Communication from the Commission - A European Community contribution to world aviation safety improvement
Date: 2001-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, International Civil Aviation Organisation, air safety, transport regulations

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 16.07.2001
COM(2001) 390 final

&20081,&$7,21(cid:3))520(cid:3)7+((cid:3)&200,66,21

$(cid:3)(XURSHDQ(cid:3)&RPPXQLW\(cid:3)FRQWULEXWLRQ(cid:3)WR(cid:3):RUOG(cid:3)$YLDWLRQ(cid:3)6DIHW\(cid:3),PSURYHPHQW

&20081,&$7,21(cid:3))520(cid:3)7+((cid:3)&200,66,21

$(cid:3)(XURSHDQ(cid:3)&RPPXQLW\(cid:3)FRQWULEXWLRQ(cid:3)WR(cid:3):RUOG(cid:3)$YLDWLRQ(cid:3)6DIHW\(cid:3),PSURYHPHQW

(cid:20)(cid:17)

,1752’8&7,21

In  the  wake  of  the  Puerto  Plata  accident,  in  January  1996,  the  Council  called  upon  the
Commission to devise proposals to ensure the safety of European citizens travelling in the air
or living around airports. To do so, the Commission convened a high level group of aviation
safety  experts  and  elaborated,  with  their  assistance,  a  Community  Aviation  Safety
Improvement Strategy which was adopted and transmitted to the Council on 12 June 19961.

That strategy was based on two main streams of actions. On one hand it was recommended to
intensify  work  to  maintain  and  further  improve  the  safety  of  operations  in  Europe;  this
included  in  particular  the  creation  of  a  European  Aviation  Safety  Authority  for  which  the
Commission  adopted on  27 September  2000 a  Regulation  establishing  common  rules  in  the
field of civil aviation and creating a European Aviation Safety Agency2.

The  second  group  of  actions  was  aiming  at  verifying  that  third  countries  actually  apply
internationally  agreed  aviation  safety  standards  and  at  assisting  them  in  doing  so  when
necessary. To follow on this suggestion the Commission proposes to the European Parliament
and  the  Council  to  adopt  a  Directive  on  the  safety  of  third  countries’  aircraft  using
Community airports, so that appropriate information can be gathered and actions taken by the
Community  and  its  Member  States  to  rectify  dangerous  situations.  To  complement  that
initiative  the  present  communication  identifies  what  such  actions  should  be  to  ensure  an
effective global approach to aviation safety within the framework of the Chicago Convention
on international civil aviation and using the available Community instruments.

(cid:21)(cid:17)

(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:20)

1.

$9,$7,21(cid:3)6$)(7<

,GHQWLILFDWLRQ(cid:3)RI(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)SUREOHP

One  and  a  half  billion  passengers  have  been  carried  by  the  world’s  airlines  up  to
1999 and this is expected to double in the first decade of this century.

Although  the  current  accident  rate  is  low  by  comparison  with  many  other  human
activities,  the  number  of  aviation  accidents  has  been  increasing  and  the  number  of
passenger fatalities has only decreased slightly3. If accident rates were held constant,
the projected traffic growth would lead to an unacceptably high accident frequency;
accidents  at  the  current  rate  would  double  the  number  of  fatalities  early  in  this
century.

1

2

3

Doc SEC(96) 2083 final
Com (2000) 595 final
Source Airclaims Limited.

2

                                                
« …if the accident rate were to be held constant at the 1996 level, … the projected
growth in traffic could result in a serious accident every week by 2015 »4.

It  is  necessary  therefore  to  provide  for  the  enhancement  of  aviation  safety  levels
because,  without  confidence  in  safety,  the  aviation  industry  will  not  be  able  to
develop to its full potential nor to make the appropriate contribution to economic and
social development.

2.

Another significant feature of the  global accident picture is  that accident rates  vary
considerably across different regions of the world. A summary of data for the 5-year
period to the end of 1997 for world regions is shown in Annex 1.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these statistics:

•  Airlines from Africa, Asia and South/Central America have accident rates at least
twice  as  high  as  the  world  average,  (in  1998  four  times  higher  in  the  case  of
Africa and six times higher in China).

•  North America has a rate much better than the world average.

•  Western  European  countries,  together  with  Australia,  have  the  lowest  accident

rates.

•  Eastern  European  countries  including  the  CIS  states,  have  a  very  high  accident
rate, nearly 50 times higher than in western Europe, and higher than in any other
world region.

There  is  therefore  a  clear  obligation  for  the  aviation  community  to  undertake  a
systematic approach to improving aviation safety world-wide, with a definite priority
for  those  areas  where  the  risk  is  highest.  Aviation  is  a  global  industry  and  safety
deficiencies  in  any  part  of  the  world  have  a  wide  impact.  EU  air  operators  and
citizens fly world-wide and EU airports receive flights by non-EU air operators.

7KH(cid:3)2ULJLQ(cid:3)RI(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)SUREOHP

The  Chicago  Convention  and  its  Annexes  allocate  the  responsibility  for  aviation
safety to individual States. Each State bears responsibility for the safety design and
continuing airworthiness of aircraft; for safe operations; and for safe air traffic flow
within  its  own  national  airspace,  including  the  necessary  Air  Traffic  Management
(ATM)  and  airport  infrastructure.  If  these  obligations  are  not  fully  respected  by
States, air safety deficiencies arise.

At  the  November  1997  conference  of  Directors  General  of  Civil  Aviation,  ICAO
highlighted their findings which  pointed to a  growing number of  contracting States
which  had  been  found  not  to  be  applying,  or  to  be  misinterpreting,  relevant  ICAO
Standards  and  Recommended  Practices  (SARPs).  These  standards  are  designed  to
ensure, inter alia, a minimum level of safety for international civil aviation.

3.

(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:21)

4.

5.

4

David Hinson, FAA Administrator.

3

                                                
6.

Assessments  carried  out  by  ICAO  have  also  revealed  that  many  States  are  facing
serious difficulties in fulfilling their safety obligations. The most common cause for
these  deficiencies  is that  States  have not  committed  adequate  resources  to  the  task.
The major deficiencies have been found to fall into four categories: primary aviation
legislation; institutional structures; qualified personnel; and financial resources.

•  Primary  aviation  legislation:  many  of  the  States  assessed  have  not  promulgated
basic aviation law, or the existing aviation legislation is out of date and therefore
fails  to  address  essential  considerations,  for  example,  the  provision  of  adequate
enforcement powers.

•  Institutional structures: in many States the organisation responsible for regulating
and  supervising  aviation  safety  do  not  have  the  authority  and  independence  to
fulfil their regulatory tasks effectively.

•  Qualified personnel: there are often not enough qualified experts available for the
effective fulfilment of the safety responsibilities of States. Resources are often not
available  for  necessary  expert  training.  Even  where  resources  are  available  for
training, trained staff often leave for better-paid jobs in the aviation industry. As
entities  in  charge  of  safety  oversight  or  air  traffic  services  are  generally
government  departments,  salaries  are  often  fixed  at  low  levels  and  cannot  be
changed without disrupting the whole governmental pay structure.

•  Financial resources: many entities in charge of  civil  aviation  safety are  deprived
of  the  necessary  resources  to  carry  out  their  obligations.  The  priority  for
improving air safety is not high on the political agenda  when compared to  other
subjects such as health and poverty. Moreover, when a charging system has been
put in place to recover costs from users, all too often resources are not allocated
back  to  the  functioning  of  these  entities  and  cannot  therefore  contribute  to
improving aviation safety.

7.

In  conclusion,  to  properly  implement  ICAO  SARPS,  a  sound  legislative  base,
adequate staffing and sufficient funds are essential prerequisites.

(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)

&XUUHQW(cid:3)PHDQV(cid:3)WR(cid:3)DGGUHVV(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)SUREOHP

8.

Expectations  for  continued  high  levels  of  safety  from  air  passengers  and  residents
living near airports have put pressure on several governments to establish audit and
assessment programmes aimed at evaluating the capacity of other countries to fulfil
their  international  aviation  safety  commitments.  The  aim  of  such  programmes  is
usually to deny countries which fall short of ICAO compliance the rights they would
normally  enjoy  under  agreements  based  on  the  provisions  of  the  Chicago
Convention.  A  short  description  of  example  programmes  appears  as  Annexes  2
and 3.

To do so States having structural difficulties have asked the international community
to  assist  them  through  multilateral  and  bilateral  co-operation  programmes.  The
United Nations Programme for Development (UNDP) through the  ICAO  Technical
Co-operation  Bureau  and  several  major  developed  countries  have  traditionally
contributed to this assistance.

4

However, over the past decade, priorities in technical co-operation programmes have
evolved and aviation  is  now  low  on  the agenda,  traditional  donors  considering  that
this activity could be self-sustained through commercial revenues and fees.

9.

In  response  to  the  deficiencies  identified  by  ICAO  assessments,  and  listed  under
broad headings in paragraph 6 above,  ICAO has launched its own voluntary Safety
Oversight Programme (Annex 4) and used this opportunity to stimulate the activities
of its Technical Co-operation Bureau in the field.

It  is  in  this  general  environment  that  during  the  ICAO  Safety  Conference  in
November  1997,  States  unanimously  endorsed  a  proposal  to  reinforce  the  ICAO
Safety  Oversight Programme. It was recognised that rather than relying on national
solutions or on a voluntary assessment process, it would be preferable to expand the
ICAO  Programme  to  make  it  universal,  mandatory  and  transparent.  This  initiative
was confirmed by a formal resolution during the 32nd ICAO Assembly in September
1998 and the related budget provisions will have to be made in order to finance the
new  Universal  Safety  Oversight  Assessment  Programme  (USOAP);  further
consideration  shall  be  given  in  due  time  to  include  the  assessment  of  ATM  and
airport infrastructure in the USOAP.

Accordingly ICAO is now entrusted with the role of auditing the level of compliance
of States with ICAO SARPS.

Moreover ICAO enjoys a good level of confidence from most developing countries
for its  independence  when  assisting in  the shaping and  implementation  of  recovery
actions. It benefits also from a recognised authority to propose and negotiate regional
solutions that are often more efficient and less costly than individual action by States.

ICAO is therefore confirmed as the global reference for aviation safety matters, and
has a pivotal role to play in any strategy to improve aviation safety world-wide.

(cid:22)(cid:17)

10.

,17(5(67(cid:3)2)(cid:3)7+((cid:3)&20081,7<

In the face of these developments, there are a number of reasons why the Community
cannot remain passive and must take the  opportunity to  defend its interests and the
safety of its operators and citizens world-wide.

(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

6DIHW\(cid:3)FRQVLGHUDWLRQV

11.

Safety deficiencies world-wide and the failure by a number of countries to meet their
international  obligations  concerning  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of
international  safety  standards  has  an  unacceptable  impact  on  the  European  Union.
EU  airlines  operate  globally  and  EU  citizens  travel  widely  all  over  the  world  and
constitute an important percentage of passengers. The airports of the Community are
also  major  destinations  or  stopovers  for  foreign  carriers  and  aircraft.  The  safety  of
their  operations  is  thus  a  matter  of  direct  and  immediate  concern  to  the  European
Union,  which  is  committed  to  ensure  the  safety  of  citizens  living  near  airports  and
travelling to non-EU destinations or travelling on non-EU airlines.

5

12.

For  these  very  reasons  the  Community  Aviation  Safety  Improvement  Strategy
proposed  that  the  Community  and  its  Member  States  take  measures  vis-à-vis  third
countries.  It  suggested  in  particular  that  collective  action  be  undertaken  at  ICAO
level  to  ensure  that  all  countries  fulfil  their  international  obligations  and  that  an
appropriate co-operation policy be developed to assist States desiring to do so.

When  examining  the  Commission  Communication  in  June  1996,  the  Council
encouraged  the  Commission  to  develop  its  suggestions  and  to  make  further
proposals.

(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)

$YLDWLRQ(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)(FRQRPLF(cid:3)’HYHORSPHQW

13.

14.

Most  economic  experts  agree  that  transportation  drives  and  sustains  economic
development through its contribution to expansion and integration of global markets.
There is a close relation between economic growth and the growth of air traffic. The
growth of mass tourism from more economically developed regions has contributed
to  the  development  of  local  economies  in  many  areas  of  the  world  that  would
otherwise have remained underdeveloped. The transport of high value or perishable
goods by air has also contributed substantially to industrial development world-wide.
It  is  therefore  legitimate  that  the  Community’s  policy  of  co-operation  with  third
countries should integrate the provision of assistance in aviation.

The welfare of air transport is largely dependent on the confidence of the travelling
public  in  the  level  of  aviation  safety  in  the  countries  concerned.  It  seems  therefore
crucial  to  concentrate  first  on  this  aspect  when  considering  aviation  co-operation
projects with third countries. This is even more justified for some European countries
when  their  level  of  safety  raises  serious  concerns  at  a  time  when  they  are  seeking
membership  of  the  Community  and  will  soon  be  participating  in  the  air  transport
international market thanks to the European Civil Aviation Area agreement (ECAA).
Indeed  there  are  already  a  number  of  co-operative  aviation  safety  programmes  in
existence,  which  have  been  decided  in  the  context  of  general  Commission  co-
operation agreements.

(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17)

,QGXVWULDO(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)(FRQRPLF(cid:3)2EMHFWLYHV

15.

Air  safety  regulations,  used  at  national  level  to  enforce  the  minimum  necessary
ICAO SARPs, play an important part in the definition of the operating environment
for  aircraft,  as  well  as  for  air  traffic  and  airport  services.  The  European  aerospace
industry  recognises  the  commercial  implications  of  the  recognition  of  European
regulatory  requirements  by  third  countries  that  constitute  important  current
customers  or  potential  customers.  Exclusive  use  of  rules  from  other  exporting
countries  or  regions  can  give  a  competitive  edge  to  their  manufacturers.  It  is
therefore  preferable  that  countries  should  be  encouraged  to  establish  a  long-term
partnership  with  Europe  in  matters  of  regulation  of  aviation  safety,  whereby  they
adopt  systems  recognising  European  standards,  rules,  practices,  methods  and
organisations. Recovery co-operation activities following the findings of the FAA’s
International  Aviation  Safety  Assessment  Programme  (IASA)  as  well  as  the  “Safe
Skies”  initiative  launched  by  the  American  Government  indicate  that  the  United
States of America have already started to implement a similar strategy.

6

16.

(cid:23)(cid:17)

17.

Additionally, long term co-operation can also facilitate the conclusion of agreements
for the mutual recognition of measures linked to the regulation of aviation safety and
therefore  facilitate  trade  in  goods  and  services  with  those  states  that  are  becoming
major trading partners of the European Community.

The  Commission’s objective to support the European aviation industry  can  be  well
served  by  international  safety  improvement  programmes,  and  a  measure  of  the
industry’s interest is expressed by its willingness to contribute to such  programmes
(see Annex 5).

&20081,7<(cid:3)&2175,%87,21(cid:3)72(cid:3)*/2%$/(cid:3)$9,$7,21(cid:3)6$)(7<(cid:3),03529(0(17

Accordingly the Community and its Member States should play an active role in the
improvement  of  aviation  safety  world-wide.  To  do  so,  and  besides  the  actions  that
they must take to address their own challenges as described in the communication on
a Community Aviation  Safety  Improvement  Strategy, they should follow  two  main
avenues of action:

•  consolidate  and  further  strengthen  the  role  of  ICAO  in  the  monitoring  of  the

application of safety related SARPS by its contracting States.

•  further develop and better co-ordinate their technical  assistance  activities aiming
at  assisting  States  in  fulfilling  their  ICAO  commitments  in  the  field  of  aviation
safety.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

7KH(cid:3)UROH(cid:3)RI(cid:3),&$2

18.

19.

ICAO will intensify and broaden its activities to audit the level of implementation of
SARPS.  The  decisions  taken  so  far  however  fall  short  of  setting  an  effective
framework for ensuring that States really comply with their ICAO commitments in a
uniform way.

Although ICAO is compelled to put in place a mandatory assessment of the way in
which its contracting States apply the SARPs, as they are committed to do, it has no
legal power to oblige them to accept the necessary audits and inspections. It therefore
has to conclude bilateral agreements with each and everyone of them on a voluntary
basis; accordingly the USOAP is still in a real sense a voluntary programme.

Certainly  it  is  envisaged  to  expand  the  USOAP  to  cover  all  safety  related  SARPS,
and  in  particular  those  related  to  ATM  and  airport  services.  But  this  is  to  be  done
only  “at  the  appropriate  time”  and  is  subject  to  budgetary  constraints.  When  it  is
considered,  as  recognised by  ICAO  itself,  that  the  activities  covered  by  the  current
programme5  in  countries  where  safety  problems  exist  represent  only  1%  of  the
international  aviation  activities,  while  at  the  same  time  a  significant  part  of  the
activities of  European  operators  takes  place in the territories of such  countries,  one
can question the effectiveness of the current approach.

5

The  current  Safety  Oversight  Programme  is  related  only  to  ICAO  Annexes  1,  6  and  8  which  deal
respectively with Personnel Licensing, Operation of Aircraft and Airworthiness of Aircraft.

7

                                                
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

If  transparency  and  the  threat  of  possible  action  by  other  contracting  parties  are  a
means to follow up on the USOAP to ensure the effective application of SARPS, it
should not be the primary one in a multilateral framework where discipline must be
enforced collectively and not individually or unilaterally. No reflection however has
been  undertaken  to  examine  the  use  of  the  existing  enforcement  provisions  in  the
ICAO Convention, nor their possible strengthening.

As  was  already  mentioned  in  its  Communication  on  a  Community  Aviation  Safety
Improvement  Strategy,  the Commission considers  necessary that  work  continues  to
give to ICAO the legal means needed to fulfil its new role.

This may need more than just a new interpretation of some provisions of the Chicago
Convention and could in a few cases necessitate amending that Convention. This is
no reason however to wait and see. On the contrary, since such an exercise may take
a  long  time,  the  Commission  suggests  that  Community  Member  States,  and  in
particular  those  represented  in  the  ICAO  Council,  should  take  the  lead  with  other
like-minded countries, to put in place within ICAO the necessary working structure,
to  analyse  detected  shortcomings  and  examine  with  the  countries  concerned  the
various  means  to  rectify  them.  The  Commission  on  its  side  intends  to  initiate
contacts with several third countries to seek their opinion on and support for such an
initiative.

The  restructuring  of  the  ICAO  regular  budget  to  cover  the  costs  related  to  the
USOAP  may  take  some  time,  in  particular  to  finance  its  extension  to  all  safety
related  SARPS.  This  therefore  would  slow  down  the  necessary  evolution.  For  this
reason, the Commission could envisage to provide additional resources  to  ICAO to
assist in and accelerate the transition. Such contribution would of course to have to
be agreed with  the audited States  so  that  the  Commission  can  receive  in  return  the
results of ICAO audits, in particular the derived action plans to serve as a basis for its
own  technical  co-operation  activities  in  the  field.  This  would  be  the  subject  of  a
memorandum  of  co-operation  between  the  two  organisations  within  which  both
would  establish  priorities  and  agree  on  target  countries  with  their  ascent.
Commission  priorities  would  take  into  account  relevant  Community  policies  vis-à-
vis  third  countries,  as  well  as  the  results  of  the  safety  assessment  activities
undertaken in the framework of the SAFA programme.

Last but not least there is certainly a need to consider the special case of European
countries. All EU Member States, and most other European countries, are or aim to
become,  full  members  of  the  Joint  Aviation  Authorities;  ultimately  they  certainly
will  participate  in  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency,  which  the  Community  is
currently  considering.  They  are  as  such  part  of  a  regional  aviation  safety  system,
which  comprises  themselves  and  the  JAA/EASA,  conducting  its  own  internal
enforcement  mechanisms.  In  order  to  avoid  duplication  of  inspection,  and  also
because the whole system is to be audited by  ICAO, it would be  advisable that the
JAA  develops  the  appropriate  co-operation  with  ICAO  to  facilitate  the  audit  of  its
own full and candidate members, as the Community will have to do when the EASA
is in place.

The  same  reasoning  would  apply  mutatis  mutandis  to  EUROCONTROL  members,
when the USOAP is extended to ATM SARPs.

8

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)

7HFKQLFDO(cid:3)DVVLVWDQFH

25.

Whilst  the  audit  of  States  is  a  significant  and  positive  first  step,  the  design  of
recovery  actions  and  their  implementation  remains  the  essential  prerequisite  for
world-wide improvement in aviation safety. The return of States to full compliance
with international standards is indeed a much more costly exercise than assessment,
and international financial and technical assistance is almost always needed to reach
that objective.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)

$FWLRQ(cid:3)E\(cid:3),&$2

26.

27.

ICAO  is  currently  investigating  the  establishment  of  an  International  Aeronautical
Fund, known as The International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety (IFFAS). It
is intended that this fund would be used to improve safety through recovery actions
recommended as a result of ICAO’s audits carried out under the USOAP programme,
as well as to improve airport, air navigation, and develop CNS/ATM systems. Major
beneficiaries would be the  less  developed nations of the world. The fund would  be
financed from either a passenger ticket safety levy or from contributions from ICAO
contracting States.

Whilst such a fund would be a welcome addition to the global effort to improve air
safety, it could not completely substitute for actions by individual interested parties
such  as  the  Community  who  would  in  many  cases  have  their  own  priorities  for
recovery  actions  in  specific  regions.  The  Commission  considers,  therefore,  that  the
Community  and  its  Member  States  should  themselves  play  a  much  more  proactive
role and use part of the significant resources they allocate to technical assistance to
developing countries to support improvement in aviation safety.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17) &RPPXQLW\(cid:3)DFWLRQ

28.

29.

The Community has a  number  of  financial  instruments  that  can  be  used  to  support
aviation safety programmes. These instruments are grouped on a regional basis with
different  Directorates  General  having  responsibility  for  different  regions.  Annex  5
provides a description of these funds and a list of currently supported safety actions.

Drawing lessons from the new role of ICAO in the safety oversight assessment of its
contracting  States,  the  Commission  is  envisaging  a  new  approach  to  ensure  that
funds  will  be  used  efficiently  to  provide  sustained  improvement  in  aviation  safety.
This  will,  at  the  same  time,  facilitate  complementarity  of  various  actions  with  the
same aim undertaken by all other interested parties:

•  Any co-operation activity shall normally be the follow-up of an ICAO assessment
conducted  in  the  framework  of  the  USOAP,  unless  an  emergency  action  is
identified  as  necessary  before  the  ICAO  assessment  takes  place  for  which  some
flexibility of approach will need to be maintained.

•  Any project shall be based upon the ICAO Approved Action Plan established as a

result of the audit.

•  Each project shall be discussed and agreed between the Commission, the recipient
country and ICAO to ensure that it provides an efficient answer to the difficulty
identified by ICAO.

9

•  European  industry  should  be  consulted  on  the  projects  envisaged  and  invited  to

contribute if they so wish.

•  Recipient  countries  shall  contribute  themselves  to  the  implementation  of  the
projects and commit to taking the necessary measures to ensure their sustainable
continuation.

•  The  terms  of  reference  of  the  project  shall  be  established  with  an  appropriate

technical support from aviation experts.

•  The implementation of the project will have to be carried out in accordance with
the  rules  of  procedure  applicable  to  the  eligible  fund;  when  a  call  for  tender  is
required, the selection should be done using the necessary aviation expertise.

•  The  implementation  also  needs  continuous  monitoring  by  appropriate  aviation

experts.

•  At the  end of the implementation,  there shall be another  ICAO  audit  in order to
check that the result meets the expectation and that the relevant part of the action
plan is achieved.

This process requires in several steps an appropriate aviation expertise that, pending
the creation of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), is not available in the
Commission.  Therefore,  and  because  ICAO  has  already  its  own  role  to  play  in  the
process,  the  Commission  envisages  asking  ICAO  to  provide,  where  possible,  this
expertise. This would not only ensure that the projects are  fully  consistent with the
recovery action plans, but would also facilitate the design and implementation under
ICAO  leadership  of  regional  solutions  like  the  Co-operative  Development  of
Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programmes (COSCAP)6.

Such support to the Commission services would become part of the memorandum of
co-operation  mentioned  here  above  and  be  subject  to  appropriate  Community
funding.

However,  for  European  countries,  which  as  a  consequence  of  their  various
affiliations to the Community, the JAA and EUROCONTROL, it must be recognised
that  ICAO  may  not  be  the  most  appropriate  source  of  expertise  to  support  the
Commission’s services. The same would apply to those third countries which want to
develop privileged links with the Community and apply its safety standards. Pending
the creation of EASA, the Commission envisages therefore in such cases to establish
the necessary links with the JAA and EUROCONTROL to obtain their expertise.

30.

31.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:17) &R(cid:16)RUGLQDWLRQ(cid:3)RI(cid:3)DFWLRQV

32.

6

As stressed here above, recovery will be costly and Community action will certainly
not  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  challenges.  Member  States  should  therefore  on  their
own side increase their support to improving world-wide aviation safety.

The Commission has started suppoting  financially, the South  Asia COSCAP and the South East  Asia
COSCAP; it intends to do the same in other regions of the world.

10

                                                
33.

(cid:23)(cid:17)

34.

In order to ensure however that Member State  actions and those of the Community
complement  each  other,  the  Commission  considers  that  Member  States,  like  the
Commission  itself,  should  not  finance  projects  that  are  not  part  of  the  ICAO
approved recovery action plans.

Moreover,  since  a  preference  should  be  given  to  co-operative  programmes  at
regional or sub-regional levels, the Commission considers that this first commitment
will not suffice. It envisages therefore to create a co-ordinating committee to which
Member States experts as well as industry representatives would be invited, so that
information can be exchanged on technical assistance activities and appropriate joint
programmes identified. Such a co-ordinating structure would not need to meet more
than once a year to achieve its objectives.

&21&/86,21

There is a strong  aspiration from European citizens for more safety in aviation at a
time when the steady development of the activity, combined with the standstill of the
accident  rate,  fuels  a  public  perception  of  a  decreasing  level  of  safety.  There  is
therefore  an  urgent  need  to  improve  global  aviation  safety,  in  particular,  in  certain
regions of the world. The Community and its Member States have a leading role to
play  to  achieve  this  objective  and  to  assist  third  countries  in  applying  the
international safety standards.

35.

7KH(cid:3)&RPPLVVLRQ(cid:3)LQWHQGV(cid:3)WR(cid:3)WDNH(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)IROORZLQJ(cid:3)LQLWLDWLYHV:

•  7KH(cid:3) FRQFOXVLRQ(cid:3) RI(cid:3) D(cid:3) 0HPRUDQGXP(cid:3) RI(cid:3) &R(cid:16)RSHUDWLRQ(cid:3) ZLWK(cid:3) ,&$2(cid:17)  Such  a
Memorandum  will  have  for  objective  both  to  assist  ICAO  in  implementing  and
enlarging  its  Universal  Safety  Oversight  Audit  Programme,  and  to  provide
ICAO’s assistance to the Commission in order to secure  consistent and coherent
Community  intervention  for  recovery  projects  supported  by  current  financial
instruments. Such agreement which will be only  about  funding  and  exchange  of
information  is  fully  within  the  remits  of  Commission's  powers  as  specified  by
article (302) of the Treaty.

•  7KH(cid:3)FRQFOXVLRQ(cid:3)RI(cid:3)VLPLODU(cid:3)DUUDQJHPHQWV(cid:3)ZLWK(cid:3)-$$(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)(852&21752/(cid:3)to
assist(cid:3)future European Union members and some other third countries to conform
to 
JAA  and
EUROCONTROL standards are met in these States.

requirements  and  ensure 

the  Community’s  own 

that 

•  7KH(cid:3) DOORFDWLRQ(cid:3) RI(cid:3)

LQFUHDVHG(cid:3) UHVRXUFHV  from 

the  existing  co-operation
programmes,  in  accordance  with  their  own  respective  rules  of  procedure,  to
finance  recovery  actions  as  identified  in  co-operation  with  ICAO,  JAA  and
EUROCONTROL(cid:17)

•  7KH(cid:3) HVWDEOLVKPHQW(cid:3) RI(cid:3) D(cid:3) FR(cid:16)RUGLQDWLRQ(cid:3) PHFKDQLVP  for  recovery  actions
undertaken  by  the  Community  and  its  Member  States  through  the  creation  of  a
committee  composed  of  experts  from  the  Commission,  the  Member  States  and
European  Industry,  to  be  involved  in  the  identification  and  financing  of  such
actions.

11

•  7KH(cid:3) GHILQLWLRQ(cid:3) RI(cid:3) D(cid:3) &RPPXQLW\(cid:3) SRVLWLRQ(cid:3) regarding  the  creation  of  the  ICAO
to  ensure

International  Financial  Facility  for  Aviation  Safety 
complementarity with European Community and Member States instruments.

in  order 

36.

The  Commission  invites  the  Member  States  to  complement  Community  action  and
take the following initiatives:

•  6XSSRUW(cid:3) ,&$2(cid:3) LQ(cid:3) WKH(cid:3) LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ(cid:3) RI(cid:3) WKH(cid:3) 8QLYHUVDO(cid:3) 6DIHW\(cid:3) 2YHUVLJKW
$XGLW(cid:3)3URJUDPPH by ensuring(cid:3)that ICAO is given the financial and legal means
to conduct systematic and mandatory safety audits.

•  TDNH(cid:3)LQLWLDWLYH(cid:3)WR(cid:3)PDNH(cid:3)XVH(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)VWUHQJWKHQ(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)HQIRUFHPHQW(cid:3)SURYLVLRQV(cid:3)RI(cid:3)WKH
,&$2(cid:3)&RQYHQWLRQ so as to privilege multilateral, rather than unilateral action to
convince states, when necessary, to fulfil their international obligations in aviation
safety.

•  Increase their own financial assistance for the implementation of recovery actions

identified as a result of ICAO audit activities.

•  3DUWLFLSDWH LQ(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)FR(cid:16)RUGLQDWLRQ(cid:3)VWUXFWXUH(cid:3)VHW(cid:3)XS(cid:3)E\(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)&RPPLVVLRQ to ensure
consistency  and  complementarily  of  recovery  actions,  as  well  as  best  use  of
available resources.

12

$QQH[(cid:3)(cid:20)

)LYH(cid:16)\HDU(cid:3))LJXUHV(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:3)6XPPDU\(cid:26)

Region /Country

Fatal Accident Rate/Million Flights

(XURSH

Western-built Jets

Eastern-built Jets

(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:19)

(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:26)

Full JAA8 Countries/Russia

JAA: 0.11

Russia 2.68

Rest of Europe

$XVWUDODVLD

1RUWK(cid:3)$PHULFD(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)WKH(cid:3)&DULEEHDQ

USA

Rest of N America and Caribbean

$IULFD

6RXWK(cid:3)DQG(cid:3)&HQWUDO(cid:3)$PHULFD

$VLD

:RUOG

China

Rest of Asia

* not statistically reliable

2.23

(cid:19)

(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:28)

0.20

0

(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:19)

(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:27)

(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:28)

0.43

0.98

(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:25)

3.14

(Cuba) 23.80

+LJK(cid:13)

+LJK(cid:13)

(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:19)

11.60

19.10

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:26)

7

8

Source: Airclaims Limited: “ Special Report for IAPA: Study of Fatal Accident Data, Passenger Flights
for  and  Number  of  Flights,  Five  Year  Rolling  Average,  Western-built  Jet  Aircraft  1989  to  1998”,
4 February 1999.
Source: Airclaims Limited: “ Special Report for IAPA: Study of Fatal Accident Data, Passenger Flights
for  and  Number  of  Flights,  Five  Year  Rolling  Average,  Eastern-built  Jet  Aircraft  1989  to  1998”,
4 February 1999.
Full  members  of  the  Joint  Aviation  Authorities  were  at  that  time  the  EU  Member  States,  Iceland,
Norway and Switzerland.

13

                                                
$QQH[(cid:3)(cid:21)

7KH(cid:3))$$(cid:3),QWHUQDWLRQDO(cid:3)$YLDWLRQ(cid:3)6DIHW\(cid:3)$VVHVVPHQW(cid:3)(cid:11),$6$(cid:12)

The  Programme  was  begun  in  1992  and  modified  to  include  public  disclosure  of  results  in
1994.  The  Programme  assesses  whether  a  foreign  civil  aviation  authority  (CAA)  complies
with  the  minimum  international  standards  for  aviation  safety  oversight  established  by  the
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The FAA analyses collected information to
determine whether the CAA complies with ICAO standards regarding the oversight provided
to  the  air  carriers  under  its  authority.  This  determination  is  part  of  the  basis  for  FAA
recommended  courses  of  action  to  the  Department  of  Transportation  on  the  initiation,
continuation, or expansion of air service to the United States by the carriers overseen by that
CAA. The IASA program applies to all foreign countries with air carriers proposing or having
existing  air  service  to  the  United  States  under  an  economic  authority  issued  by  the
Department

The  FAA  is  evaluating  the  safety  oversight  system  of  each  country,  not  the  safety  of  its
individual  airlines.  It  assesses  only  whether  the  oversight  system  is  adequate  to  ensure  that
ICAO  minimum  standards  are  met,  not  the  higher  standards  applicable  in  the  US,  the
European Community and some other countries.

In May 2000,the FAA decided to use only use two categories in the future, i.e., Category 1 (in
compliance with minimum international standards for aviation safety) and Category 2 (not in
compliance  with  minimum  international  standards  for  aviation  safety).  Countries  with
Category  1  status  (complying  with  minimum  ICAO  standards)  will  be  allowed  normal
operations to the United States. Category 2 will consist of two groups of countries:

One group of countries that have air carriers with existing operations to the United States at
the time of the assessment. While in Category 2 status, carriers from these countries will be
permitted  to  continue  operations  at  current  levels  under  heightened  FAA  surveillance.
Expansion or changes in services to the United States by such carriers are not permitted while
in category 2.

The  second  group  of  countries  that  do  not  have  air  carriers  with  existing  operations  to  the
United  States  at  the  time  of  the  assessment.  Carriers  from  these  countries  will  not  be
permitted to commence service to the United States while in Category 2 status.

Results  of  the  Programme  so  far  indicate  that  over  40%  of  countries  evaluated  lacked
oversight sufficient to ensure that the minimum international standards are met.

14

$QQH[(cid:3)(cid:22)

7KH(cid:3)(XURSHDQ(cid:3)6DIHW\(cid:3)$VVHVVPHQW(cid:3)RI(cid:3))RUHLJQ(cid:3)$LUFUDIW(cid:3)(cid:11)6$)$(cid:12)(cid:3)3URJUDPPH

Established by ECAC and the JAA with support from the Commission, this Programme was
established to provide European States with a surveillance tool so that they are made aware of
proven  deficiencies  and  can  act  in  consequence.  It  is  largely  based  on  safety  information
gathered from all possible sources and on ramp-checks of foreign aircraft. The programme is
applied  to  all  foreign  aircraft  using  an  ECAC  country’s  airports.  Information  and  results  of
checks are held on a common database at JAA Headquarters, and are confidential.

It is not an assessment of a States oversight  capability.  It is considered however that, whilst
certainly  not  replacing  safety  oversight  assessments,  it  contributes  upstream  of  such
assessments by drawing attention to possible deficiencies in a country’s oversight system.

The High Level Group which met in 1996, concluded that the Community should use its legal
powers to make that programme mandatory for the EU Member States. The Commission has
therefore  drafted  a  proposal  for  a  directive  to  be  handled  by  the  Community  legislative
process.

15

$QQH[(cid:3)(cid:23)

7KH(cid:3),&$2(cid:3)8QLYHUVDO(cid:3)6DIHW\(cid:3)2YHUVLJKW(cid:3)$XGLW(cid:3)3URJUDPPH(cid:3)(cid:11)862$3(cid:12)

At the ICAO Assembly in October 1995, Member States endorsed the implementation of the
ICAO  Aviation Safety  Oversight Programme (SOP).  The Programme  aimed  at  ensuring  the
effective  implementation  by  States  of  the  Standards  and  Recommended  Practices  (SARPs)
included  in  ICAO  Annexes  1  (personnel  licensing),  6  (flight  operations)  and  8  (aircraft
airworthiness).

The  Programme  incorporated  as  its  core  function  safety  oversight  assessments  of  States  by
ICAO,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  with  the  objective  of  offering  follow-up  advice  and  technical
assistance  as  necessary  to  enable  such  States  to  implement  ICAO  SARPs  and  associated
procedures.

The  assessment  is  the  safety  audit  of  the  country’s  actual  level  of  compliance  with
international  standards.  This  is  carried  out  by  assessing  whether  regulatory  authorities  have
the legal means, the resources, the workforce and expertise to meet their international safety
supervisory responsibilities.

There  were  a  number  of  shortcomings  with  this  Programme.  It  was  limited  by  the  need  for
voluntary  contributions  from  Member  States  and  by  ICAO’s  own  continuing  funding
problems.  Being  voluntary  it  could  not  always  be  applied  where  the  need  was  greatest,  an
assessment being only carried out when requested by the State concerned.

Since  November  1998  ICAO  Contracting  States  have  decided  that  the  programme  should
apply to all of them in  a systematic  and  regular  way,  with  publication  of  results  if  after  re-
assessment a State has made no significant improvement. The Programme has been renamed
The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP).

In  order  to  assist  States  to  take  the  necessary  recovery  actions  to  redress  the  short  comings
identified  by  the  Safety  audit,  ICAO,  with  the  agreement  and  participation  of  the  State
concerned, proceeds to the establishment of an Approved Action Plan. This plan provides the
basis for recovery to full compliance with the ICAO Annexes.

16

$QQH[(cid:3)(cid:24)

&RPPXQLW\(cid:3)IXQGV(cid:3)DYDLODEOH(cid:3)IRU(cid:3):RUOG(cid:3)$YLDWLRQ(cid:3)6DIHW\(cid:3),PSURYHPHQW

(i) Economic Development Fund –EDF (Lome Countries)

The  EDF  budgets  are  decided  in  agreement  with  the  recipient  States.  Despite  the  fact  that
most of these states have severely under-resourced civil aviation administrations and poor air
safety  records,  air  safety  has  not  been  a  traditional  beneficiary  of  CEC  assistance  with
priorities such as health, education, poverty relief claiming most resources. However with the
air transport sector being recognised as an important factor in future economic growth, more
of  these  countries  are  requesting  assistance  with  aviation  problems  and  the  Commission
should respond favourably to such requests.

There is a possibility of  the Commission  co-sponsoring aviation  projects with  other  donors.
Traditionally the World Bank and the UNDP have been co-sponsors but their priorities have
also been elsewhere in recent years. The European Aerospace industry has expressed interest
in co-cosponsoring projects with the Commission and this possibility should be followed up.

(ii) Overseas Development and Economic Co-operation Budgets

The Development budget line is allocated in agreement with the recipient  country,  and here
again aviation has not traditionally been a priority. For this reason the Economic Co-operation
budget  has  been  used  to  improve  air  safety  through  co-financing  arrangements  with  EU
industry.  In  view  of  the  willingness  of  the  EU  industry  to  continue  with  such  projects  they
should be expanded and their geographical coverage increased to regions which recent ICAO
audits have shown to be in urgent need.

(iii) TACIS, PHARE and the Budget for Potential New EU Member States

There have been major budgets for co-operation with former CIS (TACIS)  and with  central
and east European countries (PHARE) as well as with other potential EU Member States.

The air safety record in these regions is quite alarming and amongst the worst in the world. As
a  result  of  the  break  up  of  the  former  Soviet  Union  air  safety  in  the  region  has  often  been
neglected and Civil Aviation Authorities have been left under-resourced or even non–existant.
Urgent new ATM programmes are also required in the region,

TACIS has only addressed  aviation safety issues to a limited  extent. Actions  are now being
taken to improve aviation safety in Central Asia and the Caucasus region. This assistance may
be extended in time and financially.

PHARE  has  undertaken  substantial  projects  through  its  multi-country  transport  programme
over  the  last  seven  years  to  ensure  that  the  EUROCONTROL  network  is  spread  through
central  Europe.  EUROCONTROL  implemented  the  project  on  PHARE’s  behalf  and  the
recently completed project has been a considerable success.

17

Potential new Member States must, as part of the DFTXLV(cid:3)FRPPXQLWDLUH(cid:15)(cid:3)conform to the JAA
standards for airworthiness and air safety. Some allocation of funds has been made to support
air safety and ATM improvement. The funds allocated do not however seem sufficient given
the  scale  of  the  problem,  although  TAIEX  has  begun  limited  support  to  work  in  candidate
countries aimed at introducing JARs, EU  quality assurance systems,  standards,  and  supplier
and maintenance organisation approval schemes. However if major problems are to be averted
more attention must be devoted to the area of aviation safety.

18

$QQH[(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:11)&RQWLQXHG(cid:12)

$LU(cid:3)6DIHW\(cid:3)3URMHFWV(cid:3)&XUUHQWO\(cid:3)6XSSRUWHG(cid:3)E\(cid:3)7KH(cid:3)(XURSHDQ(cid:3)&RPPLVVLRQ
6WDWXV(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:19)

PROJECT

DG

DESCRIPTION

MANAGEMENT

CONSULTANT

European
Aerospace
Companies

European
Aerospace
Companies

Aeropean
Aerospace
Companies

CHINA 1

RELEX Safety oversight

AECMA

Customer Support
Production Management
ATM
Pilot training
Co-funded with European
Industry and Recipient
CEC Funding 8-10 M EURO
over 3 years
Total funding 18 M EURO
Status: Started June 2000

RELEX Safety oversight

AECMA

Customer Support
ATM
Co-funded with European
Industry and Recipient
CEC Funding 15 M EURO
over 3 years
Total funding 30 M EURO
Status: Due to start 2001
pending endorsement of a
critical mass of countries.

South 
and
South  East
Asia
(15
countries)

INDIA

RELEX Safety oversight

AECMA

Customer Support
Production Management
ATM
Pilot training
Airport management
Co-funded with European
Industry and Recipient
CEC Funding 18 M EURO
over 3 years
Total funding 32 M EURO
Status: Inception Phase started
April 2001. Main project to
start November 2001..

19

Cyprus

RELEX Safety oversight and assistance

to the DGCA
CEC Funding 1 M EURO over
2 years. Status: Work started
May 2001 for completion in
September 2002.

Uzbekistan

RELEX TACIS project. Technical

assistance for the Civil
Aviation Authority and
Continued Training.
CEC Funding 0.5 M EURO
over 6 months
Status: Phase 2 due to be
completed in October 2001.

UK  Civil  Aviation
Authority

Civil

UK 
Aviation
Authority

Aero  Development
Bureau

Aero
Development
Bureau

Central  Asia
and 
The
Caucasus

The Andean
Community
5 Nations

RELEX TACIS project promoting safe

Swedavia

Swedavia

TBD

TBD

and efficient operation of
aircraft in the Southern Ring
region. CEC funding of 2
Million Euro. Status: Phase 2
due to be completed in June
2001.

RELEX Safety oversight
ATM
Training based safety
improvement
Economic Co-operation Co-
funded with Recipient
CEC Funding 15 M EURO
over 4 years
Status: Postponed pending an
investigation of the viabilty of
inclusion in a larger Latin
American project.

TREN

South Asia
ICAO
COSCAP
Programme

Contribution to ICAO run co-
operative air safety
improvement programme in
the South Asia region
CEC Funding 200,000 EURO
per Year.
Status Continuing

ICAO

ICAO

20

ICAO

ICAO

Contribution to ICAO run co-
operative air safety
improvement programme in
the South Asia region
CEC Funding 200,000 EURO
per Year.
Status : Pending

Southeast
Asia

TREN

ICAO
COSCAP
Programme

Central
America

TREN

Air Safety Oversight
Programme for ACSA (Central
American Agency for Aviation
Safety).

JAA

+

TBD 
European
Aerospace
Industry

CEC Funding : 800,000 EURO
towards a 1.6 M EURO project
total

21

*/266$5<(cid:3)2)(cid:3)7(506(cid:3)$1’(cid:3)$%%5(9,$7,216

AECMA

The European Association of Aerospace Industries

ATC

ATM

CAA

CEEC

Air Traffic Control

Air Traffic Management

Civil Aviation Authority

Central and Eastern European Countries

COSCAP

Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing
Airworthiness Programmes (of ICAO)

ECAC

FAA

IASA

ICAO

JAA

JAR

SAFA

SARP

European Civil Aviation Conference

Federal Aviation Administration (USA)

FAA International Aviation Safety Assessment

International Civil Aviation Organisation

Joint Aviation Authority (of Europe)

Joint Aviation Requirements (of JAA)

Safety of Foreign Aircraft

Standards and Recommended Practices (of ICAO)

USOAP

Universal Safety Oversight Assessment Programme (ICAO)

22