Ec Calls "time!" On Easa?

[BEagle]

In a strongly worded 'Note to the attention of the EASA's management board members', the Deputy Director General of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport writes:


..............................the Commission believes that the time has come to take clear decisions to steer the Agency in a different direction. In this respect it is essential to carefully consider the alternative of going back to the original structure, and wording (whenever possible) of JARs and ICAO requirements which should be transposed into Community law. This would certainly ensure a smooth transition and allow EASA to work calmly in the future on the ambitious improvements and shifts which have raised general concern and misunderstandings both from Member States and stakeholders alike.

The Commission strongly believes that the time has come to give a clear signal in this direction. This will allow first and foremost to ensure safety (since the present system gives enough guarantees), it would also allow to respect the legal and institutional deadlines laid down by the Member States and the European Parliament while at the same time paving the way toward a smooth improvement of the system in the coming years, in full cooperation with the Member States and all the stakeholders.

In any event, the Commission reserves the right, in order to comply with the legal and institutional obligations imposed on it by the basic Regulation, to proceed along the line described above.

The Commission draws the attention of the Management Board of the Agency in relation to this important matter, where time has come to steer the work of the Agency in a clearer and more effective direction in order to allow the Community discharge itself of its obligations in full compliance with Community law.

Best Regards,

Zoltan Kazatsay
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

'Going back to the original structure and wording (whenever possible) of JARs and ICAO requirements which should be transposed into Community law'. Hang on a minute - isn't that what EASA was supposed to have been doing in the first place?

That would be very welcome indeed - it would mean no more meddling and tinkering with current requirements and no interference with sub-ICAO / non-JAR matters such as UK BCPL, NPPL - and, of course, the UK IMCR!!

[BackPacker]

it would mean no more meddling and tinkering with current requirements and no interference with sub-ICAO / non-JAR matters such as UK BCPL, NPPL - and, of course, the UK IMCR!!

Are you sure about that? If the JAR texts are incorporated into EU law "as-is" then, as far as I can see (but IANAL) these laws supersede the ANO automatically. And if the JAR texts don't leave any room to be augmented with local laws, then everything local (NPPL and similar, IMCR etc) will automatically disappear.

On the other hand I have to agree with the EC: EASA is way overdue. EASA-FCL was originally promised for, what, 2008? Something has got to happen.

[flybymike]

Apart from the appalling use of English, I think the general tone of the statement is much to be commended, and will hopefully be a wake up call to EASA to halt some of their more bizarre ideas.

[bookworm]

That would be very welcome indeed - it would mean no more meddling and tinkering with current requirements and no interference with sub-ICAO / non-JAR matters such as UK BCPL, NPPL - and, of course, the UK IMCR!!

And where exactly do you think its says that? It says:

"going back to the original structure, and wording (whenever possible) of JARs and ICAO requirements which should be transposed into Community law."

That means instant death for "the UK BCPL, NPPL - and, of course, the UK IMCR", and back to the gold-plated standards for everything that were the JAR version, always the highest standards in the community. It looks like utter disaster to me.

[arra_halc]

allow EASA to work calmly in the future on the ambitious improvements and shifts which have raised general concern and misunderstandings both from Member States and stakeholders alike.So raising complaints has worked! Keep give EASA the "robust" responses is what I read here....

working calmly ... on the ambitious - reads to me as continue what your dong... but do it slower and LISTEN!

Good news on regulation if ever I saw it!

[Johnm]

Nooooooo!!!!!!!! It's not what we want at all. JAR and ICAO unleavened are disastrously overengineered for most of GA, the European Parliament's words on proportional interpretation of the ICAO requirements and recommendations is what we want.:ugh:

[flybymike]

We never had a problem with ICAO until JAR came along.

[Genghis the Engineer]

To be honest, JAR actually worked very well - with the sole exception of the UK implementation of JAR-FCL which was a complete disaster.

JARs were "gentlemens agreements", nonetheless approved by ICAO, which were published across Europe then adopted within each country's national system as was considered acceptable locally. It was, with the one exception I've mentioned, a pretty good compromise between European standardisation and each control controlling it's own affairs.

I worked a lot with JAR airworthiness codes such as JAR-VLA and JAR-22 and whilst not perfect, they were a pretty good compromise which were fairly well understood and workable across Europe.

G

[Sir George Cayley]

Think it fair to say that the EC no longer lurves the EASA-chilld to which it gave birth. Nor does Eurocontrol, who have seen their ambitions thwarted by this upstart brat. Niether do many organisations already under their "competence". Part M anyone?

Next is FCL/Medical followed by AOCs followed by ATC with airports bringing up the rear. No-one in any of these "domains" seem to be shouting 'whoopee' so I guess that some form of redirection had to come.

What's realy needed is a complete reform of Europe to give transparency and decision making back to the MEPs, supported by the Commission (except when they're visiting their uhmm, friends in Strassbourg:confused:

I've previously called for an overturning of the UK Govt but hey, why not get hung for a sheep - not a lamb; let's overturn the EP and the Iranian Govt too. (Funny that, what's the ICAO reg for Iran?)

Sir George Cayley

[IO540]

I think this whole thing is likely to be much more complicated than "we" can appreciate.

EASA has to do whatever the European Commission tells it to do. That is the political fact.

And anybody with power and money is lobbying the EC transport commissioner, not wasting their time responding to 600 page EASA proposals on the EASA commenting website :)

[Fuji Abound]

And anybody with power and money


I wonder which of these best describes our own AOPA - or perhaps its both. :confused:

[Captain Smithy]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think people are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing here.

I have re-read BEagle's post a number of times, and I can't see anything "strongly-worded" or revolutionary about the statement. In fact I think it is nothing at all.

The way I have read it, the statement is merely caling for better organisation (if such a thing is possible with EU superquangos, or anything European at all :rolleyes:) and less confusion over future developments.

The way I read it: nothing new to see here, move along.

Calling time on EASA? Chance would be a fine thing. :rolleyes:

Smithy

[Bigglesthefrog]

Does anyone think that this would be a good time to unify with the FAA:eek:
Not only would it become simple to import some of the lovely aircraft that they have in the US at currently very tempting prices, but we could get rid of the JAR, JAA, EASA, CAA, LAA and possibly Uncle Tom Cobley and all. And at a time when we are hearing so much about redundancies we could swell those numbers with all the shiny suited personnel that get such a thrill in life out of pushing one bit of paperwork from one desk to another and then back again. And best of all, the money saved could go back into GA and make it so much more affordable to fly our aeroplanes:ok:

[BEagle]

No, Biggles.



.

[jez d]

We're only seeing half the story here. The EC have written this letter in response to one EASA sent them bemoaning the fact that they do not have enough staff/funding/time to cope with their designated tasks and of not having a snowball's chance of meeting the deadlines imposed under the Basic Regulation. Both sides are to blame - the EC for imposing impossible targets - EASA for accepting them in the first place. Business as usual in Eurocrat land it would appear...

jez

[WestWind1950]

To be honest, JAR actually worked very well - with the sole exception of the UK implementation of JAR-FCL which was a complete disaster.

you didn't experience the German implementation! Talk about disaster! :mad: