EASA railroads its N-reg attack through Parliament
The European Parliament yesterday approved EASA-FCL despite a
last-minute attempt to have it sent back to EASA for redrafting
because of unresolved issues surrounding third-country licences. The
vote was very close – 16 against approval, 22 for – and a surprise for
IAOPA was the fact that the Parliament's Transport Committee chairman
Brian Simpson and his socialist group voted in EASA's favour. Mr
Simpson had expressed support for IAOPA's position on the N-register
in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly.
The passage of EASA-FCL despite the deleterious effect it will have on
the general aviation industry illustrates not only the absence of any
real democratic control over EASA but the failings of the whole
European governmental structure. EASA-FCL was born out of a Basic
Regulation written by European Commissioners with no electoral
mandate; the details were added by bureaucrats at EASA who paid lip
service to the idea of consultation with industry. When the time came
to vote, the elected members of the European Parliament were denied
the opportunity to pass judgement on the components of this long and
complex document – they only had the power to accept all of EASA's
proposals, or reject them entirely. Because the Commission's deadlines
(themselves entirely arbitrary) are bearing down on us, MEPs are under
enormous pressure to pass the legislation; failure to do so would have
caused chaos and confusion among the national aviation authorities who
are expected to begin implementing EASA-FCL by April next year, and it
is a measure of the extreme level of concern MEPs have over the
N-registration issue that many of them were prepared to 'throw the
baby out with the bathwater'.
The decision was effectively taken on August 31st by the Transport and
Tourism Committee, which speaks for the whole Parliament on this
issue. Thanks in part to the work of Herbert Habnit, founder of AOPA
Netherlands, two MEPs, Peter van Dalen and Philip Bradbourne, had
sought a resolution saying that EASA's third-country licensing
proposals meant that many pilots would be severely disadvantaged,
subject to additional training, examination and 'notable costs', and
that the requirements were 'disproportionate'. EASA claims the
shortcomings in its regulation can be overcome by a bilateral
agreement between Europe and the US, but the van Dalen/Bradbourne
motion points out that 'there is absolutely no evidence nor clear
future prospects for the potential bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreements being drafted and to be concluded before April 2014'(by
which time the third-country provision of EASA-FCL must be fully
implemented) that would solve these problems. It goes on to say there
are no safety issues behind EASA's regulation, and adds that the draft
regulation does not even conform to the requirements of the
Commission's own Basic Regulation.
Four more votes would have tipped the matter in general aviation's
favour. Mr Habnit was particularly disappointed at the failure of Mr
Simpson and those in his sphere of influence to support the
resolution. Mr Simpson had, says Mr Habnit, abrogated the provisions
of the European Parliament's own 'Agenda for a Sustainable Future for
General Aviation', adopted in 2009. There has, he adds, been no real
attempt to quantify the cost of this politically-motivated attack on
the GA industry. 'Even EASA does not understand the consequences of
its actions.'
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said afterwards: 'It's a
sad day. The MEPs were put under enormous pressure to push this
through and were denied the ability to address the huge flaws in it.
This could not have been railroaded through in a truly democratic
process. Economically, the vote is seriously bad news for our
industry. Many of those who have been flying perfectly safely for
decades on FAA licences are not going to make the extraordinary
investment of time, effort and money needed to get European IRs or
other qualifications – they will simply give up. The European
Parliament has blown a great hole in our industry with this vote, and
because it has been bamboozled by EASA, it doesn't even know it.
'We now have to focus on the detail of the FCL annexe to the Bilateral
Agreement to make sure that EASA and the FAA reach sensible agreements
on what credits they will give to each other's training systems. It is
unlikely that the 2014 deadline will be achieved given the amount of
work that needs to be done, and the Commission has accepted that the
deadline may need to be extended. Retrospective legislation like this
is damaging and the Commission should now work hard with the industry
to reduce as far a possible the negative impact of these decisions.'
It is so disgusting what these con merchants are doing with GA
Is it not about time our CAA stood up like the French and copy the French PPL IR proposals?
Only scrap of comfort is the 2014 deadline is likely to be extended again to 2016
Pace