Uncategorized – Page 14

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 3

“Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.[1]” It seems strange to me that the first and only time I have ever been in the London O2 arena was 20 years ago when it opened as the Millennium Dome. In that 20 years, I moved from aircraft certification to aviation safety and research to playing my part in setting up a new European Agency in Cologne. And then retiring back to the UK. The millennium events were full of ambition, imagination and hope. As we enter the 2^nd decade of the 2000s, the experience of Brexit makes no sense in that context.

This week, on behalf of the EU, the European Commission adopted a draft negotiating directive for a new partnership with the United Kingdom (UK)[2]. This material includes the following for Transport and Aviation:

b) Aviation safety
The envisaged partnership should facilitate trade and investment in aeronautical products, parts and appliances through cooperation in areas such as certification and monitoring, the production oversight and environmental approval and testing. Negotiations should be based on both Parties being satisfied with the other Party’s requirements, regulatory processes and capacity to implement them.
Nothing in the envisaged partnership should entail reciprocal acceptance of the standards and technical regulations of the Parties. Rather, it should limit duplication of assessments to significant regulatory differences and allow, to the extent possible, reliance on the certification system of the other Party. It may also specify modalities, based for example on the respective experience and knowledge of the other party, for the respective level of involvement of the authorities. To facilitate the achievement of the objective set out above, the envisaged partnership may also provide for regulatory co-operation.
The acceptance by one Party of findings or certificates of the other Party shall only take place when, and as long as, the first Party is able to establish and maintain confidence in the other Party’s ability to discharge its obligations in accordance with the envisaged partnership. The envisaged partnership should include appropriate cooperation mechanisms to verify on a reciprocal basis the continued fitness and ability of the regulatory bodies involved in its implementation.

However awkwardly written, none of this negotiating text should be a surprise. This is what the European Union (EU) might say to any 3^rd Country. Given that the starting position for the UK is alignment then aspects of the above should be achievable without great stress. However, there are subjects like; initial airworthiness (design certification) where the UK has not been fully competent since September 2003. A demonstration of ability, capacity, experience and knowledge on that subject will likely take more than 11 months. Much of that depends on the degree to which the slogan: “take back control” was intended.

No doubt the above negotiating text on aviation safety is well researched and reasoned and that the background thinking exists in internal documents within the EU. Since Brexit, British diplomats no longer have formal access to internal documents and information so there’s likely to be a lot more dinners and lunches in Brussels restaurants.

Yes, the UK has formally left the EU, but it hasn’t left numerous other European institutions. One of them is an intergovernmental organisation based in Paris called the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)[3]. The predecessor to the European Union Safety Aviation Agency (EASA), the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) were established by ECAC in the 1990s. It will be interesting to see what role the UK will play in this ECAC in coming years. Will it be more vocal?

[1] Quote from: Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership/future-partnership/guide-negotiations_en

[3] https://www.ecac-ceac.org/about-ecac

End Game?

The absurdity of the “let’s just get this done” call is easy to see. Slogans though have a life of their own, often far detached from reality. Over the last 3-years, Brexit has been full of examples of political phrases that are more to do with tone than substance.

All the evidence indicates that UK Prime Minister (PM) Johnson is making little attempt to negotiate a deal with the European Union (EU). It’s a simple question of judging someone by their actions rather than their words. Yes, the PM is in Dublin on Monday to meet the Irish premier Leo Varadkar to talk about the “backstop”. However, expectations for this meeting are said to be low.

The panicked rush towards 31^st October 2019 will go down as one of the most turbulent periods of political change in modern British history. Speculation has reached new heights as tabloid newspapers goad Mr Johnson into breaking the law. One event is now certain. Soon, there will be a UK General Election (GE). It’s just we don’t know the timing.

Do the pubic just want it to stop? That does some up the feelings that some people have even if, in their heart of hearts, they know that the Westminster’s shenanigans will not stop. Afterall a walk away from the table Brexit, called a No Deal Brexit, will just be the start of argument and debate over possible future agreements. All the basic questions of who, what, where, when, why and how will remain open.

Putting aside the day-to-day volatility, the overall arc of the story is that a long overdue political realignment is happening. In the past this realignment has been stifled by the electoral system in Britain. It takes a lot to over come the quicksand that is the First Past The Post (FPTP) way of electing Westminster MPs.

What will be the results? Ever the optimist I think that Brexit will be terminated. Using Brexit as a proxy to change the landscape of British politics is proving to be idiotic, messy and damaging.

Despite its history this is the end game for the Conservative Party. The impossibility of holding together a big tent of fanatical right-wing activists and traditional one nation Tories has come to a head. A strange brew of the Brexit Party and the Conservative Brexit fanatics will ferment to produce shabby populist group.

Labour too is wrestling with the ghosts of its past. In 1975, the referendum was all about their divisions. Much of what is said on the left harks back to the same unreconciled differences. Ultimately a left-wing socialist rump of the Labour Party will persist. This will always be the ground upon which about a tenth of the population will stand.

The real future is the rediscovery of the centre ground of British politics. Progressive Liberalism represents the widest spectrum of the population. It can be concern about climate change, it can be disquiet about social mobility, it can be the scourge of poverty, there are causes that need attention and for which Liberal Democrats have workable policies.

Let’s just get this done and change Britain for good. Revoke Article 50 and get back to fixing the real problems we have in this Country.

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.