Report Text: As a long standing AMEL now sadly reduced to an AML I have received your CHIRP Feedback publication since the start. I often file each issue under B1N on the basis that each issue contains reports in the engineering section about “poor me” they have “put on me”. If you can’t stand the heat get out!! With the current shortage of licensed Engineers there is always somewhere else to go.

However your report, Part 66 Licensing Standards, which I hope is not your last on the issue, has finally made me put finger to the keyboard!! The CAA reply to this feature clearly shows how totally out of touch they are with what is going on in ‘Europe’.

I, like your correspondent, recently converted my BCAR Licence to Part 66. Not only did I end up with limitations, but because I was honest in completing the application I lost type ratings from my conversion of group (Para 7.3) Let’s talk about level playing fields!!

For some time I have been supporting a Licensed Engineer/Pilot in Greece. Previously they had served a call up in the Greek Army air wing. On discharge they were given a Greek National Mechanics Licence. This has now been converted to a Part 66 Licence.

Because their National Licence did not differentiate between Aeroplane and Rotorcraft they were given B1 for both!

Because their National Licence did not differentiate between Piston and Turbine aeroplanes they were given B1 for both!

Because their National Licence did not differentiate between Mechanical Systems and Avionics they were given B2 Avionics!

CHIRP Comment: Achieving standardisation of the Part 66 requirements between EU Member States has been a priority for EASA, and several workshops have been held to review the findings from various EASA Standardisation visits. This alignment of Part 66 standards among the EU Member States has been made more complex due in part to the very differing standards that existed prior to the new legislation. The variation in apprenticeships, academic courses and the existence of engineer licensing requirements was significant, requiring considerable evaluation against the specific requirements of Part 66 to identify areas to be addressed. This extended to the identification of shortfalls in licence syllabi, resulting in partial limitations on the licence. Some States, whilst being compliant for larger aircraft, have not yet fully implemented Part 66 standards for all categories of aircraft, for example in the case of aircraft in the category below 5700kgs, as there is scope to derogate compliance until September 2010.

ALAE Comment: The UK CAA is the best informed NAA in Europe on these issues yet has consistently refused to confront the issue. Unfortunately the UK CAA has also compromised itself by issuing licenses to individuals where serious questions remain unanswered. However if Europe is unable to maintain even a basic level of integrity as far as Engineer’s Licensing is concerned then the level playing field will never materialize.

We intend to raise the issue of European (including UK) regulatory integrity and the level playing field again with the Department for Transport and so your comments and support are most welcome.

 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”.

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.