EASA "Accident waiting to happen"

[pulse1]

A report by the Transport Select Committee has suggested EASA is a "half-baked, half-cocked project" with poor management and resources. "An accident waiting to happen".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6127508.stm

[Bus429]

Read it here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/809/809.pdf)

It is rather scathing about EASA, less so about the CAA.

[mary_hinge]

Member of a UK Government committee have harshly criticized the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and will not permit any further UK powers to be transferred to EASA until serious problems have been resolved.
In a report entitled The Work of the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK House of Commons Transport Select Committee makes no effort to restrain the language of its opinion.
“It is with dismay that we have learnt of the chaotic state of EASA, which at this time is not able to fulfill its declared purpose,” it says. “EASA is an accident waiting to happen – if its problems are left unchecked, we believe it has the potential to put aviation safety in the UK and the rest of Europe at risk at some point in the future.”
The committee, chaired by Gwyneth Dunwoody, goes on to say that the UK “cannot and must not” transfer any further powers from the UK CAA to EASA until the Government is “assured that the serious problems of governance, management and resources at EASA have been resolved”.
In particular, the report highlights concerns over operational difficulties at EASA, which it says have created a “knowledge gap” within the organisation that has the potential to “undermine safety innovation” in the aviation industry, adding: “There should be no further closure of CAA departments and functions before the Government is absolutely satisfied that the comparable departments and functions at EASA are fully operational.”
While noting that it is encouraged by recent improvements at EASA, the committee’s report says much remains to be done: “We recommend that the Government continues to make the strongest possible representations in order to ensure that urgent and decisive action is taken to make EASA fit for purpose within no more than two years.”
A spokeswoman for EASA says the agency is examining the report and has no detailed comment to make at this stage. Likewise, a CAA spokesman says only that the regulator is studying the recommendations made by the Transport Select Committee into its work.
But a UK Labour party spokesman for transport and tourism in the European Parliament, Robert Evans, defends EASA. He says: “[EASA] will ensure that there is a European solution to European safety issues.
“Aviation is not just a national issue. Since we have created a ‘single sky’ which allows European travellers to freely move around the European Union without barriers, we need a European approach to safety.”
While Evans himself has proposed delaying the implementation of an extension of EASA’s powers until the agency is fully resourced to carry out its responsibilities, he insists that EASA is “heading in the right direction”.
“I think it is regrettable that, in drafting this report, as far as I am aware, the committee has had no consultation from the European Commission, EASA or the European Parliament, who are responsible for the extension of the powers of EASA,” he says.
The committee notes that the UK is “favourably disposed” towards European co-operation to create joint safety regulations, but only if such co-operation assists European Union states in achieving the “highest aviation standards”.
It highlights concerns that a number of organisations remain uncertain about how the transfer of responsibility to EASA is being handled. It recommends that the CAA should make this information available, to provide a clear description of powers already transferred and those that will follow – along with details of the impact on the CAA’s costs and charges.
Other recommendations include a suggestion that the CAA could work alongside the UK Department for Transport to put together a detailed assessment of the speed and scope of the transfer of responsibilities to EASA.
The report adds that the CAA offers a “good service” on the whole, and does not recommend any changes to its organisational structure.
But it adds: “However, we recommend that the CAA, in formulating its policy and communicating its instructions, should seek to deepen the level of co-operation between its different regulatory groups, to ensure that the message it delivers to those it regulates is consistent and clearly conveys the primacy of safety considerations.”

[stormin norman]

The report adds that the CAA offers a “good service”

yeh right !

[A and C]

The biggest problem the CAA has is that it's worst department FCL is the department that all pilots have to deal with.

On the whole I have found the CAA engineering department the most helpfull and the OPPS inspectors OK but very conservative.

My wrath is reseved for FCL who aim for a poor level of service and constantly fail to achieve it.

My personal feeling is that once EASA getts going we will all look back on the "good old days of the CAA" and wish the inexpensive prompt and unburocratic service would return.

[matkat]

Remember They are not called the campaign against aviation for nothing!!!:ugh:

[howflytrg]

Perhaps a little less time spent in the Greyhound Pub would help? :}

[Lon More]

EASA is a "half-baked, half-cocked project" with poor management and resources. "An accident waiting to happen".
But any power it has is delegated by national administrations - in the case of the UK the CAA; so where does the blame really lie?

[spannersatcx]

But any power it has is delegated by national administrations - in the case of the UK the CAA; so where does the blame really lie?

Lon I think you are wrong there, the UK is not run by the CAA as more and more power is transferred to EASA, yes each NAA has some say but that has diminished over the last few years.

[paco]

A and C -

Interesting you should say that - I have found the ops inspectors a delight to deal with, the licensing people Ok and the engineering side the ones with a real chip on their shoulder, especially down in the west country, but maybe that's a symptom of the British engineering industry as a whole.

Example:

Hand them a CAME, it comes right back with a comment that there's a mistake on page 1.

"Where is it?"

"You're the accountable manager, you should know"

"If I knew it wouldn't f* well be there would it?"

The ops guys would just give you a long list and ask you to resubmit.

Another:

The first comment on walking through the door:

"Do you know I can close you down if I want to?"

Phil

[Bus429]

Capt,
Sounds bad. I've dealt with SRG Airworthiness Surveyors over the last few years or so and found all to be quite helpful. However, I understand morale is very low within certain parts of the CAA.

[Rigga]

Personalities play a major part in all these roles too.
None of the CAA (or EASA come to that) are hired for their ability to get on with "The Public" or for their helpfulness.
Replying to someones work with a curt or smart remark doesn't enhance good relationships either.
In the Light Aircraft world there was the old addage that pilots should always make friends with their mechanics to get the best service from them.
Same thing with your local CAA too!
I haven't had to deal with FCL, but I do deal with many other Depts and I get some good service from them all.
Sometimes courteous, sometimes formal, sometimes wrong! Sometimes Early!Most times - on time and right.
Dont be pompous - and deal with them like they were people, working for a living, too.

...and I too have had rejected CAME's!

[A and C]

Very interesting comments, I was asked to oversee a project in the west country recently and the CAA local office have been less that helpfull.

It was most unlike any other CAA office that I have had to work with and if I have a project in that area in the future I will move it by road if nessesary to avoid dealing with that CAA office.