The ALAE blog

 

The ALAE Executive at it’s March meeting voted unanimously to progress to a vote of members. This decision was based upon a draft agreement with Prospect that maintains ALAE autonomy as a Prospect branch. It further ensures that we have a financial reserve for the future in the unlikely event that a demerger is required.  

We have now contacted the Trades Union Certification Officer who is required to approve all documentation relating to the merger prior to presenting it to the membership for a decision. This is a complex process which will take some time to complete. All being well we would expect to be in a position to ballot members during the summer. 

Deputy General Secretary Mike Clancy who lead the discussions for Prospect said “ we see this as a long term investment where we build on the existing strengths of ALAE. We are confident that we can enhance the representation and service offered to ALAE members but we will not promise the earth just to get members to vote for the merger. We have built a good rapport with the ALAE Executive, establishing confidence that we will do what we say and that whilst we may be numerically the larger Union, we approach the merger with respect for what ALAE stands for and its expertise.” 

All parties involved are excited about the future and the potential benefits this merger will bring. Prospect already has vast experience of representing professionals who on a daily basis are required to make challenging decisions often coupled with enormous consequences.  Prospect represent challenging professions such as air traffic controllers, nuclear power engineers and forensic scientists; they consider aircraft engineering to be equally as challenging. 

ALAE Vice Chairman Jon Harris commented that “If the membership accept the merger the potential is there for the association to further increase it’s technical representation within the aviation industry and exert additional influence on the evolution of aircraft engineering ensuring that safety remains paramount”.  

Further updates will be released nearer to the ballot and all information will be available on the ALAE website (www.alae.org) and on the ALAE Blog (www.alae.org/blog). Obviously we welcome your views on the merger and any questions can be directed to your local ALAE representative or to head office direct.

In addition you can send any questions or concerns to prospect@alae.org and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

 

General, Prospect Merger

 

For the past few months the ALAE Executive has been discussing a possible merger with Prospect. Despite initial trepidations about our compatibility it quickly became apparent that ALAE and Prospect were already operating in an extraordinarily similar manner. Likeminded views on how to approach the challenges facing our members in the workplace as well a likeminded internal operating culture. Prospect like ALAE are non political, strive to offer the best support possible for their members whilst critically not overlooking the fact that industry specialists are best placed to decide and influence industry specific issues.

The above is reflected in Prospect’s support for the “Branch” method of representation. As it states on the Prospect website “ branches are the key unit of organisation for our members”. This is particularly important as it has many advantages. Prospect branches are run by those active in the particular field the branch represents. This ensures that the smaller voice is not lost amongst the larger ones as the branch itself is fully autonomous.  

Should the merger go through ALAE would become ALAE, a branch of Prospect. We would continue exactly as we are, dealing with the same professional issues as today in the same professional manner. What would change is that we would have instant access to a support network that is in our opinion, second to none covering the more generic union aspects such as legal representation, health and safety issues, pension advice etc. Prospect would also supply a national officer who will work in close co-operation with the ALAE executive thereby guaranteeing the continuation of the highest levels of understanding about the complexities of workplace and professional issues that has made ALAE so effective and the envy of others.

ALAE membership would benefit enormously from this situation as the executive would be able to divert more resources to dealing with professional issues  and the constant dumbing down approach to aviation safety that threatens us all.   

ALAE Chairman Robert Alway who has been representing ALAE in the discussions said “I have no reservations about supporting this merger at all. It has been a long, long time since I was involved in discussions where an organisation other than ALAE has put so much effort into ensuring that our members concerns were addressed. Prospect  have proven through actions and not just words that they are genuinely committed to enhancing our already excellent reputation by improving member services wherever possible.”     

 

 

General, Prospect Merger

 Complicit in this safety scandal are several TAP pilots and externally contracted maintenance organisations. The evidence is undeniable and clearly highlights:

• Falsifying of maintenance records
• Aircraft System faults erased from aircraft Logbooks Maintenance
• Inspections performed and signed off by unqualified individuals

AEI have been warning for some time about safety standards becoming compromised as commercial pressure and weak regulatory oversight increase their stranglehold on the aviation industry.

“What we are witnessing here is the direct result of insufficient regulatory oversight at both national and European level. National Aviation Authorities are not complying with the regulations as they should; this has been clearly documented in the EASA Standardisation Reports whilst the European Commission all too often succumbs to industry lobbying. This leaves a void as far as enforcement of the regulations is concerned and industry takes full advantage of the fare paying passenger by cutting corners and lowering safety levels” Fred continued.

AEI has long maintained that “self regulation” or “regulation light” as some call it, has no place in the aviation industry as too much is at stake. AEI have also criticised pilots for continuing to fly unsafe aircraft. The evidence published on the AEI website is clear for all to see. Pilots do place passenger’s lives in danger by taking unnecessary risks.

AEI demands that a full investigation be initiated immediately by the Portuguese National Authority and Department of Transport.

“It isn’t just about the regulators though” added Mr Bruggeman, “industry groups such as the European Cockpit Association and the Association of European Airlines have a lot to answer for by consistently failing to condemn the reckless and irresponsible behaviour of their members”.

AEI PR, Press Releases

EU UNFIT TO REGULATE EUROPEAN AVIATION?

 

When Antonio Tajani – the new EU Transport Commissioner – addressed the European Parliament’s Transport Committee in September, he stated that aviation safety is an “absolute priority” for him as “on safety, no compromise is possible. With European elections on the horizon such comments are intended to gain voters trust. Yet away from the politics the facts point to a different reality.

 

In September 2007 AEI issued a warning that European air safety could be compromised if the EU was not prepared to promptly tackle the 1600 plus audit findings raised by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) as part of their oversight of European Aviation. EU officials refused to confirm or deny the figures claiming that releasing such information into the public domain could jeopardize any potential legal proceedings against countries who fail to meet the required standards. The EU in fact dispatched a senior official to the AEI Annual Congress in London to explain to delegates how we had got it all wrong. Of course the figures however remained confidential.

 

Yet despite the EU’s apparent no compromise approach to air safety, during the past 12 months not one single National Aviation Authority has faced or is facing legal proceedings. Therefore we decided to use freedom of information legislation to obtain the reports. On reviewing the information received, the situation became very worrying indeed. Below is what the EU doesn’t want you to know:

 

(2005) 675 findings related to airworthiness
(2006) 833 findings related to airworthiness
(2007) 521 findings related to airworthiness [1]

269 of these are classed as findings “which if not corrected promptly raise safety concerns”.
In addition and despite AEI’s continued warnings about Engineer licensing, the 2007 Standardisation report contains this statement:

 

“ Maintenance Licenses (Part 66)  remains an open issue raising standardisation concerns and in some cases even safety concerns”[2].

 

Of course the above comes as no surprise to most of you. We have all witnessed the dumbing down of examination standards, the commercially biased licence conversion processes in place, the blatant ignoring of regulations intended to raise safety levels and the general all-round lowering of standards. But more importantly what is the EU doing about it?

 

The answer unfortunately is not a lot. EASA was set up as an executive body of the European Commission in order to perform a monitoring function whilst promoting the highest common standards of safety. EASA (as one can witness from the reports) actually does its job very well and has raised many safety related findings. Yet the EU in its wisdom insisted that the enforcement powers remained in Brussels, rather than in Cologne with EASA. This is nothing more than playing politics with safety.

 

 

The result is plenty of non compliances but vastly differing response times as far as enforcement is concerned. Unfortunately we have been here before. EASA was initially set up because of failings with the JAA (Joint Airworthiness Authorities). The main problem being differing levels of implementation between member states. One Government report states that the:

 

 “JAAs lack of legal status handicaps its effective operation. National variations in some standards remain, while unevenness in the implementation of common standards raises doubts about the quality of safety regulation in some countries. Cumbersome committee structures, and the need to achieve consensus, delay decision-taking. For these reasons all EU Member States, along with all significant EU aviation industry interests, support the creation of a new, powerful pan-European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA). It is planned to establish EASA by international treaty, and to give it legal powers to impose the standards it adopts.”[3]

 

So exactly what legal powers were bestowed upon EASA?  
The following statement says it all:

 

“We must underline however that the agency has no enforcement powers”.[4]

 In plain English, NONE.

 

Quite frankly the EU are not doing all they should to protect European citizens or maintain safety to the highest levels. The philosopher Santayana once said:

 

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

 

 With the Helios accident still fresh in many minds it can only be considered as utterly amazing that the EU have apparently already forgotten some of the criticisms and recommendations made by the accident investigation team.

 

The Helios accident investigation report detailed incompetence by the regulating authorities with damning criticisms such as:

 

“The Regulatory Authority’s diachronic inadequate execution of its oversight responsibilities to ensure the safety of operations of the airlines under its supervision and its inadequate responses to findings of deficiencies documented in numerous audits” and  “Ineffectiveness of international aviation authorities to enforce implementation of corrective action plans after relevant audits.”[5]

 

The Helios report also contained a specific recommendation to prevent a repeat accident:

“action plans are to be developed and implemented in shortest possible time; and impose the necessary pressure when they become aware that international obligations and standards are not being met by the Authorities.” [6]

 

The Standardisation reports clearly highlight that European Air Safety is not the absolute priority the EU claims it to be. The EASA Annual Standardisation reports are a damning inditement that the EU is just not responsible enough for the job.

 

They appear unable to comprehend the importance of airlines and National regulators adhering to the regulations thereby ensuring our skies remain safe, preferring instead to gamble with our safety by succumbing to the incessant lobbying from airlines complaining that they are finding it increasingly more difficult to operate. 

 

The latest tragedy involving Spanair further confirms this. Issues were raised by employees prior to the accident about the depth and effect of commercial cutbacks on safety. The motive for the cutbacks was to improve Spanair’s commercial viability. In addition there have been concerns raised about the Spanish DGAC and its ability to regulate.

 

AEI says enough is enough, the politics surrounding air safety must cease immediately. It is now time for the EU to get its act together before they are held accountable for the next tragedy. Without drastic, urgent measures, it is only a question of time before the next avoidable accident.

AEI PR, Press Releases Air safety