British – Page 50 – John Vincent

Brexit & Aviation 19

It’s that week. Every two-years the world of aviation flocks to a small-town West of London. Matched only by Dubai and Paris is an air show where visitors from all over the world congregate to talk about every aspect of civil and military flying. Visions of the future and the latest products from the major manufacturers all fight for the attention at Farnborough.

This year is different. In 2020, the Farnborough Air Show maybe taking place in a non-EU State. The last time that happened was in Farnborough in September 1972 [1]. Then, knowing the UK was going to enter the EEC the show was opened to European companies.

I was 12-years old at the time. It’s fascinating to see the Rolls-Royce powered Lockheed Tri-Star as a “new” aircraft. My introduction to aviation took place further West. I distinctly remember being taken to the annual Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton Air Day around that age.

So, what of aerospace in a post-Brexit Britain? One thing is for certain; the Air Show organisers will not be closing the show to foreign aircraft or only others who use British parts. Very few other things are certain.

At the same time, as the Air Show next week the negotiations between the UK and EU will resume in Brussels. This time with a new British Brexit Minister and with a live UK White Paper on the table. This is positive news. However, to make the progress that the travelling public and aviation industry need the negotiators are going to have to move at supersonic speed.

It’s notable from the newsreel video of 1972 the high level of aircraft noise and emissions. That’s an issue that has changed considerably over more than 40 years. What was then the; “white heat of technology[2]” is, now totally unacceptable to the public.

That subject should be an area of focus for the negotiators. The European environment is a common area of interest. In civil aviation, for example, there’s no point in the UK and EU having different rules and regulations for aircraft noise and emissions. Agreement on this subject should be sewn-up quickly and simply.

Addressing the global environment will be more than a few exhibits at the Farnborough Air Show. The “electrification” of aviation is moving at great pace and represents a future market-place worth billion. To get from A to B, well-funded research projects and flying prototypes are going to be essential. This is another area of focus for the negotiators. Continued European cooperation on civil aviation research funding will be the way to guarantee a place in the future.

[1] http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/bed15cead7354e0097b5001925cc0d65

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/sep/19/harold-wilson-white-heat-technology-speech

Brexit & Aviation 18

More than 2-years on the clock but here it is in print. The long-awaited UK Government White Paper[1] has been released. The UK Government’s regulatory vision includes: “participation by the UK in those EU agencies that provide authorisations for goods in highly regulated sectors – namely the European Chemicals Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency, and the European Medicines Agency – accepting the rules of these agencies and contributing to their costs, under new arrangements that recognise the UK will not be a Member State”.

Later, there’s more detail where the document says; The UK would seek: “a. for EASA, becoming a third country member via the established route under Article 66 of the EASA basic regulation, as Switzerland has.”

Under the exiting Article 66, EASA is open to the participation of European third countries. This provision becomes Article 129 in the new Basic Regulation[2]. Therefore, EASA can establish working arrangements with the competent authority (UK CAA) of a European third country (UK).

In addition, the new Article 129 refers to the new Article 90 paragraph 2 which says: Those working arrangements shall not create legal obligations incumbent on the Union and its Member States. That might be problematic considering the proposed mechanisms for resolving disputes further on in the White Paper.

The wish to be a part of EASA is repeated further on, as “the UK will seek participation in EASA. In addition to ensuring that manufacturers should only need to undergo one series of tests in either market, this would also support collective work on aviation safety, reducing regulatory barriers for businesses and ensuring continued high standards for safety across Europe.”

Then there’s a part about the ways and means: “through a Governing Body at leader and ministerial level; through a Joint Committee, including sub-committees where relevant, at a technical level; through formal consultation between experts on regulatory issues and legislative changes; and through exchanges between the UK Parliament and the European Parliament.”

Finally: “The nature and structure of the UK’s participation will vary depending on the EU body or agency in question. In some cases, there may be an appropriate precedent for third country involvement, as in the case of Switzerland’s participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)”.

Twice the relationship Switzerland has with the EU is referred to as a preferred model. This does have a logic to it given that both Switzerland and UK have aeronautical manufacturing industry. It is my understanding that the Swiss have more than a simple working arrangement.

A new “Joint Committee” is the proposed mechanisms for resolving disputes. Again, it has a logic to it in that there will need to be an EU-UK forum for discussions that do not concern other Member States. That said, it would seem to be a means to avoid the direct applicability of any ECJ rulings.

That might be problematic considering the binding nature they would have on one side of the table but not on the other. There’s a challenge for enforcement where the two sides disagree.

The UK Government White Paper does not propose a system of mutual recognition for aviation safety regulation. It continues with common European rules in the field of civil aviation. This capitalises on the significant investment the UK made in helping to build the European system, but it does come with issues yet to be addressed.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/724982/The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union_WEB_VERSION.pdf

[2] http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2018-INIT/en/pdf

Brexit & Aviation 17

A while back, I wrote about a Statutory Instrument (SI), a form of secondary legislation in the UK. For aviation we have primary legislation namely; the Civil Aviation Act 1982 which amongst other things constitutes a corporate body called the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

The CAA is given functions by or under the Air Navigation Order (ANO). That’s the SI. In the ANO are the functions that include the registration of aircraft, the safety of air navigation and aircraft (including airworthiness), the control of air traffic, the certification of operators of aircraft and the licensing of air crews and aerodromes.

At the time when the European Union (Withdrawal) Act[1] was being worked-up, the Government estimated that “the necessary corrections to the law will require between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments”. The Withdrawal Act has a means for the incorporation of EU legislation into UK law. That includes the EU aviation law, like the Basic Regulation[2] that establishes the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Reading and trying to understand the Withdrawal Act is not easy. My interpretation is that some draft SIs can be changed by a Minister and others need to be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. I see this is referred to as the affirmative procedure.

What will happen to process changes to the Air Navigation Order (ANO)? Not only that question but where will the great number of elements of “soft law” in the European system sit in the new UK system? Let’s take Certification Specifications (CS) for example, will they be referenced and tagged to a Schedule somewhere in a revised ANO?

Because this is complex but needs to be done speedily a Parliamentary research paper has just been published[3]. What becomes immediately evident is there’s a vast amount of work to be done and there may not be enough time to do it with the care it deserves. Even to securitise one subject, like aviation demands a great deal of dedicated effort. This leads me to think that there will be little or no detailed scrutiny and thus everything that is in place will get thrown into the pot and become law after exit day on 29 March 2019. There will be little or no opportunity for public comment.

I understand that the Withdrawal Act 2018 will allow for changes to be made after exit day. But how many are likely to be made? There are a lot of questions that need resolution to avoid legal uncertainty after Brexit. There will be need for a lot of public information to let everyone in aviation know the who, what, where, when, why and how of the new British rule book. There will be legal departments up and down the Country frantically amending contracts, processes, proceedures and manuals.

[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/contents/enacted

[2] Referred to as non-domestic EU law.

[3] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8329/CBP-8329.pdf

A short flight

This week my travels took me on a low-cost Ryanair flight from Stansted to Cologne on the banks of the Rhine. Back in the 1990s, I was involved in the European validation of the generation of the Boeing 737s that the Irish airline uses. So, it’s interesting for me to fly on, what is now the most popular civil aeroplane in passenger service. Overall, when comparing the passenger experience on what was an internal European flight with my experience of an internal US flight last week, I’d give Ryanair points of praise. That’s despite the delayed return flight that was put down to air traffic control and the aircraft carrier like landings.

Viewed from mainland Europe the notion that Britain should flirt with a “no deal” Brexit isn’t credible. To risk a whole Country’s wellbeing seeking highly speculative benefits and potentially big costs is beyond what sober, sensible and democratic Governments do. So, many people I have spoken too remain mystified by the state of play of the Brexit negotiations. Why go for a lose-lose situation when a win-win is the best outcome?

Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, it’s clear that the lives of UK nationals residing in, and travelling to and from, and inside the European Union (EU) are going to be complex.

To get over this, there’s been an increase in the number of people acquiring the citizenship of other EU Countries. One of the most popular nationalities is German. I know of Brits who are going through the process, language training and all, and mean to see it through.

Life becomes complex. There’s a bit of that when it comes to the immigration ques at airport passport control. Will UK nationals follow the signs with the EU flag and Swiss flag anymore?

Also, I was reminded on the difficulties Americans have using their US driving licences in Germany. Will Brits undergo the need to take a German driving test if they stay for a while?

Currently, we await the Government’s Brexit White Paper. One can only hope that the coming days will provide a degree of clarity and unity. Whitehall will do what it can with an almost impossible task. So, the words on the page might be “imaginative” to say the least.

However, we have seen meltdowns of UK Governments before and so that maybe on the cards too. It was Thatcher’s Poll Tax that threw a huge spanner in the works the last time we saw a complete reversal policy. The late 80s and early 90s were good times for me but the British political landscape was shifting, and the old guard was being replaced. It’s likely we in a similar period.

Aviation & Brexit 10

I’ve heard some discussion about resurrecting British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCARs). Somewhere in a box, I still have my blue covered copy of Section A. Back in the early 1990s, this was the airworthiness requirement that we applied to all aircraft for which the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had primary responsibility. The document was first published back in July 1989 and has been updated many times. Embodied in its text are words that once empowered UK airworthiness surveyors of which I was one. Yes, given the judgements expected of technical staff we were called “surveyors” rather than inspectors or administrators.

Now, BCAR Section A[1] is still applied but only to aircraft that are not part of the European system. Generally, these are the so called “Annex II” aircraft. BCAR Section A does not apply to those aircraft that have been the responsibility of the European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) since 28 September 2003. Although for a long-time prior to EASA’s formation procedures developed for widespread European cooperation. It’s worth noting that the structure and form of these national airworthiness procedures is quite different from the current European regulations. They have a uniquely British heritage as they expanded on the Air Navigation Order (ANO) and its regulations.

So, with Brexit, if the Withdrawal Agreement that is on the table, is accepted, a transitional period will run to the end of 2020. During this period, it’s assumed that the present rules and procedures will continue to apply as now. Although there remains the risk that the UK could “fall off the cliff edge,” it isn’t likely that BCARs will be called back into use as they were in the 1990s.

There would be some major difficulties applying the historic procedures to the latest generation of aircraft and keeping agreements with other Counties going at the same time. That said, it’s possible BCARs could be resurrected but in a new way. One approach to providing national airworthiness procedures in 2021, would be to cut-and-paste the EASA Implementing Rule Part 21.

There isn’t much to be gained by reproducing all the requirement texts because it would be just as easy to have a one-line legislative statement to adopt the output of the European system. If new BCARs are created they must be maintained and that task is always bigger than anyone estimates.

Unfortunately, the pervasive impact of popular politicisation may take a hand. That could result in a complex hybrid of procedures developing where some parts are common and other parts diverge. If it happens, our post-Brexit era could create the need for a great deal of airworthiness administrative management which naturally has to be paid for by someone. However, this happens the UK must have a sound, stable and reliable system to deal with the responsibility for Type Approval of aircraft and all that implies.

[1] https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=220

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

May Vote

What do the May local elections tell us? The message is important since this was the biggest test of public opinion since the UK General Election in 2016. It was real votes in real ballot boxes. I see the outcome in three parts.

Firstly, two old dinosaurs locked in a never-ending battle. Both looking bruised and battered. One wins a bit and the other loses then the other wins a bit and so on into perpetuity. Stale leadership and tired policies leave both in the doldrums. The two fossils of British politics: Labour and Conservative Parties. Neither has a vision for the future.

Secondly, the good news is that the Liberal Democrats are climbing back to represent a real force in British politics. The Party has a younger spirit than the rest. Its energetic and hard working. Big wins represent an endorsement of their position as a Party with ideas and competent deliverer of services. They are the main ones to see the true folly of Brexit.

Thirdly, it’s also good news to see that UKIP has breathed its final breath. If there’s any justice, the BBC and the newspapers will now stop paying so much attention to this antiquated relic. UKIP is no more however much its corpse wriggles.

In addition since I didnt want to say fouthly; the Greens continue to have a patch of ground that they alone occupy. They do split votes and upset outcomes but that’s all part of our dreadful first past the post system for local elections.

May 2018 may not have been transformational, but it does firmly point a direction. Yesterday’s Party policies and sound bites are running out of steam. Neither of the two biggest UK Parties have much to offer except more of the same. This is not a good situation of a mature Country to be in at a moment when its about to step into the unknown. It’s time to turn around and set a new direction.

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

Threatening Democracy

Yesterday’s newspapers have a couple of short pieces from hardened Brexiters. The general theme is; if Brexit is thwarted, in even the slightest then; public’s rage will boil over. Or we must go all the way otherwise no one will ever vote again. Yes, it does get that ridiculously hysterical.

Week after week the Brexit supporters’ loose arguments but they trundled on and on. I can’t remember the last time that they fairly and honestly won a debate without coercion.

Listening to the populist arguments from prominent Brexit supporting MPs, it’s clear they want no relationship with the EU whatsoever in the future. The mantra “Brexit means Brexit” is still being churned out. The foolishness of these deceiving arguments is plain to see. Any Treaty that a Country signs with any other includes obligations and responsibilities. The idea that we can have a beneficial and positive relationship without any of these is unreal.

It’s true that some people, who rarely if ever vote, suddenly decided to go to the polls in June 2016. As is often the case, quite a lot were in the mood to give the Government of the day a bloody nose. Lots went to the ballot assuming their vote would just be a momentary angry protest. After all everyone had had quite enough of austerity and the blandness of Mr Cameron.

Now, many have recanted and would like to take back their referendum vote. Our democracy is being threatened by the die-hard Brexit obsessives who fear the fact that a majority of people may have reconsidered. I believe, this Country is mature enough to have a choice over the deal that is being cobbled together. It is consistent with our pragmatic traditions.

On a Vote

It has been said that: “The UK electorate is split down the middle, but another vote would make things worse”. Frankly, that’s not a good argument given the traditionally adversarial nature of UK politics. You might even say that our whole British political system aims at dividing everyone into one of two camps.

What do I remember about Parliament and the House of Commons? The distance between Government Party and Opposition Party benches is two swords length. So, don’t give me any of that nonsense about division. Sure, I’d prefer a more consensual approach to National decision-making but that is not what we have in the UK.

The UK referendum of 1975 was so much easier in that it created a clear winner and a clear looser. Unfortunately, after so much confusion, muddle and downright lying the 2016 referendum must go done in history as the worst exercise in democracy any Country has engaged in modern times.

Are we just to leave it there and let the British frog[1] be boiled slowly? Or are we to say – no, enough is enough and act? I believe, another national referendum is needed to either confirm the decision to leave or to remain a European Union Member State. Its true there are other ways to move forward and it is a matter of our sovereign Parliament. Will they or won’t they go for a referendum on the deal?

Let’s consider the three conditions: no referendum, referendum supporting Leave and referendum supporting Remain.

The first case just leaves the sharp divide in place and the frog gets boiled, to use that metaphor again. However, there’s plenty of potential for a further crisis and the need for a snap General Election. Nobody gets what they want.

In the second case, where say; in an Autumn referendum the outcome confirms the leave vote, the direction of travel continues but with a lot more resolve.

In the third case, where say; in an Autumn referendum the outcome calls for a correction of direction it can be done without too much pain.

Those who fear a referendum on the deal should think about what’s in the best interests of the whole Country. Ironically, it’s the period we are passing through that has given most voters a much better understanding of the nature of European Union membership. More than they ever had before 2016. Knowing what’s at stake and voting accordingly, the result would stick for a good long time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog