After a year of active operation, does the industry think EASA is working well? And, from its own perspective, how much progress has the safety agency made?
One year after emerging as a promised one-stop solution to the continent’s fragmented regulatory system, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has still to win over its biggest critics – the national aviation bodies whose remit EASA is in part usurping.
Ask an airliner manufacturer or the US Federal Aviation Administration – EASA’s more powerful counterpart – how the Cologne-based agency has done and the views are fairly glowing. Pose the same question to the national authorities and the answers are distinctly lukewarm.
True, everyone accepts the principle of a centralised safety enforcement and oversight organisation for Europe. The trouble is, the national bodies feel EASA is trying to “run before it can walk” and should not take on extra tasks before it is fully in control of its present remit – to look after airworthiness and certification (see box below).
Across the Atlantic, however, the FAA, if anything, wants faster progress. The agency is the closest equivalent to EASA, but as a federal body ultimately answerable to the US president and responsible for everything from air traffic management to crash investigation, it is a much more heavyweight agency. EASA, on the other hand, relies on European Union legislation for its mandate.
EASA’s certification director Dr Norbert Lohl says the agency has a good relationship with the FAA, adding: “Sometimes they want us to move forward faster than we can.” Lohl admits the inability to move as fast as the FAA would like is mainly an issue of resources, mostly human. “They [the FAA] want us as a focal point in Europe,” says Lohl, adding that the US agency is open about how glad it is to see the back of a system where every individual European national aviation authority (NAA) imposed its own different requirements on US manufacturers.
Airbus also welcomes EASA’s arrival. Its A380 programme started life under the eye of the French national authority, the DGAC, which was Europe’s lead certification authority for the aircraft on behalf of the Joint Aviation Authorities. A year ago EASA took over the A380 certification task. This was made much easier by the fact that the engineer leading the A380 programme at the DGAC – Rachel Daeschler – has become the project certification manager for the aircraft at EASA.
Short staffed
EASA executive director Patrick Goudou says the early challenges centred on the need to “grow” the agency and downsize the NAAs as many of the latter’s functions were subsumed into the European body. It is also essential to create an organisational culture at EASA, says Goudou, that involves people from as many countries as possible, but particularly from the three largest NAAs, those of France, Germany and the UK. Lohl says the main source for its staff was always going to be the NAAs. Because of EASA’s location – Cologne – he says, it was easiest at the start to recruit German engineers from the LBA, more difficult to take French staff from the DGAC, and most difficult of all to persuade the British to move from the Civil Aviation Authority. Now, he says, recruiting is getting easier. In 2003 EASA had 31 staff; by the end of last year that had grown to 100 and the targets for the end of this year and next are respectively 200 and 300.
Next year recruitment of operations directorate staff will begin, says Goudou, so EASA can adopt that role from the NAAs on 1 January 2007. He believes that many, but not all, of the recruits will come from the JAA at Hoofddorp, Netherlands, as its remaining roles – rulemaking and standardisation tasks – are also subsumed. Goudou, adds: “All the operational tasks remain with the NAAs.”
Work for nationals
At present, with its staffing levels not up to strength, EASA contracts out to the NAAs any work for which it does not yet have the resources. In June a process for contracting out was defined, under which the NAAs are paid for their services. Several of the NAAs, however, say the system is not working – they are not being paid. For now, airworthiness and certification are EASA’s only remit, but as well as rulemaking and standardisation of operations it will also take over flightcrew licensing in January 2007. In due course – there is no timetable yet – the European Commission wants it to take over airports, air traffic management, and probably also assume the safety assessment of foreign aircraft (SAFA) role from the European Civil Aviation Conference. Lohl believes categorically that SAFA should be centralised at EASA, and that it is “ridiculous” for one European state to ban an airline for failing to meet International Civil Aviation Organisation standards and for the others not to do so.
Lohl says EASA policy at present is to centralise at its Cologne office its core tasks in airworthiness rulemaking, certification of new aircraft types or equipment, and the oversight of quality standards and regulatory standardisation. Lohl says he does not see EASA having any local offices elsewhere in Europe – even though Airbus says an office in the Toulouse/Tarbes area would be helpful. Some safety-related tasks are likely to be performed locally by the residual NAAs, he predicts, not least because it makes sense in efficiency terms. Among these, he believes, will be the issue of air operator’s certificates and pilot licences, and carrying out ramp checks for EASA under the SAFA programme.
Lohl says: “If we finally identify residual tasks which might be better organised by local staff, then the local staff will be employed by the NAA.” Whereas Lohl believes the future roles of the NAAs are unclear for now, Goudou believes they will have a substantial role but will play no part in rulemaking in any sector except during consultation. A point Lohl makes, however, is that the operation of the NAAs will be overseen by EASA to ensure standardisation throughout Europe.
In the bank
Several NAAs say EASA, for all its centralisation advantages, imposes more bureaucratic requirements on those who work with it or use its services. Lohl says it is an inevitable result of working under European law with all its requirements for consultation, financial clarity, open competition, and transparency. One example is financial requirements: EASA cannot begin a task until it has provided a quotation, and it cannot provide certification for a piece of equipment “until the cheque [for the certification charge] is in the bank”. EASA is looking for easier ways, but the European Commission remains the rule-maker, says Lohl. Goudou puts it differently: “The main reason for the bureaucracy is to have everything under control”, he says, explaining that the financial management system is intended to prevent mistakes and fraud.
Being charged for services was something that UK industry is accustomed to, because the UK CAA is required to recover its costs. In Germany, the LBA had to recover some costs, and in France the service was free, so in some countries there was a “culture shock” when charges were imposed. However the savings that come from the “one stop shop” EASA system tend to compensate for that. “The manufacturers really like us”, insists Goudou.
Meanwhile, EASA has an advisory board made up of representatives from all its stakeholders. At this early stage in EASA’s life, concedes Goudou, “they are still requesting a lot of information, but they are getting used to us”.
DAVID LEARMOUNT/COLOGNE & JUSTIN WASTNAGE/LONDON & THE HAGUE
Source: Flight International
