Flying, Democracy and Safety 5.

jet cloud landing aircraft — Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

4-years ago on Magna Carta Day in the small Surrey town of Egham, I was campaigning to stay in the European Union (EU). On 11 June 2016, when referring to the UK referendum, I said: “I’d like to estimate that the overall experience indicated a better than 50/50 outcome is on the cards.” Meaning that remaining in the EU was a likely outcome of the UK referendum but only by a small margin of votes. As we know it went the other way by a small margin of votes.

In the whole of history, 4-years isn’t much, a blink of an eye, but in that time the UK’s political, social and economic landscape has changed by quite a lot. I’d argue that it has changed for the worse and that huge opportunities have been thrown away because of dogma, groupthink and a blindness to the reality. If we’ve learnt anything in those years, it’s that when a UK politician says something is certain it’s likely to be far from certain.

Despite all the rocky road and ups and downs of 4-years, no one was adequately prepared for a transformation that nature threw at us. The COVID-19 pandemic will go down in history as one of the biggest challenges the world has faced in modern times.

UK economic growth fell by over 20% in April, the largest fall since monthly records began. Aviation has been hit hard. It’s said that at least 70,000 jobs are on the line in the UK aviation industry[1]. There are pleas for the UK Government to act to protect jobs and support the long-term viability of the sector. Many other Countries have stepped in to support their industries.

Although a slight recovery of air traffic is underway[2], we are heading into the most painful time. As the UK Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme[3], or furlough scheme closes to new entrants, so industry layoffs are likely to increase. Businesses are reorganising to stay alive during an extended period of low demand for air travel. It’s going to be grim for at least the next year.

I’m optimistic for the long-term future of air travel. I always find it surprising that only about 5% of the world’s population have ever stepped foot on an aircraft, even now. I think, wanderlust is set in our core. Just as the low-cost operators made it possible for today’s young people to explore more than previous generations, so I don’t think they will wish to give that up. Aviation shrunk the globe and it will continue to do so.

But what of UK politics? The transition agreed as part of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, ends on 31 December this year. The agenda for the second meeting of the EU-UK Joint Committee on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) has been published[4]. This key meeting takes place on Friday 12 June.

The UK is saying that it will not ask for an extension to the current transition period. This flies in the face of what business and industry wants. This seems to be illogical given the combination of the circumstances of COVID-19 and an abrupt termination of the WA.

I believe most of the arguments against extending the transition period are either tribal Party political or bogus or both. The reality is that more time is needed. The reality is that ratification of any new deal will need time. The reality is that brinkmanship doesn’t deliver good results. The OECD[5] is saying of the UK: “The failure to conclude a trade deal with the European Union by the end of 2020 or put in place alternative arrangements would have a strongly negative effect on trade and jobs.”

That is not a state of affairs to be welcomed.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/10/airline-job-losses-could-be-on-scale-of-1980s-mining-industry-report-warns

[2] https://twitter.com/eurocontrolDG/status/1271135184562380800?s=20

[3] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/brexit_files/info_site/provisional-agenda-for-the-second-meeting-of-the-joint-committee-12-06-2020.pdf

[5] https://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/

Flying, Democracy and Safety 4.

It’s possible that a gradual recovery in air traffic is slowly starting to take shape across the globe[1]. Individual Countries, businesses and industries are in dire situation and long-term plans are being dramatically changed. However, if the whole air transport sector is considered, there’s reason to think that a recovery from the shock of COVID-19 is in its infancy[2].

This week, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council adopted a report and recommendations designed to restart international air transport and aligning its recovery[3]. It’s good to see international efforts to work together are baring some fruit.

This week, when reading comments on social media its almost as if a section of the population has disconnected from the facts. The facts are that Brexit has been delivered. It happened on 31 January 2020. Ever since that date people, governments and businesses have been consumed with the difficulties of responding to COVID-19. Nevertheless, as of the end of this year the UK is a “Third Country” in respect of the European Union (EU).

To everyone’s benefit, a period of transition was established to enable a new relationship to be defined between the UK and EU. Now, the original period defined for the transition is inadequate given the unforeseen change in circumstance that has occurred. In a purely objective, rational, and reasonable world there’s not much to argue against the need to extend the transition period to do a good job of negotiation between former partners. Sadly, what’s rational and reasonable and the political climate of the times are directly opposed to each other.

UK Government Ministers pretend that there’s ample time available to reach a new UK-EU agreement. However, listening to Conservative MPs in the House of Commons its clear they are still fighting the battles of 1993[4]. Atypical Eurosceptic speeches are followed by a degree of paranoia that’s difficult to comprehend given that the UK has left the EU. The UK Government says it will not extend the transition period beyond the end of 2020 and this is enshrined in UK law.

So, what happens in such situations? This week, there’s been further disappointments as both UK and EU negotiators indicate little progress has been achieved.

It’s clear the EU won’t compromise on the principle that a Country will not enjoy the benefits of belonging to the EU once it’s no longer a member.

It’s clear the UK continues to cite independence and sovereignty as if these are inviolate. As if the UK had never been an EU Member State for 40-years.

What happens in such situations? If divorces are anything to go by then a protracted period of bitterness and recrimination with little or no compromise on either side. Years of unproductive waste that only water under the bridge can cure.

Yet, all we hear is Panglossian optimism about everything coming together in October.

A No Deal outcome may seem counterintuitive to me, but it’s not for those who have desired such an outcome for the UK-EU talks from the start. There’s a certain political thinking that disruption per-se is good. That if the UK is to leap forward to the “industries of future” it’s exactly what is needed, whatever the overall costs. This is a brutal philosophy, but some people genuinely believe that the UK can deregulate and become super-competitive overnight.

I suspect, to the benefit of the UK, leverage might have been possible if COVID-19 had not occurred. Now, the problem is that the UK has performed badly in response to the virus. At the same time, the EU’s focus has moved to its economic recovery during the next budgetary period. One looks to its shoes the other to the skies.

Negotiating a new partnership between the UK and EU was never going to be easy. Where we are at this moment, Panglossian optimism seems entirely misplaced.

[1] https://twitter.com/AireonLLC/status/1265271791074906118?s=20

[2] https://twitter.com/OAG_Aviation/status/1268123362041217026?s=20

[3] https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-Council-adopts-new-COVID.aspx

[4] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmagenda/ob200604.htm#_idTextAnchor005

Flying, Democracy and Safety 2.

gray airplane illustration — Photo by Alex Powell on Pexels.com

In a Century, our response to dangerous viruses has changed dramatically. The context in which a pandemic takes place has changed dramatically too. World population in 1918 was an estimated 1.8 billion[1]. Rather different from the current global population of about 7.5 billion.

Flying was in its infancy in 1918. In the inter-war period, the technology of flying was advancing rapidly. I’ve been listening to #TwentyDays, an online celebration of the 90th anniversary of aviator Amy Johnson’s flight from England to Australia[2]. She became the first solo woman to fly from Croydon to Darwin. It’s a fascinating travelogue that reminds us that the world pre-WWII was a completely different place.

It was expected that 2020 would set a record for the number of scheduled airline passengers to about 4.7 billion. Now, that is certainly impossible. Most of the world’s civil aircarft are parked. Again, the world is in flux.

The number of CORVID-19 deaths worldwide is 335,993 according to Johns Hopkins University. Yes, this is a long way from the global shock of the largest pandemic in history (1918-20) but it is changing everything.

Daily the news is saddening for those who have made their lives in aviation. Jobs are going in every sector but most particularly manufacturing and aircraft operations. UK company Rolls-Royce[3] plans to cut around 9,000 jobs in response to a drop off in demand. Aviation is completely consumed with the consequence of the CORVID-19 pandemic. British Airways’ owner, IAG, has made a decision to make 12,000 staff redundant.

The future of air travel has transformed in a matter of a few months. For anyone travelling in these challenging times the rules applicable are changing almost daily. In Europe, for most aviation organisations preparations for the end of the transition phase for the UK’s departure from the European Union (EU) have been put on the back burner.

Last Monday, the penultimate round of negotiations between the UK and the EU took place[4]. Officials and commentators on both sides are becoming increasingly doubtful a deal can be done in the time allotted[5]. Not only that but a strange exchange of letters has taken place between the two negotiating parties[6]. Both parties are defending their interests, so it seems strange that such negative grandstanding is taking place.

If looking for some good news, from the point of view of transparency, the “DRAFT WORKING TEXT FOR AN AGREEMENT ON CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION” are now made public. The UK’s draft negotiating document makes interesting reading.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/spanish-flu-largest-influenza-pandemic-in-history

[2] http://amyjohnsonartstrust.co.uk/

[3] @RollsRoyce

[4] https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu/britain-eu-start-penultimate-round-of-talks-before-key-deadline-idUKKBN22N0VF

[5] https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2020-05-07/europe-aviation-still-facing-uncertainty-brexit-talks-stall

[6]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886168/Letter_to_Michel_Barnier_19.05.20.pdf

Flying, Democracy and Safety 1.

woman in white face mask — Photo by Polina Tankilevitch on Pexels.com

National lockdowns are being effective in controlling COVID-19 outbreaks. The tricky part is that the fear that has been induced in people to encourage compliance with the lockdowns means that any relaxation of rules is going to be difficult. That’s only right and proper, given that the management of risk is a delicate balancing act. Not only that but fatality totals have risen to truly staggering levels.

What is evident is that the way the international air transport industry has been working, its systems, procedures and business models are going to need a radical shakeup. Coronavirus is a game changer. According to @IATA the impact of COVID-19 crisis on long-haul travel is to be “much more severe and of a longer duration” than what is expected in domestic markets.

Aviation safety work is important per se, but it has the added value of maintaining public confidence in air transport. In the past, a minority had a fear of flying. For as long as we have COVID-19, the situation is different. Now, it’s likely that many more people will be finding alternatives or putting off flying either for business or pleasure.

Governments have introduced measures and restrictions at borders. If these stay in place summer holidays are going to be off this year.

The European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) continue to try to create a new partnership. The agenda for this week’s round of EU-UK negotiations have been published[1]. It’s good to see that Aviation Safety gets a couple of hours on Wednesday, 13 May 2020. No doubt a progress report will be forthcoming by the end of the week.

There’s still a possibility that a limited deal could be struck by October 2020. However, it continues to look unlikely that the UK will seek an extension to talks despite the risks. With confirmation that the UK is in an economic recession the hard-line on the Brexit negotiation time limit looks suicidal. The combination of events is extremely bad.

The great Brexit divide in British politics is alive and kicking. It’s deepening as people harden their views under the weight of the Coronavirus crisis. The political slogan of 2016: “Take back control” now sounds hollow and meaninglessness.

If the EU-UK negotiations fail and a No-Deal Brexit outcome results the harm it will do to ourselves and to our allies, friends and neighbours will be unforgivable in normal times. It will be unbelievably irresponsible in the middle of an economic and health crisis.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/brexit_files/info_site/hl-agenda-round-3.pdf

Aviation, Brexit and COVID19 (ABC) 9

walking airport travel waiting — Photo by Negative Space on Pexels.com

The difficulties in UK-EU negotiations can be overcome if there’s serious political engagement. That means putting forward a realistic plan. In line with the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) the UK is contributing to the EU budget as per the EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014-2020[1]. This will come to an end. The EU Members States are engaged in determining the next EU MFF. Many are arguing for the EU MFF to be the backbone of recovery in these exceptional circumstances. The UK will not be part of that process. However, there’s no reason why a bespoke arrangement couldn’t be put in place to extend the current transition period.

Firstly, there need to be a negotiated agreement. Second, there needs to be ratification by all the parties. Thirdly, Government, industry and the public need to adapt to the new arrangements. Completing that package of three in 8-months is practically impossible.

Germany is taking over the European Council presidency in July. Their focus is most likely to be recovery from the COVID-19 crisis[2]. It’s unlikely to be Brexit. That said, both UK and EU will have the same interests in restarting and rebuilding the economy of Europe.

As if the above wasn’t difficult enough the political realities are that UK Prime Minister Johnson is tied to Brexit. And the Governing UK Conservative Party is tied to both Johnson and Brexit*.

However bizarre it may seem it would be wise to prepare for the case where the last quarter of 2020 brings about a situation where the UK is likely to have the highest COVID-19 death toll in Europe and the Brexit talks fail bringing about a No Deal outcome as a global recession hits.

The latest forecasts are for a significant drop in the number of international air travellers[3]. Flying is changing in ways that were not anticipated. Coronavirus has frozen the world of aviation.

The experience for those who do travel will be less appealing. Many airlines are asking their passengers to wear face masks. Measure will be needed to ensure social distancing. This may mean the end to low cost air travel, as operators increase prices to fund new measures.

If there is good news it might be that plans to accelerate the retirement of some older, less fuel-efficient aircraft are being brought forward[4]. Also, in the pipeline are the new forms of air mobility that are being developed[5].

NOTE*: Further indications of inflexibility in the current poltical climate. I wrote the above words before watching this Select Committee:

Future Relationship with the EU Committee

Select Committees

Coverage of the committee on the UK’s future relationship with the EU with evidence from the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove, from Monday 27 April.

[1] https://www.bestforbritain.org/report-extend-transition

[2] https://twitter.com/GermanyDiplo/status/1255921106524835841?s=20

[3] https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Billion-fewer-international-air-travellers-this-year-according-to-latest-ICAO-forecast.aspx

[4] http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2020/A-fond-farewell-to-five-fantastic-fleets-FLT-04/

[5] https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/115146/unmanned-aircraft-airport-authorities-column/

Aviation, Brexit and COVID19 (ABC) 6

low angle photo of airplane — Photo by Sam Willis on Pexels.com

Headless and free running, the UK’s Conservative Government is locked into policies that are no longer fit for purpose. The UK Prime Minister’s speech in Greenwich, London on 3 February 2020[1] is profoundly out of step with contemporary reality. The Government’s playbook is out of date. Overtaken by events. Even if he may not have said it, former PM Harold Macmillan is remembered for saying: “Events, dear boy, events[2]”

I sincerely hope certain stories are mere social media gossip and speculation. One is that the national economic impact of the COVID19 pandemic will be so dramatic that no one will notice the contribution made by a poor Brexit execution. It’s like saying that, if the house is suffering subsidence no one will notice the paint peeling off the walls. Damage is damage. That damage can always be put down to a world-wide phenomenon. Then there’s blaming China too.

Does this explain why it’s reported that the UK will not request an extension to the Brexit transition period[3]? Hard to tell. If it is then it’s short-termism of the worst kind. However, the possibility remains that the parties could support a transition extension at a high-level conference in June 2020.

Given the coronavirus crisis, the next UK-EU negotiating rounds will take place by videoconference[4]. The technical work of the two sides includes transport but the agendas of the next sessions are yet to be published. There is an argument against Brexit transition extension, but this isn’t a particularly convincing one, as all other bilateral trade deals are being delayed. For example, talks between the UK and US have been postponed with no sight of when they might start-up.

European aviation and aerospace have been one of the first industries to be impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. It will take one of the hardest hits. Support to the aviation and aerospace workforce and the industry can be a lifeline[5]. One that will be pivotal to Europe’s recovery after the pandemic.

London Heathrow (LHR) saw 80 million passengers in 2018[6]. Now, the UK’s biggest airport has been thrown back into the 1970s. They have moved to single runway operation[7]. LHR Terminals 3 and 4 are about to temporarily close. Cargo flights continue but the predictions are for lasting and significant changes to stick.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-in-greenwich-3-february-2020

[2] https://www.markpack.org.uk/13422/events-dear-boy-events-harold-macmillan/

[3] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-uk-will-not-request-an-extension-to-the-brexit-transition-period

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_20_672

[5] https://www.etf-europe.org/work-in-the-time-of-covid-19-transport-workers-stories/

[6] CAA airport statistics for numbers of air passengers at UK airports in 2018/2017.

[7] https://www.heathrow.com/customer-support/faq/coronavirus-covid-19

Aviation, Brexit and COVID19 (ABC) 5

nature animal fog freedom — Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

At the start of this pandemic, prominent UK Brexiters were saying: no need to panic. Let people continue to mingle. Let the virus become widespread so lots of people build-up an immunity[1]. As is so typically with Brexiters, they could not have given worse advice at a worse time. What’s sad is that, at the beginning of the year the UK Government was going down this uncaring road.

In the UK, we have broken the ominous threshold of 10,000 deaths put down to Coronavirus. It’s tragic that the UK Government didn’t take the warnings signs coming from China sufficiently serious. Now, the horse has bolted, and everyone is desperately playing catch-up. The UK’s chief scientific advisor has admitted that coronavirus testing in the UK should have been ramped up faster[2].

Even the hardest of hard-core Brexit supporters are saying, responding to COVID-19 is more important than pushing on with negotiations between UK and EU. Let’s hope that common sense prevails. The two parties have until the 1 July 2020 to decide whether to extend the existing transition period, and on what detailed terms. There’s even strange talk in the media that the UK wants pay-as-you-go Brexit. It’s simply not sane to expect Governments to secure a new free trade deals while dealing with a deadly situation.

It hardly seems right to be writing about Aviation at this moment. At the beginning of this year the biggest crisis the industry faced was that concerning the Boeing 737 MAX. It’s been a year since Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed, taking 157 lives[3]. Naturally, that remains an important safety concern, only that it’s overshadowed by the coverage of the impact of lockdowns over the globe.

France has just extended its lockdown till 11 May 2020. It will be surprising if the UK doesn’t mirror what other European States are doing. Each should be learning from the other in this respect.

We ought to be thankful that there’s so many transport workers, air traffic controllers, pilots, engineers and professionals who maintain aviation. Cargo and essential medical supplies are continuing to be moved safely by air. Aviation safety must remain the top priority whatever the commercial or mission pressures.

[1] https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/02/daniel-hannan-alarmism-doom-mongering-panic-and-the-coronavirus-we-are-nowhere-near-a-1919-style-catastrophe.html

[2] https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-13/coronavirus-testing-in-uk-not-ramped-up-as-quickly-as-it-should-have-been-government-s-chief-scientific-advisor-admits/

[3] https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1237423006869225475?s=20

Aviation, Brexit and COVID19 (ABC) 2

Collaboration is essential especially when action needs to be taken fast. Seeing members of the aerospace industries coming together to scale up the production of medical ventilators is heartening. It’s important to use all our expertise to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those on the Coronavirus front line.

There are credible experts predicting that the forced shutdown will permanently reshape the aviation industry. Already the early retirement of large aircraft is taking place at several international airlines[1][2]. For example, most Boeing 747-400s are more than 20 years old and airlines are replacing them with more fuel-efficient modern types.

The coronavirus pandemic means airlines are drastically reducing their passenger flights. It’s likely this will cause a spate of order cancellations as costs are being cut. Hitting not only aircraft manufactures but maintenance, repair and overhaul providers too.

EasyJet is reported to be parking its 344 aircraft with an aim to removes significant cost. In the months it takes to contain the COVID19 virus the aviation industry will struggle to avoid permanent damage. It’s appealing to Governments for the waiving of air traffic control and regulatory charges for the whole of the year[3].

On Brexit, polls now show that most people in the UK want the Government to seek an extension to the transition period to focus on coronavirus recovery. Many experts believe there’s no prospect of Britain striking a Brexit trade deal with the EU without an extension to the transition period. So far, UK Ministers have simply refused to consider this common-sense approach. It has been said that the outcome of the first Brexit Joint Committee[4], held this week, was like watching two people looking down different ends of a telescope.

In other news, British Airways has suspended its operations at London Gatwick Airport[5]. In addition, the airport has announced that on 1 April it will close its North Terminal. That sobering for me, having last travelled through the North Terminal on 20 March.

[1] https://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-boeing-747-jumbo-jet-retirement-coronavirus-groundings-may-hasten-the-end-for-iconic-plane-h1n03y

[2] https://www.ifn.news/posts/klm-to-retire-last-boeing-747-in-april/

[3] https://news.sky.com/story/airlines-call-on-government-to-underwrite-industry-charges-11963586

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership/eu-uk-withdrawal-agreement/meetings-eu-uk-joint-committee-under-withdrawal-agreement_en

[5] https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/british-airways-suspends-flights-from-gatwick/137641.article

Brexit, Aviation and the Withdrawal 14

air air travel airbus aircraft — Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

It’s unusual to see such unity amongst aviation organisations across different sectors of the industry. That unity is about the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Established in 2002, the EASA has more than 800 aviation experts and administrators from its Member States. A while back a UK Parliament Select Committee report[1] found: “There is widespread agreement that continued membership of EASA would benefit the UK and the EU.” Aerospace businesses, unions and academia are unanimous in support of remaining in EASA.

The BALPA (The British Airline Pilots Association)[2] said: “we need to maintain current EU and UK access to our aviation markets and to maintain EASA safety regulation”.

UK aviation industry body, ADS’s Chief Executive said[3]: “We have been clear that continued participation in EASA is the best option..”.

Even on Saturday, the UK CAA’s own website continued to say: “The CAA has been clear since the EU referendum that we consider the most positive outcome for UK consumers and the aviation industry would be one where the UK has continued participation in the EASA system with existing systems of mutual recognition between the UK and EASA Member States remaining in place.”

So, there’s one area where people and organisations are overwhelmingly unified – we need to maintain current EU and UK access to our aviation markets and to maintain EASA safety regulations.

It was always on the cards that the new UK Conservative Government would revisits this subject. This was even though the firm planning assumption that everyone had made for the last 4-years was based on the UK’s continued membership of EASA.

Now, the UK Transport Minister with such responsibilities says that the UK will withdraw from the EASA. Implementing that policy change the UK Department for Transport has said: “Being a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency is not compatible with the UK having genuine economic and political independence.” This does not preclude the UK continuing to work with the EU to establish a new regulatory relationship, but it’s a tall order with only 10-months remaining on the clock.

I think this a bad decision. Not sound or rational or in the interests of the UK. Here, I’ll look at the apparent justifications.

Compatibility with genuine economic and political independence

This suggests that membership of the EASA would impede the UK from taking any action it wishes. There are 4 non-EU members of EASA. One of them is our near neighbour Norway. CAA Norway has the responsibility to oversee and regulate all aspects of civil aviation in Norway. That applies to the Norwegian flights that are based out of London Gatwick. In matters of aviation regulation, whether it’s at ICAO, EASA, EUROCONTROL or ECAC Norway speaks with economic and political independence. It applies Norwegian law. It does not seem to be impeded in advancing its aviation interests.

Being a member of EASA is not possible outside Single Market

This has been well debunked. The manner with which non-EU States participate in the EASA is not the Single Market provisions. There is a “Basic Regulation” that establishes EASA[4]. The Article 129 of the Basic Regulation addresses participation of European third countries. Yes, it does say that such non-EU States need to adopt and apply Union law in the fields covered by the Basic Regulation. However, this text does say how this is to be done. In fact, the UK has done this, at least until the 31^st December 2020. All that is needed can be done in UK law. If EASA rules or standards are considered to be too low, there’s no impediment to enhancing them as required.

We’ll be wanting to develop our own aircraft certifications

The implication is that the UK will want to do something radically different from the international community. That maybe the case for research into new air vehicles but if the UK wishes to sell such products in the international marketplace it will need to met international rules and standards. A domestic industry providing Urban Air Mobility (UAM) vehicles will need to compete across the globe. EASA is preparing itself to better support innovation from industry (e.g. Artificial Intelligence, block chain technologies, extensive automation and eVTOL aircraft). Lack of harmonisation, duplication and fragmentation in this field serves no good purpose.

4. UK expertise can be used as leverage in negotiations

Across the globe, the aviation industry and most States say that aviation safety is not a matter of competition. There’s a great reliance on cooperation and sharing information to ensure that no State is left behind. A just safety culture is one where working togther is normal. It’s difficult to improve safety when people imply blame and echo a negative attitudes. To imagine this subject to be a matter for open commercial competition is flying against all international best practices.

5. A wish to not be subject to the rules made by others

No man is an island[1] If this reasoning is applied literally then it’s impossible to participate in any international organisation. In most cases it’s preferable to participate and have a significant influence on any rules. The Convention on International Civil Aviation (known as Chicago Convention), came to be in 1944. Since we (UK) do not control ICAO, should we now withdraw? Clearly that would be a nonsense. In our own region of the world, namely Europe, it would be wise to act skilfully to maximise the influence that is available not to walk away.

I join other aviation professionals in thinking it’s extraordinary how little the UK Government is prepared to consult with industry, consider cost and benefits and explain any new arrangements that will need to be put in place in a short time. At one time there was a stubborn insistence that major changes should not be introduced without a detailed impact assessment. Now, anything goes if the Minister likes it.

Reference: UK CAA Statement on future relationship with the European Union

[1] MEDITATION XVII, Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, John Donne.

[1] https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0233

[2] https://www.balpa.org/Media-Centre/Press-Releases/Brexit-There-is-no-WTO-default-for-aviation-so-UK

[3] https://www.adsgroup.org.uk/news/newsroom/statement-on-transport-secretary-comments-on-easa-membership/

[4] Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency,

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