The main goal of EU aviation safety policy is to minimise the risk of accidents, and its main spheres of action are setting safety rules, ensuring that they are being complied with and sanctioning those who are not complying, said Roberto Salvarani, a former head of unit for air safety at the European Commission.
Regarding the Community blacklist, Salvarani said "the aviation world is aware that we master a very powerful weapon against sub-standard operators and sub-standard countries. They are aware of the heavy economic consequences of ending up on the list."
"It is very important for all Europeans to enjoy the same level of safety. It would be incomprehensible if some member states took stricter measures and others less so. We need a high and harmonised level of safety in the European sky. This is the advantage of the Union, as it raises the bar for safety standards across the board," said former EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot.
The big advantage of EASA is that it brings together air safety expertise developed over the years by different countries, said European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Executive Director Patrick Goudou. "Our goal is to bring all European member states to the same high and uniform level of air safety."
"The eventual extension of the EASA system to all aspects of aviation safety is logical and technically consistent. It will guarantee safety across the aviation system and a level-playing field for European industry. The agency will work in partnership with Eurocontrol and SESAR in order to avoid any overlap or gap in the regulatory system," Goudou added.
EASA does certification for type notifications and thus checks technical equipments used in aviation, explained EASA press officer Elisabeth Schöffmann. It also does standardisation and checks whether EU law is properly implemented across the EU 27. Furthermore, it conducts safety analysis and research, collects data on accident statistics to find out patterns, and releases research projects for tender. The agency uses existing material "as much as possible" and writes new rules on existing material, but "for some things, there is not any existing material," she added.
The Association of European Airlines (AEA) supported the creation of EASA and the extension of its responsibilities. It was "high time" for member states and the Commission to speak with one voice, said Fabio Gamba, deputy secretary-general of the AEA. "Meanwhile, we need to be careful about what EASA is doing, as its creation and enlarged responsibilities should not be interpreted as a blank cheque to re-invent the wheel. The agency should take note of previous agreements and not just open dossiers for the sake of opening them in order to put an EASA stamp on them," Gamba added.
The AEA deplored the fact that EASA had reopened a lot of dossiers that had already been closed and had no reason to be revisited on safety grounds. "The agency should have copy-pasted the rules from previous agreements to avoid time-consuming and costly administrative burdens and creating redundancies," Gamba continued.
He also argued that EASA had been a target for a lot of lobbying by unions, leading to proposals for rules that would bring extra costs to industry and customers - such as the need for two co-pilots instead of one. "We can only hope that EASA has a balanced approach and will in the future become a more authoritative body, basing its action on clear evidence," Gamba concluded.
According to the AEA, if EASA recommendations for new flight time limitations (FTL) for pilots were implemented, then airlines would need to employ 15-20% more pilots and many direct long-haul services would become too costly to operate. AEA argues that the science behind a recent EASA-commissioned study on FTL is "flawed" and is not supported by the delivery of "safe operation over many years and millions of flights".
On the contrary, both the European Cockpit Association (ECA), which represents airline pilots in Europe, and the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations, welcomed EASA study on FTL, as the report recognises that fatigue is dangerous. They are calling for an urgent review of Community rules on the matter.
"Any European aviation safety strategy should reflect that safety is often not only a technical matter but is also strongly determined by human factors," states Philip von Schöppenthau from the ECA. "EU rules on pilot fatigue have been demonstrated to be insufficient and should be changed quickly. When boarding a European airplane, passengers must be able to trust in the European legislator that they are protected by adequate safety legislation that does not ignore scientific evidence." ECA hopes EASA and the European Commission will acknowledge the human factors side of flight safety and both increase the quality of pilot training Europe-wide and work towards reducing the risk of pilot fatigue."
The Flight Safety Foundation, an international organisation engaged in research, auditing, education and advocacy to improve aviation safety, draws further attention to the human factors of aviation safety. "In 85% of all accidents, human error has been involved. This is not unique to aviation: human errors occur in any industry. And in aviation, it is not necessarily the pilot who makes mistakes. Mistakes can be made by an airline manager on the ground, a mechanic, an air traffic controller and even aircraft designers," it said.
The French National Trade Association for Commercial Air Transport group, the Fédération nationale de l'aviation marchande (FNAM), points to the technical, social and economic impacts that modifying currently complex civil aviation rules will have. It underlines the need to ensure democratic control of EASA throug renewed governance, assigning roles to policy, elected officials and stakeholders.
It argues that if EASA recommendations on FTL were passed, French companies would need to employ 20-25% more pilots without any guarantee of "a quantifiable effect on safety of the flights". Financially, for the Air France Group alone this would mean €300-€350 million in extra annual costs. According to FNAM, such extra costs would increase demand for flights by non-European companies and have a "disastrous effect" on jobs created by European companies.
FNAM also criticises EASA plans to introduce a mandatory "European extension" [Operational Suitability Certificate (OSC)] for existing plane type certification, arguing that it would only create additional costs for airlines and earn continuous 'supervision' and certification royalties for the agency. Such an extension would also lead to a distortion of international competition, as certificates and their related costs would not apply to non-European fleets.
Airline operators in general point to an EASA basic regulation stating that one of the agency's objectives is to promote cost-efficiency in regulatory and certification processes, and to avoid duplication at national and European level so as not to impose unjustified costs on operators.
They also argue that EASA rulemaking proposals are not "a simple transfer of EU-OPS," and desribe EASA's new rule structure as "radically different both from the previous one and from the ICAO standards," "confusing" and "not user-friendly".
Furthermore, the new structure and rule hierarchy appear to be a potential source of misunderstanding, complexity and legal uncertainty, as they "downgrade some essential safety rules into soft law" and mere guidance material.
Airports Council International-Europe (ACI-Europe) stresses the need to make it mandatory for EASA to formaly consult stakeholders. It calls for the introduction of a separate "stakeholder body" within EASA to facilitate consultation on proposed rules, "as this has not always been properly done in the past".
As for EASA's forthcoming powers on airports and aerodromes, ACI hopes the agency will act "diplomatically". It underlines that airports are already subject to "enormous amounts of regulation" regarding the majority of on-site operations, such as airport charges, land use, slots, security, passengers with reduced mobility, and limits on movements, etc.
ACI further fears that extending EASA's powers may have an important impact on small airports given that they are often located in remote regions, where airport operators have specific infrastructural requirements. "Some of these airports may never be in a position to achieve full regulatory compliance," it stated, calling for future regulations to promote flexibility.
"High standards and innovative safety practice form the backbone of the European aviation industry that already exists today. Without real engagement with stakeholders and experts on the ground, EASA will miss the opportunity to make its extension of powers operationally-feasible," ACI concluded.