British – Page 50 – John Vincent

Is this a new form of politics?

First: Identify an underlying hate or prejudice of a section of the population. Second: say something that will anger and enflame a significant majority of people. Get the mass News coverage. Thirdly: wait and then say “sorry” and get away with it without sanction. Meantime garnish the support of all those who share strong views but are normally unheard.

If reports are to be believed, it seems to work best when focusing on the extremes, either of the conventional left or right in politics. Our rapid news cycles are always looking for their next fix. There’s nothing like a rocking and rolling bandwagon to sell newspapers or increase viewers.

It’s a crude mechanism that polarises public opinion. Chalk or Cheese. Marmite – love it or hate it.

This is a real dilemma for the traditional centrist politicians. It becomes difficult to use words like: compromise, consensus and cooperation. In our heart of hearts, we all know that things get done when people pull together around a common goal. We all pine for better performing public services and greater customer care from private companies but we are not helping? I think not.

The political blame game polarises public opinion. Easy enough to do when faced with zero accountability and gaping great failures – the railways have been doing that in recent times.

However, if the blame game is the only game in town we’ve come to a real crossroads. It’s almost impossible to learn and put things right if there’s a constant risk of getting shot at. Who wants to take on difficult, almost intractable problems if just by doing so you become the target of hate and prejudice? The blame game just drives repeated failure.

There was a time when our British adversarial system challenged people to come up with better arguments or better solutions to problems. What we are seeing now is that maybe it had had its day. The adversarial system, in this social media age is like fuel to a fire. It’s just another way of burning down the house instead of putting out the fire.

Fine. Pointing out the issues creates lots of good talking points. Now, what is to be done?

For a start, centrist politicians must become less reactive and more radical. Tap into positive emotions. Bin technical words like compromise, consensus and cooperation. Talk about teamwork and us pulling together. Cite great achievements like the 2012 London Olympics.

Hope not fear. Bringing down walls not putting them up. Getting News coverage for fundamental changes. Looking to the future rather than always rehashing the past.

Brexit & Aviation 23

Hearing hard core Brexiters herald statements from IAG S.A.[1] about working though Brexit is strange to say the least. By the way, if you’ve never heard of them the International Airlines Group was created in 2011, is one of the world’s largest airline groups and includes British Airways. It’s a Spanish registered company with shares traded on the London and Spanish Stock Exchanges. IAG operational headquarters is in London.

At the point of the 2016 UK referendum IAG shares took a hit. Ever since then there has been a consistent recovery in their position. Brexit, or no Brexit they are well placed on both sides of the fence. Today, their airlines have Air Operator Certificates (AOCs)[2] in the EU. After the end of March next year its likely those AOCs will remain unchanged. The basis for their UK operators validity will shift from European Regulation to National Legislation.

Despite the high level of integration of the European aviation market place there is no single European registry of aircraft. Each ICAO Contracting State has its own aircraft registry.

However, to fly into the EU all non-EU aeroplane operators must have a Third Country Operators (TCO) authorisation[3]. This is a way of ensuring that non-EU aeroplane operators are compliant with all applicable technical standards of the Annexes to the Chicago Convention.

In the EU the authorities undertake ramp inspections of aeroplanes in operation.

Naturally, after the end of March next year aeroplane operators who transition from being EU operators to non-EU aeroplane operators will need a TCO authorisation. In theory, this should be an administrative matter since the transitioning operators already meet the applicable standards.

The TCO authorisation process can require that an audit be performed at the operational premises of the aeroplane operator. This is one of the tasks undertaken by the European Agency EASA.

It’s worth noting that the TCO only considers the safety-related part of foreign operator assessment, whereas operating permits (commercial traffic rights) are issued by individual EU Member States. In many Brexit articles these often a confusion between safety related rules and commercial related rules. It’s generally the case that operating permits are not granted unless the TCO is in place first.

So, far from the Brexiters cries of: “take back control” the result of all this is that our interdependence across Europe changes but remains. And for very good reasons too.

[1] https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary/ES0177542018GBGBXSET1.html

[2] https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Air_Operator_Certificate_(AOC)

[3] Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 (the ‘TCO Regulation’)

No Treaty means no Treaty

This week the Bank of England’s interest-rate increase has become another bump on the road to Brexit. BoE Governor Mark Carney commented that the risk of the UK dropping out of the EU with “no deal” was “uncomfortably high.” Ripples of vitriolic Brexit Tweets and alike popped up to denounce this as, so called Project Fear Mark 2.

The cautious and conservative, with a small “c”, Carney dared to give an expert assessment of the current situation based on his reasoning and experience. Such is the tribalism in British politics that anything that gives the merest impression that Brexit might not be wonderful immediately sparks fanatical cries. Rational thinking in this battleground gets two fingers in the air.

Reading, listening and watching discussions about a “no deal” outcome, I’m struck that so many people talk about it but often they mean something completely different.

Let’s be clear. The so called “no deal” is in Article 50 paragraph 3[1]. It is that the Treaties we are currently signed up to will cease to apply from one day to the next. Without a withdrawal agreement in place or an extension to the two-year period we enter the unknown.

Brexiters might be happy with this outcome but that’s a foolish position to take. Treaties, by their nature, have benefits and obligations for both parties involved. Take away those in one day and put nothing in their place is most likely to cause mayhem.

Contacts may become void. Certificates that are mutually recognised are no longer recognised. Qualifications are questioned. Massive numbers of technical and administrative processes become uncertain. Brits working in the EU are put in limbo, as are EU citizens working in the UK.

No Treaty means no Treaty.

Its like pulling up a drawbridge or pulling down the shutters and saying the shop is closed to the 27 Member States of the EU while we refurbish the premises. Now, I agree such a situation would not last forever as people of goodwill will desperately struggled to find workarounds. People who don’t have goodwill will try to take advantage of the uncertainty. It’s likely that the larger organisations will have protective contingency measures in place. However, SMEs and individuals will be vulnerable and subject to unpredictable costs.

There needs to be a withdrawal agreement in place even if it’s just one page saying; carry on.

[1] 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

A couple of hours in Redhill Town

A Saturday morning spent campaigning in Redhill is a real eye opener. A group of us set-up a street stall with free cakes, leaflets galore and a couple of European flags. We set-up outside the local shopping centre to be seen by as many people as possible. The heat of the week has gone. At one point, the wind almost took the whole stall away as the British weather has changed to become stormy.

We collected a lot of signatures for our #PeoplesVote petition. Whatever you do, please don’t get the wrong impression from what I write here. The morning was a campaigning success story as so many people came over to our stall. So, many great people to chat to about the positive things we can do to bring about change. That said, it’s the difficult conversations that are interesting. Here’s a few tales from the streets of Redhill.

An old Liberal friend who I hadn’t seen for many years, dead set against the European Union, was a joy to meet. Yes, we had our differences but there wasn’t that unpleasant animosity that springs forth so easily from some people who supported the Leave vote.

One Labour voter let me know that the EU was a big capitalist conspiracy. He was a retired railwayman. To him the EU was responsible for all the tiresome rules and regulations that the railways had to implement. It was as if taking the EU away would suddenly transform British railways. Yet, as we know most of the disastrous decisions made by the current Minister responsible for the railways are purely national mistakes.

A conversation with, I would guess an East Surrey UKIP member, was kept on an even keel by our mutual interest in aviation. He delighted in telling me stories that he though I was too young to know. I figured out he once worked in the defence industry. Possibly at Filton in Bristol. It’s amazing how the bitterness of a decision made in 1965 has lingered so long in the mind. The cancellation of the British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 was part of his lament. It seemed crazy that this was part of his package of reasons for being anti-EU when that decision, and many similar ones, had nothing what so ever to do with Europe.

Three or four times the argument came at me, as if it was an unstoppable force, that: “we’ve had a vote”. That vote was enough, and we shouldn’t have any more. A couple of, mostly older men said: “what you are doing is undemocratic”. I felt myself getting agitated but kept my cool. I just wonder if the people who say such things have even the slightest idea how their democracy works. Not even one of them can claim to have stood for election in a real democratic process as many times as I have done. Yet, they will come at you aggressively with this simple line.

In fact, they get stranger. One guy used a football analogy that fell flat on its face. He said: if you played a football game and lost you would have to accept the result – wouldn’t you? To which I answered: “well, I’m just trying to win the next match as you would expect any good player to do”. As expected that made him even grumpier.

A middle-aged woman pronounced that the Country was full. She didn’t want to say what she meant outright but it was clear enough.

A couple of young lads passed me by. I said: “want one of my leaflets?” and the response was – no we’ve had enough of that – people keep changing their minds. That’s not encouraging. The idea that changing your mind is somehow too much to cope with is disconcerting.

One older man repeated the line that he didn’t want to be ruled by the Germans. I asked what he knew about how the EU worked and if he had been to Germany recently. I even admitted that I had lived there for 11 years. That was a bad move on my part. The immortal line got thrown back at me – if you like it so much why don’t you ******* off back there. To which the only answer is to smile and walk away.

Remarkably there were things that I found to agree upon with those in Redhill who didn’t share my enthusiasms for a #PeoplesVote.

One: Bring back Spitting Image. What they could do with today’s dull politicians and Royals.

Two: May’s Government is doing a terrible job – mass unhappiness – nobody gets what they want.

Three: Jeremy Corbyn is the worst official opposition leader in a generation or more.

There’s a generation, most of whom had a referendum vote in 1975, who have lumped all their troubles and fears into one big bag and called it “Europe”. Its clear, that’s not their real concern but that hardly matters. Europe has become a proxy for a bucket load of negative emotions and troublesome fears. Historians will not make sense of this in years to come as we can’t make sense of it now.

Calling for a referendum on the deal that the Government comes up with in the end, has its risks. Although the pendulum is swinging against the Leave vote, there is still a hard core of disgruntled people who will shoot their own foot rather than think again. Now, we are a terribly confused Nation. I’m convinced that after March next year none of the people’s real concerns will have been addressed. Stay tuned, this saga has a long way to run.

Rules, Rules, Rules

Let’s unbox this rule-taker verses rule-maker dichotomy. For one it’s NOT a binary choice. In so far as international aviation safety rule making is concerned I have seen small, well informed organisations have a major impact of new rules and large powerful Countries asleep at the wheel.

It’s an illusion to assume that rulemaking process and procedures are static. However, this is where political machinations have a significant impact. It may or may not be the case that the parties to rulemaking fully understand the technical issues under consideration, but it’s nearly always the case that everyone has a view on the process and procedures.

I’ve sat in high-level meetings and listened to most ridiculous things being said about important technical issues and realised the room is divided between those who knew what’s going on and those who didn’t have a clue. So, its not surprising that the default is that people often focus on process and procedures rather than issues. Perhaps that’s where Brexit has gone off the rails.

Consensus based rulemaking moves slowly often to the frustration of all involved. I could say; if you are going to make a thick glue, that binds, it takes a lot of mixing. Outcomes generally succeed or fail not only subject to the good-will of the participants but based on the hard work and quality of both leadership and secretariat. Perhaps that’s where Brexit has gone off the rails.

In fact, a secretariat can have the greatest soft power regardless of the disposition of votes amongst the membership of a group. The great art and skill of finding a set of words that captures the essence of a proposal, standard or report is much underestimated.

Despite having written what I have above, it remains better to have a vote than not to have a vote. Even if the UK continues to be able in its exercise of soft power its difficult to be convinced that long-term best interests are served by becoming a rule-taker. International rules are made by Countries working together. The bigger the coalition you have on your side the better. Europe working together has much more weight than a fragmented approach from individual Countries. Considering Mr Trump’s “divide et impera[1]” world view it would be wise to have close working partners.

Today, Britain has set a course for a soft Brexit. In the short-term that can work. Over the horizon, its large regional trading blocks that will dominate. Please EU Member States, throw the UK Government a life-line. If instability continues, a real chance of another General Election or even a referendum on the deal exists. That may be needed but its sure going to be a rocky ride.

[1] Divide and rule (or divide and conquer)

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