Civil Aviation Authority

While aviation is exhilarating, exciting and a great form of transportation, there are often misconceptions on the level of danger involved. On the other hand, considering the danger without the proper facts can make piloting seem overly intimidating. Just like many other activities, there are risks associated with flight. Here are some comparisons, to put it in perspective.

In 2009, there were a total of 1,551 civil aviation accidents in the United States. The term civil aviation refers to all non-military, non-scheduled flights, so that number includes some smaller commercial flights. Of those accidents, less than 18 percent were fatal, resulting in 534 total civil aviation-related deaths for the year, according to the National Transport Safety Board. Keep in mind extensive training including at least 20 hours of flight time with a licensed instructor is required to become a pilot.

By comparison, in 2007 there were 10.6 million motor vehicle accidents in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Nearly half of those were fatal, resulting in 41.1 million total deaths. That includes motorcycle accidents, which resulted in 5.2 million of those deaths. As most Americans are aware, to obtain a driver's license a person must pass a written exam and a driving test with an instructor, but safety courses are not requires in most states. For a motorcycle license, a person must complete a safety course. Course length varies by state, but is an average of 15 hours or fewer.

Any activity performed under the guidance of an expert or with a rigorous safety course will result in fewer accidents. When learning to pilot a plane, you are given one-on-one training with a professional instructor until you are comfortable handling the plane on your own. Don't let anxiety about the risk discourage you from pursuing aviation. Keep in mind that statistically, driving an automobile is much more dangerous, and that just like driving, the more practiced and attentive you are, the safer your journey will be.

"We will look into the interest of the aam admi and there will be no exorbitant fares," civil aviation minister Praful Patel said.

The airlines' proposal, made to sector regulator Directorate-General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), relates to peak fares — which apply only if tickets are bought on the day of travel or the day before.

"The DGCA is looking into the matter. If a proposal has come, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be approved," Patel said. He added that the DGCA had issued notices to the airlines over the exorbitant upper-band fares they had proposed.

Under the airlines' proposal, the peak fare ranges between Rs 10,500 and Rs 40,000 over four distance bands: up to 750km; 750-1,000km; 1,000-1,400km and above 1,400 km.

The peak-fare band proposed for the 750-1,000km slab ranges between Rs 14,550 and Rs 19,500; while it is Rs 17,000 to Rs 25,000 for the next slab.

DGCA officials said the proposed fares were likely to be dismissed out of hand and airlines asked to "come to their senses".

If the airlines persisted in trying to raise fares, civil aviation officials said, "relevant authorities could well initiate probes and action against what we may view as cartel-like action".

The officials warned that licences could be given to new airlines to operate on Metro routes to break any "cartel-like situation". Allowing new players in telecom has led to lowering of tariffs.

Analysts said the proposed rates were too high and would make business unviable for most airlines, especially the low-cost ones.

"On major routes, high peak fares would result in traffic moving to the railways," said Robin Pathak, former Indian Airlines director and aviation sector analyst.

Airlines pointed out that the proposed price bands were only for peak fares. "The average price is much lower if the tickets are bought in advance," an airline official said.

For instance, if you now book a ticket for December 23 on a New Delhi-Calcutta flight, the price can be as low as Rs 4,030 on a low-cost airline. A ticket for tomorrow's flight could, however, cost around Rs 17,000.

The country's domestic airlines — including IndiGo Airlines SpiceJet, Jet Airways Konnect, JetLite, GoAir and Air India — have submitted the peak price bands in response to a DGCA directive last month to provide fare information on the first of each month.

The DGCA had issued its circular after fares on some routes, like Delhi-Mumbai, shot up by 300 per cent in November because of a demand-supply mismatch. The circular asked each airline to "furnish a copy of the route-wise tariff across its network in various fare categories... on the first day of every calendar month".

Pradeep Baijal, head of the Federation of Indian Airlines, said: "FIA does not discuss fares.... Fares are decided by individual airlines." Jet Airways refused comment on the proposed fare hikes while other airlines sought time to react.

Aviation sector analyst Sudipto Sen said: "Airlines have been ratcheting up fares in response to increasing demands.... However, we estimate that once Air India, Indigo, SpiceJet and Jet manage to get deliveries of ordered planes, there could be over-capacity on many routes, sharply bringing down the fares."

Government of India has warned airlines against any further hike in airfare. The airlines in India have come out with the proposal to increase the prices after they were asked to submit their planned price bands. As per the proposal sent to the aviation ministry and the DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation), the airfares might see a hike up to 300% from the current level.

According to the new proposal by the airlines, the distance upto 750 KM could cost upto Rs. 18,500, Rs. 19,500 for the distance between 750 KM – 1000 KM and for above 14000 KM the fares could go up to Rs. 40,000. This makes it cheaper to fly to London or Paris from Delhi than to fly to Mumbai. The main reason which has been attributed to this step is that airlines are taking advantage of the massive demand supply crunch in the aviation sector.

Before the proposal submission in December 2010, the fares of some of the airlines went upto 25% during Diwali season in November 2010 and government wants to make sure that this does not happen during the Christmas season again. On the other hand airlines contend that there was a huge drop in flight and seat availability during the year 2008 and 2009. The domestic airlines were flying abroad at the cost of cutting their number of domestic flights because of the shortages of aircrafts.

This happened as during the recession times, the airlines could not borrow the aircrafts. The Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) prices also increased during the recession period which worsened the profit figures of the airlines. The key players in the industry such as Air India, Kingfisher Airlines and Jet Airways suffered huge losses during the FY 2009-10. Air India reported a loss of Rs 5,551 crore in 2009-10, whereas Kingfisher and Jet has registered losses of Rs.419 crore and Rs.406.7 crore respectively for the second quarter of the 2009-2010.

Now when the recession period is over, airlines are covering up the losses incurred by increasing the airfares. The way to cover the losses differs from airline to airline. Some airlines are in real hurry to cover up the losses by increasing the prices rapidly and are charging more that what the other carriers are charging. While other airlines charge high fares for last minute bookings.

Apart from the extreme example of manned space missions, air travel is probably the most heavily monitored and regulated mode of transport on earth. Although statistics show that most people suffer serious and fatal injury as a result of motoring accidents, this is because at any one time, there are far, far more people on the roads than there are in the middle of an airplane journey.

Safety in aviation unsurprisingly attracts much more attention because the dangers are more obvious and, when something does go wrong, the effects can be disastrous and headline grabbing especially if an accident occurs over a heavily built up area.

It goes without saying therefore that those involved at the sharp end like airline pilots and air traffic controllers have to go through stringent selection procedures to make sure that they have the right temperament for the job well before they even start technical training.

Sadly for them but sensibly for the rest of us, it's largely a case of many being called but only a few being chosen. Yet, like an army on operations, the frontline troops who make it through the selection process have huge back-up behind the scenes.

In the UK, most of this back-up is provided by the CAA, the Civil Aviation Authority and passengers using air travel are effectively in their hands from the minute they arrive at the airport to the minute they leave it after their return. This almost comprehensive responsibility is not purely concerned with the airworthiness of aircraft and their crew. The organisation also runs the ATOL scheme which ensures that passengers can get home in the event of an airline suffering financial collapse.

The effort that goes into maximising passenger safety is based on the cumulative experience and knowledge gained from the circumstances causing past accidents.The result is that only 130 air accidents were recorded worldwide in 2010 compared with 200 in 2001when there were significantly less flights made and passengers carried.

Here in the UK, the CAA is widely regarded as one of the best regulators in the world and it is frequently consulted by its younger counterparts overseas. Over the years it has built up a rigorous roster of checks involving the medical condition of pilots and flight engineers, the qualifications of aircrew, air traffic controllers and maintenance engineers and the state of the country's airports.

It looks into everything from the flight simulators used to train pilots, potentially dangerous goods carried as luggage or freight and what it likes to call " Human Factors". These include things like pilots being affected by stress and fatigue or unruly behaviour by passengers.

Away from large-scale commercial aviation, the CAA is also responsible for such esoteric areas as flying displays, civilian parachuting, hot air balloons and airships.

The Safe Skies for Africa (SSFA) Initiative was formally announced by the President Clinton in 1998.The U.S Department of Transportation is designated as the implementing agency. The goals of the SSFA program are to improve safety, security and air navigation in sub-Saharan Africa. Eight countries were initially invited to participate in the SSFA program, later expanded to 10 states.

Through time, more attention was paid to a regional focus to safety & security in relation to compliance with ICAO standards. In June 2009, the U.S Government Accountability Office issued a study of US Government efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa. A mong other things, the report recommended that the U.S Department of Transportation asses the long term goals of the Safe Skies of Africa program by leading an inter-agency strategy for U.S. involvement in aviation in Africa. At present, the U.S. DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration are working on a new direction for the Safe Skies for Africa program.

The U.S Government should be applauded for being the first government worldwide that is seeking coordination from other safety support providers to Africa.

EASA Technical Assistance Missions To Africa

In the framework of regulation 2111/2005 of the European Union establishing an EU list of banned carriers (also known as the "blacklist" the European Commission has signed a contract with European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to conduct Technical Assistance missions. These missions will be conducted by the International Technical Co-operation section and are directed to those Civil Aviation Authorities that need to build up their technical and administrative capacities in order to fulfill their international obligations as per the ICAO Chicago Convention and the related Annexes.

The deficiencies of these authorities, revealed by the ICAO audits may lead to an operating ban of all the operators under their supervision .The missions are part of the global EU policy in Civil Aviation that is based on cooperation with the international partners, and on assistance to those partners that are challenged in meeting their ICAO obligations.

The missions focus on structuring the ICAO Corrective Action Plans that are generic in essence with a project management approach and are conducted in a cooperative manner with the experts from the beneficiary CAA.The main outcome of the missions is a roadmap under a "Gantt chart" format. The missions are an opportunity to review in details the necessary actions. EASA and the CAA jointly agree on a set of observations and practical recommendations on how to implement the Corrective Action plan that can be used by the international community to better support the CAA.

In East and Southern Africa, missions took place to Zambia and Malawi.

Africas New Age In Aviation Safety

Africa remains a continent shrouded in great mystery and delight. The continent is diverse in every sense of the word right from the geography, culture, economic parity and indeed aviation development.

The continent still remains hugely inaccessible due to the high cost of infrastructure that is required to connect such a massive land mass .Aviation however, brings with it the opportunity for the continent to connect its people much easier as opposed to other forms of transport.

However, with this increased growth in Aviation, safety lapses are bound to emanate if measures to have oversight by regulators and safety management by operators are not taken into account. According to the IATA 2009 Global Accident Report, Africa's accident rate at the time stood at 12.21 compared to North Americas 1.11, North Asia's 1.12 and Europe's 2.04.This is quite a worrying trend and sheds a lot of light on the safety standards within the region.

This high accident rate can be attributed to many factors ranging from poor or inadequate oversight by regulators, lack of safety management by operators, poor infrastructure to support aviation, low level training of aviation sensitive personnel, use of old aircraft and aviation support equipment among others.

So the question that begs is how can Africa make amends for such deficiencies and expedite safe flight operations in the continent. In order to correct the years of neglect of aviation in Africa, there is need for a structured actioning of all these issues. A clear structure will move towards addressing the primary areas and sequentially move towards clearing other issues. Safety should be in parallel with the three key stakeholders namely Civil Aviation Authorities, Airport Management and the airline operators. I will concentrate on the Airline operator in this edition of Safety Focus.

Flight Data Analysis In Africa

Africa is currently experiencing a major growth in aviation with new airlines coming up on every corner of the continent. The major underlying reason for this is the cheap lease costs that are now available in the market especially on B737-200, MD 82, and DC9 among others.

With such tremendous growth operators have to affect stringent safety management in order to not only is safe but also profitable. Despite the fact that ICAO recommends Safety Management Systems a compulsory requirement for all airline operators in their jurisdiction. This has gone a long way in creating an enabling environment on which airlines can measure and monitor their safety performance and thus maintain standards.

Though SMS is not fully implement across the continent, certain countries and indeed some operators such as Kenya Airways, Ethiopian Airlines,TAAG Angola Airlines,LAM-Linhas Aereas de Mozambique, Precision Air and Air Zimbabwe have made great strides and are the leaders in this. A strong SMS background by these operators has also enabled them implement Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA)/ Flight Data Analysis though relatively new in sub Saharan Africa, has taken root among the major continental operators and has now become the norm rather than the exception. However, one of the main impediments to a successful roll out of these programmes in most operators has been the cost involved as well as the lack of the necessary human resources to run such a program me.

IATA has spearheaded capacity development in this area for quite a few years now. Recently in 2009 in a bid to even grow this programme further in the continent,IATA decided to offer sponsorship to African airlines that had shown great commitment to safety standards over the years with free analysis for up to three years in a project dubbed Implementation Programme for Safe Operations in Africa (IPSOA).The primary beneficiaries of the program me were six airlines in the continent namely, Kenya Airways, Ethiopian Airlines,TAAG Angola Airlines, LAM-Linhas Aereas de Mozambique, Precision Air and Air Zimbabwe. These airlines have continually demonstrated a high degree of safety and this is evident by the fact that they are all certified under the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) and all but one were also in the IATA FDA program me prior to the commencement of IPSOA.

For African operators in the region to reap out maximum benefits and have successful FDA programmes, there is a need for them to first and foremost have sound and dynamic safety management systems. The FDA program me remains but a component of the SMS and cannot exist as a stand alone.

State Civil Aviation Authorities as well need to implement state safety programmes as recommended by ICAO .Such programmes will have effective oversight on all players in the aviation industry ranging from Airlines, airport operators, ATOs, AMOs etc.Such operators will thus have to come up with Safety Management Systems that will be checked by the state aviation regulators and in turn the regulator will be able to play their actual role of safety oversight.

At the moment the future for African aviation is bright and can only get better, however a commitment to safety is paramount for this.

Regional Safety Oversight in Southern Africa

Regional cooperation on safety oversight is crucial. According to ICAO, only very few of the 53 African states have sufficient civil aviation activities to able to support an effective and sustainable national safety oversight system on their own.

The project to come to regional cooperation on safety oversight in the 15 countries of the SADC region is still facing budgetary constrains. Member states have contributed 39% of the project budget for 2010.As a result of this, there is presently one Flight Operations Expert in the so-called COSCAP project, with the Airworthiness Expert having had to leave at the end of September. With the inflow of a grant from the ICAO IFFAS fund, the appointment of two Regional Inspectors can start.

The COSCAP project can serve as a very valuable resource to assist some of the countries in the region with implementing their Corrective Action Plans.

SADC Directors General of Civil Aviation have requested the ICAO Africa (ACIP) program to assist with transforming the temporary COSCAP program into a Regional Safety Oversight Organization. When setting up regional organizations, States in the region may want to look at putting the retirement age of staff of the regional organization slightly higher than that of the civil services of the countries in the region. In that manner, valuable expertise from retirees may benefit regional safety oversight for a few more years following their retirement from civil aviation authorities in the region.

International Standards set forth by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) say that discipline or punishment for people involved in an aviation accident or incident is appropriate only if evidence shows that the occurrence "was caused by an act considered, in accordance with the law, to be conduct with intent to cause damage, or conduct with knowledge that damage would probably result, equivalent to reckless conduct, gross negligence or willful misconduct."

ICAO also says that the only objective of an accident or incident investigation should be to prevent future accidents and incidents, not to determine blame or liability of anyone involved in the occurrence-and, international aviation leaders say, not to supply data to criminal prosecutors.

In many cases, the risk that the threat of criminal prosecution places on the future safety of air travel greatly may outweigh and societal benefit in satisfying the inherent human desire for revenge or punishment in the wake of a terrible loss. The same sentiments were expressed in an October 2006 resolution approved by Flight Safety Foundation, the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Academie Nationale deIAir et deIEspace and the Civil Air Navigation Services Organization.

The resolution said, "The paramount consideration in an aviation accident should be to determine the probable cause and contributing factors in the accident, not to punish criminally flight crews, maintenance employees, airline or manufacturer executives, regulatory officials or air controllers. By identifying the ‘what' and the ‘why' of an accident, aviation safety professionals will be better equipped to address accident prevention for the future. Criminal investigation can and do hinder the critical information –gathering portions of an accident investigation, and subsequently interfere with successful prevention of future aviation industry accidents."

The joint resolution may assist prosecutors to step back and see the wisdom in preserving an existing aviation safety system that has worked remarkably well in reducing aviation accidents.

Towards a just culture and accountable officers.

Since the approval of the resolution, prosecutors generally become less likely to file charges against "people on the line," Voss said. Instead, the emphasis appears to have shifted to managers who were accountable for failed systems, he said."This is more consistent with what we talk about in good safety practices-the concept of accountable executives," he said."However ,it does still have a little bit of a chilling effect because it makes people in executive positions uncomfortable----It's a thing that's hard to celebrate ,but you also have to acknowledge that it probably reflects an emerging understanding of safety issues on the part of prosecutors."

In addition, he noted that the government agencies that investigate accidents have become increasingly likely in recent years to cite weak safety practices or safety cultures within aviation organizations among causes, or contributing factors, of accidents.

The International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations IFALPA found that in cases in which aviation personnel have been prosecuted for negligence, judges and juries often have been reluctant to convict. According to IFALPA "There is recognition that it is fundamentally wrong to convict someone criminally for trying to do their job. There are several examples where pilots have been acquitted. In each case, the pilot was attempting to respond to either malfunction or highly unusual circumstances and got it wrong. Where there have been convictions, the circumstances have been far more political than legal.

"IFALPA believes that all personnel should be held accountable for their decisions and actions in a safety –critical system.However, experience have shown that criminal prosecution makes no contribution to improving system safety".

Actions that do improve safety include accidents investigations, mandatory safety reporting schemes, and flight operational quality assurance (FOQA) programs and similar data analysis programs, all predicated on a "just culture". ICAO defines a just culture as a culture that recognizes that personnel should freely share critical safety information without fear of punishment while also accepting that, in some instances, there may be a need for punitive action .If this standard is met for these reporting programs, it is almost certain that the prosecutorial standards will be limited to intentional acts.

Voss said that,"for the sake of safety and a just culture, safety investigators, plus those who are being investigated must have complete confidence in the integrity of the process.

Achieving that trust will be difficult, he said, noting that the public and government officials frequently favor prosecution of those involved in accidents.

"We need to be realistic," Voss said.

"We're not going to get major changes in regulations, and we're not going to change any constitutions. We need to just talk to prosecutors so that they can do a better job of balancing the rights of individuals that are compromised as a result of an accident versus the needs of the public."

In future, the public likely will continue to demand punishment of aviation professionals who are involved in accidents and incidents .Nevertheless, the public sentiment cannot be permitted to override "the fundamental principle that punishment does not improve safety" because the threat of punishment-which may deter intentional acts-has no effect on unintentional errors that lead to accidents.

Aviation Safety leaders face a growing challenge in convincing prosecutors to be diligent in filing criminal charges against pilots, controllers and others involved in aircraft accidents.

Globally, there is a growing tendency of prosecutors and judges to seek criminal sanctions in the wake of aviation accidents, even when the facts do not appear to support findings of sabotage, criminal negligence or willful misconduct .The trend may be associate with the publics increased desire for accountability in many areas of industry-not just in aviation.

Without accountability through administrative remedies, such as civil penalties and license suspensions or revocations, one might argue that criminal prosecution in some situations would be reasonable. However, administrative and civil remedies nearly always exist and research by a Flight Safety Foundation working group found almost no adequate basis, other than willful conduct, for punishing individuals and companies further by subjecting them to risk of imprisonment or the equivalent of a corporate death sentence, particularly in an industry where safety reputations mean everything.

The aviation community all too well realizes that a single aviation disaster has many devastating consequences. Most importantly, lives are lost. Family members and friends of the victims mourn these losses; most seek answers, many seek change, and some seek revenge. Like the entire aviation industry, they want to know what happened, and why. In time, and with hard work, many lessons are learned. Possibly, the best way to honor victims of tragedy is to make sure all relevant information is obtained that might prevent future accidents. If individuals are not helpful to investigators out of fear of being prosecuted and sentenced to jail, investigators may never discover the truth.


Vital To Improve Safety

Most accidents are the result of human errors and often arise in context of a series of acts and omissions. Aviation technology is imperfect still, and individuals are even less perfect. Most professionals in any profession make mistakes in their everyday jobs. These mistakes in their everyday jobs. These mistakes normally go unnoticed and rarely result in real harm. Aviation, however, can be most unforgiving .For decades, the system has progressively elevated to its current high level of safety. In part because the industry has been permitted to conduct thorough investigations and collect complete information about the causes of accidents.

Nowadays, accidents in aviation are fortunately rare, so rare that sometimes we cannot learn sufficiently only from them .To learn, we need also to ask pilots,controllers,technicians-operational people often trying to balance multiple goals under time pressure-to tell us their stories, to pass on their insights, their experiences-what went wrong and what went right, what may be worth changing and should not be touched, where the gains are and where, if we act ,we will produce more side effects than benefits. When we punish these people, these valuable intelligence officers working on the front line, for their honest mistakes, we cut our information sources, we obstruct our capability to improve safety, we deny our society an opportunity for safer flights. This effect is also extended to the wider community of colleagues when one of them is ‘victimized'. By doing this we put a bomb in the works of the delicate improvement machine.

Prosecutors face the difficult duty to seek justice and protect society. It is their duty to seek justice, not merely to convict. Their crucial role is to protect the innocent as well as identify the guilty, to respect the rights of the accused as well as recognize the interests of the public. As prosecutors are quintessential public-interest lawyers, the aviation community has to make a case towards them as to how it learns and improves aviation safety for the same public, the same society that prosecutors protect.

Increased Criminalization

"Criminal Prosecutors are becoming increasingly eager to press charges against pilots, air traffic controllers and other aviation professionals involved in aircraft accidents, and that eagerness is a growing threat to flight safety" says Flight Safety Foundation President and CEO William R. Voss.

"The safety of the travelling public depends on encouraging a climate of openness and cooperation following accidents," Voss said." Overzealous prosecutions threaten to dry up vital sources of information and jeopardize safety."

"In situations of gross negligence, willful misconduct or reckless conducts, the judicial authorities need to pursue their own, separate investigation," Voss said. "The future lives of passengers depend on the vital safety information that is gathered during an accident investigation. The aviation industry is not against holding aviation professionals accountable if there is a case to answer. But it is important that everything follows international standards.

For most African operators, the concept of the TCO is new and will trigger the question of why it is necessary and what will it improve. Here are the pros and cons that we envisage at this stage:

Pros:

TCO certification will ensure continuous compliance with international aviation safety standards. The Special Approvals Section of the certificate will serve as a unique point of reference for the applicable airspace entry requirements. Single certificate for all safety approvals. E.g. Some EU states now issue individual Dangerous Goods approvals to foreign operators. The process of sanctioning operators that violate safety standards will be more transparent and easy

Cons:

Red tape: Added layer of bureaucracy Potential of delaying changes in operations (e.g. introduction of a new type). Risk of losing focus and only follow the motions. This appears to be the case with some states that already issue TCO certificates. In such cases, the reason for the certificate is being eroded and needs to be reevaluated.

Conclusion

African operators should watch for more than one reason the EASA website (www.easa.europe.eu) for the TCO NPA, which is now slated for publication last month. Not only will it inform them of this upcoming rule, so that they can prepare themselves but also, being an interested party, they have the right to comment on the rule from a users perspective. The rationale of the TCO concept itself, though, can no longer be addressed as that was fixed when the first extension of the BR was adopted in 2008.

Operators and Civil Aviation Authorities in Africa (and other continents) should watch a anew development in Europe that will affect operators that fly to Europe. Operators that do not fly to Europe but have code share agreements with European operators will possibly also be affected .Rules are being proposed shortly that will require these operators to undergo a certification process. Draft rules for that process will shortly be published .Interested parties can comment on those proposed rules. We advise that you study these and consider to comment upon them.

Background

Aviation Safety needs continuous improvement .Being content with what has been achieved –and that is amazingly much in aviation safety-is not enough. To keep pace with the growth of air transport, the focus on safety needs to more than catch up with that increase so as to make sure that accident rates decline futher.There are many ways to achieve that. Modern State Safety programmes and Safety Management Systems,ICAOs USOAP and the various ramp check programmes,such as SASA in Europe ,are but a few.

The more traditional means to control safety are certification and continous oversight programmes by the Civil Aviation Authorities of states. In the area of operations, these programmes are limited to the state where an operator resides. This will now change.

EU Rulemaking Process

In 2004, the European Union started a rulemaking programme aimed at the certification of third country commercial operators, giving a rationale the need to protect European Passengers and citizens on the ground. This initiative led to the inclusion in the EASA Basic Regulation (BR) of a clause on third country operators and the need to make detailed regulations. The Basic Regulation itself may be regarded as the constitution of European aviation safety regulations, reflecting in scope and function the Chicago Convention, albeit at a European scale. It is adopted by the highest political institutions in the European Union: the council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The BR exists since 2002 and initially was limited to matters of airworthiness .It has since been extended twice: in 2008 for Operations and Crew Licensing and in 2009 for Aerodromes and Air Traffic Management.

The 2008 extension, also called the first extension, ordered the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to have subordinate rules, called Implementation by ultimately 8 April 2012 on all matters of operations and crew licensing. With one exception, they all apply to European applicants. The exception is the latest in the row, the IR ON Third Country Operators (TCO).

The European rulemaking process follows a number of steps, the two most important of which are the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPA) which opens a proposed rule for public Document(CRD).The latter is a compilation of all comments and their disposition by EASA and may be seen as a last option for interested parties to comment. Most of the first extension IRs is now beyond the NPA phase and, in some cases, even beyond the CRD phase. The Publication of the NPA was expected last month. The comment period will be three months, following which all comments will be reviewed .The CRD is expected to be published by mid-2011 and the final rule late 2011 or early 2012.

TCO Rule Requirements

Although the NPA is yet to be issued, we have some idea as to what it will entail. We expect that basically it will require that all operators from outside the European Union need to obtain a safety certificate before being allowed access to European airspace. Possibly, the rule will also affect operators that do not fly into EU territory but have a code share agreement with an EU operator. The substance of the regulation will be based on that of –or preferably even refer to –ICAO Annex6,Part1,added with airspace related requirements, possibly in the form of ‘ Special Approvals,' as is now the case for EU AOCs.The latter includes approvals for such aspects as RVSM,RNP,LVO,8.33 KHz,ELS/EHS,Dangerous Goods.

It is unlikely, or at least improper from an international civil aviation promotion point of view, that the TCO IR will include requirements that are stricter than those of ICAO. Having said that, we cannot exclude the possibility that in some areas the NPA will introduce substance that does go beyond ICAO standards, but which EASA considers to be vital to guarantee safety to its citizens.

In addition, there certainly will be an administrative section that regulates the application, continuation and suspension of the certificate. Quite possibly, a link will be made to the SAFA regulation, as ramp checks will form an important source of information for the continued validity of the certificate.Currently,repeated SAFA-found violations may lead to a process of ‘blacklisting' a foreign operator. This process is cumbersome and not transparent to parties, not the least the operator in question. We expect that suspension measures for the TCO certificate will not only ease that process, but also make it more transparent, thereby helping operators to avoid getting in such a situation.

It is yet unknown what level of details will be used on the certificate-will it list individual aircraft types or even registrations? Will it list details of equipment installed? Will it list key personnel? And so on………….

Operators will come from those states, but may also include operators from states that score lower but have good ramp check (SAFA) results. These operators are expected to receive the certificate, upon application, without any further showing. For the remaining operators, a division is likely between those operators that are currently on the European black list and those that are not. Black-listed operators will not be granted a TCO certificate .Other operators are expected to be subjected to a desktop scrutiny or an audit before certification.

Managing Applications

When the TCO rule will become in force –ultimately 8 April 2012-EASA awaits the enormous task of processing applications and issuing certificates to well over a hundred of non-EU operators that at that time operate into the EU. This should be done without any disruption to those operators that deserve the certificate. It will be impossible for EASA to deeply scrutinize all these carriers before issuing a certificate. Quite likely, during the transition phase they will apply the policy of trusted states and trusted operators. Trusted states will be those states that score high in the USOAP.Trusted operators will come from those states, but may also include operators from states that score lower but have good ramp check (SAFA) results. These operators are expected to receive the certificate, upon application, without any further showing.

For the remaining operators, a division is likely between those operators that are currently on the European black list and those that are not. Black-listed operators will not be granted a TCO certificate. Other operators are expected to be subjected to a desktop scrutiny or an audit before certification.

Continuous Monitoring

How will operators that have been certificated be monitoring? Once a certificate has been obtained, a process starts of continuous monitoring. That process is likely to be made up of the same elements that play a role in initial certification:

What is the performance of the issuing state?

What is the performance of the operator (e.g as verified during SAFA inspection)?

Changes in equipment, routes, etc;

Transition Phase

The duration of the transition phase itself is unclear at this stage. As the NPA is still being developed, all options are open. Will it be a big bang, meaning that on 8 April 2012 and non-EU operators must have a certificate or will there be some time for operators to file their application and EASA to process them?

Certification By Other States

Actually, the concept of TCO certificates is not new. Other states have similar regulations. In the USA it exists that long that those who are currently active in aviation do not know when it was introduced.There,is it known as ‘Operations Specifications.' The legal basis is Federal Aviation Regulation 129.Canada issues TCO certificates under the name' Foreign Air Operator Certificate.' From the early 1990s onwards, a proliferation is seen of states that introduced such certificates. Initially, this concentrated in Latin America and was possibly a result of the IASA program of the USA. That program started in 1992 and focused on the ability of states to adhere to ICAO standards for aircraft operations and maintenance, in fact a forerunner of the ICAO USOAP.Later, states in Asia, such as China, also introduced foreign Air Operators Certificate.