8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/106

1.1

The objective to extend the scope of the Regulation (EC) 1592/2002 to air operations, FCL and third country aircrafts is fully supported by the EESC, since greater efficiency and safety would be achieved by having all aviation safety rulemaking activities performed by a single authority.

1.2

In the context of additional certification for third country commercial operators, there should be clear possibilities for the Community to sign bilateral agreements with third countries on the mutual recognition of the relevant certificates. Therefore, the EESC believes that action should also be undertaken to ensure that all ICAO Member States fulfil their responsibilities, which would make such an additional certification obsolete.

1.3

In order to guarantee high levels of aviation safety, there is a need for EASA to increase its resources for those tasks set out in the Commission proposal. This will require a considerably higher level of Community funding than currently envisaged. At the same time, the pooling of resources at EU level has the potential for substantial cost savings not only for the industry but also for the national governments. This issue is not addressed in the proposal.

1.4

The EESC is convinced that the definition of commercial operations should include corporate operations and fractional operations as well, in order to ensure the same safety protection for all passengers within the EU.

1.5

In line with the safety objectives already referred to in points 1.1 and 1.4, and in users' interests, it is of utmost importance that the EASA ensure that the inclusion of JAR-OPS rules in Community legislation, via the pending amendment of Regulation No 3922/91 or any other procedure, represents real progress and procures a sufficient degree of harmonisation in the areas regulated under its authority.

2.1

In 2002, common rules in the field of civil aviation were established and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was created through Regulation (EC) 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and Council.

2.2

The principle objective of this Regulation is to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe. In addition the Regulation has the objective to ensure a high uniform level of environmental protection, to facilitate free movement of goods, persons and services, to promote cost efficiency in the regulatory and certification processes and to avoid duplication at national and European level, to assist Member States in fulfilling their obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)'s Chicago Convention and to promote community views with regard to civil aviation safety.

2.3

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is within the scope of the Regulation, in particular, responsible for

2.4

The NAAs retain responsibility to issue individual certificates of airworthiness and certificates to organisations and staff (except for design organisations) based in their country but in accordance with the common rules and subject to standardisation inspections by EASA.

2.5

It is generally recognised (1) that for efficiency, safety and standardisation reasons, it is essential to have all the aviation safety regulatory activities within the Community dealt with by one single Authority (EASA).

2.6

In its Explanatory Memorandum the Commission recalls that since Regulation 1592/2002 entered into force in September 2002, the Community has exclusive competence regarding the airworthiness and environmental compatibility of aeronautical products, parts and appliances. When the current text was adopted, it was already understood that in order to guarantee a high uniform level of safety and provide a level playing field for community air operators, there is a need to extend the scope of the Regulation to include air operations and flight crew licensing.

2.7

The Commission recalls that the inclusion of JAR-OPS rules in Community legislation, via the pending amendment of Regulation No 3922/91 (EU-OPS-1) will undeniably be a step forward but it will not procure a sufficient degree of harmonisation because it will only cover commercial air transport. Other types of aircraft, other commercial operations and non-commercial operations will not be covered by these common rules, nor will the rules cover flight crew licensing or third country aircraft. Therefore, the proposal for amending Regulation 1592/2002 has been tabled.

2.8

The proposal also includes certification requirements to third country commercial operators flying to the EU.

2.9

On 16 November 2005, the Commission published its Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (COM(2005) 579 final).

2.10

The proposal would extend the common rules to all air operations and the certification requirements to all commercial operators. Certificates would be issued by the Member States (NAAs) or, where appropriate, the EASA, which could also, where necessary, impose operational directives.

2.11

For non-commercial operations, the rules would be tailored to the complexity of the aircraft but there would be no certification. Where such operations are conducted with complex aircraft, the operators concerned should declare that they are able to meet the essential requirements related to air operations.

2.12

The proposed regulation would require most pilots operating in the Community to hold a licence issued on the basis of common requirements. Organisations, staff and devices related to training would also have to be certified based on common rules. EASA would conduct standardisation inspections of the NAAs responsible for checking these rules and would certify itself organisations and devices based in third countries.

2.13

To ensure sufficient protection, the proposal would also impose common operational rules on third country aircraft operated in the Community. Third country commercial operators flying to the Community would in addition have to be attested with a certificate.

2.14

The proposal also envisages some changes to the functioning of the Agency, in particular the functioning of its management board.

3.1

Aviation in Europe needs a single safety regulator for all components of the air transport value chain, in order to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to safety regulation in the common aviation market. Greater efficiency and safety would be achieved by having all aviation safety rulemaking activities performed by a single authority — there are no clear boundaries between various aspects of safety regulation. Therefore, the objective to extend the scope of the Regulation (EC) 1592/2002 to air operations, FCL and third country aircrafts is fully supported by the EESC.

3.2

There is a need to ensure the safety of third country aircraft operating into the Community. There is also a need to restore the level playing field with other areas of the world which impose such a requirement on EU airlines flying to those countries (i.e. USA) and have used such a requirement to give unfair competitive advantages to its own airlines to the detriment of the EU airlines. However, in the context of additional certification for third country commercial operators, there should be clear possibilities for the Community to sign bilateral agreements with third countries on the mutual recognition of the relevant certificates in order to avoid burdening the international airlines with too much additional certificates. Therefore, the EESC believes that action should also be undertaken to ensure that all ICAO Member States fulfil their responsibilities, which would make such an additional certification obsolete.

3.3

The European Aviation Safety (EASA) needs to obtain the required EU public funding to fulfil its additional safety roles, in particular to conduct sufficient standardisation inspections of all the National Civil Aviation Safety Authorities (NAAs) located in the Community, to conduct safety analysis and to ensure that Europe remains competitive with other areas of the world. Therefore, in order to guarantee high levels of aviation safety, there is a need for EASA to increase its resources for those tasks. This will require much more Community funding than currently envisaged.

3.4

A building up of resources and staff at the EASA requires a gradual reduction of staff at the NAAs in order to ensure that cost efficiency objectives are met and in order to avoid increased cost for the EU industry and airlines. The pooling of resources at EU level has the potential for substantial cost savings not only for the industry but also for the national governments, provided a roadmap is developed on the future role of the NAAs and their required staffing. The Commission proposal fails to address this issue.

3.5

It is essential that the pending amendment of Regulation 3922/91 (EU-OPS-1) be analysed according to safety and harmonisation objectives and that future EASA implementing rules for air operations be developed through a consistent and coherent approach to safety regulation based on clear scientific and safety data.

3.6

It is essential also to ensure a smooth transition from the current national systems (based on JAR-OPS-1 rules) and that changes to existing rules are limited to adapting them to community law and the new EASA framework.

4.1

The definition of commercial operations (article 1) should include corporate operations and fractional ownership operations. In particular they should be required to demonstrate their capability and should be subject to identical implementing rules. All passengers within the EU should enjoy the same safety protection. In addition, since it often involves the operations of complex motor-powered aircraft (Boeing 737, Airbus A319) in the same airspace as commercial operations, it is for safety reasons of utmost importance that they are subject to identical rules and subject to identical application of the rules as commercial operations.

4.2

The pending amendment of Regulation 3922/91 (EU-OPS-1) has effectively harmonised safety training requirements for cabin crew but has left the issue of delivering a certificate to the Member States. Some Member States deliver a certificate but others do not see a need for it. The EASA should therefore verify whether this lack of harmonisation in the conditions for exercising cabin crew duties could have a detrimental effect on passenger safety.

4.3

As regards the pending amendment of Regulation 3922/91 (Subpart Q of EU-OPS-1) it is of utmost importance the Flight Time Limitations scheme be subject to a scientific and medical evaluation by EASA in accordance with the provisions to be laid down in the regulation amending the EU-OPS-1 Regulation (3922/91) and to cover any safety problem which may be identified by EASA in the course of its future monitoring activities.

4.4

With regard to the EASA management board (article 25) and the planned EASA Executive Board (article 28) it is considered essential to avoid that the Agency gets overloaded with too many boards. Therefore, if an Executive Board is established, the Management Board should be reduced to an annual or bi-annual assembly. In this context it is also important to avoid that representatives from the National Aviation Authorities (NAA) are appointed on this board since this could lead to conflicts of interest due to the fact that the NAAs also dependent on revenue from industry and might therefore not subscribe to a more efficient EASA system.

4.5

The proposal to nominate 4 representatives from the EASA Advisory Board of Interested Parties (EAB) to the EASA Management Board (and Executive Board) is a logical consequence of the fact that EASA's role is to serve the industry, which is paying the largest part of EASA's budget via fees and charges. However, taking into account the industry's large contribution to EASA's budget, it would be logical to give them similar voting rights for issues concerning the general functioning of the Agency and strategic issues related to the Agency.

4.6

It is understood that the changes to the appointment of the Executive Director and the Directors (article 30 (b) paragraph 4) are the result of general changes affecting all EU Agencies. Nevertheless, it is believed that for highly qualified Agencies such as EASA, there is a need to review this proposal, which would prevent well performing candidates to continue their duties beyond two times five years. This could have the detrimental consequence, that EASA is not able to recruit the most suitable candidates.

4.7

The essential requirement on theoretical instruction (paragraph 1.i.1 of Annex III) seems to have omitted the use of CD-ROM for theoretical instruction, although this is already a well proven standard training practice in the industry. Therefore the paragraph should be rephrased to read as ‘1.i.1 Theoretical Instruction Theoretical instruction must be given or designed by appropriately qualified instructors’.

4.8

The essential requirement on flight operations and seats (paragraph 3.a.3 of Annex IV) should be amended to read as ‘Taking into account the type of aircraft, during take off and landing, during taxiing and whenever deemed necessary in the interest of safety, the pilot in command should ensure that each passenger is properly seated and secured’. The reason for this amendment is to cater for the current safety regulations which allow infants (below age of two) to sit on the lap and which forbid (for safety reasons) the use of berths during take off, landing and taxiing (berth's are only used during cruise for baby's comfort).

4.9

The essential requirements on number and composition of the crew (paragraph 7a of Annex IV) seem to have merged the number and composition of flight crew with the number and composition of cabin crew. The number and composition of flight crew is already addressed elsewhere since this depends on the aircraft certification (limitations in the aircraft flight manual, reference paragraph 4a) and flight time limitation rules (reference article 15b3). For cabin crew, the safety rules as JAR-OPS 1990 is the main driver for determining the minimum number.

4.10

The proposal dealing with security programmes (paragraph 8d(iv) of Annex IV) related to protection of electronic and computer systems to prevent intentional system interference and corruption should be deleted since it would be impossible for airline operators to comply with such a requirement. This issue is a matter for aircraft and system certification (airlines should only be responsible to address unintentional interference which is already addressed by safety briefings but which is not a security issue).

4.11

The proposal seems to envisage only 20 additional positions at EASA (reference page 55, total number of human resources) to deal with the expanded scope (This figure should be compared with around 200 people currently employed with the EU NAAs and working on rulemaking in the field of operations and FCL. In addition, in the current national system coordinated through the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), industry is providing a lot of support for drafting new rules, which is not any more possible under the EASA system). It is strongly felt that 20 positions at EASA would be completely insufficient for EASA to fulfil its additional roles. This could result in further delays in important EASA rulemaking activities (as today already experienced in other fields) which could put safety at risk and which could undermine the competitiveness of the EU industry. Also for EASA standardisation inspections of the EU NAAs and safety analysis within those new fields of competence, much more resources are required to ensure an uniform level of safety oversight.