Uncategorized – Page 14

Aviation & Brexit 86

A new Conservative Party leader should be named on Tuesday, 23 July and then appointed UK Prime Minister (PM) one day later. That’s only if the Government’s majority in the UK Parliament hasn’t crumbled. Then the House of Commons (HoC) summer recess begins one day after[1]. The HoC returns on Tuesday, 3 September just before the political Party conference season gets started. So, the idea that there’s time to apply Article 50 and negotiate a new deal with the European Union (EU) before the 31 October exit day is pure fantasy. If there was unity, harmony and a convergence of positions then a small chance exists. None of those three words can reasonably be used to describe the situation.

A lot of political talk still centres around the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and peculiar notions that it might be easier to get a deal with over 160 Countries than it is to deal with 27 Countries. The WTO framework doesn’t cover key aspects of the UK economy, like: Aviation, Medicine, Export Licencing and Digital Data. Often expressed as a sign of more “Unicorns”, frustration continues to grow amongst those who have gained a smattering of knowledge after 3-years of this merry-go-around. As a result of all the nonsense spoken, there’s little doubt that Brexit is damaging the UK’s reputation as a good place to do business.

If Boris Johnson enters Number 10, Downing Street as PM then he could discard his firm promise to leave the EU, come what may on 31 October only then to see his Government fall. Thus, the strong likelihood of a “No Deal” outcome with no implementation/transition period is looming. Without a formal withdrawal agreement there’s only the temporary contingency measures that both the EU and UK[2] have published so far. I’ve written about this in my Blog 61, 71 and 74.

One area of significance is how this event will impact aerospace Design Organisations (DO) who are primarily based in the UK. Approvals issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to a UK DO, before the exit date will remain valid for 9 months from the day after the 31 October. To provide continuity, UK DO’s are being encouraged to apply to the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)[3] for a national approval in advance of the exit day. One small silver lining is that the UK CAA will not charge an up-front fee for issuing these approvals, provided the scope is the same as the EASA approval and no technical investigation is required. After that a fee is changed for surveillance of the DO approval under a published scheme of charges.

This is one subject area amongst a large number, across many industries. Yes, Brexit is a magnificent way to create extra bureaucracy and we will all end up paying for it in the long run.

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

[2] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/prepare-to-work-and-operate-in-the-european-aviation-sector-after-brexit

[3] https://info.caa.co.uk/eu-exit/aerospace-design-organisations/

Aviation & Brexit 85

The year’s longest day is almost with us. This week, for the first time in a while, The UK’s Brexit is not a major topic at a European Union (EU) summit[1]. Now, the new European Parliament (EP) is in place there’s much discussion about the big jobs that need filling. In the EU, a new team of European Commissioners is appointed every 5-years. Appointing the President and the College of Commissioners is one of the issues concentrating minds in Brussels and across Europe.

Today’s European Commissioners will be leave office on 31 October 2019. Coincidentally, that’s the date the UK is supposed to be leaving the EU. It’s impossible to say if that will happen, not even with the remaining candidates for UK Prime Minister saying; that they still wish to leave. The words of Donald Tusk, warning the UK to stop wasting time still echo around the room.

It’s worth noting that the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU will be replaced by the Finland’s Presidency[2] at the end of the month. This is interesting given that Finland held parliamentary elections in April this year. The new Government of Finland was appointed on 6 June. So, there’s not much time to prepare an agenda for their term but I feel certain Climate Change will be high on the list of issues.

Potentially, that means a lot more talk about EU policies that promote sustainable and “smart” mobility. In one direction, exhibited at the Paris Air Show are a horde of new electric propulsion systems for aircraft. In another direction, policies include the introduction of an aviation tax at EU level and a carbon floor price[3]. No doubt this subject is going to be highly controversial. The call for Net Zero emissions by 2050 is a major strategic shift for Europe.

Today, not all EU Countries have a flight tax, like the UK. It’s a tax on a ticket. Unfortunately, that ticket tax is not used to mitigate the environmental impacts of flying. Aviation taxes, such as fuel taxes or ticket taxes, do have an impact on the economy. If there’s not strong coordination and cooperation in the design of an aviation tax at EU level, then the danger of exporting jobs is real in what’s an international business.

Some studies do suggest that an aviation tax is not effective in reducing CO2 emissions. However, there’s a great deal to be debated and investigated on this key subject. I cannot believe the UK will not have a strong interest in the direction that the EU chooses to take on aviation taxes. Naturally, it would be better if the UK was part of the decision-making process but leaving the EU with “No-Deal” rules that out completely.

[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2019/06/20-21/

[2] https://eu2019.fi/en/frontpage

[3] https://www.aviatax2019.nl/#home

Any objectivity anymore?

There are UK politicians running around the broadcast studios. Those advocating a “No Deal” outcome to the current Brexit negotiations are using all their skills to polish gravel in the hope of turning it into diamonds. Debate has been debased to a frightening degree.

In my career, I spent quite some time in the analysis business. That’s the world of gathering data and crunching it with the aim of trying to figure out what going on in the “real” world. This process is essential if the aim is to continually improve something. Just to over simplify, as is the fashion of the moment, analysis can be broken down into two approaches.

One approach is to collect wide-ranging data and explore it, as best you can and try to distil the story that it’s trying to tell. It’s to illuminate and discover what is contained within data. This unbiased objective approach can be more difficult than one might imagine. It’s the scientific method. It’s open to peer review and open debate.

The other approach is to start with a set of beliefs or theories. Bit like an imaginary pulp fiction police detective with a hunch. Then to dig into the data to see if your preconceived idea can be proven or not. If not keep quiet or in the extreme case, choose the methods and data that ensures your case is proven.

It’s this second case that seems to be most often applied to Brexit. Anyone who scrutinises Brexit in an open and objective way is often labelled a saboteur, traitor or mutineer. The quality of the critical debate we are having is screwed by inflammatory name-calling and blind religious devotion to beliefs and theories.

It’s not unusual for people who take the first approach to find it hard going. It takes considerable skills of persuasion to demonstrate that an unpopular result is true. Business books are full of references to a performance-based approach. Because of the phenomena I’ve described above I’d recommend that a politician or CEO’s reward is never solely based on a measure of “performance”.

Parliament has shown repeatedly that UK politicians are brilliant at deciding to run down rabbit holes. Wouldn’t it be so much better if a degree of thoughtful objectivity could shine through once or twice. If a “No Deal” Brexit outcome happens then objectivity has gone out of the window.

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/

Crisis? What Crisis?

As we might expect there’s a fair amount of rabble rousing going on in Birmingham this week[1]. Although they are the political party in power now, it maybe as well to ignore the poorly judgement and fake anger of most of the speeches at the Conservative Party conference. Stepping back for a moment there are realities that need to be faced. All the bullish froth, finger wagging, and paranoia cannot cancel hard cold facts.

Although Chancellor Hammond has been portrayed as Eeyore[2], he at least had one or two grown-up things to say this week. “The global internet giants must contribute fairly to funding our public services”, now who can’t agree with that?

At the same time, Mrs May and he are wedded to a plan called “Chequers”. However, no majority exists in the UK Parliament to pass such a plan. In addition, the EU has indicated that the plan, as it stands, is not on. Unless both sides, doing the real negotiation soften their “red lines” there will be no agreement. Just to heighten the tension, no majority exists, or will exit in the UK Parliament for a “no deal” outcome.

Crisis? What Crisis?[3] The album cover art of the album of that name, by the 70s rock band Supertramp, is remarkably apt for the times.

It is still possible to converge to reach a deal by November, but it is mighty sporty. That would be in time for the December European Council on Friday 14^th. Then the ratification processes can take place. I don’t suppose any Parliamentarian would wish to be having a “meaningful vote” on the deal over Christmas. It is astonishing that, having exhausted more than 2-years of debate over Brexit we continue with such a lack of clarity. If whatever comes out of the negotiation mixer is passed, then some sanity will be restored for a short-while, at least.

The near-sacred status of 29 March 2019 could be challenged but it is unlikely. The last voting session before the European Parliament (EP) breaks for elections is 18 April 2019. Dealing with a whole new EP might not be such a good idea.

So, within the next few weeks we will know if a relatively smooth transition is to take place or an almighty crisis is coming down the tracks. Then I’ll remember Shelley’s great poem:

“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

[1] #CPC18

[2] Eeyore is a character in the Winnie-the-Pooh books by A. A. Milne.

[3] Crisis? What Crisis? is the 4th album by the rock band Supertramp, released in 1975 (Year of the first referendum on Europe).

Production

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was formally established on 27 September 2002 and become operational one year later. The main objectives of the EU were strongly supported by the aeronautical industry. It was to create a body capable of ensuring a uniform, high level of aviation safety and independent of national interests. This included the free movement of aeronautical products and the automatic recognition of certificates. EASA was given the power to carry out legally binding certification tasks, overcoming the limitations of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA).

In the UK, organisation approvals have transitioned from national requirements BCARs[1] and JARs[2] to European rules as Regulation EU No 748/2012. Part-21 subpart G of this Regulation concerns the production of aircraft or engines or other products. This certification of production organisations[3] is for the demonstration of their capability and means to meet their airworthiness obligations. It’s also a way to confer specified associated privileges.

It is worth noting that organisation approvals issued or recognised by the UK in accordance with the JAA system, and valid before 28 September 2003, where accepted as complying with the above EU Regulation. So, for production organisations operating in Europe, the transition from the JAA systems to the EASA system was a progressive development.

Today, European National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) need to have the resources necessary to undertake the approval of organisations. Once initiated, this means that the NAA and approved organisation have an on-going relationship for, at least, as long as any of their products are in-service.

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

Post March 31, 2019, Regulation EU No 748/2012 will not apply in the UK. However, for continuity it may be adopted as part of a Withdraw Agreement and taken-up in UK legislation. In the case of a “no-deal” scenario the situation is unclear. Any of the privileges that come from a European POA remain in doubt. I assume we will have a National POA with National privileges that may or may not be accepted/recognised by others. With an accepted/recognised Authorised Release Certificate products are deemed airworthy. Without one they are not.

[1] British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR).

[2] Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs).

[3] Production Organisation Approval (POA).

Brexit and Aviation 27

In civil aviation, deal or no deal, the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944, which provides for implementation of the measures necessary to ensure the safe operation of aircraft will continue to apply in all European States.

Deal or no deal, The UK will remain a member of European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) and EUROCONTROL. But even before REGULATION (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation a great deal of work was being done to harmonise of technical requirements in Europe.

Deal or no deal, the 508 million of the current EU28 want high levels of civil aviation safety and common technical requirements in Europe. Simply put the public demand will continue to be to strives to improve safety and protect the environment. European skies see over 10 million flights a year and that’s growing.

Frankly, to do any different would be a grave dereliction of duty. Each European country is unique. However, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you are from, if you are a passenger on an international flight you expect the same level of safety as everyone else. Competition can drive improvements in industry but no one sensible or sane competes on safety grounds.

So, talk of “no deal” isn’t of any usefulness because there will always be a deal of some kind.

Tomorrow Ministers are set to publish the “no deal” Brexit plans that have been worked-up. Whether this is healthy or unhealthy isn’t so much about what they contain as the state of mind that produced them in the first place. The irrational beliefs at the heart of Brexit have little to do with practical reality. The honest practical reality is that there will be deals.

Looking back from ahead

Now, maybe I’ll last until 2040. Sure, as eggs is eggs, I won’t last forever. Looking back from that world ahead, what will we be taking about when we remember the 2010s? What will be then the history of 30 years back. So, today that’s like looking at the 1980s.

Got to make a few assumptions if this is going to make any sense. Technology will have continued its onward march. World population will be about 9 billion. Climate change will be in the News. We will be amazed by the discoveries that science makes.

Just about everything will be more interconnected, interactive and interdependent than ever was imagined. But some people will still be living in the house they grew up in. Some communities will be on the up and others left behind.

What will the social, economic and political world look like in 2040? Perhaps enduring themes will remain our preoccupation. It seems to me that we go through cycles. One time we wish for autonomy, sovereignty and independence. Next time we wish for community, solidarity and union. In time the pendulum swings backwards and forwards.

So, looking back on the late 2010s the UK Brexit experiment is the pendulum hitting the end stops.

Will it be reflected on as good or bad?

I’m going to say bad. One of the key reasons for saying this is that Brexit became an obsession that continued long after the attraction faded. The bigger problems that we all faced were not addressed by Brexit. It became a side show that enthralled the UK but meant little to the rest of the world.

To take a quote from an unlikely hit film of 1994: “You can’t stop progress” (Muriel’s Wedding). By the way, that didn’t work out so well for Muriel’s father who took pride in trying to get rich from corrupt deals. Perhaps a more erudite quotation is in order: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything”. George Bernard Shaw.

If advice from 2040 comes flying through a worm hole in space and time it will be: change direction in 2018 because Brexit will just mean disappointment. Work on the worlds real problems.

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.

Aviation & Brexit 13

This week continues the uncertainty that surrounds Brexit. I was pleased to have the opportunity to attend a meeting called “Beer and Brexit” with Philip Rycroft the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Exiting the European Union. The meeting was organised by “The UK in a Changing Europe” at King’s College at Bush House in London.

Rycroft is undoubtably an interesting character. He seems accustomed to overwhelming jobs, as he handled Scottish devolution and the Deputy PM’s office during the coalition. Throughout the conversation, led by Professor Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs, he was as guarded as anyone would expect from a senior civil servant.

Nevertheless, I did draw one or two conclusions from the answers he gave. One is that the UK civil services is out to hire lots more smart people, particularly in policy development. Another is that his department might continue long after Brexit day or at least its teams may continue. Now, I imagine that includes Transport and Aviation as much as it does any other major subject.

Appearing unflappable Rycroft was asked about what annoyed him the most. The question was asked; was it former colleagues making criticisms in the national press?

My view of his answer was that he didn’t mind provided they stood by their comments and it was anonymous briefings that were the problem. This was said just after references in the conversation to the Armageddon news stories around preparedness for a no deal situation.

He confirmed there will be a Government White Paper on Brexit but wouldn’t be drawn on when it would be published. With today’s news we now know from the Prime Minister that this White Paper will only be available after the up and coming European Union summit. Mrs May is reported to have said: “I’ll be bringing my ministers together for an away day at Chequers to finalise the White Paper we’re going to be publishing”.

All in all, it seems the “can” continues to get kicked down the road by the Government.

There are some hints as to what is to come as published this week was a presentation to explain the UK Government’s vision for a future UK-EU partnership and the framework for transport[1]. This is a 19-page presentation which is board and general but positive and upbeat.

Another separate but equally interesting item that I would like to comment on here is a well thought out paper called: “Brexit and EU Agencies: What the agencies’ existing third country relations can teach us about the future EU-UK relationship”[2]. This paper does highlight the numerous possibilities that could be applied in the field of aviation regulation.

If you like, compare and contrast the detail in the UK Government presentation and the paper of the Forschungsgruppe EU/Europa, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (@SWPBerlin) – Research Division EU/Europe, German Institute for International & Security Affairs. Now I can see why the civil service needs to hire some more smart people to get through Brexit.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/framework-for-the-uk-eu-partnership-transport

[2] https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/Brexit_and_EU_agencies.pdf