties will arise.  On its website, the UK CAA[2] has made it clear that even for such an unlikely situation contingency plans are being made.

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

 

[2] https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/Newsroom/Hot-topics/

 

Aviation & Brexit 5

You might ask what’s a “Statutory Instrument”?  Well, in the United Kingdom they are a key form of delegated or secondary legislation.  That’s distinct from Primary legislation, which in the case of civil aviation is the Civil Aviation Act 1982[1].   Part III of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 calls for an Air Navigation Order (ANO).

The latest UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016[2] is a Statutory Instrument.  The UK ANO forms the legal basis for many areas of civil aviation that are regulated at a national level.  In effect, it gives the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is powers and its responsibilities.

The UK ANO is amended from time to time to provide the links between European legislation and national legislation.  This Statutory Instrument needs to reflect the general details of the civil aviation regulatory framework that’s expected to work.

It’s well worth remembering that, unlike the USA, the European civil aviation system is not a federal system.  To work effectively, it needs the common European part and the national part to work together harmoniously.  That has been achieved with remarkable results.  It has been an achievement that has enabled great efficiency, a fertile environment for international commercial success and safety improvement.

Taking one example in the filed of aircraft airworthiness.  Today, “certification” is defined as meaning: any form of recognition that a product, part or appliance, organisation or person complies with the applicable requirements including the provisions of this Order (ANO) or the Basic EASA Regulation and its implementing rules, as well as the issue of any certificate attesting to such compliance.

If Brexit happens many choices are open to the legislator.  That’s the Government and Parliament in the UK.  One would be to maintain links to the Basic EASA Regulation.  Another would be to delete all references to the Basic EASA Regulation and reference an alternative new text.  Naturally, there are numerous combinations and permutations that can be imagined.  Whatever happens the resulting new Statutory Instrument(s) will need to comply with existing international obligation namely; the Chicago Convention.

Here I’ve described a great deal of detailed work and no doubt its sitting on someone’s desk.  Above I referred to “certification” but that’s just one aspect of a much wider range of aviation activities.  Clearly, its one where errors and omissions are likely to be costly to industry and ultimately the traveling public.  Normally, consultation and deliberations on significant legislative changes take place over many years.  Thus, it’s reasonable to be concerned about what might happen over the coming year.  Simple this is not.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/16/contents

 

[2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents/made

 

Aviation & Brexit 4

I must say, I feel more positive about the prospects for the UK’s continuing participation in the workings of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).  Yes, we (UK) remain mired in uncertainty.  Yes, it’s the non-transport politicians who are making the running and yes, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.  But at least a good deal of serious consideration is being given to possible scenarios for a post-Brexit world.

Top of everybody’s list in aviation is that the UK should continue its membership of EASA[1], at least for the much-discussed transition period or implemention period as it might better be called.  Although this does mean losing voting rights and the opportunity for Directorships to be taken up by Brits, there’s enough advantages to keep the wings of aviation flying.

In the European aviation system, one of the key committees established by European law, often called the EASA “Basic Regulation” is the: EASA Committee.  This is a high-level committee that handles: “common safety rules in the field of civil aviation”.  Now, the Agency’s rulemaking procedure is such that it submits its formal technical opinions to the decision-making process of the European Commission, which is, in effect, the EASA Committee.  So, to influence future European aviation rules it’s important to be present and able to speak at the meetings of this key committee.

The examples of Norway and Switzerland show that non-EU Countries can exercise a degree of technical influence at this level.  In fact, this is not surprising since much of that which is taken forward requires a high degree of consensus to work in an integrated system.  Also, both Norway and Switzerland are represented on the EASA Management Board[2].  Which is reasonable because they both make financial and staffing contributions to the Agency.

I think, Switzerland shows a way forward.  Not for reasons that the Country is like the UK.  After all, it’s smaller, it’s federal, speaks many languages and we don’t have the Alps.  On the other hand, Switzerland, like the UK has a manufacture that depends on access to a global marketplace and is well connected to around the world.  Also, in recent times, their federal aviation authority has been progressive in the field of aviation safety management.

There’s a chance of reaching Brexit day with no clear vision of the future but having a basic contingency is better than nothing.   Naturally, I would rather see the UK play a full part in European aviation as it has with great success in past decades.  Sitting in the second row at the table isn’t the best place for a Country with our incredible heritage.   There’s no barrier to being European and being Global even if there’s a block in the minds of some Westminster politicians.  As the joke about being lost and asking directions goes: “I wouldn’t start from here, Sir”.

[1] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301-xiv/30117.htm

 

[2] https://www.easa.europa.eu/the-agency/management-board/members

 

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

 

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/

 

Smart move

IMG_1713Over 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.

Continuing Airworthiness

Airworthiness can be considered as the sum of: initial airworthiness and continuing airworthiness.  Roughly speaking, the first is the work that goes on before an authority issues a Type Certificate for an aircraft and the second is what happens afterwards when it goes into service.

So, let’s assume we have an aircraft designed, manufactured and certificated in accordance with a set of requirements ready to enter service.  It’s imperative that the aircraft is properly serviced and maintained, and problems are fixed as they are discovered.

To achieve this a continued airworthiness programme is needed to support an aircraft in service.

Included within this is the need for a maintenance programme.  The reason for maintenance is to control the rate of deterioration of an aircraft.  This is achieved by two types of maintenance.  The first is preventive maintenance that relies on inspection and repeated activities to identify and fix problems.  The second is remedial maintenance, which includes repairs, and fixing a problem after an abnormal event (heavy landing, bird or lightning strike etc.).  All the above can be done for each aircraft as it is needed and set against an agreed schedule.

However, the story doesn’t end at that point.  A continued airworthiness programme takes lessons learned from experience and applies them not just to one aircraft but to a whole fleet of the same design.  It’s a philosophy that requires problems to be identified and reacted to with the aim of preventing their recurrence.  That could be lessons learned from accidents, incidents, occurrences or analysis that wasn’t routine or planned.

Airworthiness is an integrated activity and so all the above impacts the approvals, processes and procedures that are applied.  To undertake the work of continuing airworthiness there are approved organisations and licenced personnel to certify that work has been properly completed.

These are few words to describe an extensive system that works on a global scale.  Airworthiness is a vital component of aviation that is ever vigilant so that we can fly safely.