View Full Version : JAA has failed

2nd Feb 2002, 02:42
There is a new agency being set up in europe called the European Aviation Safety Agency.. .The CAA are part of the consortium setting up this organisation.. .Quoting from the EU Document A5-0279/2001 Page 36/76.

"The body previously entrusted with air safety responsibilities at European level, the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), an informal organisation set up in 1990 by the aviation authorities of the 15 Member States and various other European countries, has proved unable to fulfil the requirements for an efficient authority.All the proposals put forward by the JAA, even if they have emerged from the JAA consultation procedures, have to be processed once again in the framework of the Community's legislative procedures."

The CAA are now asking for comments before the start of the consultation period for the new agency,. .Having read the document quoted above it appears to be a JAA with teeth which is going to cost us 28.7 million euros per year by 2005.(The user pays-Remember). .Has anyone else read this document and can help with comments to pass on to the CAA (all four letter words deleted.)

Regards . .

. .

2nd Feb 2002, 03:13
I note the title.

Was there ever a time when it succeeded??

It must surely go down in aviation history, as the biggest administrative cock up ever!! <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> (Is that a four letter word?).

The UK once had a respected regime; some would say over pedantic, but never the less, in the main most understood what was required. What we are left with is a shambles. If you get certain members of the authority alone, they will admit is full of grey area's and loopholes, most of which, they don't understand either.

Never mind. This new load of legislation will keep another load of bureaucrat's in work for years to come.

What a mess!!! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Cyclic Hotline
2nd Feb 2002, 03:48
Do you have a link to this document?

I am reluctant to declare this a complete load of unadulterated crap, until I read it and confirm my worst suspicions! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

The JAA was only the dress rehearsal for what is coming - a total bloated, inefficient European bureaucracy, of the same standards of scale and efficiency as everything else related to the EU (funded by your taxes).

2nd Feb 2002, 04:05
Wait until you find out what powers EASA's Reichskanzler Probst is going to give himself......... Makes Mugabe look democratic!

2nd Feb 2002, 08:09
I don't think the JAA was necessarily a failure, it has hardly had time to get started. The JAA was after all, no more than an attempt to set common standards across Europe while national authorities such as the CAA retained executive authority within their own national boundaries. Admittedly the JAA could have done better in many areas, but development from a flawed beginning is a normal part of progress. This new proposal is yet another attempt to impose more administrative law by those who dream of a United States of Europe - with themselves in control naturally! If there are problems with the JAA then let those problems be corrected within the existing framework. Why trash the authority when it is barely begun and create a new and incidentally less accountable authority?

The E.C. may be a sad collection of failed national politicians such as Neil Kinnock, but the truth is that they still dream of power. Control at the national level is anathema to them. If the U.S.E. is really inevitable, then its time for Europeans to demand proper democratic controls over the E.C. The Council of Ministers has no teeth, being a mere nod in the direction of democracy. Likewise our so-called Euro MPs in their make-believe European Parliament. Its no use writing to the CAA, its our government ministers that must be roused from their slumbers. Bureaucrats must be made accountable to the electorate before its too late.

I suppose I'll be banned now for being too political... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema

2nd Feb 2002, 17:12
Does anyone know what implications this may have for people working towards there commercial licence? Will it be another set of deadlines that you must have to meet and complete by a certain date? Just like these national chaps.

2nd Feb 2002, 18:05
New exams, new deadlines, flight tests in Brussels and Rome.

What next? It's all change just for changes' sake.

Why not just adopt the FARs and be done with it!?

3rd Feb 2002, 00:17
Look on the bright side !!!! It will only cost more take longer and put us all out of business while some office ******** earns a lot nowing not a lot and making no decision due the fact that his large pension is on the like which he can collect at any age in any currency.. .Is That not about fair

3rd Feb 2002, 00:29
The link to EU report A5-0279/2001 is. .<a href="http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2001-0279+0+NOT+SGML+V0//EN&LEVEL=3" target="_blank">http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2001-0279+0+NOT+SGML+V0//EN&LEVEL=3</a>

sorry still learning how to do this url thing. .regards

3rd Feb 2002, 00:33
Much to my amazement the link works,there is a first time for everything you do in this world.


Fwd Wonder Cerebrum
3rd Feb 2002, 21:59
What's new with EASA? Same stuff as JAA, only different name I thought, 'n of course a few minor changes when it comes to authority, hopefully to the better. The EASA has been planned for years. See <a href="http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/om/200011/easa.htm" target="_blank">JAA - EASA</a> or <a href="http://www.ecac-ceac.org/uk/whatsnew/w-ecacnews19.htm" target="_blank">ECACNEWS 19</a>

And while we're talking about CAA, we don't just mean the British CAA, but all the other CAAs as well don't we? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

4th Feb 2002, 09:02
Regardless of how long ESAS has been planned, the dangerous words are on page 36 where it says that the JAA has "proved unable to fulfil the requirements for an efficient authority".

The authors of this document seem to have arrived on planet earth fairly recently and haven't quite accustomed themselves to our version of reality yet. A few examples extracted from the document illustrate a number of strange ideas, such as an intent to protect the safety and health of passengers from, among other oddities, "contaminated air" and poisonous food. The air quality in a typical airliner is far better than almost anywhere at ground level and the food, however awful, is certainly no more poisonous than that in the average restaurant; what evidence do they place before us to justify such a need? None.. . . .Then the Concorde accident is quoted as a justification for the results of air accident investigations to be acted upon as a matter of urgency. Do they mean that presently they aren't? The Concorde investigation was published as promptly as possible and actions arising from it were certainly acted upon urgently. In fact the French acted so swiftly that they beat the investigation report.

Another intention is to set up a body similar to the NTSB to investigate accidents. In Britain we already have a world class body - the AAIB, while other European countries have equally efficient investigation bodies. In case the E.C. hasn't noticed, national boundaries still apply until such time as the United States of Europe actually comes into existence.

If there is a need to set up a body to replace the allegedly terminally incompetent JAA, then this document certainly isn't the starting point. Who are these people? Do any of them have any background in aviation? We are in for a tough ride in Europe with more wasted time, money and effort to support another layer of useless parasitic civil servants. For precisely what effect on aviation safety? None. The only body that can truly have any effect on that is the industry itself (and by industry I naturally include our fellow professionals in the various national CAAs).

**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema

4th Feb 2002, 13:35
Cyclic Hotline has it right this is all political. .and its more job creation for the desks in the EU

We will pay for this - there is no accountability. .Nobody voted for this shambles, nobody wanted it,. .nobody needs it.

It's replacement is analagous to shifting the deck. .chairs on the titanic.

The real issue is accountability. There isn't any. These people look after themeselves.

The effect of JAA implemenatation on Flight crew licencing has been to

Increase cost. .Increase time. .Increase difficulty. .Reduce market size - PPSC SFT etc.. . .Increased the chances of continentals migrating . .to the UK for jobs

By the way how many PPL IRs were issued last year in the UK ... ?

[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: RVR800 ]</p>

4th Feb 2002, 17:23
The FAA, with all the warts, looks better every day, eh guys?. .They have now issued a proposal for a new sport pilot certificate, will get more guys into the air.. .The FAA is kept in line by the AOPA, NBAA, NATA...etc. Have been a member of the NBAA for two years now...they sure do know how to push all the hot buttons.. .Big hammers work wonders.

4th Feb 2002, 18:09
What is really scary about a change from JAA (who didn't quite get it right) to EASA (who won't get it right) is that there will be no industry participation in setting the regulations. With JAA, the CAA's, airlines and unions all had their say in shaping the future.

The faceless bureaupratts in Brussels will not let us have our say (they will however just take our money!!)


. .Try everything in life at least once, execpt incest and folk-dancing

4th Feb 2002, 19:03
Now hang on a sec!

The Agency hasn't even been set up yet and you're already bashing it as inefficient. It's being set up to counteract the ineffectivness of the JAA in terms of getting JAR's to be implemented at the same the time in all the JAA Member States.. . . .EASA would be an EU body, if I've understood matters correctly. The end result would be that new or revised Regulations would be binding upon all EU Member States at the same time, hence avoiding the current situation of JARs being implemented at different times in the JAA Member States, with different interpretations. Surely this would make things more effective and increase legal certainty for . .a.) flight crew, engineers etc. . .b.) for the operators.

And if I might venture as far as to say that perhaps some of the future civil servants of EASA would try to do a good job, taking the interests of all parties involved into account.


5th Feb 2002, 09:34
411A - Yes the warty old FAA is looking more attractive every day. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Cosmo - I haven't bashed ESAS as inefficient, but I did highlight a few of the ideas listed in the discussion document that suggest the authors don't seem to know the basics. So the idea is to set common standards throughout Europe? Fine, but let's set about correcting real problems not imaginary ones. We already have the JAA for better or worse, surely the best way forward is to develop the JAA into a truly trans-national body and have the E.C. enforce its regulations. What the Commission really cannot stand is that the JAA consists of members of the aviation industry, regulating themselves. We can't leave regulation to the experts - goodness me, whatever would happen if Lawyers and Doctors should wish to regulate themselves?

Finally, the JAA works through national bodies because the United States of Europe do not yet exist. National aviation laws not only govern aviation within national boundaries, they also ratify each individual nation's signature to the Chicago Convention. I'm not at all sure of the legal implications of overriding national law in this particular area. Perhaps one of the aviation lawyers who hang out here can enlighten us?

I'm certainly no great friend of the JAA, but I do think that it must remain the foundation of future regulation of European aviation.

**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema

5th Feb 2002, 12:48
I think the point here is not that we would like to become a self-regulatory body, but that we would like to have some sort of input into the body that will inevitably control all of us.

Having seen the errors made by the JAA it is clear that a lack of any formal discussions between all parties only leads to disasters.

I am mindful that this should include not only the 'professional' pilots, but everyone involved in the aviation business, much as the FAA consult the assorted representative agencies in the US BEFORE they implement changes.

On the other hand - they'll probably just do whatever they want - and put all the charges up again!!!

5th Feb 2002, 17:28
I cannot help feeling that if EASA comes into being we will find ourselves out of the proverbial frying pan into a lot more complication and expense.

Whether or not JAA has failed is a moot point. We are going to have some form of common regulations in Europe and, personally, I believe that the JARís are our least problematic option.. .With something like 30 states and almost twice as many cultures trying to agree on regulations and requirements, in a business as full of individualists and national pride as aviation, itís not bad to have come as far as we have. Not least as most of these countries were at war with each other little more than 50 years ago.. .Itís true that the JARís leave room for varying interpretations in different states but I believe this may be a good thing. After all we are still, to some extent, different cultures each with its own aviation history through which our sets of values have evolved. JAA and the JARís give us the opportunity to start evolving towards common values.. .EASA is likely to have more authority and start forcing us, overnight, into regulations we donít want. As has been pointed out on this forum, these regulations are likely to be created by people with little or no knowledge of aviation which means that they will be created from the viewpoint of the layman/consumer who doesnít pay for his own ticket when travelling. The proposals in document A5-0279/2001 say a bit about what we can expect; handling of food, quality of the environment in the cabin, findings of accident investigations etc.. .Where the document says that JAA has failed:. .--- Quote ---. .ďThe body previously entrusted with air safety responsibilities at European level, the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), an informal organisation set up in 1990 by the aviation authorities of the 15 Member States and various other European countries, has proved unable to fulfil the requirements for an efficient authority. All the proposals put forward by the JAA, even if they have emerged from the JAA consultation procedure, have to be processed once again in the framework of the Community's legislative procedures.Ē. .--- Unquote ---. .Öit seems that their criticism isnít really that the work of JAA, as such, is a failure but that the consultation procedure (in other words our chance of having a say on NPAís) makes life difficult for the EP. If they had given JAA a mandate to begin with this would not have been the case so it really seems like a lousy excuse for bringing aviation regulations under their own power while being able to say that they gave us a shot at sorting it out ourselves.

Maybe the United States of Europe will come into being at some time in the future but we are a long way from it now.

I am not saying that JAA is a good option, I just believe they are our least problematic option. Unfortunately I also believe the EP will take over and lead us into more trouble and expense.

Cyclic Hotline
6th Feb 2002, 01:03
Still digesting the content of this. Very interesting, if not dry reading here. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Some of the concepts are indeed those that may go someway to resolving the conflicts between National and International agencies and are actually quite encouraging. The fact that this is an AGENCY rather than an AUTHORITY may be the most significant change. The overall proposal is actually a quite promising definition of what is needed; the challenge is to translate that into an effective, viable, working entity.

That there be adequate measure to maintain the independence of the agency, whilst ensuring full responsbility and accountability to the elected representatives of the people, must be foremost in any public body. We still seem to have the same body creating and enforcing the rules it enacts!

Still coming to terms with some grammatical details such as "organigramme".

A few highlights from my initial review.


The Commission foresees an establishment plan of 151 posts composed of statutory staff with temporary contracts and part time staff (national experts) whom Member states would support at no cost to the Agency, except for travel costs which would be reimbursed by the Agency.

The rapporteur asks the Commission to clarify: the ratio between statutory and non statutory staff; the responsible authorities involved: Commission/national administrations; which pension scheme will apply to the different types of staff and whether these posts have been taken into account as priorities in the matching tasks/human resources exercise.

As the standing rapporteur for the Budget Committee, he wishes to recall that while the institutions have maintained a zero increase organigramme over the last years, the staff of the decentralised agencies have increased considerably:

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001/1995. .417 747 866 1,049 1,210 1,435 1,527 +366%. . . . <hr></blockquote>

This is not to say that the growth in personnel is not reflected and necessitated by the growth in the overall aviation business. It is important that any agency be adequately staffed to ensure an acceptable level of service and expediency.

. . [quote]

Europe, the continent which first demonstrated that humankind could burst the bonds of earth, remains a major force in the manufacture, testing and operation of aircraft. It is now a continent of crowded skies and tangled rules, on everything from air traffic control to basic safety alignments. European aviation sometimes appears to be trapped in a perpetual transit lounge, which has left the old work of bilateral deals and shameless subsidy for an internal market, but has not delivered the common rules on safety and protection which should be its rationale. The Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee is rightly concerned with this aspect of a harmonised regulatory system, and it welcomes the proposal to replace the existing arrangements of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in this spirit. It applauds the proposition that there is a pressing need for a new organisation to provide for collective action in all fields of aviation safety. The proposed European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will be criticised by some as extending the writ of ĎBrusselsí still further, to the disadvantage of Member Statesí autonomy. But there was never a field in which autonomy could be so reasonably transformed into a pooled strength.

EASA will have the necessary independent stance, and the powers to make it credible, both as a regulator of products and practices, and the operation of a system of surveillance of the new system. It will be the partner of national aeronautical authorities rather than their overlord. The Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee believes that its contribution should address both, the accountability and transparency of the new agency, and the emphasis on health and safety which should be the hallmark of the new body. The European public, mindful of some spectacular disasters of recent times, such as the Concorde crash in Paris, and apprehensive of possible hazards such as links between aircraft seating design and thrombosis in long-haul passengers, will rightly demand swift and open scrutiny.

It is in this spirit that we recommend open competition for the appointment of members of the Administrative Board, and a measure of public access both to its annual reviews of health and safety, and to its own deliberations. All Member States enrolled under Article 44 will have much to gain from this. Open skies can only be achieved by open means.


It should be noted as well, that it does not see it's remit to include personnel licencing, at least in the interim.;

[quote] Potentially: licences for maintenance, organisation and personnel, safety measures relating to air transport

Although covered by the Regulation (Article 1), these areas will not fall within the Agencyís remit in the immediate future, since the essential requirements and basic principles have not yet been defined at Community level. They will therefore remain within the domain of national sovereignty and international cooperation via the JAAs. Action by the Community legislator will be needed (Article 7) to transfer competence for these fields to the Union and establish joint rules and single certification/approval processes which will, if the legislator so decides, be entrusted to the AESA.


Edited for organigrammeinacal correctness. (Most probably unsuccessfully!) <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Cyclic Hotline ]</p>

6th Feb 2002, 08:56

Isn't it interesting that the growth in the number of bureaucrats described in the text quoted above, is exactly as predicted by "Parkinson's Law"?

Yes there really is a Parkinson's Law - read "Parkinson's Law" by C. Northcote Parkinson (ISBN 0-345-30064-5) first published by Ballantine Books in 1957. I just happen to have a copy handy and here on page 12 the law is expressed in the formula x = 100(l + 2k to the m) divided by yn where k is the number of staff seeking promotion through the appointment of subordinates, l is the difference between the age of appointment and the retiring age, m is the fraction of total manhours spent on internal administration and n is the number of effective units being administered. Parkinson found that the value of x will lie between 5.17% and 6.56% (at the 95% confidence level) irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done. The British Colonial Office is an extreme example where the staff increased from 372 in 1935 when the British Empire still flourished, to 1,661 in 1954 at which time there had ceased to be any colonies left to administer. The Colonial Office was then absorbed into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - naturally with no loss of jobs or seniority.

Sorry to digress but the growth tendency of bureaucracies is a very interesting phenomena that is not entirely irrelevant to this thread. . . . .**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Blacksheep ]</p>

Cyclic Hotline
6th Feb 2002, 11:43
Although the document referred to in this thread specifies that the language of the JAA (and heirs and successors) will be English, there are a few minor references that get lost in the translation. It is quite possible that you Airbus types are wholly familiar with organigrammes, and it is just me!

Organigramme (French) definition; organigramme = flow chart *[noun-masculine]

I suppose an example application might be something like:

" Bonjour (Selamat Pagi) Monsiuer Mouton-Noir. Quell position votre dans le organigramme?"

Your note on the demise/exponential growth of the Colonial office is extremely relevant. With the granting of independence to the various colonies, there was truly one aspect of Colonial government that the emerging nations adopted as their own and have susequently mastered beyond compare. Beauracracies and Beauracrats! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Cyclic Hotline ]</p>

9th Feb 2002, 21:14
mmmmh. The paper that Steamhead posted is comments on the document that's going to define EASA. For those with an interest I found it on the EU website as follows ....

<a href="http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st12/12664en1.pdf" target="_blank">http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st12/12664en1.pdf</a>

(I've got less experience than Steamhead at creating shortcuts, so apologies if it doesn't work out)

10th Feb 2002, 01:23
Well Done The Pod. .More bed time reading,the workings of the EU are a total mystery

I am trying to put together an answer to the letter from the CAA by Ron Elder sent to all and sundry asking for comment to three questions.

1 How much is already known or understood by you and your senior management regarding EASA?. .2 Do you consider that, on an individual basis or as a representative or member of an industry group,you have been adequately briefed and/or consulted on the proposals for EASA?. .3 What are your individual or your company's/association's views on the advantages and/or disadvantages of the agency's establishment for your part of the UK aviation industry;is there any balance between the two you feel you can identify?

Comments to:- Ron Elder . . Head of Personnel Licensing Department. . by 15 February


Doctor Cruces
10th Feb 2002, 05:43

Do you perhaps mean that their decisions will be as binding on all member states as all other legislation in the EEC? Unless of course France does not like it and will not take it up. Or perhaps Germany will feel it disadvantages them in some way and will not teke it up.

Thats how the EEC and its bodies actually work.

Doc C.