There was nothing wrong with the vision. It is in its execution that the concept of EASA has been flawed. It is time to get it right
The European Aviation Safety Agency has had a faltering start since its birth four years ago this September. In principle, harmonising the practices of 30 national aviation authorities, pooling the best brains, and streamlining resources into one Europe-wide body responsible for aviation safety was - and remains - an admirable idea. The concept of a one-stop shop for European industry, able to counterbalance the USA's all-powerful Federal Aviation Administration in an increasingly global industry makes the utmost sense.
But in practice, it hasn't worked that way. Since EASA's formation there has been disgruntlement from industry about red-tape, added expense, delays and lack of expertise in the corridors of Cologne: all the ills the creation of a supra-national overseer was supposed to banish. Initially, this was put down to teething problems - the difficulty of relocating to western Germany staff from aviation authorities all over Europe, and particularly specialists from France and the UK with most experience in aircraft certification. That and a pig-headed preference among many in the industry to go on dealing with the national officials and procedures they were used to.
But after four years, these excuses are wearing thin. With a run-up as a "shadow" agency, and the Joint Aviation Authorities as a template, EASA ought to be hitting its stride. Instead, the latest crisis to hit the agency is a threat by Boeing to withdraw certification in Europe of the 787-3 because of EASA's new pricing structure. FAA officials - meeting with their European counterparts at a summit in Prague this week - have waded in to the argument to claim the new fees threaten a new US/Europe bilateral safety agreement.
To be fair to EASA's management, they have been hamstrung by lack of budget, which has stopped them opening regional offices to bring EASA closer to its customers and offering high enough salaries to attract the right calibre of staff. They have also had to serve 30 political masters on the management board, as well as the European Commission itself.
But it is time to address these shortcomings and come up with a plan that recognises, above all, the need to provide a swift, efficient and competent service to Europe's aerospace sector that is every bit as good as US companies expect from their aviation authority.
The FAA is more than a safety authority. It carries the banner for US aerospace throughout the world. Without the same on this side of the Atlantic, European firms will constantly be handicapped in an ever more competitive global marketplace.
Source: Flight International
