Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of third countries aircraft using Community airports" (COM(2002) 8 final — 2002/0014 (COD))
Date: 2002-07-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: International Civil Aviation Organisation, air safety, carriage of passengers, dissemination of information, information, roadworthiness tests, safety standard, transport regulations

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/33

NON-SCHEDULED FLIGHTS

Existing regulation

Proposed new regulation

Denied boarding

Not covered

Cancellation

Long delay

Not covered

Not covered

Brussels, 17 July 2002.

As above

As above

As above

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the safety of third countries aircraft using Community airports’

(COM(2002) 8 final — 2002/0014 (COD))

(2002/C 241/06)

On 31 January 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 June 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Santillán.

At its 392nd Plenary Session of 17 and 18 July 2002 (meeting of 17 July 2002), the Economic and Social
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

common rules in the field of civil aviation and creating a
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which was adopted
on 27 September 2000 (3).

In the wake of the Puerto Plata air crash (1), the Council
1.1.
called on the Commission to draw up proposals aimed at
improving the safety of European air travellers. In response to
this call the Commission convened a high-level group of
aviation safety experts and with its help drew up a Community
Aviation Safety Improvement Strategy (2) and undertook two
initiatives. The first of these was a Regulation establishing

1.2.
third
The second initiative aimed to ensure that
countries actually apply aviation safety standards. To this end,
in 1997 the Commission proposed a Directive establishing a
safety assessment of third countries aircraft using Community
airports (4). This proposal, on which the Economic and Social
Committee issued an opinion (5), lapsed on expiry of the time
limits laid down by Article 252 of the EC Treaty.

( 1) Dominican Republic. In 1996 a Turkish aircraft chartered by a

German tourist operator crashed, killing 176 passengers.

( 2) SEC(96) 2083 final.

(3) COM(2000) 595 final.
(4) COM(97) 55 final.
(5) TRA/333, rapporteur Mr Mobbs.

C 241/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

1.3.
As agreement has now been reached between the
Spanish and British governments on Gibraltar airport, the
Commission has decided to submit a new proposal which
takes into account the comments made by the Council in its
common position of 4 June 1998 (1) and by the European
Parliament at its second reading (2).

— Bilateral agreements, whilst recognizing the right of each
party to designate carriers, do not usually include explicit
provisions for safety oversight nor unilateral action which
could allow one party to deprive the other of
its
recognised rights.

1.4.
As far as the proposal is concerned, the High Level
Group, having considered the FAA (3) procedure (which checks
whether national regulatory authorities have the legal means
and the resources, workforce and expertise to meet their
international safety supervisory responsibilities properly) con-
cluded that the US system would not be suited to Europe.

— Thus it is very difficult, in terms of international aviation
law, to establish ‘black lists’ of particular third-country
airlines — quite apart from considerations of the inevi-
table risks of retaliation or other adverse diplomatic
consequences.

2. The Commission proposal (7)

The High Level Group opted, however, for the SAFA (4)
1.5.
procedure, which is of a gradual nature, being activated in the
event of suspected or proven safety shortcomings at a third-
country airline.

2.1.
The aim of the Commission proposal is to establish a
common framework for an assessment mechanism to improve
safety by means of the SAFA procedure while maintaining the
right of the Member States to inspect any aircraft, subject to
compliance with Community law.

On the basis of compliance with the Chicago Conven-
1.6.
tion (5), the main points of the report of the High Level Group
of relevance to this opinion are:

— A safety improvement strategy targeted at third-country
carriers and aircraft must be compatible with principles
governing international civil aviation.

— Each contracting state is responsible for issuing or
rendering valid certificates of airworthiness and of com-
petency in respect of every aircraft or operation crew
registered in that state. Such certification has to be
accepted by all other contracting states so long as
certification is equal or above minimum international
standards. As a consequence a contracting state may not
recognise certificates which it considers not to be in
compliance with ICAO (6)standards. When this occurs it
is possible to consider that unilateral action may be taken
to protect a state’s citizens. However it cannot be implied
that collective action is possible.

ICAO Annex 8 ‘Airworthiness of Aircraft’ requires that
2.2.
all aircraft must be maintained in an airworthy condition.
Where a contracting state has reason to doubt that this is the
case, then that state is no longer obliged to accept the validity
of the airworthiness certificate, and is able to carry out a check
of the aircraft, grounding it if necessary. National laws vary
but some agency of each Member State has the authority to
ground any aircraft of its own, of any other Member State and
of any third country when there is reason to doubt
its
airworthiness. ICAO Annex 13 ‘Aircraft Accident and Incident
Investigation’, operates in a similar manner when an incident
is believed to have occurred.

The Commission proposes three kinds of measures

2.3.
aimed at improving safety (Article 1):

a)

b)

the collection and dissemination of information necessary
in order to adopt measures to ensure the safety of the
travelling public;

inspections of third-country aircraft, their operation and
crew whenever there is reasonable suspicion that safety
standards are not being met. Aircraft may be grounded if
necessary;

( 1) OJ C 227, 20.7.1998, p. 18.
( 2) OJ C 313, 12.10.1998, p. 32.
( 3) US Federal Aviation Administration.
( 4) Safety assessment of foreign aircraft.
( 5) Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on

7 December 1944.

( 6) International Civil Aviation Authority.

(7) For an overview see the Communication from the Commission
— A European Community contribution to world aviation safety
improvement, COM(2001) 390 final.

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/35

c)

adoption of appropriate measures for rectification of any
shortcomings identified.

2.4.
include
The information collected (Article 4) will
reports (from pilots, maintenance firms and organisations
independent of the authorities), other documentation (e.g.
relating to incidents or complaints), information on action
taken pursuant to ground-based inspections and follow-up
information concerning the operator and corrective action
taken.

2.10.
In implementing the proposal for a directive the
Commission will be assisted by a committee established under
Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of
16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical require-
ments and administrative procedures in the field of civil
aviation (1).

2.11.
The deadline for implementation of the directive in
national law is two years after its entry into force (Article 12).
Not later than two years after the directive’s entry into force
the Commission is required to draw up a report on its
application and, if necessary, to propose a revision (Article 13).

2.5.
The Member States will be required to publish half-
yearly information available to the public concerning: the
number of aircraft grounded over the preceding six-month
period, the type of aircraft, the state of registration, the airport,
the date on which the grounding was imposed, the country of
origin etc (Article 7(2)).

3. General comments

2.6.
The confidentiality of the information (Article 7(4))
must be respected, particularly where it is provided by the
crew of the aircraft, by ensuring the anonymity of the source
of the information.

The European Economic and Social Committee wel-
3.1.
comes the Commission proposal, aimed at improving the
safety of European air travellers, which is based on the SAFA
procedure, which is managed by the JAA (2) on behalf of the
ECAC (3).

The procedure for ramp inspections is set in motion
2.7.
‘when there is suspicion’ that third-country aircraft ‘do not
comply with international safety standards’ (Article 5). The
procedure is described in detail in Annex II and includes the
checking of documentation, crew conditions (composition,
qualifications), the presence of equipment such as the ‘black
box’, and many other aspects.

The SAFA procedure is part of a general Commission strategy
for participating in the improvement of civil aviation safety
and it responds to growing passenger anxieties, which are a
global phenomenon exacerbated by events unrelated to aircraft
conditions, such as the terrorist attacks of 11 September in the
USA.

2.8.
An aircraft may be grounded ‘where non-compliance
with international safety standards is clearly hazardous to
safety’ (Article 8(1)). In the event of such an extreme measure
being taken, the competent authority is required ‘immediately’
to inform the competent authorities of the state of the operator
concerned and of the state of registration of the aircraft.

There is provision, subject
for
allowing an aircraft to be flown safely, without fare-paying
passengers or cargo, to an airport for repair.

to due safety precautions,

It is essential that this procedure enter into force, even if it
does not offer a complete solution to the problem, given the
specific characteristics of this mode of transport, such as the
fact that aircraft do not normally remain long at airports,
which makes it difficult to carry out exhaustive inspections.

3.2.
The information measures contemplated in the pro-
posal are related to other requirements, such as those concern-
ing occurrence reporting in civil aviation (4). As has been
pointed out, this proposal does not restrict the right of the
Member States to inspect, ground, ban or impose safety
conditions on aircraft in accordance with Community law.

2.9.
The corrective measures may include surveillance of a
specific operator or of all the operators of a specific third
country (Article 9) or a ban or conditions on operation
(Article 10).

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.
(2) Joint Aviation Authorities.
(3) European Civil Aviation Conference.
(4) COM(2001) 532 final.

C 241/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

3.3.
The Community’s air carriers are among the safest in
the world. Not only do they have to comply with the 1944
Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and its
annexes laying down minimum safety standards for aircraft
which have been adopted by the ICAO, but also with a
variety of technical standards and administrative procedures (1).
However, the safety record of some third-country aircraft
makes it necessary to lay down standards to protect passengers
when third-country airlines use Community airports.

The Committee points out

3.4.
that, even when this
proposal for a directive enters into force, the safety standards
of third-country operators may therefore still be lower than
those of European operators.

3.5.
The Committee reiterates that this measure must be
part of a broader package of joint measures covering not only
third-country aircraft but also general air transport conditions
in Europe, as suggested by the High-Level Group.

The Committee agrees that it

is necessary for the
3.6.
measures relating to information, inspections, the grounding
of aircraft and restrictions on the use of airports to be common
to the Member States to prevent aircraft identified as having
defects in one Member State being able to continue to operate
at other Community airports. Moreover, common standards
will also make it more difficult for third countries to retaliate
in the event that a Member State adopts measures against a
specific operator.

3.7.
The Committee agrees that, in accordance with the
subsidiarity principle, administrative and judicial recourse
against decisions of the implementing authorities should be
governed by the national law of the Member States.

The Committee welcomes the requirement for publi-

3.8.
cation of a half-yearly report on the grounding of aircraft.

4. Specific comments

competent authority of a Member State’ (Article 3). The only
exemptions from inspection are for: a) ‘state aircraft’ (2) and b)
‘aircraft of a maximum take off weight of less than 5 700 kg
not engaged in commercial air transport’ (Article 2).

The Committee proposes that the following definition be
added to Article 3:

‘Third-country aircraft means aircraft used by an airline
whose operating certificate has been issued by a state
which is not a member of the European Community or
aircraft belonging to undertakings which do not have their
administrative headquarters or principal place of business
in the Community.’

The Committee notes that the Commission believes that
Directive 2407/92 covers chartered aircraft. However this
proposed amendment leaves no room for ambiguity.

4.2.
ICAO standards. Annex II should spell out more clearly
the requirement on the Member States to carry out checks to
ensure that the operator is meeting the ICAO standards on
time limitations, minimum crew qualifications, and
flight
training.

4.3.
Article 5. Ramp inspections. The Committee considers
that a minimum number of random checks should be required
in order to improve the safety of third-country aircraft.

Article 5(1) should be amended to read: ‘... shall be subject to
immediate ramp inspections’.

4.4.
Article 7. Protection and dissemination of information.
It is not made sufficiently clear exactly what the competent
authorities of the Member State are expected to do when they
receive information on aircraft used by a specific operator
which have been grounded. If the seriousness of the case so
warrants, there should be provision for grounding all the
aircraft of the airline in question.

4.1.
Chartered aircraft. Scope of application. The proposal
refers in general to ‘third country aircraft’, meaning ‘aircraft
which (are) not used or operated under the control of a

4.5. Minor defects, The SAFA procedure focuses on mayor
defects, which may even lead to an aircraft being grounded.

( 1) Council Regulation 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 — OJ L 373,

(2) Aircraft used in military, customs and police services (Chicago

31.12.1991, p. 4.

Convention, Article 3).

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/37

The Committee noted that defects would be graded on a scale
of 1 to 3. The Committee suggests that the directive should
require the various competent authorities to exchange infor-
mation on a quarterly basis on all defects in addition to
circulating information on the most serious defects.

English language: the Committee stresses the need for
4.6.
all crews to have a fluent command of the English language in
the interests of safety. This requirement should be included in
the ICAO standards.

4.8.
Competence of the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA). The Committee feels that responsibility for application
of the SAFA programme should in future be taken on by the
EASA.

4.9.
Entry into force. In view of its objective, the SAFA
procedure should enter into force as soon as possible. Whilst
the
appreciating the technical complexity of
Committee therefore suggests that the proposed period of two
years for implementation of the proposal for a directive be
reduced to 12 months.

the matter,

4.7.
The exchange of information between the competent
authorities and the Commission (Article 6) should be effected
as rapidly as possible using information technologies. The
authorities’ access to databases is essential.

— In this context it should be borne in mind that a proposal
for a directive relating to this area has been in existence
since 1997, so that the Member States have had five years
to adopt the necessary measures.

Brussels, 17 July 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the
environmental performance of the freight transport system’

(COM(2002) 54 final — 2002/0038 (COD))

(2002/C 241/07)

On 21 February 2002, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
drawing up the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 June 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Levaux.

At its 392nd Plenary Session (meeting of 17 July 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion with 124 votes in favour and one abstention.

1.

Introduction: Presentation of the proposal
Regulation

for a

1.1.
The European Commission’s White Paper of 12 Sep-
tember 2001 entitled ‘European transport policy for 2010:
time to decide’ provides for the replacement of the PACT
programme, which came to an end on 31 December 2001, by
a new programme to promote intermodality, to be known as
the ‘Marco Polo programme’.

mission Staff Working Paper entitled ‘Results of the PACT
programme 1997-2001’; the PACT programme has also been
the subject of an external evaluation covering the period 1997-
1999.

1.2.
This new programme takes account of the lessons
drawn from the PACT programme, as set out in the Com-

The main aim of the Marco Polo programme is to
1.3.
reduce road congestion and to improve the environmental
performance of the whole transport system by shifting part of