WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Official approval of fire-fighting helicopters

In Spain, helicopters from former Eastern European army stocks are being used to put out forest fires, and the contracts are being extended to non-authorised uses such as reconnoitring, first aid, life-saving and transporting injured persons. The use of these helicopters, which are banned in the rest of the European Union because they are considered unsafe, was allowed in Spain on condition that their use was merely temporary, although it has been going on since it began in 1989. The crews of these helicopters (many of them foreign workers) work interminably long hours and their salary conditions fall far short of what is laid down in Spanish law. The use of these inadequate machines, and the poor working conditions of their crews mean that between 1990 and 1997, the accident rate has been 17,5 accidents per 100 flying hours; worse still, most of these accidents have not been investigated.

Having regard to the provisions of:

- Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91(1) on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation,

- the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) of the Joint Aviation Authorities,

- Directive 89/655/EEC(2) concerning the minimum health and safety requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work, Article 3(1) whereof stipulates that the employer shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the work equipment made available to workers (mldr) is suitable for the work to be carried out (mldr) and may be used by workers without impairment to their safety or health,

- Directive 94/56/EC(3) establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents, which lays down that the causes of accidents must be investigated within one year,

does the Commission not believe that given the increasing number of accidents, Community legislation is required on the authorisation of fire-fighting helicopters, in order to prevent Member States using machines which should have been disqualified on safety grounds?

Does the Commission believe that the case described above comes under the provisions of Directive 89/655/EEC?

What measures does the Commission intend to take in this instance with regard to the clear infringement of Directive 94/56/EC, given that the accidents which have taken place have not been investigated?

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4.

(2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 13.

(3) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 14.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3487/00, E-3488/00 and E-3489/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2001)

The fight against forest fires, which every year threatens several regions in Spain, requires the use of many helicopters in order to put fires out and to carry the fire fighters themselves. Currently all Spanish public administrations responsible for these tasks are using around 100 helicopters during the annual campaign to prevent and fight forest fires. In order to do so they have concluded contracts with private helicopter operators, applying the rules governing the letting of public contracts covered by the provisions of the Royal Decree No 2/200 of 16 June 2000.

In the main these helicopters are registered in Spain. However, the Spanish fleet contains a limited number of craft and does not contain certain specialist types of craft. It can therefore not meet every need. Thus the companies employed by the public administration to fight fires temporarily hire civil helicopters registered in other Member States. The helicopters are registered (either) in other Member States of the European Community (Germany, Sweden) or in non member countries (Chile, the United States, Russia, Poland, etc.). They are hired either without a crew (dry lease) or with a crew (wet lease).

So far the Community has not adopted common rules which apply to the technical operation of helicopters. It is thus up to each Member State to take appropriate action to ensure that airborne operations are safe, including special operations such as forest-fire fighting. According to the information available to the Commission it would seem that that is indeed the case in Spain. Only companies holding an air operator's certificate (AOC) certifying their fitness to perform fire-fighting tasks are contracted to do such work. Where they charter helicopters registered in other states there is a prior inspection by the Directorate General for Aviation in order to check, as required by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on the licensing of air carriers(1) that they display a level of safety equivalent to that required to carry out this type of operation using helicopters registered in Spain.

When proposing harmonised technical specifications for commercial operations using aircraft(2), the Commission recently informed the Council and Parliament of its intention to extend Community law in order also to cover the safety aspects of helicopter operations which will involve, inter alia, forest-fire fighting, assistance, and the rescue and transport of casualties.

Moreover, the Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that Directive 94/565/EEC(3) establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents, was transposed into Spanish law by Royal Decree 389/1998 of 13 May 1998, thus setting up the commission for investigating civil-aviation accidents and incidents. That commission has been made responsible for the technical investigation of all serious civil-aviation accidents and incidents taking place on Spanish territory and enjoys full operational independence. It is thus competent to investigate any helicopter accidents taking place during fire fighting operations, even if the craft involved are registered in other countries. The Commission is not aware of any such accidents taking place since that in 1993, and involving a helicopter from an east-European country. It is therefore not possible for it to call into question the correct implementation of that directive by the Spanish authorities.

Council Directive 86/188/EEC of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risk related to exposure to noise at work(4) only applies to air-transport workers, as provided for in Article 1(2) thereof.

The minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment laid down by Directive 89/655/EEC(5) (and not 89/665/EEC) have been transposed by Royal Orders 1215/1997 of 18 July and 773/1997 of 30 May. Those requirements apply to helicopter crews provided that their employer is established in Spain or another Member State.

The Spanish authorities have informed the Commission of the means of transposing Directive 93/104/EEC(6) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, and the Commission is now in the process of examining their compliance with the directive.

This directive has been extended to the excluded sectors which includes civil aviation) via Directive 2000/34/EC(7) which must be transposed by the Member States before 1 August 2003.

Moreover, on 27 November 2000, the Council adopted Directive 2000/79/EEC concerning the organisation of working time of mobile workers in civil aviation(8). Once this new directive enters into force, the provisions of Directive 93/104/EC will no longer apply to civil aviation.

As regards Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services(9), the Spanish authorities have notified the Commission of the means of transposition used. The Commission is currently in the process of examining their compliance with the directive.

Moreover, the Commission is in no position to assess the soundness of the criticisms made by the international airline pilots federation (Ifalpa) and by the private Apythel association.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000.

(3) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(4) OJ L 137, 24.5.1986.

(5) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(6) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(7) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

(8) OJ L 302, 1.12.2000.

(9) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.