Category: British

Brexit and Aviation 47

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,” dated 14 November 2018 is now published.

Aviation gets one mention in the draft agreement “International Civil Aviation Organisation standards related to biometric identification.”   In relation to Agencies, such as EASA the draft agreement says: “The institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall continue to be competent for administrative procedures which were initiated before the end of the transition period …”.

So, it’s business as usual until the end of the proposed transition period.  Naturally, that depends upon the draft agreement being passed into law.  In fact, there are three options that are the most likely.  One: enact this withdrawal agreement, two: reject the agreement and abandon Brexit or three: reject the agreement and crash out.

The first two options are practical and viable but the third is an utter catastrophe for all parties.  There are just two ways to prevent disruption and to provide legal certainty to air transport and aerospace, at least for the short-term.

The hard fought, detailed, lengthy and binding Withdrawal Agreement only addresses the next few years.  To accompany the agreement there is a political declaration on future EU-UK relations.  In that document there is a high-level commitment to regulatory cooperation.  There is a wish for a: Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement, covering market access and investment, aviation safety and security, Air Traffic Management and provisions to ensure open and fair competition.

Unfortunately, of all the debate and amassed documentation there isn’t much more than that simple statement.  In other words, there’s some indication of the direction of travel but nothing on what that might that mean for the next decade.  Today, the best deal remains the one the UK has as an EU Member State.

It’s true, that the EU-UK political declaration may still be expanded in the next few days. The political declaration could grow to 20 pages but that hangs in the balance.  Contrast that with the over 500 pages of the Withdrawal Argreement.  It seems odd that it has taken well over 2-years to get to this point.

In parallel, the European Commission is working with its Agencies.  EASA is processing applications from UK organisations in preparation for the time when the UK will not be a Member State.  In addition, it’s doing preparations for the worst-case scenario – No Deal

Clearly, based on the domestic political reaction, there is no guarantee what-so-ever the UK will ratify the Withdrawal Agreement by 29 March 2019.  Parliament remains divided.   Only a committed gambler would predict which way events will turn next.

Brexit and Aviation 46

It’s reported that, International Airlines Group (IAG), the owner of British Airways (BA), has approached the Spanish Government for help over the possibility of a No-Deal Brexit.  They still seem confident that the EU and the UK will put an agreement in place that allows flights to continue even in a No Deal situation.   That said, current rules mean the company must be over half EU owned and controlled to be considered “European”.

Today, IAG is the parent company of Aer Lingus, BA, Iberia and Vueling.  It’s a Spanish registered company with shares traded on the London Stock Exchange and Spanish Stock Exchanges.  Today, the corporate Head Quarters for IAG is in the UK.  In Brexit and Aviation 23, I raised these issues but considering the airlines operating certificates rather than the ownership issue.  If IAG are to comply with the EU ownership rules then, essentially it becomes a Spanish company.  Now, I wonder if the UK Brexiters had that in mind in 2016?

Ownership arrangements do get complicated.  For example, 25% of London Heathrow airport is owned by Ferrovial, S.A., a Spanish multinational company.  London Gatwick airport is owned and managed by Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) and a consortium of its co-investors.  So, I’m guessing that Brexiters don’t concern themselves too much with ownership and control.  It’s just not on their radar.

This is not a subject to ignore because despite liberalisation there are precise rules on ownership and control within EU legislation.  These are important in the EU but not so much as a matter of regional protectionism as to ensure that there’s a level playing field for fair competition between companies.

Last week, the European Air Law Association (EALA) held their annual conference in Brussels.  The EALA was created 30 years ago when the supranational European institutions, including the European Commission and the European Parliament, started to take policy and legal action in the field of air transport.

This year, their guest speaker was Director-General for Mobility and Transport, DG MOVE, Mr Henrik Hololei.  He confirmed that in respect of Brexit, that no detailed negotiations had taken place between the EU and the UK on air services and they will not occur until there is an agreement on the Withdrawal Arrangements.   Hololei noted that in the most extreme No Deal scenario, on the first day of Brexit there would be no flights between EU and UK.  This is a possibility depending on how the negotiations proceed.

In the No Deal circumstances, the UK Government maybe confident that it would be able to negotiate new, or reinstate old bilateral agreements with EU Member States.  The first of these might be possible, with good will on all sides but the second is just not possible.

The critical date of 29 March 2019 is approaching fast.  Jo Johnson has resigned as a Transport Minister, saying the country is: “barrelling towards an incoherent Brexit” and calling for another referendum.  Crunch time is here.

Brexit and Aviation 45

Ah the persistent and unpredictable ups and downs of Brexit.  One political lesson to be learned from this dreadful mess is that a powerful slogan pitched at an opportune moment on fertile ground can have a big impact.  “Take back control” means a hundred and one things to millions of people nevertheless those three words resonated on 23rd June 2016.  In Europe, we have spent 40 years taking down barriers.  This move has dramatically increased opportunity and prosperity for the majority but created an insecurity amongst some groups.  Control to them ment putting barriers back up.

In aviation, we recently celebrated 25 years of European liberalisation.  It’s only because of open markets that we now have one billion passengers flying.  We have high growth in a mature market which is globally unusual.  If we return to nationalism dominating ownership and control of organisations it’s inevitable prices will rise, and growth will be impaired.  Protectionism is a false God.

There’s no doubt that Europe has major infrastructure challenges.  The capacity and quality of our transport systems is inadequate.  In European aviation there’s strong common interests.  Lines on the map may work on the ground but in the air the current arrangements make little sense.  To solve these problems closer ties are needed not looser ones.  Closer ties are needed if we are to continue to prosper from international tourism.  In 2017, Europe remained the top visited region with more than 671 million tourist arrivals.

Close cooperation in safety and security essential.  Facing these critical challenges alone is not viable.  The only way to take control and have a real influence on the future is to cooperate.  One of the elements of European cooperation that is assumed to continue regardless of Brexit is the European Union’s Single European Sky (SES) programme.  Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs)[1] are a key tool of the EU’s SES programme, aiming to help reduce the fragmentation of air navigation services.  The UK/Ireland FAB aims to contribute to meeting key performance targets on safety, cost efficiency, capacity/delay and the environment.  Surely that stays?

The noisy voices that say the UK Government should sever all ties with the EU maybe don’t realise how that suggestion is extremely foolish.  Let’s hope the instability caused but the Brexit will be viewed in 25 years’ time as a temporary phenomenon.

[1] https://www.ukirelandfab.eu/about/

 

Brexit and Aviation 42

The roller-coaster that is Brexit continues to roll.  One day positive news and the next negative.  This week, British MPs were told that a Brexit deal would be done by the end of November.  A few hours later the Minister’s department was forced to correct the record and say there was no set end date for UK-EU negotiations.  With less than 150 days to go to the Article 50 end date, it’s like an aircraft on approach without any idea if there’s a runway ahead.  Government would do well to remember the rule about flying – Every take-off is optional. Every landing is mandatory.

There are several rules of the air that could apply to the current situation:

Flying isn’t dangerous. Crashing is what’s dangerous.

Never let an aircraft take you somewhere your brain didn’t get to five minutes earlier.

Remember, gravity is not just a good idea. It’s the law. And it’s not subject to repeal.

I’ve written often this year.  Now, 42 there’s a number to get to grips with as we reach November.  If you are not familiar with THHGTTG then you have missed out big-time.  Author Douglas Adams made that number the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.  Nothing I write here can ever match that answer.

Of note in the recent news is the European Parliament vote confirming relocation of European Medicines Agency and European Banking Authority after Brexit.  UK loses out on influence as these two Agencies move to ensure minimal disruption to the EU’s Single Market beyond March 2019.

Views of the foreign Press don’t make nice reading.  The German media have had quite a bit to say about how Brexit will affect everyone[1].  In Canada, they see the UK as being gripped by a self-destructive madness[2].  In the US, CNN says; Brexit is like a screaming child[3].  It’s clear that Brexit news won’t be slowing down any time soon.

The Treaty of European Union, known as The Maastricht Treaty, came into effect on 1 November 1993.  Today is the 25th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty.  It was signed by Ministers from the then 12 Member States.  This Treaty is the one that avid Brexit supporters dislike so much.  I remember the political climate that year as being one of change and turmoil.  Change to the extent that I was elected as a County Councillor in Surrey along with 28 colleagues.

One innovation the Treaty brought to flying was that airport queues, solely for UK travellers were abolished in 1997.   The Treaty introduced free movement for EU citizens.  Now, the intention seems to be to dismantle that innovation, at least for British subjects.  Maybe that’s one reason the Chancellor put and extra £500 million in the budget for preparations for leaving the EU.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-45564684/brexit-what-does-germany-s-media-think

 

[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-a-self-destructive-madness-grips-the-uk-as-a-no-deal-brexit-looms/

 

[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/14/opinions/brexit-is-a-screaming-child-opinion-intl/index.html

 

Brexit and Aviation 41

There’s a distinct possibility that I will repeat myself in these articles.  This should not be a problem.

Most of what happens in life is a matter of probability.   There’s a high probability that I’ll have dinner this evening but there’s a low probability my local MP will dine with me.  When dealing with risks the best anyone can do is to make both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the likelihood of the occurrence of an event.  How good these turn out to be rather depends on the quality of the information upon which these assessments are made.

At this moment, there is a growing likelihood of a “No Deal” outcome to the Brexit negotiations.

Reasons being the continuing lack of a Parliamentary majority for the possible offer, stubborn pride of those involved and delayed planning.  It’s utterly pointless to even think about the blame game – yet.  Whatever happens, big changes will have to be made to cope with the new situation.

Early in the year, prudently the EU published a series of notices concerning the “No Deal” outcome.  These were stark and based upon the UK becoming a “Third Country” with a blank sheet of paper in front of it.  That’s a Country with no special arrangements with the EU.  The basic reality of that case is that companies, organisations and individuals wishing to continue business with the EU post-Brexit may need to establish a presence in the EU 27.  They may need to seek new approvals or new recognition of their qualifications and/or licences in an EU Member State[1].

UK technical notices offer the intention to unilaterally recognise EU certificates, licences and standards in the wish to minimise disruption, at least for a short time.

Recently in the UK Parliament, the Director General at the UK Department for Transport DfT[2], told the Public Accounts Committee that agreements on air services between Britain and the EU comprise “an area of growing concern to us”.  Naturally, it would be sensible and mutually beneficial for both sides of the EU-UK negotiations to provide certainty and stability to people and businesses as soon as possible. Whilst significant efforts are being made to ensure the conclusion of an agreement on an orderly withdrawal, there’s a lot of remaining ground to cover.  With around 5 months before the planned leaving date of 29 March 2019, detailed negotiations over air services have yet to get going.

As an aside, it’s strange how the truth of this precarious situation is often not evident from any viewing of the questions and debates in the House of Commons.  I don’t say, UK Parliament because the House of Lords often seems to be more up to speed with EU matters than the Commons.

Last evening, I had the opportunity to stroll around both the Lords and the Commons[3].  I can see how its quite possible to become detached from everyday reality in a place so steeped in history.  It looks more suited to page boys running around with handwritten notes than the high-speed interconnected world outside the building.  100 years ago, great reforms changed the shape of our society.  To me, there’s need for another dramatic round of reforms to at least try to be in the 21st Century.

[1] https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-confirms-no-deal-brexit-would-limit-caa-certifica-452144/

 

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport

 

[3] https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/visiting-parliament-news/museums-at-night-october-2018/

 

Brexit and Aviation 40

There are some documents that are essential for the smooth operation of aviation.  When it comes to moving products, parts or components of aircraft around the world the Authorised Release Certificate is key.  This certificate must be trusted and accepted by those who receive it.  Even with an international framework that describes how this is done this acceptance is not automatic.

In Europe, the format of Authorised Release Certificates has been harmonised after decades of work.  In addition, work has been undertaken harmonise the instructions for completing these standard release forms.

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

What that means is that the form accompanies an aircraft product, like say an engine, and if it’s not valid that product cannot be used.  Organisations doing maintenance, repair and overhaul must keep detailed records when working on an aircraft.

As an example, in Europe we may have a British manufactured aircraft engine being fitted to a Spanish registered aircraft in a German hanger by an engineer who holds a Dutch licence.   For this to happen in an approved manner the paperwork must be accurate, complete and valid.  If the EASA Form 1 coming with the British manufactured aircraft engine is not recognised, then the work described above cannot take place.

I’ve described this situation because there’s the possibility that in a full “No Deal” Brexit there will be no automatic recognition of a British issued EASA Form 1.

This is not the first time I’ve mentioned the EASA Form 1[2].   The reason for mentioning it again is that I became more acutely aware of this problem when visiting a major conference and exhibition in Amsterdam.  On Wednesday last, I chaired a one-hour panel discussion on: “Regulatory Changes and Challenges”.  This included a Policy Specialist (Brexit) from the UK CAA.   He described the preparatory work that’s being done and some of the differences in positions between UK published papers and EU published papers.  To date, the UK CAA and EASA are not in formal talks.  Both are ready to initiate technical discssions but this is being held up by the lack of clarity in relation to the withdrawl agreement (See exchange of letters from June/July).

I conclude that rash headlines that suggest a “No Deal” option is doable are way off the mark.  The regulatory maxim – trust but verify – must be satisfied one way or another.

[1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/faq/19466

[2] https://johnwvincent.wordpress.com/category/form-1/

 

Brexit and Aviation 39

IMG_E4817
Accident Recorder

Reading reports of air accidents is not everybody’s cup of tea.  Nevertheless, the insights they contain are a constant reminder that no matter how safe civil aviation maybe, it can always be better.  There’s always something to learn.

This week, US accident investigators issued a report on what could have been an immense catastrophe.  Planes full of passengers came within 60 feet of each other as an Air Canada flight[1] was about to land on a taxiway by mistake.  This happened just before midnight on 7 July 2017 in San Francisco.  The US National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) said that: “Over 1,000 people were at imminent risk of serious injury or death.”

As people have commented this is a stark reminder of the worst civil aviation accident that ever occurred.  In 1977, 593 people died when two Boeing 747 planes collided on a runway in Tenerife on the Canary Islands.

Because of the San Francisco incident, the NTSB is considering recommending that accident cockpit voice recorders record the last 25 hours of flying time.  The current US rule is for 2 hours and then the recording overwrites.

So, what has this got to do with Brexit?

After a series of accidents in the last decade, including the Malaysian Boeing 777 mysteriously lost over the ocean (flight MH370), Europe acted.  A detailed rulemaking process resulted in a EU Regulation[2] that includes key changes to mandatory accident flight recorder rules.  These required changes to planes that must be made in a practical manner to meet a deadline specified in the EU Regulation[3].  The rule applies to large planes manufactured after 1 January 2021.  Clearly, that date is after Brexit’s infamous 29 March 2019.  I cannot imagine that, whether the UK is in the EU or not, it would make any changes to this planned implementation date.  However, a mandatory action, like this one must be incorporated in the applicable national legislation.  That is how it would be applied to British registered planes.

That’s the interesting point.  Will all those European actions with implementation dates after 29 March 2019 be copied into UK law?  It would be good to see the answer “yes” written down.

POST POST NOTE: I hear the answer is “no”.  Although all the applicable European law will be copied into UK law a mandatory date that is in the future will be edited out.

 

[1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/air-canada-close-call-came-a-few-feet-from-possibly-being-worst-aviation-accident-in-history-1.4131146

 

[2] COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/2338 of 11 December 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 as regards requirements for flight recorders, underwater locating devices and aircraft tracking systems.

 

[3] ….with respect to the carriage of CVRs with extended recording duration for large aeroplanes, provision should be made for the introduction of CVR with a recording duration of 25 hours on board aircraft, manufactured after 1 January 2021, with a maximum certificated take-off mass of over 27 000 kg.

1st rule – Count

At moments of fundamental change, I wonder: what is the first rule of politics?  A lot the possible first rules of politics are cynical or so basic it’s easy to forget their importance.  I like James Hacker from the BBC series Yes Minister: “Never believe anything until it’s officially denied”.  Another rule in that vein is: “It’s never the crime, it’s always the cover-up.”  One of the more useful first rules, attributed to a US politician, is: “You can’t win unless you’re on the ballot.”  That rule I’ve often practiced.  It doesn’t matter how low the likelihood of winning a vote maybe the simple fact is that; first your name must be on the ballot paper.

Here’s a first rule that’s fundamental in a democracy.  Lyndon B Johnson’s first rule of politics is one of the best, namely: “practitioners need to be able to count.”  Commentary and speculation fill enormous amounts of air-time and space but in the end the kind of Brexit we get, if at all, will be down to a count.

Learn to count as a basic first rule.  Even with the most fantastic deal, if the votes are not there to make it happen it will not happen.  That means; European and British politicians lining-up in Parliament to vote for a deal.  It means; Countries lining-up to ratify a deal.  It means; getting from A to B without too many major hiccups.

Reports are that UK Government whips are in talks with 25 Labour MPs to push a deal through Parliament.  May’s Cabinet is giving her one last chance to sell a Brexit plan.

The run up to the 18 October, European Council (Art. 50) will see complex arithmetic being done repeatedly.  Will the sums add up?  And if they don’t why shouldn’t the question be put back to the people?

Anyone able to count can see that the current situation is extremely precarious.  My personal judgement is that the current optimism, that there will be a non-disruptive Brexit Withdraw Agreement, that satisfies enough of the key players is inappropriate.

Maybe that’s why it’s being reported that the European Commission plans a fast-track a process to address the potential turmoil of a “No Deal” Brexit.  That would mean putting in place emergency means to amend rules in just a few days.

There’s wisdom in being prepared.

 

Brexit and Aviation 36

No week goes by without Brexit developments.  This week has been no exception for European aviation and aerospace.  In the background there’s been the UK Conservative Party conference in Birmingham.  All that has been revealed is that we are still in limbo land or a limbo in the air, as one might say.

The UK Government technical papers for a Brexit ‘No Deal’ scenario for Aviation Safety, Flights and Aviation Security have been out for several days.  The variety of different commentaries ranges from the don’t bother – this will never happen to the downright cataclysmic grounding of all flights.

Nevertheless, the impact of a “no deal” scenario is still being understated because of the long-term regional repercussions.  The lines on the map that divide up airspace in Europe are changing.  If other nations, see that we can not deal with that reality why would they open their skies to us?

The Royal Aero Society have updated their thoughts on the implications of Brexit[1].

On the rules for slot allocation at airports, the current rules for the allocation should remain unchanged in the event of “no deal”.  However, a proposed “recast” of the current EU Slot Regulation is planned.  A problem arises in that the UK will not have a say on future EU legislation to create a market for slots and this has its own downside.

On the profesional aviation personnel side, concerned aircraft engineers are seeking information about a non-negotiated EU exit.   British issued Licenses that are now valid in the EASA Member States, will not be valid in those States as of midnight (00h00) on 29 March 2019 unless a deal is done.

Now the EU institutions are engaged in identifying and putting in place new preparedness measures in anticipation of Brexit.  This week it is worth taking note that EASA has started to process applications for Third Country approvals from existing UK approval holders[2].  There’s additional administration and costs but at least organisations holding recognised approvals have a pathway to retaining those approvals.

On a subject that may at first glance seem unrelated the European Aerospace Associations have announced a Safety Management System (SMS) Industry Standard[3].   Here we can see the practical advantages of having a common rulebook.

During my time at the UK CAA, I was a member of the Prospect Union[4] (Formerly IPMS).  I’m pleased to see their recent publication on the future of aviation and Brexit “safety and resilience – not a race to the bottom”.  One of their recommendations is new to me and I must admit the idea hadn’t occurred to me before.  It is “breaking up the Civil Aviation Authority and establishing a new UK Aviation Safety Agency” thus further separating the functions of economic regulation and safety regulation.  Somehow, I don’t think that’s the biggest concern just now.

[1] https://www.aerosociety.com/news/a-no-deal-brexit-the-aviation-implications-part-2/

 

[2] https://www.easa.europa.eu/brexit-negotiations

 

[3] https://www.asd-europe.org/aerospace-associations-announce-safety-management-system-sms-industry-standard

 

[4] https://www.prospect.org.uk/

 

Brexit Expo

Truly we are in strange times.

Earlier this year, I did the tour of the Royal Albert Hall.  Yes, I would recommend it even though it’s part of the standard London tourist trail.  The story of the building is fascinating.  How and why it got built.  The person to thank for it is Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the husband and consort of Queen Victoria.  This forward-thinking German was a great supporter of public education.

The legacy of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations of 1851, was the Hall and the Museums in that quarter of London.  The Crystal Palace was the first World’s Fair.  Albert died suddenly in December 1861.  Much of the money, coming from the Great Exhibition, that was allocated to build the Hall was spent on his memorial.

On the South Bank of the river Thames lies the legacy of the Festival of Britain.  This took place in the summer of 1951.  We need to remember that Britain was still in the grips of post-war food rationing[1] at that time.  The plan was to celebrate the centennial of the 1851 Great Exhibition.  Unlike the Great Exhibition, the Festival of Britain was about promoting British architecture, arts, science, technology and industry.  In late 1951, as Churchill was returned as MP, his first move was to clear the South Bank site believing the project to be socialist propaganda.

So, the history of great exhibitions and festivals is a chequered one.

The next World’s Fair is planned for 2020 in the UAE.  A site has been chosen between the cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi.  132 Counties, including the UK, have announced their participation in the 2020 World’s Fair.

Today’s Conservative proposal for a 2022 Festival of Britain is strange to say the least.   Apparently, funds have been allocated and, in Party conference week, the PM is hoping to appease Brexit supporting MPs with this retro-adventure.  Unsurprisingly, Social Media is lighting up with ridicule.  Some see Theresa May dressed up as Britannia and handing out goodies to all commers.

Whatever the merits of large exhibitions and festivals surely it makes more sense to have a greater presence in world-wide events than it does to build domestic palaces?  If Brexit goes ahead or not, Britain must market what it does.  The audience is the world.  Shows of nationalism are unlikely to archive any positive or useful goals.  Just more division.

This light-weight Conservative proposal is misguided and wasteful.

 

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/4/newsid_3818000/3818563.stm