European Commission, Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on ground-handling services at Union airports and repealing Council Directive 96/67/EC, COM(2011) 824 final.

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Setting up an Aviation Safety Management System for Europe, COM(2011)670 final, (2011).

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Accelerating the implementation of the Single European Sky, (COM(2013) 408 final, (2013).

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union, COM (2013) 48 final.

Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Union (OJ L 293, 31.10.2008).

Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on informing air transport passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ L 344, 27.12.2005).

Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation, amending Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1321/2007 and (EC) No 1330/2007 (OJ L 122, 24.4.2014).

Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation and repealing Directive 94/56/EC', (OJ L 295, 12.11.2010).

Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services and repealing Directive 2006/23/EC, (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009)

Regulation (EU) No 216/2008 of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC, (OJ L 79, 19.3.2008).

Qualified Entity (QE): Means a body which may be allocated oversight or certification tasks by EASA or by a national aviation authority under Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.

Network Manager: A body designated under the Single European Sky legislation to perform certain functions and duties with respect to the management of European ATM network. In 2015 the functions and duties of the Network Manager were entrusted to EUROCONTROL.

Maximum take-off mass (MTOM): The maximum takeoff mass of an aircraft is a value defined by the aircraft manufacturer. It is the maximum mass at which the aircraft is certified for take-off due to structural or other limits. MTOM is usually specified in units of kilograms or pounds. The mass is a fixed value and does not vary with changes in temperature, altitude or runway available

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): Rules and regulations established to govern flight under conditions in which flight by outside visual reference is not safe. IFR flight depends upon flying by reference to instruments in the flight deck, and navigation is accomplished by reference to electronic signals.

International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO): Specialised UN body established by the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation. The aims and objectives of ICAO is to develop the principles and techniques of international air navigation and to foster the planning and development of international air transport.

Guidance Material (GM): is non-binding material issued by EASA to assist in the understanding of the Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, its Implementing Rules and Certification Specifications.

General aviation (GA): those flight activities not involving commercial air transportation or aerial work, and where aerial work means operations used for specialized services such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, aerial development, etc.

Annex II aircraft: Aircraft listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, and which are excluded from the scope of that Regulation and its Implementing Rules.

Air Operator's Certificate (AOC): certificate delivered to an undertaking confirming that the operator has the professional ability and organisation to ensure the safety of operations specified in the certificate.

Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC): are non-binding standards adopted by EASA to illustrate means to establish compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules.

(c)Operators of critical infrastructures in some sectors (financial services, transport, energy, health), enablers of information society services (notably: app stores e-commerce platforms, Internet payment, cloud computing, search engines, social networks) and public administrations must adopt risk management practices and report major security incidents on their core services.

(a)Member State must adopt a NIS strategy and designate a national NIS competent authority with adequate financial and human resources to prevent, handle and respond to NIS risks and incidents;

The proposed NIS Directive is a key component of the overall EU cybersecurity strategy and would require all Member States, key internet enablers and critical infrastructure operators such as e-commerce platforms and social networks and operators in energy, transport, banking and healthcare services to ensure a secure and trustworthy digital environment throughout the EU. The proposed NIS Directive lays down measures including:

The NIS Directive was proposed by the Commission in 2013 and at the end of 2015 was in the final stages of negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council. The proposal aims to ensure a high common level of cybersecurity in the EU, by:

Recent data shows that ground handling occurrences form approximately 10% of all aviation safety occurrences and this figure has not changed significantly over the past 5 years.

Ground damage to aircraft is very common but is an increasing risk, owing to the difference in appearance between significant damage to conventional aircraft and composite aircraft. As the number of composite aircraft in service increases, ground damage becomes a higher in-flight safety risk.

In addition to in-flight risks, there are risks on the ramp to passengers and personnel. The definition of Annex 13 includes these injuries, therefore they fall within the purview of aviation safety regulation and not just local health and safety.

Errors on the ramp form a significant proportion of accidents and incidents involving commercial aeroplanes each year (10%). The majority of accidents occur on the ramp itself and the majority of fatal accidents involve one fatality. However, some of the errors that occur during the turnaround have serious consequences during flight, such as loss of control, runway excursion or in-flight fire.

Furthermore there are difficulties in implementation, as the idea of oversight over ground handling by aerodrome operator conflicts with aircraft operator’s responsibility for its subcontractors. Any future ICAO or EU provisions would have to ensure to minimise the duplication of responsibilities and give a correct dimensioning of oversight resources and at the same time empower the aerodrome operator vis-a-vis ground handling service providers.

At the same time ADOP group concedes that SMS does not resolve the operational safety issue with ground collisions, which is really more a matter for the aerodrome operator and the enforcement of local apron and runway safety procedures. At the same time it is also realised that full SMS might be excessive with non-aircraft safety related ground handling services (such as catering) and that therefore probably a selection of the most relevant ground handling categories be necessary.

In the beginning of 2015 the ICAO task force under the ADOP will report on its results and come forth with the following identified primary safety issues:

Since 2012 the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has also been looking at the safety of ground-handling services. The problem statement from ICAO in the related job-card to the Aerodrome Panel (AP, now the ADOP) states “(t)hat there is a need to look at the safety, efficiency and standardisation issues associated with ground handling and determine the status and future needs for ICAO provisions in relation to ground-handling at aerodromes”.

Despite these initiatives, the occurrence data does not indicate any significant change or improvement in ground handling safety. There is no indication that voluntary initiatives have been effective at a European level. Although initiatives such as the GHOST have been productive, they work because they are local and involve targeted actions. Thus, motivation to join in the initiatives is better and follow-up is easier. This in some cases one-to-one and personal approach cannot be replicated at a European level.

Part of the problem with voluntary initiatives is that the cost of the initiatives adds to the cost of service in a very competitive environment for contracts. Furthermore, the attendees to such groups are often the safety managers or members of the safety team, but not the budget holders or managing directors. Anecdotally, many of those responsible for safety in ground handling companies would prefer to have regulation in place because it strengthens their case for investments, however this will not necessarily be supported by their senior management, unless it can be made clear that the same regulations and oversight will also apply to their competitors.

-IATA ISAGO and IGOM: the IATA Safety Audit of Ground Operations has developed a common audit programme for ground handlers and airlines, with the aim of reducing the number of audits a ground handler must undergo and raising the standard of audits. The IATA Ground Operations Manual Task Force meets twice per year to attempt to standardise ground handling operations;

European and international safety initiatives have been initiated with the intention of raising the profile of ground handling, streamlining airline auditing of ground handlers and improving safety. Examples include:

Analysis of event codes shows that the majority of RAMP occurrences relate either to loading errors or to near-collisions and collisions on the ramp or during parking and pushback. Collisions can be either with ground servicing vehicles or with other aircraft. As stated above, these collisions/near collisions and loading errors carry in-flight safety risks as well as causing problems on the ground. A request to the Network of Analysts regarding unreported damage to aircraft as a result of collisions revealed that reporting varied, with one country estimating that 5% of aircraft damage was found later instead of reported at the time, while a second country put this estimate as high as 14%. Although this is a current safety risk, the introduction of composite aircraft increases the importance of reporting collisions and near collisions, owing to the difficulty in detecting damage to composite materials.

Further analysis of ECR data showed that in 2013 ground handling occurrences were more common than aerodrome occurrences, security problems, bird strikes, airborne conflict, power-plant malfunctions and runway incursions, to list but a few. It was the fourth most commonly applied occurrence category, behind “other”, ATM/CNS errors and system or component failures.

Over 20,000 risk-bearing ground handling occurrences were reported to the European Central Repository (ECR) in a six year period by member states, an average of approximately 3,500 per year. However, the number of all types of occurrence reported to the ECR has increased over the past six years as changes within Member States enabled better reporting. To normalise the figures compared with overall reporting, the proportion of ground handling occurrences reported to the ECR in comparison with all occurrences reported was calculated, showing that between 9 and 11% of risk-bearing occurrences related to ground handling in the period 2009-2014. This is a high proportion of occurrences for a sector that is not directly regulated and the figures do not include records that are not considered severe enough to be classed as occurrences, but which may be costly in terms of aircraft damage and delays. Work with ground handling companies and airlines have identified significant under-reporting in this sector, due to the lack of understanding and guidance relating to ground handling reporting.

Injury statistics (Table 11) from the European Central Repository over a six year period show no overall trend in the numbers of injuries, except that there has been an increase in minor injuries.

Since 1st January 2005, ground handling occurrences have formed 6% of fatal accidents, 15% of non-fatal accidents and 2% of serious incidents. During that time, there were 84 ground handling related accidents and serious incidents (Figure 8). The apparently low proportion of serious incidents relates to a lack of risk perception when accidents only nearly happen – because the aircraft is usually on the ground, it is assumed that what happened was not serious.

The ADREP database has records of seven fatal accidents in the last 20 years and a total of eight fatalities.

Figures presented in this section are for Part-CAT large aeroplanes where EU/EFTA Member State was the State of Occurrence, Registration or Operation.

Incorrect application of de or anti-icing fluid has led to contamination of the APU, resulting in fumes in the cabin and, on a few occasions, the complete disintegration of the APU.

During the winter of 2005 and for some following winters, over-use of anti-icing fluids led to control restrictions on aircraft with non-powered flight controls such as the DHC-8, EMB 145 and BAE 146. See UK AAIB Report EW/G2006/01/14 .

The majority of fatal accidents worldwide involve people struck by rotating propellers, falling from aircraft or being sucked into engines. A minority involve loading errors that subsequently cause control problems in flight. These have so far only occurred on cargo flights and so the number of fatalities is low relative to other aviation accident types, although cargo can also be carried on passenger flights. A higher number of fatalities occur where de/ anti-icing errors have happened, since these have occurred on both passenger and cargo flights.

oThis is a particular risk for composite aircraft where the exterior surface of the aircraft can appear undamaged, but significant damage has occurred below the surface. This risk will increase as yet more composite aircraft enter service.

One occurrence that spans ramp and inflight safety risks is damage to aircraft where the damage is not reported when it happens but only found later. Reluctance to report such damage can stem from problems with just culture and from contractual obligations with regard to the cost of the damage.

-Injuries to passengers, crew or ground handlers as a result of falling from open aircraft doors or integral airstairs. This has been a particular problem where procedures are not followed or are inadequate, resulting in airstairs being removed from an aircraft without warning.

-Collisions between ground vehicles and aircraft causing both injuries and aircraft damage. Examples include a vehicle towing airstairs that tried to drive under the wing of an aircraft or tug drivers injured in collisions with aircraft;

Aviation safety risks that arise from ground handling can be divided into the risks to passengers and personnel during the turnaround and those that have a knock-on effect during flight. There is a significant cross-over between health and safety in the workplace (on the ramp) and aviation safety. The ICAO definition of an accident includes injuries to people on the ground when an aircraft is being prepared for flight or when passengers and crew have not yet disembarked. In general, if an individual is injured by an aircraft or falls from an aircraft, it falls within the definition of an accident and the remit of occurrence reporting and is thus captured by the data.

Currently the independent ground handlers use a wide range of business models and their ground handling business profitability varies significantly. The profit margins or Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) as a % of revenues are in single digits and thus reflect the nature of the ground-handling business as a relatively commoditised, low cost margin business. This contrasts to the airline services industry with very low margins (3-4% over the period 1995-2008 source IATA) and airport business with higher margins of 10% on average (source: Infofinancials) representing some degree of local monopoly power.

Commission and stakeholders' estimations assess the revenues of ground-handling in Europe to lie between 6 and 10 billion euros, and the employment in the ground-handling sector to be at the minimum 60,000. Global ground-handling market value was assessed to be around 31 billion euros in 2007 (KPMG, 2008) but this figure seems underestimated. The market is still very fragmented with over 400 operators worldwide and a combined market share of 20% for the top 4 handlers (according to Swissport, 2008): it has not witnessed the same level of regroupings as experienced by other aviation sectors such as the duty-free provider industry. However, this assessment is more or less verified depending on the considered ground-handling category.

It is difficult to estimate accurately the size and importance of ground-handling market in the EU, due notably to: (i) the diversity of ground-handling services: the present Directive 96/67/EC distinguishes 11 categories of services, each one including several activities; and (ii) the fact that the companies intervening in these markets can be airports, airlines or independent companies, that do not necessarily publish public separate data for their ground-handling activities or for each of their ground-handling activities.

e)EASA could provide add value in technical aspects of aviation security more broadly, provided it does acquire the necessary expertise;

c)There is a need for better coordination of research on aviation safety, and there is a role for EASA here;

f)When it comes to EASA budget, there is a need to clearly differentiate between funding provided by industry and funding coming from the public budget. The part of the budget funded by industry should reflect the needs of the industry;

b)There is a need for changing the working methods, and the transition to a performance and risk based approach is part of the answer;

a)It is not realistic to expect that it will be possible to significantly increase the resources – this is a political reality;

b)This transition will mean a change in philosophy of working methods and required skill sets for regulated organisations and authorities. Although performance based approach may not be always applicable, the overall objective should be not to just add additional layer of regulation, but to implement a genuinely new approach;

a)We have already embarked on this transition. However there is a need to clarify what these concepts really mean in detail.

Setting up both prescriptive and PBR on the same issue will be challenging for the oversight. The level playing field should be maintained

There was no general answer whether PBR should replace or complement prescriptive rules. This has to be assessed according to topic and type of rule.

A proportionate way of regulating aviation safety might include the set-up of high level PBR in the legislation and the details in soft law

Based on ATM experience, it should start with a safety monitoring phase for some years (with SPIs) before the definition of SPTs

There is a need to take into account the possible unintended consequences of SPTs on safety

A SPS should rely on the industry input- it should follow a bottom up approach rather than a top down one

However it was recognised that certain specific areas might not be covered as they are not measurable

There is a necessity, both for SPS and PBA, to be gradual and to build over time on the basis of experience and capacity

There was an overall agreement on the need to go forward with both Safety Performance Scheme (SPS) and the Performance Based Approach to the Regulation of Aviation Safety (PBA)

There is a need to clarify the concepts as not everyone understands 'performance' and related terms the same way

However not all the risks require a rulemaking approach. Sometimes a safety promotion action, increased standardisation or guidance material is sufficient. Performance based rules can refer to acceptable industry standards, which then also reduces the rulemaking effort.

The priorities are defined in the rulemaking programme which is approved by the EASA management board (so the Member States) as part of the EASA work programme following opinion of the EASA advisory board (composed of the industry representatives). The rulemaking programme is linked to the European Aviation Safety Plan which identifies the issues of greater concern where a mitigating action has to be taken.

A standard EASA rulemaking process would be followed as is the case today. Depending on the type of measure (implementing rule / or soft law material) the outcome of that rulemaking process would be either an opinion for the Commission or certification specification, acceptable means of compliance, or guidance material.

Experience has shown that simple compliance with prescriptive regulations does not guarantee safety alone. Performance based rules offers improvements by proposing safety performance indicators, targeting safety objectives and efficiently mitigating risks through a better focus on the outcome rather than only on the way something has to be done. It provides flexibility in the implementation rather than developing prescriptive rules for every eventuality.

Performance based rules refers to rules setting a desired measurable outcome defined in terms of performance, but the detail of achieving it is not prescribed (although best practice guidance may be provided). Performance indicators can be used to provide evidence of achieved levels of performance.

A ‘safety performance scheme’ is a scheme in which the safety performance is measured and monitored. Such a scheme relies in particular on the use of measurable and pertinent safety performance indicators based on a continuous collection and analysis of data. It can also include the adoption of relevant safety performance targets. Such a scheme contributes notably to monitoring whether an action which was implemented positively impacted on the level of aviation safety and can thus support reorienting efforts where appropriate. (Study)

A safety management system is a pro-active system that identifies the hazards to the activity, assesses the risks those hazards present, and takes action to reduce those risks to an acceptable level. It then checks to confirm the effectiveness of the actions. The system works continuously to ensure any new hazards or risks are rapidly identified and that mitigation actions are suitable and where found ineffective are revised. An essential component of safety management systems is ‘safety assurance’, which requires safety performance to be measured and monitored using safety performance indicators and targets. Safety management applies to organisational, State and regional level and to all domains of aviation. It helps recognise interactions and interdependencies of the aviation system (EASA)

This annex gives an overview on the concepts of safety management systems, safety performance schemes and performance based rules, which form important elements of the policy options in the domain on proportionality and safety performance, and their possible advantages on safety. This overview is largely based on the findings of the support study on resources as well as the EASA report on ‘A Harmonised European Approach to a Performance Based Environment’.

The public consultations clearly showed that the general public, stakeholders and Member States expect the intensity of regulatory interventions to be proportionate to the level of risk posed by the different aviation activities, and to the ability of the user to control that risk. When the risk for the general public is low and the user has direct control over the risk, as is the case for example for recreational flying, the level of regulatory intervention can be lower. Where the risk for the general public is higher and the users have no control over the risk, as is the case for high capacity air transport, the level of regulatory intervention is expected to be high.

The reorganisation of the current CS-23 introduces a new concept whereby the EASA certification specifications will be replaced by objective requirements that are design-independent and applicable to the entire range of aeroplanes within CS-23. These objective requirements will be accompanied by acceptable Airworthiness Design Standards, where the design-specific details are captured. The new concept of objective rules of a higher abstract level accompanied by Airworthiness Design Standards allows the use of appropriate and proportionate standards as Acceptable Means of Compliance catering to the specific needs of different aeroplane categories covered. This flexibility is intended to encourage the introduction of safety enhancing features and reduce certification costs. Future amendments of these Airworthiness Design Standards will have to follow an industry consensus process only, which will allow for a faster adoption of new technologies and better up-to-date standards. Acceptance of these standards as Acceptable Means of Compliance to the objective rules will remain the responsibility of EASA.

The traditional regulatory approach to managing crew member fatigue has been to prescribe limits on maximum daily, monthly, and yearly flight and duty hours, and to require minimum breaks within and between duty periods. Prescriptive flight and duty time limits represent a simplified view of safety where being inside the limits is safe while being outside the limits is unsafe. This has two effects: (1) there will be pilots flying inside the limits who are unfit, and (2) there will be pilots that are not allowed to fly as they are outside the limits who are actually fit-to-fly. The former has a negative safety impact, the latter a negative economic impact. By applying a data-driven performance based approach based upon scientific principles and knowledge as well as operational experience which aims at ensuring that relevant personnel are performing at adequate levels of alertness (a Fatigue Risk Management System) the actual achieved level of safety performance is optimized and the negative impacts are reduced.

7.The above corresponds to a reduction in the budget required to fill the resources gap by about EUR 16.9-19.9 million/year (2013), about EUR 18.4-21.6 million/year (2020), and about EUR 20.2-23.8 million/year (2030). The present value of this during the entire 2016-2030 time frame amounts to EUR 209-246 million. This is valued by applying the average wage costs as presented in Annex IX to the required resources in FTEs. These are ‘plain’ wages costs and exclude overheads and employee related costs such as training.

6.This resources gap reduction concerns year 2013. By 2030, the need for resources is expected to grow by 8.45% by 2020 and by 19.5% by 2030 (see Annex XI) and therefore the reduction in the resources gap due to this option is expected to grow proportionally to 334-393 FTE by 2020 and to 368-433 FTEs by 2030.

5.We estimate the range of resources impact to be between the 2 calculated values as an indication that scale efficiency will be also achieved after the activities are allocated to the most standardised NAAs.

4.Estimation of the resources needed if the output referred to in point (3) was to be performed by the most efficient NAAs or by an average efficiency rate of the most standardised NAAs. The resources needed in each of these 2 cases are calculated by multiplying the output of the least efficient NAAs with the resources/output ratio for the most efficient NAAs and that of the most standardised NAAs respectively for each of the domains examined. These figures are presented in the table underneath (rounded-up).

3.Calculation of the sum of the output of the least efficient NAAs (i.e. total aircraft on the register of these NAAs; total AOCs and ATO approvals issued by these NAAs) and the sum of the resources needed for performing this output by (i) the most efficient NAAs and (ii) the NAAs with the best standardisation performance.

2.Calculation, for each of the 3 above domains of the average resources/output ratio for the 20% (6) most efficient, the 20% (6) least efficient NAAs, as well as the average efficiency of the NAAs with a good performance according to EASA standardisation inspections.

1.Creation of a basic resources/output ratio for each of the 3 largest domains considering a representative indicator for the workload under each domain. The selected indicators for this exercise are: aircraft in registry for AIR; AOCs issued for OPS; and ATOs supervised for PEL.

In order to calculate the impacts of PO 1.4 on the reduction of future resources needs the following steps were followed:

This is different from the calculation approach proposed for PO 1.3 where the transfer is based on a voluntary basis and therefore the assumption was that the transfers take place from smaller to larger NAAs regardless of their efficiency.

Under PO 1.4 EASA is the competent authority for aviation safety in the EU and allocates tasks to the NAAs. We assume that at least for the 3 largest domains of oversight activity (AIR, OPS, PEL), the implementation of tasks, for each domain, will be reallocated from the least efficient NAAs to those that achieving the highest performance quality.

The above is a global estimate of the potential impact on reducing the resources gap. The actual impact depends on the actual number of NAAs that would voluntary transfer tasks as well as the number of tasks that they would transfer.

2.This corresponds to a reduction in the budget required to fill the resources gap of about EUR 1.0-2.0 million/year (2013), about EUR 1.1-2.1 million/year (2020) and about EUR 1.3-2.5 million/year (2030). The present value of this during the entire 2016-2030 time frame amounts to EUR13.0-24.6 million. This is valued by applying the average wage costs as presented in Annex IX to the required resources in FTEs. These are ‘plain’ wages costs and exclude overheads and employee related costs such as training.

1.This resources gap reduction concerns year 2013. By 2020, the need for resources is expected to grow by 8.45% (average of 7.6% – 9.3% band) and therefore the reduction in the resources gap due to this option is expected to grow proportionally to 20-38 FTEs. By 2030, the need for resources is expected to grow by 19.5% (average of 17.4% – 21.6% band) and therefore the reduction in the resources gap due to this option is expected to grow proportionally to 24-46 FTEs.

3.Estimating the decrease in resources if the OPS operations of the 'smaller OPS CAs', were performed by the 'larger OPS CAs'. To do this, we calculate the staff that would be needed (on average) to produce the same amount of output by assigning the AOCs of the 'smaller OPS CAs' to the 'larger OPS CAs', which results in the following:

2.Calculating the average staff/AOC ratio for each of the 2 above identified groups, which results in the following:

1.Identifying 6 out of 28 NAAs (that have provided relevant data), with the least experts in OPS, as well as the 6 NAAs with the most experts in OPS;

In order to assess these impacts, the following methodology was followed, using as an example the OPS domain, and where it is assumed that NAAs with the least in-house expertise in OPS delegate the relevant tasks to the NAAs with most in house expertise in the same domain:

Both PO 1.3(a) and PO 1.3(b) are expected to achieve a reduction in the resources gap by a reallocation of tasks from NAAs that are less specialised in performing a given type of activity, to others that are more specialised in doing so. In addition, where Member States will take up opportunity to transfer the responsibility for a given activity to EASA, this is expected to have economies of scale effects, as was the case for Type Certification centralisation under the current mandate of EASA.

PO 1.3(a) and PO 1.3(b) are expected to have overall the same effect on the reduction of the future resources needs in Member States. The Emergency oversight support mechanism is designed as an exceptional measure not to be applied on a routine basis, and therefore its impact on the resources is very difficult to assess up-front.

In Annex XI an estimate on the gap of resources towards 2020 and 2030 has been presented. This Annex presents detailed calculations of how the different policy options related to the quality and management of resources contribute to reducing this resources gap. The calculation is not presented for PO 1.2 (Enhanced cooperation within the system), which should have a positive result on the use of resources in Member States, but the scale of this impact is expected to be rather limited. These calculations were performed using the data submitted by Member States in the context of the support study on resources.

Contribution of policy options related to 'quality and management of resources' to the reduction of future resources needs in Member States – detailed calculations

The above figures are clearly indicative, as an overall resource forecast model in this area does not exist. Nevertheless, it is clear that if industry activity and associated demand for new aircraft will grow according to forecasts, this will impact National Aviation Authorities in the workload increase. These estimates do not factor in the impact of the transition to risk based approach however, which in the longer term should reduce the need for some resources.

This increase has been valued by multiplying the additional FTEs by the average wage level of National Aviation Authority staff in Europe (see Annex IX). These are ‘plain’ wages costs and exclude overheads and employee related costs such as training.

The same proportional increase is applied to the total budget of NAAs, which indicates total budget needs in 2020 will amount to EUR 1.021 billion - EUR 1.026 billion, and between EUR 1.049 billion - EUR 1.061 billion in 2030. Thus, the projected gap in NAA budgets, compared to the current budget levels of approximately EUR 1 billion, is estimated at EUR 21-26 million in 2020 and EUR 49-61 million in 2030 (annually).

The above increases can be considered somewhat conservative, as the resources support study also showed that there are currently shortages in staff in certain National Aviation Authorities. As such, the current figure of 5 100 total staff that served as the basis for the assessment does not reflect the present actual need for resources at National Aviation Authority level. The increase in staff necessary at EASA is based on analysis of the EASA Annual Staffing Plans, which call for approximately 698 additional staff by the end of 2017 (up from 638 at the end of 2013). Taking into consideration EU's intent to reduce the number of additional staff required at EASA as foreseen in the Staffing Plans, it can be expected that, the current gap of 50 FTE is maintained in 2020 and 2030. As a comparison, the FAA forecasts that it will need a staff increase for its Aviation Safety workforce of 11% in 2023 compared to 2013.

By 2030, total staff needed is expected to increase by between 17.4 – 21.6% over the current level, which represents between 5 987 to 6 200 individuals.

the need for additional staff to carry out the workload will increase by roughly 7.6 – 9.3% by the year 2020 of the base figure of around 5 100 total National Aviation Authority staff in 2013, amounting to between 5 487 to 5 572 total staff needed;

Taking the above industry growth rate estimates for the years 2020 and 2030, together with rate of change in the number of NAA staff from 2003 to 2013, an elasticity analysis is subsequently conducted to assess the potential proportional change in the number of National Aviation Authority staff for a proportional change in industry level activity. It should be noted that the results are to be interpreted with caution, as there are clearly many other indicators that influence workload. Based on the total staff and industry growth rates calculated during the last decade, combined with the estimates for future industry growth provided above, it can be predicted that:

Looking forward, a number of studies have been consulted to make a prediction on future growth. For the number of aircraft on register, an annual growth of 3% is estimated across Europe until 2033; and a growth rate of 2.5% per annum in IFR flights until 2020, followed by slower growth until 2030. For the latter, the 1.8% average annual growth over the whole period (2014-2030) was used to estimate the IFR flights in 2030. Based on the figures collected for 2013, total aircraft on register is estimated to reach 108 000 by 2020 and 145 000 by 2030. This represents an increase of 23% by 2020, and an increase of 65% by 2030. Regarding IFR traffic, total growth is estimated to reach 11.2 million in 2020, and 12.8 million in 2030, an increase of 19% and 35% over the 2013 figures respectively. See Table for an overview of these estimates.

V)Regarding budget, the total of the 18 States that provided data for 2013 was EUR 581 464 245. This means an average of EUR 32 303 569 per State. Multiplying this figure by 31 (total number of states participating in the EU aviation safety system) gives an estimate of the total amount of EUR 1 billion. Including the budget of EASA an estimate of the total budget is EUR 1.13 billion.

IV)Summing up the total technical staff of the three largest domains (that is OPS, PEL and AIR) for all States that submitted data, provides totals of 1 573 in 2003, 1 728 in 2008 and 1 659 in 2013. Hence the trend is initially an increase of 9.9%, followed by a decrease of 11%. With respect to 2003, 2013 shows an increase of 5.5%.

III)In terms of workload, it is expected that the number of AOCs - taken as a proxy measure for workload in national authorities - will be affected by the growth in industry activity levels. While the results of the analysis show a strong, positive linear correlation between the variables for passengers and the number of AOCs for each of the periods assessed, the trend in the number of AOCs held shows an increase from 1 221 in 2003 to 1 304 in 2008, followed by a decrease to 1 201 AOC holders in 2013. Thus the total period experienced an overall decrease of 2.4% with respect to 2003. No clear explanation could be found for this trend other than the economic downturn since 2008. Notwithstanding this finding, it can be expected that, all else being equal, an improved economic climate would have the effect of reversing the trend; therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, an increase in the overall workload is assumed.

II)Regarding IFR traffic, the number of flights grew from approximately 8.5 million in 2003, to 10.1 million in 2008. However due to the economic crisis, air traffic has seen a slow recovery, reaching approximately 9.447 million flights in 2013 – an 11% increase over 2003 levels, though nearly a 6.5% decrease over traffic in 2008. According to EUROCONTROL latest Challenges of Growth forecast, traffic will reach the 2008 peak again by 2016 and grow by approximately 1.8% annually over currently levels by 2030, with faster growth expected in the initial years between 2015-2020 (approximately 2.5% annually until 2020);

I)The development in the size of the industry is measured by means of the total amount of aircraft on national register and the volume of "instrument flight rules" (IFR) flight in Europe both indicate an increase. Regarding aircraft on national register, the total number of aircraft on register of all states that submitted data grew from 75 554 in 2003, to 79 620 in 2008 and to 88 057 in 2013. This represents an overall increase of 16.5% over the 10 year period;

Because of the limited number of Member States with data available across all three periods referred to above (2003, 2008 and 2013), we look only at the year 2013, for which most Member States (18 total) provided data, in order to calculate an estimate for the total budget and resources in all States participating in the EU aviation safety system and to predict the baseline trend and future scenario. This calculation is done as follows: an average is taken of the total budget amount of the 18 states, and then multiplied by 31 (total number of states participating in the EU aviation safety system). It is then estimated, for each change in the level of industry activity for the years 2020 and 2030, future resources needs, assuming a continuation of the baseline scenario. This is calculated based on an elasticity approach to the industry activity and resource variables as follows:

It is assumed that a growth in the level of industry activity will increase the workload in the national authorities. As workload increases, so too will the resources required of national aviation authorities, although at a certain point this should be offset by more efficient working methods stemming from the transition to risk based safety oversight planning. On the other hand, it is clear from the resources support study, that that budget constraints in Member States are considered among the most important causal factors in relation to staffing levels.

Using this model, development in the size of the industry is measured by means of the total number of aircraft on national register and the total volume in IFR flights; to measure workload, the total number of Air Operator Certificate (AOC) holders is used; and for national authorities resources, data on the technical staff in the three largest domains, airworthiness (AIR), operations (OPS) and personnel licensing (PEL), is used.

In order to make an estimation of future growth in workload and resource requirements for Member States' aviation authorities under a baseline scenario, an analysis was conducted of the relationship between a number of indicators related to the level of industry activity, the level of workload of national authorities and the associated number of staff resources, respectively. The relationship was assessed for three different years (2003, 2008 and 2013) in order to provide a view of the growth trends for the years 2020 and 2030.

Moreover, nearly EUR 3.5 million would be saved for the EU budget, as 23 FTE would no longer need to be financed from the EU contribution. These resources could be reallocated to finance additional EASA tasks envisaged under the preferred policy package.

The above figures are calculated on the basis of FTE costs including overheads and taxes in order to demonstrate all the savings potentially to be achieved by internalising in EASA the tasks for which the EU makes use of the expertise of EUROCONTROL today. Plain salaries in EASA and EUROCONTROL on the other hand differ only slightly.

The net saving for airspace users thus amounts to over EUR 4 million immediately, and potentially more following savings in Member States’ oversight needs.

The above table expressed in FTEs produces the following financial outcome based on an average unit cost of EUR 150 000 per FTE at EASA and EUR 263 000 at EUROCONTROL , mainly due to the different tax regime (both include overheads such as real estate, IT etc.):

Under the proposed measure, the costs of EASA activities in the field of ATM/ANS would be set in separated accounts within the EASA budget; these costs will then be included in the cost base for air navigation charges and attributed to EU Member States through sharing-keys (similarly to the existing sharing-keys used for EUROCONTROL costs). Their inclusion in the cost base for air navigation charges will make them subject to the EU performance scheme. The costs of EUROCONTROL should be reduced accordingly, reflecting the discontinuation of the tasks mentioned in the table above. The common charging scheme including with respect to en-route charges, is established by Commission Implementing Regulation.

Taking into account that there are already 23 FTE at EASA involved in ATM/ANS related tasks, in particular in standardisation inspections and rulemaking, the total resource needs at EASA in the ATM/ANS area amount to 39.5 FTE.

Potential significant savings from the current EUR 90 million spent by MS on oversight, by pooling and transferring tasks to EASA or to each other

This discussion relates only to general authority tasks. It does not concern EASA’s tasks in issuing and renewing certificates and reviewing declarations of ATM/ANS operators and manufacturers. These are already remunerated through fees paid by the certified organisations in accordance with Article 59(1) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.

-SES monitoring and involvement in the development and implementation of the performance scheme, as far as the safety key performance area is concerned.

-activities to support National Supervisory Authorities (NSA), including in the areas under the duty of EASA in the context of the NSA coordination platform established by the Commission;

In EASA accounting the user-pays principle is already established, notably in the field of certification. EASA has a cost accounting system in place which allows for separation of user and budget financed activities. There is thus no risk of double charging within EASA.

Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 transferred a number of tasks concerning ATM/ANS rule-making, safety analysis and oversight by law from EUROCONTROL to EASA. While a number of activities were in principle discontinued by EUROCONTROL, including ATM audits and rulemaking, a number of areas continue to exist where activities between EASA and EUROCONTROL are duplicated or where there is a potential for present or future duplication (see table below). These areas include rulemaking, occurrence reporting and analysis, safety review and actions, reporting on implementation of SES regulation and consultation. Furthermore, the user charges were not transferred, and thus at EASA these tasks are now de facto financed from the general EU budget. It is proposed to correct this and to return to a user-pays environment for all ATM/ANS related activity.

The objective of this measure is to mirror with respect to EASA the solution normally used at the Member State and EUROCONTROL level, whereby the relevant ATM/ANS authority tasks are financed by air navigation charges based on the user pays principle. The user pays principle is enshrined in Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 on the Single European Sky.

The analysis of the content of the differences indicated in EFOD by the 23 Member States (322 items) revealed, that EASA’s recommendation was followed in only 29.19% of cases, with significantly higher results in case of Annex 19. The cases when the recommendations were not followed include mostly no information provided, outdated references to European rules (JARs or EU-OPS) or to national rules. Three Member States followed the EASA CCs almost to the letter. The results are presented in the table below.

The annexes were chosen based on their scope (Annexes 1 and 6) and existence of differences in the EASA CCs (which excluded Annexes 16 and 18). Annex 19 was chosen due to its recent publication and the fact that the CCs for this Annex were the first ones to be shared with Member States in 2014. The structure of Annex 8 (repeated numbering of SARPs in each of its parts) made it impossible to identify particular entries without access to the full CCs of each state. Annex 14 was not chosen because the corresponding implementing rules (Regulation (EC) No 139/2014) are not yet applicable. The Member States taken into account are those that indicated any differences against the SARPs of the three above-mentioned annexes.

The study was based on a sample of 14 ICAO standards for which EASA indicated category C difference ('less protective' or 'not implemented') from Annexes 1, 6 and 19. The information analysed came from 23 Member States.

The added value of this activity is a common statement on compliance and differences of EU safety rules with ICAO SARPs, helping the Member States to fulfil their obligations towards ICAO in a uniform manner. The material prepared by EASA is based purely on EU rules and does not consider the actual implementation by the Member States including possible derogations, exemptions and alternative means of compliance.

2)To provide the Member States and other interested countries, members of the PANEP and EASA International Cooperation Forum, with ready-made material to be used in the CCs they must submit to ICAO as required in their Memorandums of Understanding on Continuous Monitoring Activities;

1)To provide ICAO with information required for the continuous monitoring of EASA by ICAO in accordance with the EASA-ICAO Working Arrangement on Continuous Monitoring Activities of 30 July 2014;

EASA developed Compliance Checklists (CCs) for a number of Annexes to the Chicago Convention. By November 2014 EASA drafted and consulted with the Member States the CCs for Annexes 1, 6 Part I, 6 Part III (CAT only), 8, 14 Volume I, 16, 18 and 19. This covers around 31% of entries in the ICAO Electronic Filing of Differences (EFOD) database (there are 10 800 items in the EFOD in total). Some of those checklists are now being revised with a view to the last ICAO amendments to the annexes in question. In addition new CCs for Annex 6 Part II and for Annex 10 are being developed. The purpose of this activity is two-fold:

In 2010 the EU has adopted a new Regulation on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation. This Regulation strengthened the accident investigation function in the EU, notably by establishing the European Network of Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authorities (ENCASIA), clarifying the role of EASA in safety investigations, transposing ICAO Annex 13 requirements concerning safety recommendations and establishing an EU database of safety recommendations, better protecting the rights of the victims of aviation accidents and their families, and finally affording a higher level of protection to safety information collected during the investigations.

Despite aviation safety being currently at record high levels, accident investigation remains the ultimate safety net of the EU aviation safety system, which will step in to correct deficiencies once all the other safety barriers have failed. In addition to investigating the causes of aviation accidents and serious incidents, safety investigation authorities contribute to the improvement of the system by conducting safety studies and participating in analysis of safety information in the European Central Repository.

In view of the global nature of the civil aviation sector, international cooperation is essential to maintain network safety, ensure fulfilment of EU Member States' obligations under the Chicago Convention, reduce redundant regulatory oversight and promote EU views regarding civil aviation safety standards and rules throughout the world. There are a number of tools that the EU uses in this respect: (a) Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements, (b) Working Arrangements; (c) Technical cooperation projects, and (d) cooperation with ICAO.

The EU has also published the European Aviation Safety Programme, which describes the functioning of the EU aviation safety system, and regularly releases new editions of the European Aviation Safety Plan, which identifies the main risk areas and reports on the status of implementation actions which have been identified as the best mitigations for the identified risks. In 2014, a fourth edition of the European Aviation Safety Plan has been issued.

The recently adopted EU Regulation on reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences, currently in transition towards implementation, is expected to improve the capabilities of the industry, the Member States and the EU to draw safety lessons from the analysis of occurrences, notably by mandating the collection and analysis of occurrences to determine necessary mitigation actions. It also strengthens the exchange of information between the Member States and with EASA and ensures that the Commission, EASA and Member States collaborate through a network of analysts with the view to support the adoption of the European Aviation Safety Plan.

With the gradual transition towards safety management and performance based approaches in aviation safety regulation and oversight, the role of safety analysis and promotion are becoming increasingly important functions of the EU aviation safety system.

When it comes to enforcement competences of EASA, these are limited to the actions that the Agency can take as a competent authority with respect to organisations, devices or products that it certifies. This effectively means that the enforcement competences of EASA are limited to revoking, suspending or limiting the certificate that it has issued, or taking an action by means of an Airworthiness Directive when the Agency has identified that an unsafe condition exists with respect to a product that it has certified. When a "more nuanced, flexible and graduated response to a breach of the rules, compared to the withdrawal of a certificate" is warranted, the Agency has the possibility of recommending to the European Commission the imposition of a financial fine or a periodic penalty payment. However, under the current legal framework it is the responsibility of the European Commission to actually impose such a fine or penalty payment.

When it comes to enforcement, the EU Member States are primarily responsible for taking action in case of identified non-conformities or violations of EU legislation. In particular, Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 obliges the Member States to "lay down penalties for infringement of this regulation and its implementing rules". However, similarly to the EU oversight mechanisms, the enforcement at national level is supplemented by enforcement mechanisms which exist at the EU level, and which can be activated in case the national system does not take appropriate corrective measures in a timely manner. It is the primary responsibility of the European Commission, as the 'Guardian of the Treaties' to activate the EU level enforcement mechanisms, which can take two main forms: (1) an infringement against a non-compliant EU Member State taken under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), or (2) initiation of the procedure envisaged under Article 11 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 with a view to determining if a certificate issued by an EU Member State effectively complies with the provision of that regulation and its implementing rules.

The primary oversight mechanism that the EU uses to monitor the implementation of aviation safety legislation is the system of standardisation inspections and other monitoring activities which are performed by EASA on a mandatory and continuous basis, and through which the Agency assists the European Commission, using a risk based methodology, in controlling the application and uniform implementation by competent authorities of the EU Member States of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules. The system of EASA standardisation inspections and other monitoring activities, together with the common regulatory framework addressed under point (2) is an enabler of the automatic recognition of certificates, as it gives confidence to all the EU Member States that the level of implementation of EU safety requirements which is necessary to recognise certificates as provided for under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 is achieved.

The EU aviation safety system has own oversight mechanisms which complement those available in EU Member States. The primary objective of the EU level oversight mechanisms is to ensure a uniform level of implementation of the common safety requirements and facilitate the sharing of best practices between the EU Member States.

The EASA certification process represents a 'one-stop-shop' for the aeronautical industry: only one technical investigation is conducted and one certificate issued at the end of this process which is automatically valid in all EU Member States and other countries which have been associated with the EU aviation safety system on the basis of international agreements. This is a difference with the previous Joint Aviation Authorities system, where each authority had to still issue a separate certificate on the basis of the technical investigation / recommendation, and where the recommended certification basis could still be modified at the national level.

The second characteristic feature of the EU civil aviation system is centralisation of certification tasks, where it has been found by the EU legislator that such centralisation would bring additional efficiency effects compared to national based certification, or if it is justified by need for uniformity of action vis-a-vis third countries. In such cases it is EASA, and not the National Aviation Authorities, which is a competent authority for the initial approval and continuing oversight of an organisation, device or an aeronautical product. By the end of 2014 the centralisation of certification tasks will have been used in the areas of: approval of design of aeronautical products, parts and appliances, third country organisations and operators, and organisations providing pan-European air navigation services. Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 also allows EU Member States to delegate to EASA certain certification tasks on a voluntary basis. Such voluntary delegations are currently possible in the domain of production and approval of Flight Simulation Training Devices. The most notable practical example of the use of such voluntary delegations is the Airbus consortium which holds a single production organisation approval from EASA and which covers the facilities of Airbus both in the EU and abroad (e.g. the A320 Final Assembly Line in Tianjin, China).

Another major benefit of the EU regulatory system is the principle of automatic certificate acceptance which is established by Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, and which requires the EU Member States to recognise "without further technical requirements or evaluation" certificates which were issued in accordance with this Regulation. This is a significant difference compared with the former Joint Aviation Authorities system which could only issue recommendations for certificate acceptance which in practice led to a patchwork of recognition arrangements between the Member States. The precondition for this automatic recognition of certificates is the existence of the common regulatory framework as presented under point (2).

The above hierarchy of regulatory material was introduced to enable technical standards and best practices to be adapted quickly in view of operational experience and rapid scientific progress which characterises the aviation sector. A major benefit that the EU system has brought about when compared with the former Joint Aviation Authorities is that currently the safety requirements are legally binding and directly applicable in all EU Member States, while under the Joint Aviation Authorities rules needed transposition into the national legal orders of the Member States, and national variants were possible, which made acceptance of certificates more complex.

-Proposals for binding measures of general applicability, i.e. amendments to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and proposals for Implementing Rules thereto are made by the European Commission on the basis of EASA technical Opinions. Regulations of the European Parliament and the Council are adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Implementing Rules, which are Commission Regulations, are adopted by the College.

Safety rules are currently developed primarily under Pillar I above, following a rulemaking process which is defined in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. In this respect, the responsibilities are shared between the European Commission and EASA depending on the type of the regulatory material being developed:

The principal objective of the Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 is to "establish and maintain a high uniform level civil aviation safety in Europe." One of the means to ensure this objective is "the preparation, adoption and uniform application of all necessary acts." Harmonised and adequate rules are not only one of the safety barriers, but in the case of the EU with respect to the creation of an internal market are also essential for a level playing field for the industry, facilitating free movement of goods, persons and services, and promoting cost-efficiency in the regulatory and certification processes.

-Pillar III: This pillar contains aviation safety rules which are developed neither under the SES framework regulations, nor under Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Three main areas can be distinguished in this respect: Air Accident investigations; the reporting analysis and follow-up of occurrences; and finally the EU list of airlines subject to an operating ban or restriction.

-Pillar II: In 2009, Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 extended the competences of EASA to safety aspects of air traffic management/air navigation services. Whilst this resulted in the incorporation of various related technical elements into Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, the corresponding changes to the SES founding regulations were not completed simultaneously. The reason for this approach was that the legislator wanted to avoid a risk of regulatory gaps during the transition from the SES to the EASA framework. However this also caused an overlap between the SES founding regulations and Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, and more generally a mismatch between the approach used for all other sectors of aviation (airworthiness, crew licensing, air operations etc.) in the EASA framework and air traffic management/air navigation services. The 2012 SES II+ initiative launched by the European Commission has as its objective to "eradicate the overlap between SES and EASA regulations", and work is ongoing on bringing all the safety relevant legislation related to air traffic management/ air navigation services under Pillar I. It is therefore ultimately envisaged that Pillars I and II will be merged, following the adoption of the relevant provisions of the SES II+ package.

-Pillar I: Currently the majority of the aviation safety rules are developed, adopted and maintained in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, which, following its initial adoption in 2002, has been subsequently extended twice to cover all the principal domains of the aviation safety chain. The essential requirements which are set out in the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 are supplemented with detailed Implementing Regulations, which in turn are accompanied by Certification Specifications, Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material developed by EASA. It is a general policy of the EU to regulate aviation safety under Pillar I. In this respect a number of safety rules which were originally developed before the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, such as the former SAFA Directive or the EU-OPS Regulation, have been subsequently transformed into Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.

The second feature of the current EU regulatory system is that not all the safety related rules are developed and maintained following the same process. In this respect three main pillars can be distinguished:

At present aviation safety is largely regulated at the EU level. The EU Member States continue to regulate only in areas which have been traditionally excluded from the EU competence, such as state aviation (military, police etc.), or where in view of the subsidiarity principle the legislator has decided that the EU regulatory involvement would not bring much added value (e.g. small general aviation aerodromes, amateur-built or historic aircraft).

Although part of a separate UN system, ICAO influences the implementation of the EU aviation safety system in a number of ways. First of all by defining minimum requirements, which are set out in the 19 technical Annexes (majority of them dealing with aviation safety) to the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Whilst all the EU Member States are parties to the Chicago Convention and are thus responsible under international law for its implementation, the EU cannot be a party to it, and can influence the rulemaking ICAO machinery only indirectly. This reliance on ICAO is especially visible in the area of environmental protection where the ICAO requirements apply in the EU by reference. ICAO also monitors compliance of EU Member States with minimum requirements of the Chicago Convention. Where the EU Member States have delegated executive tasks to EASA, the Agency is also subject to monitoring by ICAO. Until 2014 ICAO has performed two audits of EASA. Finally ICAO is responsible for the global planning of aviation safety improvements and coordinated world-wide deployment of new technologies, in particular in the air traffic management domain.

EUROCONTROL is an intergovernmental organisation which was originally established in 1960 with the intention of being a provider of air traffic management/air navigation services in the entire upper airspace of its six initial Member States. However, the majority of the European States were not prepared to give up as much sovereignty over their own airspace as EUROCONTROL would have needed to perform these functions and thus its focus shifted from integration to cooperation. Currently EUROCONTROL is active in areas such as SESAR related R&D, support to States in implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative, support to the EU in rule drafting and oversight, and most visibly it has been nominated to host both the EU Performance Review Body and the Network Manager, where it provides vital EU functions. It is widely acknowledged that the current 1997 revised EUROCONTROL Convention - which is not in force - is outdated and needs modernisation in line with the organisation's current and future roles in support of the SES initiative and increasingly focusing on operational tasks through the Network Manager, support to SESAR deployment and the performance scheme. However this modernisation is difficult to achieve due to the intergovernmental status of EUROCONTROL and the fact that its membership goes beyond the EU borders.

EASA is a body of the EU with legal personality which was originally established in 2002 on the basis of a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council. Its mandate was initially limited to airworthiness and environmental certification of aeronautical products, parts and appliances, but was subsequently extended to other domains of the aviation safety chain (in 2008 Air Operations and Aircrew; in 2009 to air traffic management/air navigation services and aerodromes). EASA is one of the few EU agencies which have not only advisory and monitoring role, but which have been doted also with executive competences. In particular EASA has been empowered by its Basic Regulation to conduct certification tasks in the area of aircraft design approval, certification of organisations located in the territories of non-EU countries and approval of organisations which provide pan-European Air Traffic Management services. In addition to its certification competences, EASA assists the European Commission in the development the EU aviation safety acquis and the monitoring of its correct implementation. It has also the competence to adopt soft law measures, that is: Guidance Material, Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance. EASA supports the European Commission and EU Member States in international cooperation with non-EU countries and ICAO, and has the competence to conclude technical working arrangements with foreign aviation authorities.

The European Commission has five main functions in the implementation of the EU aviation safety system. The first function is to present proposals for aviation safety regulations, which are developed, depending on whether the legal basis of the envisaged rule stems from Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or not, either on the basis of a technical Opinion from EASA or on the Commission's own initiative. The second function is to monitor the correct implementation of the EU aviation safety acquis, and where the European Commission relies on EASA standardisation inspections and other monitoring activities. Thirdly, the European Commission has an enforcement role, which can take a form of an infringement action against an EU Member State or a financial penalty payment against a holder of a certificate issued by EASA. The fourth function is to negotiate, with technical assistance of EASA, Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements with non-EU countries. Finally the European Commission has an overall responsibility for the implementation of the EU regulation establishing a list of air carriers subject to an operating ban or restriction.

Under the EU institutional system, and in particular Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) which sets out the principle of subsidiarity, the implementation of EU law is primarily the responsibility of the EU Member States. This is the case also for aviation safety where, unless it has been decided by the EU legislator that a certain function can be better performed - by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action - at the EU level, EU Member States are, per default, responsible for the initial certification and continuing oversight of airlines, pilot schools and other types of organisations and personnel performing aviation activities. EU Member States are also primarily responsible for enforcing EU aviation safety legislation, in particular by revoking, suspending or limiting certificates, as well as laying down administrative penalties for breaches of EU aviation safety legislation.

(l)New funding mechanisms based on the user-pays principle should be explored/made available, especially when the conditions change (e.g. remit expansion), but without generating new costs for the airlines.

(g)Have due regard to the competitiveness of the European industry, and avoid putting undue regulatory burden on it, as well as reviewing its role in the rulemaking process;

(c)Avoid potential overregulation and promote performance and risk-based regulations where appropriate. The principles of proportionality and subsidiarity need to be respected;

(b)Extension of the remit to safety aspects in the field of ground handling, security (for oversight activities), environment (for product-related aspects), and RPAS;

10)The Management Board should acknowledge the need for early planning to develop the present System into a genuine European Aviation Safety System through the convergence of the various existing system actors towards a single entity, one integrated Agency, within the EU institutional architecture.

9)The Management Board should recognise and accept that the current EASA System is not sustainable in the medium to long term.

8)To assist in securing stable and predictable funding of the Agency, new sources of funding should be explored with a stronger emphasis on the application of the user pays approach. One source that should be explored is the possibility of drawing on air navigation en route charges.

7)The European Aviation Safety Plan should be embedded in the Basic Regulation (legally binding the Agency and Member States) and, as a rule, Agency proposals should emanate from this Plan.

6)A small Executive Board should be created and responsibility delegated to it by the Management Board, empowered to enable it to do this. Amendment of the Basic Regulation would be required.

5)A method should be found of tapping into and using the pool of expertise available in the European manufacturing industry. In addition, consideration should be given to delegating self-oversight arrangements to the industry on the basis of clear legal conditions.

4)The Management Board should initiate a study designed to clarify institutional roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in the EASA System. The outcome of the study should lead to a common understanding – pending any regulatory changes that may be required – amongst the EASA System actors on their institutional boundaries, responsibilities and roles. This understanding would be expressed in an agreed document.

3)Should Member States have insufficient resources to perform their oversight activities the Panel recommends a System-wide solution, which may be voluntary in nature but may in some cases need to be mandatory. For the voluntary solution the Agency should, by amending the Basic Regulation, be authorised to execute the national oversight duties for those Member States that wish to transfer their duties to the Agency. Where the voluntary solution is not appropriate or practical for whatever reason but the oversight responsibilities are not being or cannot be performed, a mandatory solution, requiring amendment of the Basic Regulation is recommended. The Agency should be mandated to identify and report to the Commission those States/National Aviation Authorities failing in their oversight obligations and if a method to resolve the problem (whether voluntary or mandatory) is not availed of by those States, consideration should be given to employing whatever measures are available to the Commission/Agency to resolve the issue.

2)The Agency should be mandated for the safety aspects of EU security measures as well as the safety aspects of ground handling, commercial space transport and remotely piloted aircraft.

1)The work of establishing a risk-based EU Safety Management System should be prioritised and completed urgently. It should extend to all areas in the Agency’s remit and be mandatory involving changes to the Basic Regulation. Data collection and exchange should be accorded priority and action to implement a just culture regime across the EU System should be stepped up. Tools for the analysis of data and shared information should be enhanced as a matter of urgency.

While the Panel has for the Management Board’s convenience listed below its main recommendations, the Panel cannot emphasize too strongly the need for the Board to consider the totality of this report as the source of its advice to the Management Board. To concentrate only on these main recommendations would, in the Panel’s view, not do justice to its work, nor would it enable the Management Board to derive full value from the Article 62 evaluation exercise.

The travelling public as potential victim of aviation accidents and incidents is affected by the ability of the regulatory system to identify and mitigate safety risks. Indirectly, their choices as consumers are influenced by the competitiveness of the European aviation sector.

Employees in the aviation sector are also affected by changes to the current legislation such as risk and performance based elements or cooperative oversight, which require additional training to develop the necessary competences. Aircrew is particularly concerned by certain airline employment practices and other innovative business models.

Industry players (such as manufacturers, airlines, maintenance and training organisations including their staff) as well as private airspace users are affected as addressees of aviation safety legislation who have to handle its complexity, have to compete on a global market and are hindered in developing or using new technologies.

National Aviation Authorities and their staff, which are primarily responsible for the implementation of the EU aviation safety legislation, including initial approval and continuing oversight of persons, organisations and services subject to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules, are affected by changes to the current legislation such as risk and performance based elements or cooperative oversight. The EU is concerned in its role as safety regulator and EASA in particular in its rule making and standardisation tasks. Both EU and Member States are responsible for ensuring a high and uniform level of safety and thus addressing safety risks.

The stakeholders affected by the problems and their drivers outlined in Section 2 of the impact assessment are persons and organisations involved in the civil aviation safety system at national and/or EU level.

Amongst some other issues brought by the respondents to the attention of the Commission were:

Overall, there is almost unanimity amongst the micro and SME enterprises which responded to the questionnaire, that the existing safety regulation is too detailed and that the existing safety levels could be maintained with lower compliance cost.

 Regulations are very difficult to implement by companies where a single individual performs roles which in an airline or a big manufacturer are responsibility of multiple departments;

The present improvements are focused on non-commercial aviation (i.e. general aviation), and not sufficient attention is being given to more proportionate regulation for commercial activities of SMEs;

The present regulatory system puts excessive requirements on SMEs compared to achieved safety benefits. In particular it is felt by many contributors that regulations are too complex and beyond the ability of many SMEs to comprehend and be abreast with the constant changes;

The on-line survey contained a section dedicated to SMEs, and a number of contributors commented on this issue. The organisations which explicitly commented on the impact of the present regulatory system on SMEs highlighted the following:

The majority of the organisations (58%) would like to see the safety oversight and certification tasks executed by national authorities on behalf of EASA in a more harmonised manner. The majority of the respondent National Aviation Authorities oppose to such a proposition.

There is a clear agreement between all the categories of respondents that national authorities should have more options of outsourcing and pooling tasks amongst each other and with EASA.

Views are split on whether some of the responsibilities should be moved from the European Commission to EASA. On the other hand respondents are clearly against moving responsibilities from EASA back to the European Commission.

Where proposals were made by the respondents that certain activities be regulated at the national level instead of EU level, that primarily concerned light and recreational aviation. The large manufacturing industry on the other hand would like to see the EASA regulatory remit extended. In those cases were respondents agreed that certain tasks should be moved from national authorities to EASA this was justified by reasons of harmonisation and standardisation. At the same time the industry recognised in their submissions the value of local proximity that the presence of national authorities gives.

Views are almost equally split on whether certain responsibilities should be moved from EASA back to the national authorities. Similarly there are split views whether certain responsibilities should be moved from national authorities to EASA, but with the majority of the respondent National Aviation Authorities clearly against such a proposition.

There is a very strong agreement between also the categories of respondents that more responsibility for safety should be given to the operators themselves, and that in the case of general aviation, certain regulatory tasks could be entrusted to specialised authorised private organisations, such as sport aviation associations.

There is a strong disagreement amongst respondent organisations (63%) and National Aviation Authorities in particular (88%) with the proposition to centralise the responsibilities of national authorities at EASA.

With respect to the governance, the majority of the respondent National Aviation Authorities (77%) would like to keep the current division of responsibilities between the EU and national level. On the other hand 48% of all the respondent organisations and 70% of individual respondents would like the allocation of responsibilities to be revisited.

Finally there is a large degree of consensus that the lowest need for public authority involvement is justified in case of persons flying for recreational purposes such as parachutists, and private pilots;

A moderate level of protection (through authority involvement), should be afforded, according to respondents, to persons on the ground involved in aviation activities (such as airport workers), and persons working in the air (such as aerial photography).

According to the respondents, a high to moderate level of protection (through authority involvement), should be afforded to persons transported by air for work related reasons, and employed as members of air crew.

The respondent organisations in general and National Aviation Authorities in particular also agree that a high level of protection (through authority involvement) should be given to persons on the ground not involved in aviation activities. This view is however not shared by the responded individuals.

There is an agreement between all the categories of respondents that the highest level of public authority involvement is necessary in case of airline passengers;

The results of the responses to question related to the need for public authority involvement in protecting the citizens can be summarised as follows:

2.Smaller organisations and General Aviation community in particular expressed strong concerns about the added value of the SMS, compared to the costs required for implementation;

There were also two themes clearly present in the replies of respondents with respect to the SMS implementation:

Views were however more split on the resource savings offered by SMS and on the possibility to rely less on prescriptive safety rules as a result of SMS implementation.

There is a strong agreement between all categories of respondents that SMS allows better prevention of accidents and further improvement of aviation safety. Respondents are also very much in agreement with the statement that SMS should allow the industry to increasingly manage its own safety.

Finally, the majority of the respondents in each of the categories disagree with a statement that implementation of a risk based approach could create uncertainty for operators and employees, provided that such a new approach is well implemented.

The majority of the respondents in each of the categories (55% National Aviation Authorities; 63% all organisations, 52% individuals) believe that implementation of a risk based approach creates additional costs and administrative burdens stemming from the need to put in place reliable data collection and risk monitoring systems. There is however also roughly a one-third of respondents in each of the categories, which believe that this not the case.

The majority of respondents in all categories agree that implementation of a risk based approach requires additional expertise in gathering and interpreting risk information, at the level of both the regulated entity and of the regulator. The majority of the respondent National Aviation Authorities (55%) and of the organisations in general (56%) believe that this new method can be implemented without risks of oversight gaps. However one-third of the respondents in each of the categories believe that such risks of oversight gaps do exist.

When it comes to identifying befits of a risk based approach, there has been a large degree of agreement amongst all the categories of respondents with the statements made by the Commission. However the majority of the respondent National Aviation Authorities (55%) and nearly a third of all respondent organisations (30%) do not agree that a risk based approach allows reducing enforcement costs for authorities.

A number of respondents from the General Aviation community, while supporting a transition to more proportionate, performance and risk based regulatory framework, argued that in the first place there is a need to reassess whether in some domains there is a need for regulation at all.

While the respondents identified a number of shortcomings of prescriptive regulations, many of them felt that there is a place for both prescriptive and performance based regulations. For many of the respondents the added value of prescriptive rules is the knowledge about safety risks - often stemming from accidents - which prescriptive rules contain. Prescriptive rules are also felt more appropriate for organisations which have not reached maturity which allows them to manage safety through own risks assessments.

All the categories of respondents have similarly agreed with the statements made by the Commission with respect to the shortcomings of prescriptive regulations, which are perceived as hampering innovation, costly and burdensome.

It was also highlighted in many of the contributions that EU is overly relying on regulation and that other means should be added to the EU's safety management 'tool-box' including safety promotion and support for training and implementation.

A thread that was present in many of the contributions is that while the prescriptive safety rules have helped to achieve the present high level of safety in Europe, the most important factors are commitment and professionalism of people and organisations, and that following the rule alone does not guarantee safety.

The respondents have largely agreed with the Commission as to the benefits provided by the prescriptive regulations (clear guidance, legal certainty and straightforward compliance checking). However, views were split on whether the prescriptive regulations actually ensure a high level of safety, with 48% of all organisations and 50% of individuals disagreeing with such a statement.

Air navigation service providers and other stakeholders from the air traffic management sector advocated that EASA should be the only body in the EU responsible for setting safety requirements.

With respect to the future shape of the regulatory system, a large number of industry and National Aviation Authorities contributions suggested that rules should focus more on the safety objectives rather than prescribing in detailed the method of compliance, which should be up to the operators to choose.

The improvement of the ability of the system to identify and mitigate safety risks has been also rated as a particularly important objective, especially by the respondent organisations and National Aviation Authorities more specifically.

Overall the respondents have agreed with the main objectives as suggested by the Commission. In particular there was almost a unanimous agreement between all the categories of respondents that the present regulatory system should be made more proportional and less costly.

Safety targets should be set with respect to each domain of aviation and based on different acceptable levels of safety performance;

Setting an overall safety target is too vague and could be at best considered as an aspirational objective. Targets should be set individually at the level of the organisation which has the most practical overview of the situation;

Views were split with respect to the need to have an EU target for aviation safety. The largest proportion of the respondents was of the view that as a minimum the EU should be able to freeze the current rate of fatal accidents.

Many of the General Aviation organisations were of the opinion that more responsibility should be devolved from the authorities to competent users' organisations and individuals;

A number of organisations suggested that sport and recreational aviation, especially with balloons and gliders, could be better regulated at the national than EU level. There were however submissions, suggesting that instead of reverting back to national approaches, the EU regulatory system for light aviation should be improved, and/or a choice given to the operators / manufacturers whether they would like to be under the EU or national system;

Operation in special local environments, such as mountainous regions, should be allowed on the basis of national rules or exemptions from common EU standards;

As a matter of principle, EU regulation is justified where it is necessary to ensure a level playing field on the internal market, or where the risks to be addressed concern more than one Member State;

In the context of aviation safety regulation, the following main trends emerge from the contributions as regards subsidiarity of EU action:

While the need for coordination in representing EU interests abroad is widely recognised, many contributors believe that this should not be interpreted as speaking with 'single voice', and that 'multiple voices signing from the same hymn-sheet' would be more effective;

While the airline representatives underline the need for as close alignment with ICAO Standards And Recommended Practices as possible, the air navigation service providers caution about blindly following the ICAO Annexes which may be sometimes outdated or not adapted for the EU operational environment;

Many industry contributors see a need for close cooperation with the US, which at the same time is seen as a competitor;

The manufacturing industry stresses the need for more reliance on Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements to reduce redundant certifications and oversight. The manufacturing industry would also like to see EASA more present in the key markets and in ICAO, in order to promote the EU way of thinking on aviation safety and facilitate the export of aeronautical products;

Views were almost equally split on whether the EU is successful in influencing international standards at ICAO level, with 38% of responding organisations agreeing that Europe is successful in this respect, 33% that not successful and 26% not having opinion at all. When it comes to the evaluation of EU's success in promoting the business interests overseas, and in supporting foreign countries in raising their safety levels, nearly half of the respondent organisations were not able to give an opinion. Respondent National Aviation Authorities were largely satisfied with the level of influence the EU has at the international level.

The majority of the respondent National Aviation Authorities (55%) believe that not only safety information is not sufficiently shared between the authorities but also that the authorities may not always be able to exercise oversight of air operator certificates due to remote or complex characteristics of the operation.

While the majority of the respondent organisations (53%) believe that the oversight authorities do not sufficiently share safety relevant information, they were not able to give a clear opinion whether the complexity or geographical remoteness of the operation hampers the ability of oversight of air operator certificates by national authorities.

Inconsistencies between requirements for airborne and ground-based components of the air traffic management system. Especially many air navigation service providers believe that the risk of such inconsistencies is big for the SESAR deployment phase.

Some of the most common examples of inconsistencies and gaps pointed out by the respondents include:

A clear majority of the respondent organisations (73%) pointed out that there are gaps, overlaps or contradictions between the different domains of aviation safety legislation. Similarly there was a clear majority of respondent organisations (68%) which believe that there are gaps, overlaps, contradictions, or competing requirements between safety rules and other domains of aviation legislation. These views were shared by the respondent National Aviation Authorities and individual respondents.

The aeronautical manufacturing industry has stressed the need for EASA to have adequate resources to ensure efficient certification of the new aeronautical products that are expected to be developed in the coming years.

Many contributions underlined the need for authorities to have first-hand experience and expertise deriving directly from the industry in order to be in touch with the realities of the market, understand changes in operational practices and be up to date with the latest technologies. The General Aviation community in particular believes that EASA lacks understanding of their sector.

A point made by a number of organisations with regard to differing capacities of the authorities was that this difference largely stems from the fact that authorities do have differing volumes of aviation activity under their responsibility, and that it would be unrealistic to expect all the authorities to be at the same level. At the same time one of the main concerns of the industry is that the differing capabilities of the national authorities can result in a lack of playing field on the market.

There is quite a clear majority amongst the respondents that some national aviation authorities do not have sufficient human or financial resources to carry out their safety oversight tasks. Over half of the respondent National Aviation Authorities share this view (55%). On the other hand nearly the majority of the respondent organisations (46%) in general, and most of the respondent National Aviation Authorities (77%) believe that EASA has sufficient financial and human resources.

There is a large agreement between all groups of respondents that the capabilities of national aviation authorities to perform oversight differ increasingly. At the same time there is no clear position amongst respondents whether there are potential safety risks because oversight obligations are not always complied with.

Concerning security issues, the views between organisations were rather split, with some of the contributors advocating a more integrated approach, with safety and security regulated together, while other contributors advised caution arguing that the current arrangements for security are appropriate and that any changes could have negative consequences. Those stakeholders which were in favour of including security aspects within the scope of Regulation (EU) 216/2008, would like them to be limited to technical issues such as cyber-security or aircraft design.

Some of the organisations, especially from the General Aviation sector, suggested that the scope of Annex II to Regulation 216/2008 should be extended, and that leisure and sport aviation would be better regulated at the national level;

Many of the organisations suggested that it should be possible for National Aviation Authorities and EASA to certify state aviation activities and aircraft (such as used by police or firefighters), according to civil rules;

Airports and transport workers suggest the inclusion of the ground-handling services into the scope of EU regulation. The air operators which submitted contributions and their representatives were also in favour of addressing ground-handling by the present initiative. The views amongst authorities on this issue were divided;

As regards other aspects related to potential changes in the scope of the EU rules, following main trends can be observed in the contributions received from organisations and National Aviation Authorities:

When it comes to multinational operations, outsourcing/leasing, and dual-use certification, the respondent organisations in general and National Aviation Authorities in particular tend to lean towards a need for a regulatory action. There is a large percentage of individuals which do not have an opinion on these rather specialised issues.

There is a very clear agreement amongst all the categories of respondents that the current legislative framework needs to be adjusted / extended to accommodate RPAS. When it comes to Commercial Space Transport, the majority of the organisations (60%) were not able to express an opinion, while 77% of respondent National Aviation Authorities see a need for a regulatory action in this respect (either at EU or ICAO level).

There are split views amongst respondents as to the EU international leadership on aviation safety. While 41% of organisations believe that EU lacks international leadership, 37% disagree with such a statement, and 21% have no opinion at all. The opinions of the National Aviation Authorities are split half-half.

57% of organisations responded that there are shortcomings in the way Member States carry out oversight. 49% of the respondent organisations are also of the view that there are shortcomings in the way EASA carriers out oversight. When it comes to individuals, 67% of the respondents identified shortcomings in the national authority oversight, and 60% in EASA oversight. Most of the National Aviation Authorities which responded do not see shortcomings in national and EASA oversight.

The division of responsibilities between National Aviation Authorities and EASA are clear for the Member States. On the other hand for 56% of the respondent organisations, the division of the respective roles and responsibilities of National Aviation Authorities and EASA are not clear. When it comes to individuals, 81% of them responded that the roles and responsibilities of National Aviation Authorities and EASA are not clear.

With respect to the new business models, some National Aviation Authorities and industry organisations suggested that rather than trying to restrict them, the rules should be broad enough to safely accommodate them. It was also felt by some National Aviation Authorities that the new business models may put additional strain on oversight resources of competent authorities.

At the same time, the representatives of the aviation employees expressed their concerns about the possible negative impact of new business models on aviation safety and working conditions.

The large majority of all categories of respondents agree that the current system lack the ability to accommodate new technologies and new business models. As far as technologies are concerned, RPAS has been mentioned as an example by many of the organisations and National Aviation Authorities.

While a clear majority of National Aviation Authorities (77%) and of