EASA
With the advent and establishment of EASA, both the regulatory scene and the aviation industry within the EU have undergone a fundamental change. Prior to EASA, a number of European States concluded the Cyprus Agreement in 1978, subsequently amending this in 1987 and finally in 1990, in which they agreed, voluntarily, to adopt common codes except where national safety considerations required special actions. Initially, the Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) contained many national variants, but these have been removed except for a few remaining in the field of Operations and the whole issue of Flight Time Limitations. It is gratifying to note that EU OPS 1 - Subpart Q - Flight Time Limitations, now has a non regression clause which will ensure against any lowering of current state FTL schemes where these are of a higher standard than Subpart Q and that within 2 years of its introduction a review to account for medical and scientific evidence will take place to enhance the standard. Subpart Q, however, is far from complete, contains a number of fundamental flaws, inconsistencies and ambiguities and will need re-writing in order to resolve these issues. Unfortunately, whilst the initial Tender Document issued by EASA for undertaking the required scientific and medical review failed to attract any bidders, a contract has now been awarded and a report should be completed by the end of 2008. The problem then for EASA will be to decide which, if any, of the recommendations that presumably will be made are to be incorporated within Subpart Q and who will re-draft the whole scheme to rid it of the current anomolies and inconsistencies. In future the Group would recommend a complete review of the EASA tendering for contract system that instead should make use of industry and regulatory authority individuals to undertake such work, as is currently the method used by the FAA.
EASA is implementing its own technical requirements (specifications), based largely on JARs, through the European Commission with Regulations also having to be approved by the European Parliament. Whilst we can see the advantages of having a central organisation to maintain flight safety across the European Union, as mentioned previously, we do have some concerns. At present the UK maintains a high standard of flight safety in commercial aviation and we wish to see this standard at least maintained at its present level. It is feared, especially with the recent expansion of the EU that many of the current operational flight safety standards agreed may be compromised to a lower than satisfactory standard. Compilation of JARs was a long and tortuous negotiation between the various Joint Aviation Authorities. EASA legislation is being developed in much the same way, but the difference is that the decisions are binding on all member States. The Group reluctantly concedes that the final decision may represent a dilution of current UK standards, but the advantage is that this will be applied uniformly across the EU. Most issues will be resolved to the satisfaction of a majority, but there will undoubtedly be situations where a transition period will be required, during which some States may wish to apply more stringent rules. This will, of course, have an economic consequence and impact. It took the JAA 10 years to remove all national variants from their Large Aeroplane Airworthiness requirements. It will almost certainly take EASA a similar time to resolve the most contentious issues.
