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.
[quote]Staff
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 ‘Brussels’ still further, to the disadvantage of Member States’ 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.
<hr></blockquote>
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 Agency’s 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.
<hr></blockquote>
Edited for organigrammeinacal correctness. (Most probably unsuccessfully!) <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Cyclic Hotline ]</p>