Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of  15 July 2002  on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency  COM(2005) 579 final — 2005/0228 (COD)
Date: 2006-04-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, European Aviation Safety Agency, air safety, civil aviation, operation of the Institutions

C 185/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002
on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency

COM(2005) 579 final — 2005/0228 (COD)

(2006/C 185/19)

On 31 January 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 March 2006. The rapporteur
was Mr Simons.

At its 426th plenary session of 20 and 21 April 2006 (meeting of 21 April) the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 71 votes to 3.

1. Conclusions

sents real progress and procures a sufficient degree of harmoni-
sation in the areas regulated under its authority.

1.1
The objective to extend the scope of the Regulation (EC)
1592/2002 to air operations, FCL and third country aircrafts is
fully supported by the EESC, since greater efficiency and safety
would be achieved by having all aviation safety rulemaking
activities performed by a single authority.

1.2
third
In the context of additional certification for
country commercial operators, there should be clear possibili-
ties for the Community to sign bilateral agreements with third
countries on the mutual recognition of the relevant certificates.
Therefore, the EESC believes that action should also be under-
taken to ensure that all ICAO Member States fulfil their respon-
sibilities, which would make such an additional certification
obsolete.

1.3
In order to guarantee high levels of aviation safety, there
is a need for EASA to increase its resources for those tasks set
out in the Commission proposal. This will require a consider-
ably higher level of Community funding than currently envi-
saged. At the same time, the pooling of resources at EU level
has the potential for substantial cost savings not only for the
industry but also for the national governments. This issue is
not addressed in the proposal.

1.4
The EESC is convinced that the definition of commercial
operations should include corporate operations and fractional
operations as well, in order to ensure the same safety protec-
tion for all passengers within the EU.

In line with the safety objectives already referred to in
1.5
it is of utmost
points 1.1 and 1.4, and in users'
importance that the EASA ensure that the inclusion of JAR-
OPS rules in Community legislation, via the pending amend-
ment of Regulation No 3922/91 or any other procedure, repre-

interests,

2. Introduction and summary of the Commission Paper

2.1
In 2002, common rules in the field of civil aviation
were established and the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) was created through Regulation (EC) 1592/2002 of the
European Parliament and Council.

2.2
The principle objective of this Regulation is to establish
and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in
Europe. In addition the Regulation has the objective to ensure a
high uniform level of environmental protection, to facilitate
free movement of goods, persons and services, to promote cost
efficiency in the regulatory and certification processes and to
avoid duplication at national and European level,
to assist
Member States in fulfilling their obligations under the Interna-
tional Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)'s Chicago Convention
and to promote community views with regard to civil aviation
safety.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is within

2.3
the scope of the Regulation, in particular, responsible for

— assisting the Commission in its legislative tasks,

— assisting the Commission with conducting standardisation
inspections of the National Civil Aviation Safety Authorities
(NAAs),

— assisting the Community and its Member States in relations

with third countries,

— assisting Member States to respect their international obli-

gations,

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/107

— issuing certification specifications and guidance material,

— issuing type certificates and supplemental type certificates
for products, parts and appliances and ensuring their conti-
nuing airworthiness,

— issuing, and ensuring the continued oversight of, certificates
to design, production and maintenance organisations
located outside the territory of the Member States, and to
design organisations located in the Member States, and to
production organisations if requested by the Member State
concerned.

the Council
amending Regulation (EC) 1592/2002 of
15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation
and establishing the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
(COM(2005) 579 final).

The proposal would extend the common rules to all
2.10
air operations and the certification requirements to all commer-
cial operators. Certificates would be issued by the Member
States (NAAs) or, where appropriate, the EASA, which could
also, where necessary, impose operational directives.

2.4
The NAAs retain responsibility to issue individual certifi-
cates of airworthiness and certificates to organisations and staff
(except for design organisations) based in their country but in
accordance with the common rules and subject to standardisa-
tion inspections by EASA.

2.11
For non-commercial operations, the rules would be
tailored to the complexity of the aircraft but there would be no
certification. Where
such operations are conducted with
complex aircraft, the operators concerned should declare that
they are able to meet the essential requirements related to air
operations.

It is generally recognised (1) that for efficiency, safety
2.5
and standardisation reasons, it is essential to have all the avia-
tion safety regulatory activities within the Community dealt
with by one single Authority (EASA).

2.6
In its Explanatory Memorandum the Commission recalls
in
since Regulation 1592/2002 entered into force
that
September 2002, the Community has exclusive competence
regarding the airworthiness and environmental compatibility of
aeronautical products, parts and appliances. When the current
text was adopted, it was already understood that in order to
guarantee a high uniform level of safety and provide a level
playing field for community air operators, there is a need to
extend the scope of the Regulation to include air operations
and flight crew licensing.

2.7
The Commission recalls that the inclusion of JAR-OPS
rules in Community legislation, via the pending amendment of
Regulation No 3922/91 (EU-OPS-1) will undeniably be a step
forward but it will not procure a sufficient degree of harmoni-
sation because it will only cover commercial air transport.
Other types of aircraft, other commercial operations and non-
commercial operations will not be covered by these common
rules, nor will the rules cover flight crew licensing or third
country aircraft. Therefore, the proposal for amending Regu-
lation 1592/2002 has been tabled.

The proposal also includes certification requirements to

2.8
third country commercial operators flying to the EU.

2.9
On 16 November 2005, the Commission published its
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of

(1) Reference is also made to the Opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil avia-
tion and establishing the European Aviation Safety Agency with
rapporteur Mr Von Schwerin (Official Journal C 221, 7.8.2001).

2.12
The proposed regulation would require most pilots
operating in the Community to hold a licence issued on the
basis of common requirements. Organisations, staff and devices
related to training would also have to be certified based on
common rules. EASA would conduct standardisation inspec-
tions of the NAAs responsible for checking these rules and
would certify itself organisations and devices based in third
countries.

To ensure sufficient protection, the proposal would
2.13
also impose common operational rules on third country aircraft
operated in the Community. Third country commercial opera-
tors flying to the Community would in addition have to be
attested with a certificate.

2.14
tioning of the Agency,
management board.

The proposal also envisages some changes to the func-
its

in particular the functioning of

3. General comments

3.1
Aviation in Europe needs a single safety regulator for all
components of the air transport value chain, in order to ensure
a consistent and coherent approach to safety regulation in the
common aviation market. Greater efficiency and safety would
be achieved by having all aviation safety rulemaking activities
performed by a single authority — there are no clear bound-
aries between various aspects of safety regulation. Therefore,
the objective to extend the scope of
the Regulation (EC)
1592/2002 to air operations, FCL and third country aircrafts is
fully supported by the EESC.

C 185/108

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

3.2
There is a need to ensure the safety of third country
aircraft operating into the Community. There is also a need to
restore the level playing field with other areas of the world
which impose such a requirement on EU airlines flying to
those countries (i.e. USA) and have used such a requirement to
give unfair competitive advantages to its own airlines to the
detriment of the EU airlines. However, in the context of addi-
tional certification for third country commercial operators,
there should be clear possibilities for the Community to sign
bilateral agreements with third countries on the mutual recog-
nition of the relevant certificates in order to avoid burdening
the international airlines with too much additional certificates.
Therefore, the EESC believes that action should also be under-
taken to ensure that all ICAO Member States fulfil their respon-
sibilities, which would make such an additional certification
obsolete.

The European Aviation Safety (EASA) needs to obtain
3.3
the required EU public funding to fulfil
its additional safety
roles, in particular to conduct sufficient standardisation inspec-
the National Civil Aviation Safety Authorities
tions of all
(NAAs) located in the Community, to conduct safety analysis
and to ensure that Europe remains competitive with other
areas of the world. Therefore, in order to guarantee high levels
of aviation safety, there is a need for EASA to increase its
resources for those tasks. This will require much more Com-
munity funding than currently envisaged.

A building up of resources and staff at

3.4
the EASA
requires a gradual reduction of staff at the NAAs in order to
ensure that cost efficiency objectives are met and in order to
avoid increased cost for the EU industry and airlines. The
pooling of resources at EU level has the potential for substantial
cost savings not only for the industry but also for the national
governments, provided a roadmap is developed on the future
role of the NAAs and their required staffing. The Commission
proposal fails to address this issue.

3.5
It is essential that the pending amendment of Regulation
3922/91 (EU-OPS-1) be analysed according to safety and
harmonisation objectives and that future EASA implementing
rules for air operations be developed through a consistent and
coherent approach to safety regulation based on clear scientific
and safety data.

3.6
It is essential also to ensure a smooth transition from
the current national systems (based on JAR-OPS-1 rules) and
that changes to existing rules are limited to adapting them to
community law and the new EASA framework.

operations. In particular they should be required to demon-
strate their capability and should be subject to identical imple-
menting rules. All passengers within the EU should enjoy the
same safety protection. In addition, since it often involves the
operations of complex motor-powered aircraft (Boeing 737,
Airbus A319) in the same airspace as commercial operations, it
is for safety reasons of utmost importance that they are subject
to identical rules and subject to identical application of the
rules as commercial operations.

4.2
The pending amendment of Regulation 3922/91 (EU-
OPS-1) has effectively harmonised safety training requirements
for cabin crew but has left the issue of delivering a certificate
to the Member States. Some Member States deliver a certificate
but others do not see a need for it. The EASA should therefore
verify whether this lack of harmonisation in the conditions for
exercising cabin crew duties could have a detrimental effect on
passenger safety.

As

regards

4.3
the pending amendment of Regulation
3922/91 (Subpart Q of EU-OPS-1) it is of utmost importance
the Flight Time Limitations scheme be subject to a scientific
and medical evaluation by EASA in accordance with the provi-
sions to be laid down in the regulation amending the EU-OPS-
1 Regulation (3922/91) and to cover any safety problem which
may be identified by EASA in the course of its future moni-
toring activities.

4.4 With regard to the EASA management board (article 25)
and the planned EASA Executive Board (article 28) it is consid-
ered essential to avoid that the Agency gets overloaded with
too many boards. Therefore,
if an Executive Board is estab-
lished, the Management Board should be reduced to an annual
or bi-annual assembly. In this context it is also important to
avoid that representatives from the National Aviation Authori-
ties (NAA) are appointed on this board since this could lead to
conflicts of interest due to the fact that the NAAs also depen-
dent on revenue from industry and might
therefore not
subscribe to a more efficient EASA system.

4. Specific comments

The definition of commercial operations

4.1
(article 1)
should include corporate operations and fractional ownership

4.5
The proposal to nominate 4 representatives from the
EASA Advisory Board of Interested Parties (EAB) to the EASA
Management Board (and Executive Board) is a logical conse-
quence of the fact that EASA's role is to serve the industry,
which is paying the largest part of EASA's budget via fees and
charges. However,
the industry's large
taking into account
contribution to EASA's budget, it would be logical to give them
similar voting rights for issues concerning the general func-
tioning of
the Agency and strategic issues related to the
Agency.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/109

4.6
It is understood that the changes to the appointment of
the Executive Director and the Directors (article 30 (b) para-
graph 4) are the result of general changes affecting all EU
Agencies. Nevertheless, it is believed that for highly qualified
Agencies such as EASA, there is a need to review this proposal,
which would prevent well performing candidates to continue
their duties beyond two times five years. This could have the
detrimental consequence, that EASA is not able to recruit the
most suitable candidates.

The essential

requirement on theoretical

4.7
instruction
(paragraph 1.i.1 of Annex III) seems to have omitted the use of
CD-ROM for theoretical instruction, although this is already a
well proven standard training practice in the industry. There-
fore the paragraph should be rephrased to read as ‘1.i.1 Theore-
tical
instruction must be given or
designed by appropriately qualified instructors’.

Instruction Theoretical

The essential requirement on flight operations and seats
4.8
(paragraph 3.a.3 of Annex IV) should be amended to read as
‘Taking into account the type of aircraft, during take off and
landing, during taxiing and whenever deemed necessary in the
interest of safety, the pilot in command should ensure that
each passenger is properly seated and secured’. The reason for
this amendment is to cater for the current safety regulations
which allow infants (below age of two) to sit on the lap and
which forbid (for safety reasons) the use of berths during take
off, landing and taxiing (berth's are only used during cruise for
baby's comfort).

4.9
The essential requirements on number and composition
of the crew (paragraph 7a of Annex IV) seem to have merged
the number and composition of flight crew with the number
and composition of cabin crew. The number and composition
of flight crew is already addressed elsewhere since this depends

Brussels, 21 April 2006.

on the aircraft certification (limitations in the aircraft flight
manual, reference paragraph 4a) and flight time limitation rules
(reference article 15b3). For cabin crew, the safety rules as JAR-
OPS 1990 is the main driver for determining the minimum
number.

4.10
The proposal dealing with security programmes (para-
graph 8d(iv) of Annex IV) related to protection of electronic
and computer systems to prevent intentional system interfer-
ence and corruption should be deleted since it would be impos-
sible for airline operators to comply with such a requirement.
This issue is a matter for aircraft and system certification
(airlines should only be responsible to address unintentional
interference which is already addressed by safety briefings but
which is not a security issue).

4.11
The proposal seems to envisage only 20 additional
positions at EASA (reference page 55, total number of human
resources) to deal with the expanded scope (This figure should
be compared with around 200 people currently employed with
the EU NAAs and working on rulemaking in the field of opera-
tions and FCL. In addition, in the current national system coor-
dinated through the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), industry
is providing a lot of support for drafting new rules, which is
not any more possible under the EASA system). It is strongly
felt that 20 positions at EASA would be completely insufficient
for EASA to fulfil
its additional roles. This could result in
further delays in important EASA rulemaking activities (as
today already experienced in other fields) which could put
safety at risk and which could undermine the competitiveness
of the EU industry. Also for EASA standardisation inspections
of the EU NAAs and safety analysis within those new fields of
competence, much more resources are required to ensure an
uniform level of safety oversight.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND