Commission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 of  22 March 2006  establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council   (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2006-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air safety, air traffic control, airline, common transport policy, roadworthiness tests, transport company

L 84/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2006

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 474/2006

of 22 March 2006

establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the
Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament
and of the Council

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

make an oral presentation to the Commission within 10
working days and to the Air Safety Committee (2).

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

the
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of
European Parliament and 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/CE (1),
and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

‘the basic Regulation’)

Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 (hereinafter
lays down
referred to as
procedures for establishing the Community list of air
carriers which are subject to an operating ban within
the Community as well as procedures allowing the
Member States, in certain circumstances, to adopt excep-
tional measures imposing operating bans within their
territory.

In accordance with Article 3(3) of the basic Regulation,
each Member State communicated to the Commission
the identity of the air carriers that are subject to an
operating ban in its territory, together with the reasons
which led to the adoption of such bans and any other
relevant information.

The Commission informed all air carriers concerned
either directly or, when this was not practicable,
through the authorities responsible for their regulatory
oversight, indicating the essential facts and considerations
which would form the basis for a decision to impose
them an operating ban within the Community.

In accordance with Article 7 of the basic Regulation,
opportunity was given by the Commission to the air
carriers concerned to consult the documents provided
by Member States, to submit written comments and to

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

The common criteria for consideration of an operating
ban for safety reasons at Community level are set out in
the Annex to the basic Regulation.

Air Bangladesh

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Air Bangladesh with regard to a certain
aircraft of its fleet. These deficiencies have been identified
during ramp inspections performed by Germany under
the SAFA programme (3).

Air Bangladesh did not respond adequately and timely to
an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of Germany
regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a
lack of transparency or communication, as demonstrated
by its lack of reply to correspondence from this Member
State. To date Germany had no opportunity to verify
whether the safety deficiencies have been corrected.

The authorities of Bangladesh with responsibility for
regulatory oversight of Air Bangladesh have not
exercised an adequate oversight on one specific aircraft
used by this carrier in accordance with their obligations
under the Chicago Convention.

it is
Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
assessed that Air Bangladesh should be submitted to a
strict operational restriction and included in Annex B.

Air Koryo

(10)

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Air Koryo. These deficiencies have been iden-
tified by France and Germany, during ramp inspections
performed under the SAFA programme (4).

(2) Established by Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91
of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of
technical
requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil
aviation (OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4).

(3) LBA-D-2005-0003
LBA-D-2005-0004
LBA-D-2005-0004
(4) DGAC/F 2000-210

(1) OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 15.

No ref. for another SAFA inspection performed by Germany.

23.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/15

(11)

Persistent failure by Air Koryo to address deficiencies
identified
previously communicated by France was
during other
the
SAFA programme (5).

ramp inspections performed under

(12)

Substantiated and serious incident-related information
communicated by France indicates latent systemic safety
deficiencies on the part of Air Koryo.

(13) Air Koryo demonstrated a lack of ability to address these

safety deficiencies.

(14) Air Koryo did not respond adequately and timely to an
enquiry by the civil aviation authority of France regarding
the safety aspect of
its operation showing a lack of
transparency or communication, as demonstrated by
the absence of reply to a request by that Member State.

(15)

(16)

The corrective action plan presented by Air Koryo in
response to France’s
request was not adequate and
sufficient
the identified serious safety defi-
to correct
ciencies.

The authorities of the Democratic People Republic of
Korea with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Air
Koryo have not exercised an adequate oversight on this
carrier in accordance with their obligations under the
Chicago Convention.

(17)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
assessed that Air Koryo does not meet
safety standards.

it is
the relevant

Ariana Afghan Airlines

(18)

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of certain aircraft operated by Ariana Afghan
Airlines. These deficiencies have been identified by
Germany, during ramp inspections performed under the
SAFA programme (6).

(19) Ariana Afghan Airlines demonstrated a lack of ability to

address these safety deficiencies.

(20) Ariana Afghan Airlines did not respond adequately and
timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of
Germany regarding the safety aspect of
its operation
showing a lack of communication, as demonstrated by
the absence of adequate response to correspondence
from this Member State.

(5) DGAC/F-2000-895
(6) LBA-D-2004-269
LBA-D-2004-341
LBA-D-2004-374
LBA-D-2004-597

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

The competent authorities of Afghanistan, where the
aircraft used by Ariana Afghan Airlines is registered,
have not exercised a fully adequate oversight of
the
aircraft used by this carrier in accordance with their obli-
gations under the Chicago Convention.

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that Ariana Afghan does not meet the relevant
safety standards for all the aircraft it operates, with the
exception of A310 registration number F-GYYY which is
registered in France and subject to the oversight of the
French authorities.

BGB Air

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of BGB Air. These deficiencies have been iden-
tified by Italy, during ramp inspections performed under
the SAFA programme (7).

safety deficiencies

BGB Air demonstrated a lack of ability or willingness to
as demonstrated by the
address
submission of a self-assessment with ICAO Standards
the Foreign Operator Check List
on the basis of
provided by Italy, which was
to be in
found not
conformity with the
findings of SAFA
inspections.

subsequent

BGB Air did not respond adequately to an enquiry by the
regarding the safety
civil aviation authority of
aspect of its operation showing a lack of transparency
or communication, as demonstrated by the absence of
reply to some correspondence sent by this Member State.

Italy,

There is no evidence of
the implementation of an
adequate corrective action plan presented by BGB Air
to correct the serious safety deficiencies in response to
the request from Italy.

The authorities of Kazakhstan with responsibility for
regulatory oversight of BGB Air did not fully cooperate
with the civil aviation authority of Italy when concerns
about the safety of the operation of BGB Air certified in
that state were raised, as demonstrated by the absence of
reply to the correspondence sent by this Member State.

(28)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that BGB Air does not meet the relevant safety
standards.

(7) ENAC-IT-2005-237

(29)

(30)

(31)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

L 84/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2006

Buraq Air

GST Aero Air Company

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Buraq Air concerning its cargo operations.
These deficiencies have been identified by Sweden and
the Netherlands, during ramp inspections performed
under the SAFA programme (8).

(38)

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of GST Aero Air Company. These deficiencies
have been identified by Italy, during ramp inspections
performed under the SAFA programme (10).

Buraq Air did not respond adequately and timely to an
enquiry by the civil aviation authority of Germany
regarding the safety aspect of
its Cargo operations
showing a lack of transparency or communication, as
demonstrated by a lack of response to correspondence
from this Member State.

The authorities of Libya with responsibility for regulatory
oversight of Buraq Air have not exercised an adequate
this carrier in
oversight on the Cargo operations of
accordance with their obligations under
the Chicago
Convention.

(32)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that Buraq Air should be subject to strict opera-
tional restrictions and included in Annex B.

Air Service Comores

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Air Service Comores. These deficiencies have
been identified by a Member State, France, during a ramp
inspection performed under the SAFA programme (9).

(39) GST Aero Air Company demonstrated a lack of ability or

willingness to address safety deficiencies.

(40) GST Aero Air Company did not respond adequately and
timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of
Italy regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing
a lack of
transparency or communication as demon-
strated by the absence of reply to the correspondence
sent by this Member State.

(41)

(42)

the implementation of an
There is no evidence of
adequate corrective action plan presented by GST Aero
Air Company to correct the serious safety deficiencies in
response to Italy’s request.

The authorities of Kazakhstan with responsibility for
regulatory oversight of GST Aero Air Company did not
fully cooperate with the civil aviation authority of Italy
when concerns about the safety of the operation of a
carrier licensed or certified in that state were raised, as
demonstrated by the limited reply to the correspondence
sent by Italy.

There is no evidence of
the implementation of an
adequate corrective action plan presented by Air Service
the identified serious safety defi-
Comores to correct
ciencies in response to the request from France.

(43)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that GST Aero Air Company does not meet
the relevant safety standards.

authorities with

regulatory
The
oversight of Air Service Comores have shown a lack of
ability to address safety deficiencies.

responsibility

for

responsibility

authorities with

The
regulatory
oversight of Comores did not cooperate in due time
with the
France when
aviation authority of
concerns about the safety of the operation of a carrier
licensed or certified in that state were raised.

civil

for

(37)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that Air Service Comores does not meet the
relevant safety standards.

Phoenix Aviation

(44)

for

responsibility

authorities with

The
regulatory
oversight of Kirghizstan have shown an insufficient
ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety
standards with regard to Phoenix Aviation. While
Phoenix Aviation’s Air Operator’s Certificate was issued
by Kyrgyzstan,
the
airline has its principal place of business in the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), contrary to the requirements of
Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention. The US National
Transportation Safety Board’s Factual Report (11) into an
flight 904, which was
accident
operated by Phoenix Aviation,
that Phoenix
states
Aviation has its headquarters in the UAE.

there is evidence showing s that

involving Kam Air

(8) LFV-S-2004-2004-52
CAA-NL-2005-47
(9) DGAC/F-2005-1222

(10) ENAC-IT-2005-170
ENAC-IT-2005-370

(11) Factual Aviation Report, USA-National Transportation Safety Board,

2 March 2005, (NTSB ID: DCA05RA033).

23.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/17

(45)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
assessed that Phoenix Aviation does not meet
relevant safety standards.

it is
the

(52)

Reem Air demonstrated a lack of ability or willingness to
address safety deficiencies.

Phuket Airlines

(46)

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Phuket Airlines. These deficiencies have been
identified by Member States, the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands, during ramp inspections performed under
the SAFA programme (12).

(47)

Phuket Airlines demonstrated a lack of ability to address
timely and adequately these safety deficiencies.

(48)

for

responsibility

authorities with

The
regulatory
oversight of Thailand did not fully cooperate with the
civil aviation authority of the Netherlands when concerns
about the safety of Phuket Airlines certified in that state
were raised as demonstrated by the lack of pertinent
responses to the correspondence from this Member State.

(49)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
assessed that Phuket Airlines does not meet
relevant safety standards.

it is
the

(53)

(54)

(55)

Reem Air did not respond adequately and timely to an
enquiry by the civil aviation authority of the Netherlands
regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a
lack of transparency or communication as demonstrated
by the absence of reply to the correspondence sent by
this Member State.

the implementation of an
There is no evidence of
adequate corrective action plan presented by Reem Air
to correct
the identified serious safety deficiencies in
response to the request from the Netherlands.

The authorities of Kirghizstan with responsibility for
regulatory oversight of Reem Air have not exercised an
adequate oversight on this carrier in accordance with
their obligations under
the Chicago Convention, as
demonstrated by the persistence of serious safety defi-
ciencies.
information provided to the
Commission by Reem Air during the hearing granted
that, while Reem Air
to this
Operator’s Certificate was issued by Kyrgyzstan,
this
airline has its principal place of business in the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), contrary to the requirements of
Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention.

company evidences

In addition,

Reem Air

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Reem Air. These deficiencies have been
initially identified by the Netherlands, during ramp
inspections performed under the SAFA programme (13).

(56)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
assessed that Reem Air does not meet
safety standards.

it is
the relevant

Persistent failure by Reem Air to address deficiencies was
confirmed by the Netherlands, during subsequent ramp
inspections on one specific aircraft performed under the
SAFA programme (14).

(57)

(58)

Silverback Cargo Freighters

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Silverback Cargo Freighters. These deficiencies
have been identified by Belgium during a
ramp
inspection performed under the SAFA programme (15).

Silverback Cargo Freighters which equally assures the
maintenance (A&B checks) of its own aircraft, did not
respond adequately to an enquiry by the civil aviation
authority of this Member State regarding the safety aspect
transparency or
of
communication as
lack of
demonstrated
pertinent response to requests made by this Member
State.

its operation showing a lack of

the

by

(59)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that Silverback Cargo Freighters does not meet
the relevant safety standards.

(15) BCAA-2005-36

(50)

(51)

(12) CAA-UK-2005-40
CAA-UK-2005-41
CAA-UK-2005-42
CAA-UK-2005-46
CAA-UK-2005-47
CAA-UK-2005-48
CAA-NL-2005-49
CAA-NL-2005-51
CAA-NL-2005-54
CAA-NL-2005-55
CAA-NL-2005-56

(13) CAA-NL-2005-119
CAA-NL-2005-122
CAA-NL-2005-128
CAA-NL-2005-171
CAA-NL-2005-176
CAA-NL-2005-177
CAA-NL-2005-191
CAA-NL-2005-195
CAA-NL-2005-196
(14) CAA-NL-2005-230
CAA-NL-2005-234
CAA-NL-2005-235

L 84/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2006

Air carriers from the Democratic Republic of Congo

(60)

In spite of its efforts, the civil aviation authorities of the
Democratic Republic of Congo (‘DRC’) have persistent
difficulties to implement and enforce the relevant safety
standards, as demonstrated by the ICAO-USOAP —
Audit Summary Report of
the Directorate of Civil
Aviation of
the Democratic Republic of Congo
(Kinshasa, 11-18 June 2001). In particular, no system
for the certification of Air Operators is currently in place.

(61)

The authorities of the DRC with responsibility for regu-
latory oversight have consequently shown a lack of
ability to carry out adequate safety oversight.

(66)

(62) An operating ban is imposed on Central Air Express
because of substantiated deficiencies related to interna-
tional safety standards, and its lack of cooperation with
a Member State.

(63)

and Hewa Bora Airways

Belgium (16)
(HBA) have
in the case of
provided information showing that,
HBA,
the deficiencies observed in the past by the
Belgian authorities have been significantly corrected
to certain aircraft. Belgium has further
with respect
informed the Commission that
intends to conduct
it
systematic ramp inspections of HBA. In view of this, it
is considered that this air carrier should be allowed to
continue its current operations.

(64)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that all air carriers certified in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (RDC) should be included in Annex A
with the exception of Hewa Bora Airways (HBA) which
should be included in Annex B.

Air carriers from Equatorial Guinea

(65)

for

responsibility

authorities with

regulatory
The
oversight of Equatorial Guinea did not fully cooperate
with the civil aviation authority of the United Kingdom
(UK) when concerns about the safety of the operation of
carriers licensed or certified in that state were raised. The
UK wrote to the Director General of Civil Aviation in
Equatorial Guinea on 27 March 2002 (17) seeking clarifi-
cation on the following points:

— a significant

increase in the number of aircraft
registered in Equatorial Guinea and suggestions that
the Aircraft Registration Bureau (ARB) or a similar
organisation might be managing the register,

(16) SAFA ramp inspection performed by the Authorities of Belgium on

March 11, 2006 in Brussels.

(17) Correspondence between the UK Department of Transport and
DGCA-Equatorial Guinea on the ‘Aircraft Register of Equatorial
Guinea’ (27 March 2002).

— the fact that a number of operators holding an Air
issued by Equatorial
(AOC)
their principal place of

Operator Certificate
Guinea did not have
business in Equatorial Guinea.

The letter also advised the Director General of Civil
Aviation that the UK would not be in a position to
allow further commercial operations to its territory by
Equatorial Guinea airlines until the UK authorities were
satisfied that
these airlines were receiving satisfactory
oversight. Equatorial Guinea did not reply to this letter.

for

responsibility

authorities with

The
regulatory
oversight of Equatorial Guinea have shown an insuf-
ficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant
safety standards, in particular as demonstrated by audits
and related corrective action plans established under
ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme.
Such a USOAP audit of Equatorial Guinea took place
in May 2001 whereby the audit report (18)
indicated
that the Civil Aviation Authority did not, at the time
of
the audit, have the ability to provide adequate
oversight to its airlines and ensure that they operate in
accordance with ICAO standards. These audit findings
namely included:

— lack of an organisation capable of undertaking safety
oversight activities, in particular a lack of specialised
staff in the areas of licensing, aircraft operations or
airworthiness,

— inability to identify the number of aircraft on the
the number of valid certificates of

register or
airworthiness issued,

— failure to establish a structured system for the certi-

fication and supervision of air operators,

— failure to adopt aeronautical operations regulations,

— failure

to
operators,

perform surveillance

on

authorised

— failure to implement a system for performing the
basic duties of an airworthiness inspection agency.

(18) ICAO-USOAP Summary Report — Audit of the Directorate of Civil
Aviation of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (Malabo, 14-18 May
2001).

23.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/19

Furthermore the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of
Equatorial Guinea has never up to date submitted to
ICAO an action plan to address these audit findings (19)
and consequently an audit follow up mission has not
taken place.

(67)

(68)

for

responsibility

authorities with

The
regulatory
oversight of Equatorial Guinea have shown an insuf-
ficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant
safety standards in accordance with their obligations
under the Chicago Convention. In fact, some holders of
Air Operator Certificate (AOC)
issued by Equatorial
Guinea do not have their principal place of business in
Equatorial Guinea, contrary to the requirements of Annex
6 to the Chicago Convention (20).

(72)

The authorities of Equatorial Guinea with responsibility
for regulatory oversight of the following air carriers have
shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety
oversight on these carriers: Air Consul SA, Avirex
Guinée Equatoriale, COAGE — Compagnie Aeree de
Guinée Equatorial, Ecuato Guineana de Aviación, Ecua-
torial Cargo, GEASA — Guinea Ecuatorial Airlines SA,
GETRA — Guinea Ecuatorial de Transportes Aéreos,
Jetline Inc., King Transavia Cargo, Prompt Air GE SA,
UTAGE — Unión de Transporte Aéreo de Guinea Ecua-
torial.

operation of carriers licensed or certified in Liberia were
promptly raised when on 12 March 1996 the Liberian
DCA was advised by the UK civil aviation authority that
all requests for permits for Liberian registered aircraft to
operate commercial services to the UK would be refused
until
the Liberian authorities could demonstrate the
existence of an effective regulatory system to ensure
the airworthiness of aircraft on the Liberian register.
No response was ever received from the Liberian autho-
fully
rities. Likewise,
cooperate with the civil aviation authority of France by
declining to reply when the latter Member State raised
concerns about the safety of the operation of a carrier
licensed or certified in Liberia.

the Liberian authorities did not

for

responsibility

authorities with

regulatory
The
oversight of Liberia have shown an insufficient ability
to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards.
The Government of Liberia itself admitted in 1996 (23)
that it was unable to maintain regulatory control over
Liberian registered aircraft because of the civil conflict.
While the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed
in 2003 and the UN and the National Transitional
Government of Liberia are slowly putting in place
the
measures to improve security,
Government’s
register has
improved since 1996. ICAO has not yet carried out a
USOAP audit of Liberia because of the security situation.

is unlikely that

to regulate

ability

its

it

(69)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that all air carriers certified in Equatorial
to an operating ban and
Guinea should be subject
included in Annex A.

Air carriers from Liberia

(73)

The authorities of Liberia with responsibility for regu-
the following air carriers have
latory oversight of
shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety
oversight on these carriers:
International Air Services
Inc., Satgur Air Transport Corp., Weasua Air Transport
Co. Ltd.

(70)

(71)

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of International Air Services certified in Liberia.
These deficiencies have been identified by France, during
SAFA
performed
ramp
programme (21).

inspections

under

the

responsibility

regulatory
for
The
authorities with
fully cooperate with the
oversight of Liberia did not
civil aviation authority of
the United Kingdom (UK)
when informed of serious safety deficiencies identified
a Liberian-registered
during a
aircraft carried out by the UK civil aviation authority
on 5 March 1996 (22). Concerns about the safety of the

ramp inspection of

(19) ICAO Council working paper C-WP/12471.
(20) Correspondence between the UK Department of Transport and
ECAC on the ‘Issue of Aircraft Documentation by Non-Approved
Companies’ (6 August 2003).
(21) DGAC/F-2004 Nos 315, 316
(22) UK-CAA Regulation Group — Aircraft Survey Report, 5 March

1996 (Office code: 223).

(74)

it
Therefore, on the basis of
is assessed that all air carriers certified in Liberia
should be subject to an operating ban and included in
Annex A.

the common criteria,

Air carriers from Sierra Leone

(75)

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Air Universal Ltd. These deficiencies have
been identified by Sweden during a ramp inspection
performed under the SAFA programme (24).

(23) Correspondence between the Transport Ministry of Liberia and
UK DGCA on the ‘inability, due to the Liberian Civil conflict,
to maintain regulatory control over Liberian registered aircraft’,
28 August 1996.

(24) LFV-S-04-0037

L 84/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2006

(76)

for

responsibility

authorities with

regulatory
The
oversight of Sierra Leone did not fully cooperate with
the civil aviation authority of Sweden when concerns
about the safety of the operation of Air Universal Ltd.
certified in that state were raised, as demonstrated by the
lack of
response to the correspondence from this
Member State.

(77)

The operating authorisation or technical permission of
any carrier under the oversight of Sierra Leone has
previously been refused or
revoked by the United
Kingdom.

(78) While the Air Operator’s Certificate of Air Universal Ltd
was issued by Sierra Leone, evidence shows that
the
airline has currently its principal place of business in
Jordan, contrary to the requirements of Annex 6 to the
Chicago Convention.

(79)

The authorities of Sierra Leone with responsibility for
regulatory oversight of Air Universal Ltd have not
exercised an adequate oversight on this carrier
in
accordance with their obligations under
the Chicago
Convention.

(83)

(84)

for

responsibility

authorities with

regulatory
The
oversight of Sierra Leone have shown an insufficient
ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety
standards in accordance with their obligations under
the Chicago Convention. Sierra Leone lacks an appro-
priate system in place to oversee its operators or the
aircraft, and does not have the technical capability or
resources to undertake such a task. Some holders of
Air Operator Certificate (AOC)
issued by Sierra Leone
did not have their principal place of business in Sierra
Leone, contrary to the requirements of Annex 6 to the
Chicago Convention.

The corrective action plan presented by Sierra Leone is
considered inappropriate (or insufficient) to correct the
identified serious safety deficiencies. The Civil Aviation
Authority of Sierra Leone has contracted a private
company,
to
International Aviation Surveyors
certain oversight
conduct
activities on its behalf.
However,
the arrangements entered into between the
two parties in a Memorandum of Understanding (26) do
not provide an adequate oversight system for aircraft on
the Sierra Leone register. In particular:

(IAS),

— The aircraft/airlines covered by the MoU were not
based in Sierra Leone and the lAS personnel were
based in neither Sierra Leone nor the country in
which the airlines were based.

(80)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
assessed that Air Universal Ltd. does not meet
relevant safety standards.

it is
the

— IAS did not appear to have any enforcement powers.

(81)

(82)

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of air carriers certified in Sierra Leone. These
deficiencies have been identified by three Member
and Sweden, during ramp
States,
inspections performed under the SAFA programme (25).

the UK, Malta

for

responsibility

authorities with

The
regulatory
oversight of Sierra Leone did not fully cooperate with
the civil aviation authorities of Sweden and of Malta
when concerns about the safety of the operation of Air
Universal Ltd certified in that state were raised as demon-
strated by the lack of response to the correspondence
from this Member State.

(25) CAA-UK-2003-103
CAA-UK-2003-111
CAA-UK-2003-136
CAA-UK-2003-198
CAA-MA-2003-4
LFV-S-2004-37

— IAS assumed responsibility for routine inspections of
inspection

the level of

the airlines concerned but
activity was not specified.

— The MoU gave lAS a contractual relationship with the

airlines concerned.

— The MoU did not appear to adequately address the

supervision of flight operations.

(26) Memorandum of Understanding between DCA Sierra Leone and
‘FAST International Aviation Surveyors on the
inspection,
surveillance and provision of regulatory services to extra-regional
air operators’ (IAS/SL DCA MOA 201101).

23.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/21

(85)

The authorities of Sierra Leone with responsibility for
regulatory oversight of the following air carriers have
shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety
oversight on these carriers: Aerolift Co. Ltd, Afrik Air
Links, Air Leone Ltd, Air Rum Ltd, Air Salone Ltd, Air
Universal Ltd, Destiny Air Services Ltd, First Line Air (SL)
Ltd, Heavylift Cargo, Paramount Airlines Ltd, Star Air
Ltd, Teebah Airways, West Coast Airways Ltd.

(91)

The authorities of Swaziland with responsibility for regu-
latory oversight of the following air carriers have shown
a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety oversight on
these carriers: Aero Africa (Pty) Ltd, African International
(Pty) Ltd, Airlink Swaziland Ltd, Northeast
Airways
Airlines (Pty) Ltd, Scan Air Charter Ltd, Swazi Express
Airways, Jet Africa.

(86)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that all air carriers certified in Sierra Leone
should be subject to an operating ban and included in
Annex A.

(92)

Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria,
it is
assessed that all air carriers certified in Swaziland
should be subject to an operating ban and included in
Annex A.

(87)

(88)

Air carriers from Swaziland

There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on
the part of Jet Africa, an air carrier certified in Swaziland.
These deficiencies have been identified by the Neth-
erlands during a ramp inspection performed under the
SAFA programme (27).

Jet Africa did not respond adequately and timely to an
enquiry by the civil aviation authority of the Netherlands
regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a
lack of transparency or communication as demonstrated
by the absence of reply to the correspondence sent by
this Member State.

(89)

There is no evidence of a corrective action plan presented
by Jet Africa to correct the serious safety deficiencies in
response to the Netherlands request.

(93)

(94)

(95)

(90)

for

the time of

responsibility

authorities with

The
regulatory
oversight of Swaziland have shown an insufficient
ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety
standards,
in particular as demonstrated by a USOAP
audit which took place in March 1999. The audit
report (28) concluded that at
the audit,
Swaziland was not capable of satisfactorily undertaking
safety oversight related responsibilities in respect of its
airlines and aircraft register. It also noted that it was not
possible to determine the actual number of aircraft on
the register as it was not properly maintained. Neither
was it possible for the audit team to determine the actual
number of personnel
licences issued by Swaziland that
were still valid, as records were not being maintained. A
USOAP audit follow up mission has not taken place
because Swaziland has not provided ICAO with infor-
mation on the progress it has made in implementing
the action plan to address the audit findings.

(27) CAA/NL-2004-98
(28) ICAO-USOAP Summary Report — Audit of the Directorate of Civil

Aviation of Swaziland, (Mbabane, 9-12 March 1999).

General considerations concerning the carriers included in
the list

Since it would not compromise safety, all air carriers
mentioned above can be permitted to exercise traffic
rights by using wet-leased aircraft of an air carrier
which is not subject to an operating ban, provided that
the relevant safety standards are complied with.

The Community list has to be updated regularly and as
soon as it is required, in order to take into account the
safety in relation to the air carriers
evolution of
concerned and on the basis of
further evidence of
remedial actions undertaken.

Air carriers not included in the list

and further

In light of the evidence provided by Tuninter and the
authorities of Tunisia with responsibility for its regulatory
oversight
is
considered that there is substantiated evidence that the
on-site
safety
inspections
been
corrected by this carrier.

during
Italian authorities have

confirmation by Italy,

deficiencies
by

observed

two

the

it

(96) On the basis of the information provided by Germany, it
is considered that
substantiated
evidence of a lack of ability or willingness of the autho-
rities of Tajikistan with responsibility for
regulatory
oversight of air carriers certified in this State.

there is no longer

(97) On the basis of the information provided to Belgium
showing that the deficiencies which led to a national
ban on I.C.T.T.P.W. and South Airlines have been fully
remedied, it is considered that there is no substantiated
evidence of persisting serious safety deficiencies on the
part of these air carriers.

L 84/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2006

(98) On the basis of the information provided by Germany
showing that the specific aircraft which led to the impo-
sition of a operational restriction on Atlant Soyuz is no
more part of its fleet,
it is considered that there is no
substantiated evidence of persisting serious safety defi-
ciencies on the part of this air carrier.

(99) On the basis of the information available at this stage, it
is considered that there is no substantiated evidence of
non-corrected serious safety deficiencies on the part of
Air Mauritanie. Nevertheless, the ability of the authorities
of Mauritania with responsibility for regulatory oversight
of this air carrier needs to be further assessed. To this
end, an evaluation of the authorities of Mauritania with
responsibility for regulatory oversight of this air carrier
and the undertakings under its responsibility should be
conducted within 2 months by the Commission with the
assistance of the authorities of any interested Member
States.

(100) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
Safety

accordance with the opinion of
Committee,

the Air

Article 2

Operating bans

The air carriers listed in Annex A are subject to a ban

1.
within the Community for all their operations.

2.
The air carriers listed in Annex B are subject to opera-
restrictions within the Community. The operational
tional
restrictions consist of a prohibition on the use of the specific
aircraft or specific aircraft types mentioned in Annex B.

Article 3

Enforcement

Member States shall inform the Commission of any measures
taken under Articles 3(1) of the basic Regulation to enforce,
within their
included in the
Community list
the air carriers that are the
subject of those bans.

the operating bans

in respect of

territory,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Subject matter

This Regulation establishes the Community list of air carriers
which are subject to an operating ban within the Community
referred to in Chapter II of the basic Regulation.

Article 4

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following
the European
that of
Union.

its publication in the Official

Journal of

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 March 2006.

For the Commission

Jacques BARROT
Vice-President

23.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/23

ANNEX A

LIST OF AIR CARRIERS OF WHICH ALL OPERATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO A BAN WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY (1)

Name of the legal entity of the air
carrier as indicated on its AOC
(and its trading name, if different)

Air Operator Certificate (AOC)
Number or Operating Licence
Number

ICAO airline desig-
nation number

State of the Operator

Air Koryo

Unknown

KOR

Democratic People Republic of
Korea (DPRK)

Air Service Comores

Unknown

Unknown

Comores

Ariana Afghan Airlines (1)

009

AFG

Afghanistan

BGB Air

AK-0194-04

Unknown

Kazakhstan

GST Aero Air Company

AK 0203-04

Phoenix Aviation

02

Phuket Airlines

07/2544

Reem Air

07

Silverback Cargo Freighters

Unknown

BMK

PHG

VAP

REK

VRB

Kazakhstan

Kyrghizstan

Thailand

Kyrghizstan

Rwanda

All air carriers certified by the
authorities with responsibility
for
of
Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC), including,

regulatory

oversight

Unknown

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Africa One

409/CAB/MIN/TC/017/2005

CFR

AFRICAN COMPANY AIRLINES 409/CAB/MIN/TC/017/2005

Unknown

AIGLE AVIATION

Ministerial signature

Unknown

AIR BOYOMA

Ministerial signature

Unknown

AIR KASAI

409/CAB/MIN/TC/010/2005

Unknown

AIR NAVETTE

409/CAB/MIN/TC/015/2005

Unknown

AIR TROPIQUES s.p.r.l.

409/CAB/MIN/TC/007/2005

Unknown

ATO — Air Transport Office

Unknown

Unknown

BLUE AIRLINES

409/CAB/MIN/TC/038/2005

BUL

BUSINESS AVIATION s.p.r.l.

409/CAB/MIN/TC/012/2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

_____________
(1) Air carriers listed in Annex A could be permitted to exercise traffic rights by using wet-leased aircraft of an air carrier which is not

subject to an operating ban, provided that the relevant safety standards are complied with.

L 84/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2006

Name of the legal entity of the air
carrier as indicated on its AOC
(and its trading name, if different)

Air Operator Certificate (AOC)
Number or Operating Licence
Number

ICAO airline desig-
nation number

State of the Operator

BUTEMBO AIRLINES

Ministerial signature

Unknown

CAA — Compagnie Africaine
d’Aviation

409/CAB/MIN/TC/016/2005

Unknown

CARGO BULL AVIATION

409/CAB/MIN/TC/032/2005

Unknown

CENTRAL AIR EXPRESS

409/CAB/MIN/TC/011/2005

CAX

CETRACA AVIATION SERVICE 409/CAB/MIN/TC/037/2005

Unknown

CHC STELAVIA

Ministerial signature

Unknown

COMAIR

Ministerial signature

Unknown

COMPAGNIE AFRICAINE
D’AVIATION

409/CAB/MIN/TC/016/2005

Unknown

C0-ZA AIRWAYS

Ministerial signature

Unknown

DAS AIRLINES

Unknown

RKC

DOREN AIRCARGO

409/CAB/MIN/TC/0168/2005

Unknown

ENTERPRISE WORLD
AIRWAYS

409/CAB/MIN/TC/031/2005

EWS

FILAIR

409/CAB/MIN/TC/014/2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

FREE AIRLINES

409/CAB/MIN/TC/MNL/CM/
014/2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

GALAXY CORPORATION

409/CAB/MIN/TC/0002/MNL/
CM/014/2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

GR AVIATION

409/CAB/MIN/TC/0403/TW/
TK/2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

GLOBAL AIRWAYS

409/CAB/MIN/TC/029/2005

BSP

GOMA EXPRESS

Ministerial signature

Unknown

GREAT LAKE BUSINESS
COMPANY

I.T.A.B. — International Trans
Air Business

Ministerial signature

Unknown

409/CAB/MIN/TC/0022/2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

23.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/25

Name of the legal entity of the air
carrier as indicated on its AOC
(and its trading name, if different)

Air Operator Certificate (AOC)
Number or Operating Licence
Number

ICAO airline desig-
nation number

State of the Operator

JETAIR — Jet Aero Services,
s.p.r.l.

Unknown

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

KINSHASA AIRWAYS, s.p.r.l

Unknown

KNS

KIVU AIR

Ministerial signature

Unknown

LAC — Lignes Aériennes
Congolaises

Unknown

LCG

MALU AVIATION

409/CAB/MIN/TC/013/2005

Unknown

Malila Airlift

409/CAB/MIN/TC/008/2005

Unknown

MANGO MAT

Ministerial signature

Unknown

RWABIKA ‘BUSHI EXPRESS’

Unknown

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

SAFARI LOGISTICS

409/CAB/MIN/TC/0760/V/
KK//2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

SERVICES AIR

409/CAB/MIN/TC/034/2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

TEMBO AIR SERVICES

409/CAB/VC-MIN/TC/0405/
2006

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

THOM’S AIRWAYS

409/CAB/MIN/TC/0033/2005

Unknown

TMK AIR COMMUTER

409/CAB/MIN/TC/020/2005

Unknown

TRACEP

Unknown

Unknown

TRANS AIR CARGO SERVICES 409/CAB/MIN/TC/035/2005

Unknown

TRANSPORTS AERIENNES
CONGOLAIS (TRACO)

409/CAB/MIN/TC/034/2005

Unknown

UHURU AIRLINES

409/CAB/MIN/TC/039/2005

Unknown

VIRUNGA AIR CHARTER

409/CAB/MIN/TC/018/2005

Unknown

WALTAIR AVIATION

409/CAB/MIN/TC/036/2005

Unknown

WIMBI DIRI AIRWAYS

409/CAB/MIN/TC/005/2005

Unknown

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

Democratic Republic of Congo
(RDC)

L 84/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2006

Name of the legal entity of the air
carrier as indicated on its AOC
(and its trading name, if different)

Air Operator Certificate (AOC)
Number or Operating Licence
Number

ICAO airline desig-
nation number

State of the Operator

All air carriers certified by the
authorities with responsibility
for
of
oversight
Equatorial Guinea, including

regulatory

Unknown

Unknown

Equatorial Guinea

Air Consul SA

Unknown

Avirex Guinee Equatoriale

Unknown

COAGE — Compagnie Aeree
de Guinee Equatorial

Unknown

Ecuato Guineana de Aviacion

Unknown

Ecuatorial Cargo

GEASA — Guinea Ecuatorial
Airlines SA

Unknown

Unknown

GETRA — Guinea Ecuatorial de
Transportes Aereos

Unknown

Jetline Inc.

Unknown

KNG Transavia Cargo

Unknown

Prompt Air GE SA

Unknown

UTAGE — Union de Transport
Aereo de Guinea Ecuatorial

Unknown

RCS

AXG

COG

ECV

EQC

GEA

GET

JLE

VCG

POM

UTG

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

All air carriers certified by the
authorities with responsibility
for
of
Liberia, including

regulatory

oversight

Unknown

Unknown

Liberia

International Air Services

Unknown

SATGUR AIR TRANSPORT,
Corp.

Unknown

WEASUA AIR TRANSPORT,
Co. Ltd

Unknown

IAX

TGR

Liberia

Liberia

WTC

Liberia

All air carriers certified by the
authorities with responsibility
for
of
regulatory
Sierra Leone, including

oversight

Unknown

Unknown

Sierra Leone

AEROLIFT, Co. Ltd

Unknown

AFRIK AIR LINKS

Unknown

AIR LEONE, Ltd

AIR RUM, Ltd

Unknown

Unknown

AIR SALONE, Ltd

Unknown

LFT

AFK

RLL

RUM

RNE

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

23.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/27

Name of the legal entity of the air
carrier as indicated on its AOC
(and its trading name, if different)

Air Operator Certificate (AOC)
Number or Operating Licence
Number

ICAO airline desig-
nation number

State of the Operator

AIR UNIVERSAL, Ltd

00007

DESTINY AIR SERVICES, Ltd

Unknown

FIRST LINE AIR (SL), Ltd

Unknown

UVS

DTY

FIR

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

HEAVYLIFT CARGO

Unknown

Unknown

Sierra Leone

PARAMOUNT AIRLINES, Ltd

Unknown

STAR AIR, Ltd

TEEBAH AIRWAYS

Unknown

Unknown

PRR

SIM

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

Unknown

Sierra Leone

WEST COAST AIRWAYS Ltd

Unknown

WCA

Sierra Leone

All air carriers certified by the
authorities with responsibility
for
of
regulatory
Swaziland, including

oversight

Unknown

Unknown

Swaziland

AFRICAN
AIRWAYS, (Pty) Ltd

INTERNATIONAL

Unknown

AIRLINK SWAZILAND, Ltd

Unknown

Jet Africa

Unknown

NORTHEAST AIRLINES,
Ltd

(Pty)

Unknown

AIA

SZL

OSW

NEY

Swaziland

Swaziland

Swaziland

Swaziland

SCAN AIR CHARTER, Ltd

Unknown

Unknown

Swaziland

SWAZI EXPRESS AIRWAYS

Unknown

SWX

Swaziland

(1) The operating ban on Ariana Afghan Airlines applies to all aircraft operated by this air carrier except the following one: A310

registration number F-GYYY.

L 84/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2006

ANNEX B

LIST OF AIR CARRIERS OF WHICH OPERATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY (1)

Name of the legal entity
of the air carrier as
indicated on its AOC
(and its trading name, if
different)

Air Operator
Certificate (AOC)
Number

ICAO airline
designation
number

State of the
Operator

Aircraft type

Registration number(s)
and, when available,
construction serial
number(s)

State of registry

Air Bangladesh

17

Buraq Air

002/01

BGD

BRQ

Bangladesh

B747-269B

S2-ADT

Bangladesh

Libya

IL-76

Lybia

— UN-76007 (cons.
No 0003426765)

— 5a-DNA (cons.

No 0023439140)

— 5A-DMQ (cons.
No 73479392)
— UN-76008 (cons.
No 0033448404)

Buraq Air

002/01

HBA (1)

416/dac/tc/sec/
087/2005

BRQ

ALX

Libya

Let L-410

5A-DMT (cons.
No 871928)

Lybia

Democratic
Republic of
Congo (RDC)

All
fleet with the
exception of: L-101

All
the
fleet with
exception of: 9Q-CHC
(cons. No 193H-1206)

Democratic Republic
of Congo (RDC)

(1) Hewa Bora Airways is only allowed to use the specific aircraft mentioned for its current operations within the European Community.

(1) Air carriers listed in Annex B could be permitted to exercise traffic rights by using wet-leased aircraft of an air carrier which is not

subject to an operating ban, provided that the relevant safety standards are complied with.