EASA aircraft & the ARC. Another CAA stitchup?

[vee-tail-1]

The plot so far: The good guys at EASA wanted to reduce overregulation of GA. So they decided to make the C of A permanent, and allow suitably qualified Maintenance organisations (engineers) to issue ARCs.
This would remove one layer of regulators (the CAA) from our backs. It would allow engineers to practice engineering, & aircraft annuals to become similar to a car's MOT.
But the CAA would lose it's cash cow the fees for C of A renewal. So the CAA have simply taken over the issuing of ARCs and intend to charge both owners & and engineers for this "service".
This stichup has gone so far that IAE at Cranfield www.iae.org.uk have a two page ad in the latest LOOP to warn us about it.

So instead of the simpler, lighter regulations proposed by EASA, we seem to have a more expensive & heavier system imposed by our CAA.:ugh:

It will be interesting to see if the French follow EASA, or do a stitchup of their own!

Any comments by Ghengis and AOPA would be very welcome.

[robin]

So we aren't going to get the Part M Lite, then?

EASA and the CAA are taking the view that it will be best to have all aircraft in the controlled environment. There will be a deliberate loading of cost on any aircraft maintained in the uncontrolled environment.

Worse, for aircraft like mine at less than 800kg, we are being stitched up by them with additional cost for no real benefit - an estimated £800 on each annual for the additional bureaucracy

Nice one Belgrano

[vee-tail-1]

Seems that AOPA have been lobbying EASA about this situation. As a result there will soon be a new NPA for consultation & comment. Keep an eye on the EASA website www.easa.eu.int/home/rm_npa_en.html
Martin Robinson of AOPA asks that as many of us as possible respond to the new NPA. Unless we get involved we can harly complain when the CAA stitch us up with their exorbitant fees, and their deliberate distortion of the original intentions of EASA.:*

[vee-tail-1]

I wonder how many GA owners even know of the negotiations that have been going on that affect us. The organisation that deals with EASA and consults / negotiates on new rules & regulations is EUROPE AIRSPORTS. Individuals cannot be members of this, only national airsports organisations. Representing the UK is the Royal Aero Club, whose chaiman is Keith Negal of the BMAA, and vice chairman David Roberts of the BGA.
So the interests of microlights & gliders are given top priority, and the concerns of GA, particularly regarding maintenance, are not.
Just to show how much influence the RAeC can wield as an "establishment" organisation is shown by the way the CAA backed down over mode "S" requirements. Having to carry "electronic gizmos" upset the BGA & BMAA so big brother RAeC had a quiet talk with the CAA.
Sadly we in GA have no organisation with sufficient muscle to influence the CAA. Hence their hijacking of ARCs which were intended to be issued by engineers, not by bureaucrats.

[robin]

Its not quite as straightforward as that, or as bad.

The problem is the turf war between EASA and the CAA. The CAA are ensuring they don't have to downsize and, to fund this, are ensuring that the 'regulated' pay for their regualtion - see the latest AOPA magazine interview with Roy McNulty

At one time I really thought the CAA would be under the control of EASA, but with one bound they have freed themselves and are back larger than life and twice as ugly.

[David Roberts]

As posted on Flyer forum just now (like the other messages above):

I write as someone who has represented UK air sports and the lower weight end of GA (not just gliding, please note) in the European regulatory forums since 2002, and been one of the people heavily involved with Europe Air Sports (EAS).

EASA, generally, is trying to bring in ‘lighter’ regulation – in fact delegation or devolution – for non-commercial aviation at the lower weight end – generally below 2000kg MTOM. However, one needs to understand to power politics involved in the various positions of (a) Member States, through the Council of Ministers (b) the European Commission as the European civil service (c) EASA as the technical advisers to the Commission and (d) the European Parliament. That in itself would take a whole book……as many outside our sector do not come anywhere near understanding it as they are not aviators.

As regards Part M (continuing airworthiness, or maintenance as we know it), this is the main piece of EASA drafted legislation that EAS – and indeed IAOPA – has had the greatest concerns with, ever since 2003 when it was first published as a proposal. It is based on the concepts applied in Commercial Air Transport, in terms of separation of duties and responsibilities etc. EAS led the protests against this some 18 months ago and as a result an EASA working group (M.017), chaired by a senior BGA person with knowledge wider that gliding, was established last autumn to review the comments received to the 2005 consultation on possible revisions to Part M. The CRD (Comment Response Document) was published on the EASA website at the end of April 2007. This contains several proposals for ‘lightening’ Part M for non-commercial aircraft < 5.7mt MTOM. The next step is the publication of the NPA (expected in next 24 to 96 hours) from EASA, which will set out the further proposals in this direction. Indications are that these proposals will go quite some way towards addressing the criticisms we have had of Part M.

EASA is holding a workshop on 4-5 July in Cologne to explain the proposed changes, and EAS has persuaded EASA to hold a road show in various countries in early September (details to be published), including in the UK. The comment response period for the NPA will be 3 months, after which the final result has to be processed through the Commission.

So, you will see proposed changes to the ARC process, removal of certain onerous requirements in the current Part M, more responsibilities given to assessment bodies and / or qualified entities (subject to Member States playing ball as EASA cannot legally control the whole end to end compliance process).

One of the main thrusts is to transfer ‘transactional’ responsibilities down the line to ‘industry’ as it is known (which includes suitably qualified associations) with the CAA only involved on a periodic review (audit) of process. In this way we hope to keep the costs to the minimum necessary to ensure a safety level that is acceptable.

Finally, please remember, we did not want this whole EU initiative. It was foisted on our end of civil aviation to a large extent by default from the main driver of creating a pan European certification environment for Airbus and the wider market objectives of the EU. But having faced the reality of what has happened, some of us have actually been doing something about it – for some years now - by trying to directly influence the outcome through many meetings as nominated experts, with EASA, than might otherwise have been the case. The biggest difficulty is that we have to find solutions from the current systems of 27 countries so compromise is inevitable. We might think the British way is always best, but that ain’t necessarily the case. Although the jury is still out, I am reasonably hopeful the end result will not be as bad as many people fear. And I haven’t even talked about pilot licensing.

From a hotel in Cologne…..DGR

[robin]

Thanks for that

Is there any chance of a digest of the key points in the NPA. I find them very difficult to read and understand

[vee-tail-1]

David many thanks for your post, and for your work with EAS & EASA.
I hope that the new NPA gets a huge response from GA, and that is the main purpose of my rant on this and other websites.

[David Roberts]

Well folks, what you have all been waiting for - some bedtime reading to send you to sleep.

EASA has published 4 documents comprising the proposed changes to Part M for non commercial a/c < 5.7mt. See:

http://www.easa.europa.eu/doc/Rulemaking/NPA/NPA%202007-08.pdf

I am advised by my Europe Air Sports colleague Rudi Schuegraf that the document to read is NPA 08 which is all of 144 pages......

I shall be studying it tomorrow.

Please do not ask me for a two page summary !

[G-KEST]

David,
I skimmed through all 144 pages but now have a severe migraine.
The pilot maintenance aspects look sensible but I need advice from others as to whether the Part M now proposed will reduce the level of bureaucracy and, most importantly, the cost to owners compared with our old UK system.
Have the concerns of the gliding fraternity been satisfied?
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:mad:

[vee-tail-1]

Pages 29 to 35 are encouraging. If EASA go for option 3 owners will have a choice as to who issues an ARC for their aircraft.
Plane! english it is not! but we have until 28th September to understand the implications of this NPA, and respond to it. Could boost the sale of migraine remedies:ouch:

[David Roberts]

Agreed. It is Euroland speak, albeit the English text has obviously been through a native English speaker at EASA.
At Europe Air Sports (EAS) we are having to deal with this for 27 member countries and many languages...... So we are relatively lucky that the official EU language is English !
I and other EAS officers met with the EASA rulemaking director a month ago on this subject, and one of the things we persuaded EASA to do was to hold a roadshow in several countries to explain the proposed revisions to Part M to the 'user community' (i.e. owners, pilots, associations etc). One of the venues will be in the UK. I am now in the process of helping EASA to arrange this. The timing is almost certain to be the latter part of August and first week September, so that there will still be sufficient time for individuals and associations to finalise their responses to the NPA consultation. We shall also provide guidance on the most effective way to structure responses -i.e. brief, to the point, rational and if providing a counter argument on any point to provide a sound and logical reason.
In addition, at the Royal Aero Club Council meeting yesterday we agreed to try and organise a one day seminar - probably in August - to explain the changes in plain English. Ideally this will be before the EASA roadshow, and at a central UK airfield venue.
So please keep an eye out for announcement of these two events.
As a footnote to G-KEST, the BGA and EGU (European Gliding Union) have been heavily engaged in the Part M debate for several years, and the Chairman of BGA Technical Committeee chaired the EASA M.017 task group that reviewed the responses to the last (2005) consultation, producing the CRD that was published on the EASA website in April 2007, as well as providing most of the technical input to the latest NPA 08. The pilot owner maintenance review group (M.005) at EASA, that has produced the NPA on that subject, was staffed partly by volunteer experts from EAS. But back to the BGA; we are of course studying the fine print of the NPA. It will take time to evaluate the impact of the changes and to reach a conclusion as to whether this is acceptable (given that we never wanted to give up our self regulation of glider airworthiness etc in the UK in the first place, but given regulatory capture by the EU we are using our best endeavours to ensure the outcome is acceptable!).

[vee-tail-1]

Look forward to attending one or more roadshows. Keep us posted David, and again many thanks. :ok:

[Ransman 2]

We are all very grateful for the efforts of EAS negotiating with EASA on our behalf. It looks and sounds a thankless task.

However does this address the other query on this thread? This was that the CAA are proposing to gold-plate their charges to issue EASA documents to protect their (the CAA's) income.

Ransman 2

[IO540]

This illustrates the contrasting European versus American approaches.

In the USA, the individual has the certifications for the allowed scope of work. You have an A&P (basic maintenance), IA (somebody who can inspect and sign off major work), DER (design authority for major mods), DAR (the lucky man who gets £1300 for a signature to put a new N-reg plane onto the US register). Etc. These individuals have to be individually capable and are personally responsible; they can't hide behind some company facade.

In Europe, it is the organisation that is certified for the scope of the work. The company can employ good people or they can employ any old bunch of monkeys, but you can't complain to any individual because the company is EASA 145 and is by definition capable of doing the work. This is like ISO9000 - you can make absolute cr*p, and many ISO9000 companies do just that, and nobody can question it.

Either system can be made to work but there is no prize for guessing which one I would prefer in the rather notorious aviation maintenance business. There is nothing like the individual signing off with his very own license number, with the fear of an FAA inspector inspecting something he signed off 6 months ago and suspending his personal authority (and thus his income) and yes this does happen in the UK. I've had two FAA inspectors checking things at different times, one of them checking even the DAR. One very experienced IA got banned for a bit because he signed off something which the FAA inspector didn't like.