Category: British

Mettle and Mulligrubs

My last post had a glimmer of optimism about it.  As the week progresses the basis for that optimism is subsiding.  Slowly but surely.  One cause is the endless, wholly erroneous diatribe of macho language that bleeds from the Brexit supporters.  So, much effort and energy are being expended provoking conflict, heightening tensions and blaming others.

Constant uncertainty of the Brexit clock ticking is doing damage, even as we speak.  The health of manufacturing confidence has reached a low.  Contingency measures are kicking-in as companies move out of the UK.  Hard working, tax paying, long-standing EU nationals are drifting away.

As real impacts are being felt by real people, so our politics seems more unreal.  The UK is divided between people who are head-down studying, training or working and frantic groups that are fighting ancient battles.  Politically Left or Right there’s a myopic obsession infecting public life.

Former governor of the Bank of England, Lord King has branded Brexit preparations as: “incompetent”.  He’s coming from a position of supporting Brexit.  My answer to him is the earthy historic phrase: you can’t make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.  The poor of preparation started the day an “advisory” referendum was proposed and driven through by a gambling PM.

Now, we have the ridiculous situation of the Brexit secretary Raab saying those in Parliament worried about warnings of damage to the UK car industry: “show more mettle”.  Again a 17th century phrase.  Maybe it’s time to revive some other historic words and phrases from that era.

Government is telling a: “Banbury tale” which is a form of: “cock and bull” story.  That’s a ridiculous story, or a tale that rambles on without going anywhere.  How apt for Brexit.  Particularly considering that David Cameron’s constituency was in Oxfordshire.

I’m always astonished how many Brexiters are “mulligrubs”.  That’s people in an exaggerated bad mood all the time.  How they keep it up being so sullen when they “won” the referendum in 2016 is beyond belief.  That word rolls off the tongue so maybe it’s worth reviving.

The political media is full of “pickthanks”.  That’s gossiping tell-tales who spreads malicious rumours to carry favour.  I can see why that one died.  There are better words for such people but many of them are not to be used in polite company.

Brexit isn’t an answer to our current predicament.  It’s a symptom of a much deeper problem.  The longer we avoid that reality the worse the situation will get.  Regrets are not enough.  We need serious action to rethink.  Sign-up[1].

[1] https://www.peoples-vote.uk/

 

Britain deserves better

Post-Brexit Britain will be more bureaucratic. The recently published Government papers are full of new regulatory regimes, doubling up of registration and extra processes for British business and consumers.  When Ministers say, like Dominic Raab: “the UK will be better off outside the EU in any scenario…” we all know these are meaningless words.  It’s his job to say that sort of nonsense even if this is turning reality on its head.

For the Conservatives it’s too late to change direction.  They know that their negotiating strategy has fallen apart.  Focusing on the negative, like threats of a “no deal” have done, has alienated potential partners.  During negotiations, blaming people for intransigence has been a diplomatic blunder of the first order.  It’s reinforced the solidarity of the potential partners.

The first batch in a series of Technical Notices on “no deal” assume a great deal of good will on the part of the EU.  Some of them ignore the constraints that apply because of existing legislation in Europe.  In an emergency, circumventing Regulations can be done but its going to be hard if the only reasons are ideological and pressures are like a game of Russian roulette.

The UK voted to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016.  The world of early 2019 will not be the same as the world of early 2016.  Populism remains but its not gathering any head of steam.  It’s a minority of ideological radicals who keep pushing their cherished project.  We don’t have to accept their view of the world.

We need a #PeoplesVote.  But we need a positive campaign about the benefits of European solidarity.  A campaign must present the facts and expose the lies of the last referendum.  Britain deserves better.

Brexit and Aviation 28

The EU has already produced a series of notices on “Brexit preparedness”.  It’s now the turn of the UK to publish notices.  Taking the current course, the UK plans to leave the EU on 29 March 2019.   What happens at that point remains a subject of much debate and discussion.  Many hours of media time are dominated by speculation and those desperate to influence public opinion.

Brinkmanship is the apparent escalation of threats to achieve one’s aims.  For brinkmanship to work, both sides escalate their threats.  We never seem to be on the brink of anything good.  Most “brinks” are on the edge of catastrophise, cataclysm, disasters, ruin, suffering or harm.

Pro-Brexit people often dismiss any such talk as, so called: “Project Fear”.   That’s disingenuous because it’s an unscrupulous attempt to hide what brinkmanship is by definition.  A threat, or outcome that no one sensible wants is ineffective unless it’s credible.   It’s no good blaming anyone for this dreadful state of affairs.  If the doctrine of – nothing is agreed until everything is agreed – continues, then this is what will happen.

Also, its foolish to think that this situation will only exist in the UK – EU relationship.  It’s most likely to be encountered whenever the UK is negotiating with a larger Country or region.  So, if Brexit happens we had better get used to it.

Naturally there’s the potential for errors or misjudgements.  History is littered with brinkmanship gone wrong.  It always better to have a life jacket than not have one but whether it will be any use or not is quite another matter.

Today, civil aviation is not on the list of how to prepare if the UK leaves the EU with no deal[1].

There are some inferences that can be taken from the notice on “Regulating medicines”.  Basically, that’s the UK will continue to apply and accept the application of EU regulations even if there’s no deal.  Ideally, the UK would like to remain part of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

An attempt at humour, and the Bacon Lettuce and Tomato sandwich scenario after Brexit, fell flat.  That said, most of the scenarios for no deal Brexit are Bl**dy Ludicrous Threats (BLTs).  Better to stop this folly altogether and adopt a more practical, pragmatic and proportionate approach to EU Membership.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal

 

No half-way houses

What do you do in a deeply divided country like ours?  They say perception is all.  Spend just 5 minutes reading Hard Remain Tweets and then 5 minutes reading Hard Leave Tweets.  These two communities will NOT reconcile in anyone’s lifetime.   We have Internationalist English and the Nationalist English.  They live in different worlds and their beliefs are poles apart.  They delight in insulting each other in ever more creative ways.  Both believe the other one is sabotaging their dreams.  Strong deals, good deals, bad deals, weak deals or no deal, whatever the final deal a large proportion of the English population will object to it even if they haven’t a clue what it means.  We all know the status-quo is not tenable but where do we go from here?  The traditional “bell curve” of politics is taking a holiday.  That’s where once many politicians looked to position themseleves with the central moderate majority.

Let’s be clear that at a time of such troubles we need to get back to fundamentals.

“The first duty of the Government is to afford protection to its citizens.”  My interpretation of the word “protection” takes in: safety, security, justice, economic wellbeing, social solidarity and environmental protection.

This is where the two camps are NOT equal.  Wherever you are, you do need to pick a side.  Appeasement has a poor history in all nations.

A quick look at the Brexiters priorities leave no doubt, in my mind that they are authoritarian and unscrupulous.  Here’s a range of thing they want to do:  One Party rule.  In Parliament, shut down the House of Lords, as they say; no second house needed.  More popular referendums to keep politicians on a leash.  Returning capital punishment.  Pulling up the draw-bridge to all but the wealthy.  Privatisation of the BBC, NHS and other public bodies.  Wholesale deregulation.  Drastic cuts in welfare to let people sink or swim.  Making dissent and protest crimes of treason.  This list is a sample from Brexiters current on-line discussions.

Public safety, security, justice, economic wellbeing, social solidarity and environmental protection, will all be in jeopardy if they succeed.   An outcome that “will be regretted for generations” is on the cards right now.

Let’s be clear the opinion to remain as an EU Member State is no longer the status-quo.  The world has moved in the last two-years.  A new dynamic exists in Europe as we face the challenges of Trump, Russia, China and the huge tech giants who dominate our lives. Nationalist voices will continue to make noise but that should on a level playing field with moderate voices.

If democratic States are to thrive and ordinary people not lose out, Government and its institutions must listen to their people.  There is a growing demand and support for a #PeoplesVote.  Let’s have that vote and show that the real deal is the one people want.

Brexit and Aviation 26

On my desk is coaster that says: “30 Years MOR Scheme 1976-2006”.  It has the Civil Aviation Authority logo above the words.  Now that was worth celebrating.  Three decades of Mandatory Occurrence Reporting in civil aviation in the UK[1].

It would be difficult to put a number on the number of potential accidents and incidents prevented by the learning that has flowed from thousands of MORs.  Nevertheless, there are certainly people who have been spared the fate of being involved in life threatening events.

1976 was my first year of paid employment.  It was a glorious hot summer.  In the autumn, I started an apprenticeship with no idea that the path of my career would lead to me working with MORs.

At that time, I was working out how to do engineering drawing and make precision items using machine tools.  If remember right, being on a flat roof at Yeovil College experimenting with a solar water heater.  Working out how to stop it leaking and pump at the right times.

Not my biggest interest but aviation was around me given the presence of Westland Helicopters in the town.  That company had its own apprentice training school.  Many of the college apprentices like me worked for small engineering companies that depended on Westland’s.

I recollect this because, at that time, my memories of a fatal aircraft accident were of the one that led to the establishment of the MOR system in the UK.  In 1972, British European Airways flight 548 crashed in Staines killing 118 people on board[2].  This was a British aircraft, operated by a British company on British soil.  A sad and tragic event.  I plan to go to see the Trident memorial window in St Mary’s Church in Staines.  The 118 stars in its border represent those who died.

The UK has contributed considerably to shaping the rules that now apply in Europe.

When I arrived in Cologne in 2004, the Directive 2003/42/EC was in place.  This wasn’t the strongest piece of legislation and although it required EU Member States to have an MOR system it was weak on getting people to share information.  That’s one of the big benefits of such approaches.  It’s to learn from others so that you don’t have to experience the same problems.

Now, to give it the full title we have: Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation, amending Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1321/2007 and (EC) No 1330/2007 Text with EEA relevance.

Yes, that’s a mouthful but the text of the Regulation is invaluable to make a system of collecting and sharing MORs throughout the whole European aviation system.  Will the UK continue to participate in this European system post-Brexit?  Everyone assumes it will but the answer to the question how is – no one knows.

[1] https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/Make-a-report-or-complaint/MOR/Mandatory-occurrence-reporting/

 

[2] https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19720618-0

 

Brexit & Aviation 25

Changing perspectives on Brexit, I’ll consider it more from the point of view of being an air passenger.  I’ve written about aviation’s regulatory framework and the impacts on industry, but I fly too.  So, what’s likely to change with the passing of March 2019?

Today’s UK News is about the UK-based airline Virgin Atlantic and their story on ques at London Heathrow airport[1].  On 6th July, non-EU visitors had to wait for up to 2 hours and 36 minutes at Heathrow.  That’s a lot to add to the end of a long-haul flight.  Brits may be accustomed to queuing, but it annoys and frustrates most people.

I’m lucky.  I have a shiny new British passport with the words “European Union” on the front cover.  As a British passenger, I can use the electronic passport gates which currently are open to EU passengers.

Currently Europe’s busiest airport, that’s the EU’s busiest airport isn’t offering good services to non-EU visitors.  Will this change after March next year?  Or will EU passengers get more hassle than they do now?  There’s media speculation about a Brits only immigration line at airports but what could that possibly mean in reality?  No one knows.

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004[2] isn’t liked much by the aviation industry but passengers have been happy to see this legislation enacted.  Now, will an Air Transport deal between the EU and UK include consumer rights such as flight delay compensation?  Even if the intent of this Regulation is copied into UK law it wouldn’t be much good applied to non-UK airlines.  I understand that Switzerland participates in 261/2004.  So, it should be possible for a post-Brexit UK to participate in the legislation.  This needs to happen otherwise British passengers delayed by EU airlines will not be appropriately compensated.  A notice to this effect has been published.

When traveling we like to keep in touch with family, friends and colleagues.  Today we get mobile phone roaming in the EU at domestic prices.  This requires continued regulation of prices by UK and EU networks. Will this end?  No one knows.

The UK Government continues to say: “Our focus is making a success of Brexit and attempting to get the best deal possible. A deal that is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union. And one that takes in both economic and security cooperation.”

Flying to and from the UK may change after March 2019.  Unless the above issues are fully addressed the experience maybe a lot worse than it is today.  So, be prepared.

[1] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-airports-virgin-atlantic/heathrow-airport-passport-queues-reached-two-and-a-half-hours-in-july-data-idUKKBN1KY0PC

 

[2] Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights……………………….

Brexit & Aviation 24

Like it or not, the holiday season will end.  Facts are incontrovertible.  The UK and EU have just a few months to finish a Withdrawal Agreement.  This is to allow for scrutiny and ratification in both the UK and the EU’s 27 Member States.  A Withdrawal Agreement must be signed in October and that’s just days away.

Let’s look at one more civil aviation issue.  The continuing airworthiness of a civil aircraft is dependent on the exchange of information between authorities and organisations across the globe.  This is flow of information is practically improved if working arrangements or bilateral agreements exist between Countries.  These are built on mutual interest, trust and a long-established familiarity with each other’s regulatory systems.

Yes, the duties of Countries under their obligations as signatories of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, dated 7th December 1944 (known as the “Chicago Convention”) exist but these are the basics and even then, those basics are often given scant regard.

In the 1970s, some European civil aviation authorities started to co-operate to produce common “Joint Airworthiness Requirements.”  Even before the 1990 Cyprus arrangement[1] in Europe, both the US and European authorities had been working to harmonise rules and reduce duplication of regulatory activities.

Today, a mature EU-US bilateral is in place.  So, if a British manufacture wishes to export an aviation product to the US it can do so with relative ease.  As per Subpart G 21.A.163 of Commission Regulation 748/2012, the holder of a production organisation approval may issue authorised release certificates (EASA Form 1) without further showing.   That EASA Form 1 is then recognised in the US.

The Treaty’s Article 50 clock stops at the end of March 2019.  It’s reasonable to ask the question; what Authorised Release Certificate will be used in the UK after that date and will it be recognised?

Anyone know?

All the loud yah-boo politics, so loved of Westminster, doesn’t offer an answer.

 

NOTE 1: The EASA Authorised Release Certificate is known as the EASA Form 1.

NOTE 2: The FAA Authorised Release Certificate is known as the FAA Form 8130 -3, Airworthiness Approval Tag[2].

 

[1] ARRANGEMENTS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT, THE ACCEPTANCE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS

[2] Reference:  FAA Order 8130.21H—Published August 1, 2013, Effective February 1, 2014.

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.