Is it the end of a transparent safety culture in EU?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it the end of a transparent safety culture in EU?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical EU
This is a typical action of the undemocratic unelected European superstate, air safety information MUST be avalable to those who fly, maintain & control aircraft.
The experience gained from the MOR system has undoubtedly prevented countless accidents as the distributed information will have alerted aviation staff to hazards and they take action to avoid such hazards.
While I don't give a damm about the media having access to such information as all they do is misuse it for their own advantage I see this as an acceptable down side to the free distribution of air safety data.
It all seems to me to be another very good reason for the UK to vote to shed the yoke of EU and once again become a free nation.
The experience gained from the MOR system has undoubtedly prevented countless accidents as the distributed information will have alerted aviation staff to hazards and they take action to avoid such hazards.
While I don't give a damm about the media having access to such information as all they do is misuse it for their own advantage I see this as an acceptable down side to the free distribution of air safety data.
It all seems to me to be another very good reason for the UK to vote to shed the yoke of EU and once again become a free nation.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowledge is power - and in the case of the European Parliament, the genesis of corruption.
By removing knowledge from the general public, the Eurocrats hoard it for themselves.
In a stroke they reinforce their own omnipotence, and effectively eliminate accountability for their actions.
By removing knowledge from the general public, the Eurocrats hoard it for themselves.
In a stroke they reinforce their own omnipotence, and effectively eliminate accountability for their actions.
No it's not!!
It would probably be worth people reading the legislation (Reg (EU) 376/2014) instead of assuming that the press garbage is correct. If you are interested (and as aviators you should be) you can find the document at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...4R0376&from=EN
It in no way means 'the end of a transparent safety culture in EU'. The parts you need to read are the preamble, Articles 10 and 11, and Annex II. Article 10 gives regulators and safety authorities full access to the data, and permits access to 'interested parties' via the NAA points of contact. Interested parties are listed in Annex II and include individuals such as pilots; operator associations and representative bodies like ECA, BALPA etc can also get access via the relevant NAA.
Article 11 directs the process of information release, which is restricted to disidentified data specific to the request and its purpose. You will not find the press being able to trawl for Daily Mail-style "shock plummet horror terrifies young children and nuns" scaremongering stories.
If you read nothing else, it should be the preamble, which lays down Just Culture principles and gives new weight to the need to protect safety data and the people who provide it. The other major change is that NAAs are now required to provide follow-up reports - call me old-fashioned, but I quite like a system that insists something is done with safety data.
The only change to access is that you have to apply to your NAA for the data. If you need it, you will get it!
It in no way means 'the end of a transparent safety culture in EU'. The parts you need to read are the preamble, Articles 10 and 11, and Annex II. Article 10 gives regulators and safety authorities full access to the data, and permits access to 'interested parties' via the NAA points of contact. Interested parties are listed in Annex II and include individuals such as pilots; operator associations and representative bodies like ECA, BALPA etc can also get access via the relevant NAA.
Article 11 directs the process of information release, which is restricted to disidentified data specific to the request and its purpose. You will not find the press being able to trawl for Daily Mail-style "shock plummet horror terrifies young children and nuns" scaremongering stories.
If you read nothing else, it should be the preamble, which lays down Just Culture principles and gives new weight to the need to protect safety data and the people who provide it. The other major change is that NAAs are now required to provide follow-up reports - call me old-fashioned, but I quite like a system that insists something is done with safety data.
The only change to access is that you have to apply to your NAA for the data. If you need it, you will get it!
Will you still be able to go online to the regulators website, enter your aircraft type and search for all incidents and accidents and then read the report? If not, safety has just taken a back seat.
Out of Europe
For those who think this is another good reason for leaving Europe, you will be delighted to learn that the UK is almost certain to remain an EASA Member State even if the EU membership is terminated. The system would be too complicated to roll back to a UK-only licensing arrangement - and bear in mind that prior to EASA you had the JAA to broker the international agreements.
What do you propose should happen to the functional airspace block we share with Ireland? How do you re-write the agreements on airworthiness standards that currently exist between EASA and the FAA? Would you be happy to pay to have your ATPL converted to a stand-alone UK version when there would be doubt as to which other nations will recognise it?
It's not going to happen...
What do you propose should happen to the functional airspace block we share with Ireland? How do you re-write the agreements on airworthiness standards that currently exist between EASA and the FAA? Would you be happy to pay to have your ATPL converted to a stand-alone UK version when there would be doubt as to which other nations will recognise it?
It's not going to happen...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kingston, Surrey, UK
Age: 73
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortissimo
It may or may not be a good reason for leaving Europe, but at least outside the EU we would be able to go it alone if desirable for UK plc. The USA, China, Turkey & ex-soviet block all operate outside EASA effectively, as far as I know (and probably some in the Middle East as well). I don't see why UK plc can't re-join them. It would most likely be desirable to harmonise with large parts of the EASA system, but that would be a choice, if outside. Bureaucracy is necessary in the modern world, but it needs to be proportional and cost effective, if not, dump it!
If EASA is too complex to roll back to a UK system , then dumping it and going alone seems a good choice.
As for Ireland, we shared the airspace long before EASA was born, we can do it again.
UK licences from PPL to ATPL were accepted before EASA, in most Countries around the World. Its nonsense to say they would not be accepted again – however, I am speaking as a FAA licence holder here.
I hope we at least take the first step and leave the EU.
It may or may not be a good reason for leaving Europe, but at least outside the EU we would be able to go it alone if desirable for UK plc. The USA, China, Turkey & ex-soviet block all operate outside EASA effectively, as far as I know (and probably some in the Middle East as well). I don't see why UK plc can't re-join them. It would most likely be desirable to harmonise with large parts of the EASA system, but that would be a choice, if outside. Bureaucracy is necessary in the modern world, but it needs to be proportional and cost effective, if not, dump it!
If EASA is too complex to roll back to a UK system , then dumping it and going alone seems a good choice.
As for Ireland, we shared the airspace long before EASA was born, we can do it again.
UK licences from PPL to ATPL were accepted before EASA, in most Countries around the World. Its nonsense to say they would not be accepted again – however, I am speaking as a FAA licence holder here.
I hope we at least take the first step and leave the EU.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortissimo,
I cannot say I agree with you. IMO a parliamentary body, or indeed regulator, should be subject to open scrutiny by the people it purports to represent and/or protect. That cannot be done with one side limiting the flow of information.
As long as the general public risk their lives by buying tickets and travelling on aeroplanes, I suggest it is they who are the most interested party's.
On the subject of Eurocontrol, as things stand, the present arrangement makes perfect sense from a facilitative and safety point of view.
As for EASA licensing though, in the space of the last 13 years I have held a UK ATPL, a JAA ATPL, and now an EASA ATPL - this in addition to two other ATPLs from non-European countries that I held from before then. I would be deluding myself to claim that the EASA licence is superior, or that the transition has somehow made me a safer pilot. That said, I do get what you are saying though w.r.t. individual member states and political tantrums !
I cannot say I agree with you. IMO a parliamentary body, or indeed regulator, should be subject to open scrutiny by the people it purports to represent and/or protect. That cannot be done with one side limiting the flow of information.
As long as the general public risk their lives by buying tickets and travelling on aeroplanes, I suggest it is they who are the most interested party's.
On the subject of Eurocontrol, as things stand, the present arrangement makes perfect sense from a facilitative and safety point of view.
As for EASA licensing though, in the space of the last 13 years I have held a UK ATPL, a JAA ATPL, and now an EASA ATPL - this in addition to two other ATPLs from non-European countries that I held from before then. I would be deluding myself to claim that the EASA licence is superior, or that the transition has somehow made me a safer pilot. That said, I do get what you are saying though w.r.t. individual member states and political tantrums !
people should read up on some of the consequences of Brexit-the most surprising of which are that 95% of things wont change at all .
britain is in Europe and cannot move 3000 miles west top be part of N America.
Vast amounts of everyday trade will continue as is and EU rules, which may not govern us but govern all the countries we trade with in geographic europe mean that we will always have to go along with their rules because when its 1 vs 23 its th e 23 or whatever the numebr is that will keep things their way.
The same applies to many other relationships-we can trade with turkey who aren't in the EU but want to be , so no changes there then. And as for the USA their chief trade negotiator has already gone on record and said their will be no separate trade agreement with the UK because in their eyes we are part of Europe. he added if there was one it would be the same as the EU one but Britain would have no say in it at all.
This whole thread is a classic distortion of the truth something the DM specialises in - and which sadly the general degree of ignorance in the UK just seems to go along with.
if we elave Europe on a trading level nothign will change except a lot of global companies will leave the UK for mainland europe the moment there are hiccups in any trade relationships between Britain and the EU,
Sure the EU arliament is useless and the Commisson corrupt but is our government any better-no its just as muddled and just as corrupt as we see and read every day, and of course its wonderfully transparent too eg the Chilcot enquiry . And the Commission-which sort of equates to the UK civil service-is anyone really saying that the civil service are efficient and incorruptible--please...
britain is in Europe and cannot move 3000 miles west top be part of N America.
Vast amounts of everyday trade will continue as is and EU rules, which may not govern us but govern all the countries we trade with in geographic europe mean that we will always have to go along with their rules because when its 1 vs 23 its th e 23 or whatever the numebr is that will keep things their way.
The same applies to many other relationships-we can trade with turkey who aren't in the EU but want to be , so no changes there then. And as for the USA their chief trade negotiator has already gone on record and said their will be no separate trade agreement with the UK because in their eyes we are part of Europe. he added if there was one it would be the same as the EU one but Britain would have no say in it at all.
This whole thread is a classic distortion of the truth something the DM specialises in - and which sadly the general degree of ignorance in the UK just seems to go along with.
if we elave Europe on a trading level nothign will change except a lot of global companies will leave the UK for mainland europe the moment there are hiccups in any trade relationships between Britain and the EU,
Sure the EU arliament is useless and the Commisson corrupt but is our government any better-no its just as muddled and just as corrupt as we see and read every day, and of course its wonderfully transparent too eg the Chilcot enquiry . And the Commission-which sort of equates to the UK civil service-is anyone really saying that the civil service are efficient and incorruptible--please...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU 376/2014 (the document that all the huffing is about) appeared in April 2014, with a date for coming into force of November 2015. Evidently the Daily Mail has only just caught up.
Strangely, although it only affected aviation, it was issued by the EU Commission and not by EASA. As anyone who has not been hibernating for for the last 21 months or so knows, not a single EASA Regulation has yet been amended to reflect the content of EU 376/2014. Various promises about issuing guidance have been made and broken by EASA, in the usual way.
The UK CAA has produced some guidance, the latest in December 2015.
Apart from the rightness or wrongness of the contents, EU 376/2014 is probably the worst piece of drafting I have ever seen for a document purporting to have a legal force and related to aviation safety regulation. The so-called "preamble" contains no fewer than 55 numbered points, which seem to try to lay down the regulations in an unending series of facile, and often fatuous assertions about aviation safety and occurrence reporting.
I haven't a clue why it was issued by the EU Commission and not EASA; no doubt it's some obscure bureaucratic nonsense that only died-in-the-wool bureaucrats could dream up, let alone understand. The effect is that no-one, including EASA, appears to know whether or not it's in force now, or whether we wait until the various Implementing Regulations are amended.
The UK CAA has tried to help, but it is a ridiculous situation. I have given up trying to work it out.
EASA's enormous, overbearing, unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy, arrogant incompetence and simple stupidity give me a problem. I believe passionately that the UK should play a leading role in Europe from within; any other course puts us in thrall to the USA and we all know what happens when the chips are down; the USA looks after itself first, at our expense if necessary. And why shouldn't they do that? So it's Europe for me. But then I see the idiocies, extravagance, financial incompetence and waste that exists in the EU Commission and EU Parliament, and I know that we cannot be part of that. So unless Cameron can get them to see what is wrong and put it right, the UK has to walk away, from the EU and EASA.
Strangely, although it only affected aviation, it was issued by the EU Commission and not by EASA. As anyone who has not been hibernating for for the last 21 months or so knows, not a single EASA Regulation has yet been amended to reflect the content of EU 376/2014. Various promises about issuing guidance have been made and broken by EASA, in the usual way.
The UK CAA has produced some guidance, the latest in December 2015.
Apart from the rightness or wrongness of the contents, EU 376/2014 is probably the worst piece of drafting I have ever seen for a document purporting to have a legal force and related to aviation safety regulation. The so-called "preamble" contains no fewer than 55 numbered points, which seem to try to lay down the regulations in an unending series of facile, and often fatuous assertions about aviation safety and occurrence reporting.
I haven't a clue why it was issued by the EU Commission and not EASA; no doubt it's some obscure bureaucratic nonsense that only died-in-the-wool bureaucrats could dream up, let alone understand. The effect is that no-one, including EASA, appears to know whether or not it's in force now, or whether we wait until the various Implementing Regulations are amended.
The UK CAA has tried to help, but it is a ridiculous situation. I have given up trying to work it out.
EASA's enormous, overbearing, unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy, arrogant incompetence and simple stupidity give me a problem. I believe passionately that the UK should play a leading role in Europe from within; any other course puts us in thrall to the USA and we all know what happens when the chips are down; the USA looks after itself first, at our expense if necessary. And why shouldn't they do that? So it's Europe for me. But then I see the idiocies, extravagance, financial incompetence and waste that exists in the EU Commission and EU Parliament, and I know that we cannot be part of that. So unless Cameron can get them to see what is wrong and put it right, the UK has to walk away, from the EU and EASA.
Last edited by Capot; 22nd Jan 2016 at 18:17.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect, as a journalist AND as an engineer with a PhD, the whole point of data is that everyone can have access to it. Crime statistics, health statistics etc. Hospitals that have bad statistics also get caught out eventually and get shamed.
Do you people really think the 787 Dreamliner battery problems would have been tackled smartly if the press hadn't got behind it? I remind you, the holes in the swiss cheese were possibly some faulty cells, really bad design, self-certification in a company with no chinese walls, benign neglect by the FAA.
The three-leg stool which keeps the industry honest is
- regulation
- verification
- publication.
I have little respect for the Daily Mail or Sun scare stories. But supplying a legal basis for stopping publication of in-depth reports on the industry is to say it mildly suicidal. As pilots, do you think the industry would be better off it the the AF 447 report had been buried?
Edmund
Do you people really think the 787 Dreamliner battery problems would have been tackled smartly if the press hadn't got behind it? I remind you, the holes in the swiss cheese were possibly some faulty cells, really bad design, self-certification in a company with no chinese walls, benign neglect by the FAA.
The three-leg stool which keeps the industry honest is
- regulation
- verification
- publication.
I have little respect for the Daily Mail or Sun scare stories. But supplying a legal basis for stopping publication of in-depth reports on the industry is to say it mildly suicidal. As pilots, do you think the industry would be better off it the the AF 447 report had been buried?
Edmund
Do you people really think the 787 Dreamliner battery problems would have been tackled smartly if the press hadn't got behind it? I remind you, the holes in the swiss cheese were possibly some faulty cells, really bad design, self-certification in a company with no chinese walls, benign neglect by the FAA.
I have little respect for the Daily Mail or Sun scare stories. But supplying a legal basis for stopping publication of in-depth reports on the industry is to say it mildly suicidal. As pilots, do you think the industry would be better off it the the AF 447 report had been buried?
Edmund
Edmund
So........
Will you still be able to go online to the regulators website, enter your aircraft type and search for all incidents and accidents and then read the report?
Framer,
If you have a good reason for wanting the information (see Annex II for definition of interested parties) you will not only get the UK reports on your type, you will get the reports from every other EASA MS. That surely has to be an improvement?
ff
If you have a good reason for wanting the information (see Annex II for definition of interested parties) you will not only get the UK reports on your type, you will get the reports from every other EASA MS. That surely has to be an improvement?
ff
