Tag: Aviation

Brexit and Aviation 29

The negotiations continue but the water is muddy brown and impenetrable.  EU-UK technical level meetings took place on Wednesday and Thursday this week.  The assurance has been given that there are few remaining issues with the Withdrawal Agreement and the future relationship discussions.  On Friday there’s to be a principals’ meeting with Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s Chief Negotiator, and Dominic Raab, UK Secretary of State for Exiting the EU.

Raab is confident a deal between UK and the EU is: “within our sights.”  But the news this week has been up and down like a yo-yo.  One minute there’s optimism and broadly 80% of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement is concluded.  Next minute we must remind people that a “no deal” scenario is getting closer and closer.  There’s so much day-to-day game playing that it’s difficult to be either optimistic or pessimistic.

I must congratulate presenter Hannah Fry.  Last night, by chance, I watched her BBC 4 programme called “The Joy of Winning”.  That was an hour well spent.  She successful opens our eyes to game theory.  Not an easy thing to do in a way that keeps people watching.  Adventures in maths don’t normally top the viewing figures.  For this one-hour I’d recommend you give it a go.

Made me think – is anyone applying game theory to the Brexit negotiations?  And if they are what does each side judge to be a win?

Switching to Aerospace.  A win for Europe’s Aerospace sector would be either no Brexit or an outcome that maintains much of what has been won over decades.  Europe’s Aerospace is a success. It employs at least 120,000 people in the UK[1].  The fact is the industry is highly integrated within the EU.  Billions are done in international trade.  And a common rulebook makes that work.

UK Brexit Secretary Dominic Raaab maybe an improvement on his predecessor.  In these final months, I hope he has a sound winning strategy that is a win-win for both the UK and EU.

A so called “no deal” Brexit would be an unmitigated tragedy.  It would be evidence of abject failure in negotiations.  It would signal to the world a grave weakness at a time of pressure and venerability.

Is “no deal” part of a game?  Like the MAD that we lived through in the 1980s – that’s the Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War.  I don’t suppose we will know until the UK Government papers are released in 30 years’ time.  I prefer to think that it is a form of game theory otherwise I must concede that we are run by ideological extremism in favour of Brexit at any cost.  Not a nice thought to end the week on.

[1] @ADSgroupUK

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

 

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.

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 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.

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’)

Brexit & Aviation 22

The politics of the day would seem to be “divide and rule”.  Not an entirely unknown approach and, when conducted in the open, can make you look silly if it doesn’t work.

There are three parts to the European Union that need to be convinced that the Withdrawal Agreement they see on 18 October is one they wish to accept.  The three are: the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament.  The most powerful is clearly the Member States as they sit in the Council of the European Union[1].  This week the UK is attempting to influence the Council through influencing Member States that it thinks could be persuaded to be sympathetic to the UK Government’s White Paper proposals.

The presidency of the Council rotates among the EU Member States every 6 months.  The Austrian presidency of the Council runs from 1 July to 31 December 2018[2].  That explains why Mrs May has been in Austria.  Tonight’s news would suggest that trip isn’t going all that well.  Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz has told Mrs May it’s “important to avoid a hard Brexit”.

Romania has the Council presidency from January to June next year.  They are the ones who may have to wave the UK goodbye or not as the case maybe.

If there is “no deal” between the EU and the UK there is no automatic fall-back position for the aviation sector.  It will be a unique situation where the EU Member States continue to apply all the existing rules and regulations and a “new” neighbouring State becomes unpredictable.  The Brexiteer lobby entirely misleads the public when saying: “it will all be alright on the night.”

As the UK leaves the EU and becomes a “third country” it will cease to be part of the fully-liberalised EU aviation market.  The UK can’t fall back on old bilateral agreements it had with the US and other EU countries since these were superseded and are obsolete.  Their restoration is extremely unlikely.

As a contingency, a number UK operators and businesses are expanding or setting-up new bases within the EU.   This could work for them, but they’ll have to show that a majority of the ownership of their shares is in the EU.

Naturally, simple goodwill could sort much of this out at the last minute. However, goodwill will be in short supply if there is no successful conclusion of the Withdrawal Agreement.  Even with this essential transition agreement the outcome is a standstill until the end of 2020.

The story the Brexiteers are telling in public is crazy.   They say: If there is “no deal”, there will be no catastrophe.  It’s all this so called: “project fear”.  But if there is a catastrophe it’s not our fault, it’s everyone else’s fault.  They are already allocating blame for an event that is avoidable.

[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/council-eu_en

 

[2] https://www.eu2018.at/

 

Brexit & Aviation 21

Maybe the next one of these articles I write should be split into two parts; one for the political and one for the technical.  There does seem to be continuing divergence between the two.  The political environment is as volatile as ever with growing uncertainty surrounding the possibility of a “no deal” situation.  Stories of contingency planning have delighted the media as we are told food and pharmaceuticals are being stockpiled.  At the same time the Government assures us that we are making good progress in the UK-EU negotiation.  Parliament returns on Tuesday, 4 September, so I guess the next month may be quieter.  Perhaps the sharks off the Cornish coast will get all the headlines during the summer.

Technical developments are following that well-loved tee shirt slogan: “keep clam and carry on”.  This week another key document has been published, namely: Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union[1].

We are told that the UK and the EU have agreed that the UK’s exit will be followed by a time-limited implementation period that will last from the moment of exit until 31 December 2020.

It’s good to see in the document mentioned above there is a section on participation in EU institutions, agencies and bodies.  It says that; guidance is being worked up on the consistent interpretation and application of the criteria for UK participation in EU bodies during the implementation period.  So, basically there may be some stability until 31 December 2020 but after that no one knows.

I’m taking it as read that this includes the UK membership of EASA.  The paper goes on to say that these arrangements are unlikely to require any provision in the Bill.  That is the UK Bill introducing the legislation for the final Withdrawal Agreement.  That does strike me as strange given that the UK will go from being a Member State to a “third country” in respect of EU legislation.

The paper recognises that the UK participates in several international agreements because of being a Member State.  That includes the aviation bilateral agreements.   At the European Council meeting in March, there was agreement that the UK is to be treated as a Member State for the purposes of international agreements during the implementation period.   Parties to the aviation agreements will be notified of this approach by the EU.  This is important.  Let’s hope the parties concerned agree too.

The last line of the 38-page document says that once the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified by the UK and concluded by the EU it will enter into force at 11pm on 29 March 2019.  The clock is ticking, as they say.

 

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728757/6.4737_Cm9674_Legislating_for_the_withdrawl_agreement_FINAL_230718_v3a_WEB_PM.pdf

 

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