Transition
EASA’s creation means it is taking over many tasks carried out by national agencies and by the Joint Aviation Authorities. All accept that this is a good thing – in principle. The worry is that transferring responsibilities to EASA too quickly will create a bureaucratic vacuum.
Sir Roy McNulty is chairman of the UK Civil Aviation Authority; Jules Kneepkens is director for civil aviation at the Netherlands transport ministry; Maxime Coffin is air safety director at France’s airworthiness body DGAC; and Nick Sabatini is FAA associate administrator for aviation safety.
Rulemaking
In 2003 EASA was created with basic regulation outlining its areas of responsibility. Details have had to be filled in since then, with the resulting gap confusing and frustrating for the NAAs, many of which talk of infrequent updates and uncertainty of their roles.
Coffin: “There have been some hold-ups experienced in some areas, but it’s not the fault of bad management, it’s just start-up troubles.”
McNulty: “EASA has a 25-member board and once EU transparency rules are taken into account and all stakeholders are consulted at every stage of the process, making decisions can be lengthy”.
Kneepkens: “Not all the systems are in place to do things in a formal way, so we’ve had to be flexible.”
Sabatini: “It’s not necessarily bureaucratic, but it has a different way of dealing with international agencies. Before, we could do a lot of pre-work with the French, for example, but in the construct of EASA the rules say no one except the 25 members has special status so the FAA can only comment on individual regulations.”
MANPOWER
EASA started with one member of staff, executive director Patrick Goudou and contractors. Goudou appointed departmental directors who have hired around 100 staff so far. This is half the forecast level and there have been problems attracting experts from Italy, the UK and Spain.
McNulty: “Everyone agrees that the manpower issue is one of the keys to resolving other problems. The European Parliament set some pay scales at a level uncompetitive in the market for senior management and technical experts.”
Kneepkens: “EASA has not recruited enough to take over all tasks yet, so we have to retain people because we still have responsibilities, but uncertainty is worrying for staff, so it can be difficult to keep them on the payroll and not go to industry. “
FINANCE AND CHARGES
The European Commission gave EASA powers to charge manufacturers fees for certification. Outsourced work carried out by NAAs is then paid for by EASA. But the system is judged by some to be unwieldy and over complex.
Coffin: “I think everyone agrees that the system, which is very rigid, needs to be evaluated. Few states have experience of an industry-pays model, but the UK has, so that should be put on the table.”
McNulty: “The charge system doesn’t properly work yet. Many of the problems are the result of bad planning and bad management. As a result the NAAs are only getting contracts for one month at a time as there is no assurance that EASA will have more money afterwards.
SAFETY
EASA’s safety oversight is one area where there has been little or no criticism from the NAAs.
Coffin: “Minds have been focused, especially in France, by the events this summer on the need for harmonised air safety standards and a slightly heavier management structure is an acceptable price to pay for such harmonisation.”
McNulty: “At the moment they have taken over certification tasks from the JAA and are using a lot of the same staff, so there is no immediate deterioration in safety. But any organisation that tries to run before it can walk could some day stumble.”
Source: Flight International
