Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2002)8 - Safety of third countries aircraft using community airports - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2002)8 - Safety of third countries aircraft using community airports. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2002)8  |
| date | 14-01-2002 |
In the wake of the Puerto Plata accident, in January 1996, the Council called upon the Commission to devise proposals to ensure the safety of European citizens travelling in the air or living around airports. To do so, the Commission convened a high level group of aviation safety experts and elaborated with their assistance a Community Aviation Safety Improvement Strategy which was adopted and transmitted to the Council on 12 June 1996 i.
That strategy was based on two main streams of actions. On one hand it was recommended to intensify work to maintain and further improve the safety of operations in Europe; this included in particular the creation of a European Aviation Safety Authority for what the Commission adopted on 27 September 2000 a Regulation establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation and creating a European Aviation Safety Agency i.
The second group of actions was aiming at verifying that third countries actually apply internationally agreed aviation safety standards and at assisting them in doing so when necessary. To follow on this suggestion the Commission proposed in 1997 to the European Parliament and the Council a draft directive on the safety of foreign aircraft which could not be adopted within the time limits prescribed by the Treaty ; it was agreed at that time that a new proposal would be made: such is the purpose of this initiative.
To complement that action it was also necessary to examine what other initiatives can be taken by the Community and its Member States to reach their safety objectives vis-à-vis third countries. As a consequence, a Communication from the Commission on a European Community contribution to World Aviation Safety Improvement was adopted on 16 July 2001 i.
Contents
- II. The Safety Assessment of third countries aircraft
- III. The Gibraltar issue
- IV. Compatibility with the subsidiarity principle
- a) What are the objectives of the proposal in relation to the obligations of the Community and what is the Community dimension of the problem -
- b) Does competence for the planned activities lie solely with the Community or is it shared with the Member States-
- d) What kind of action is at the disposal of the Community-
- e) Is uniform regulation necessary or is it sufficient to draft a Directive which outlines the general objectives while leaving execution to the Member States-
- COMMENTS ON THE VARIOUS ARTICLES
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 5
- Article 6
- Article 7
- Article 8
- Article 9
- Article 10
- Articles 11
- Article 13
- Articles 12, 14 and 15
There is general agreement on the need to set in place a system for assessing the levels of safety actually achieved by foreign air carriers operating services to and from EU countries.
The High Level Group had discussed the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedure of systematically checking, for all foreign carriers operating to the United States, the competence of the relevant national authorities to meet their ICAO obligations in terms of safety oversight. It concluded, however, that such a programme would not be suited for Europe, where it would make more sense instead to set up a step-by-step procedure which is triggered by evidence, or suspicions, of safety shortcomings of a foreign airline, described in this document as the SAFA i procedure.
As a consequence, in its action plan, the Commission announced its intention 'to present ... a proposal for a Council Directive formalising the SAFA procedure for the assessment of foreign air carriers and the related co-operation mechanism to share and analyse information and draw conclusions. This directive should also include an obligation on Member States to ground aircraft found or suspected to be dangerous'.
The operational aspects of the SAFA procedure are presently managed by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) on behalf of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC). As this procedure falls under the responsibilities of ECAC and will not be issued under the JAR codes system, Regulation n°3922/91 i does not apply.
The aim of this proposal is therefore to set in the Community the legal framework for the introduction and the operational application of such a safety assessment of third countries aircraft while leaving enough margin to the Member States to build the corresponding mechanisms individually or collectively, for example within the JAA, as they see fit.
The results of the institutional debate taking place in the Community for the creation of an European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) may have an influence on the SAFA programme as it could lead to a transfer to the EASA of the SAFA activities presently carried out by the JAA on behalf of ECAC.
The international safety standards the respect of which is to be controlled are those contained in the Annexes to the Chicago Convention of 1944 to which all Member States are Parties. The Commission has ensured that its proposal is consistent with such international obligations of its Member States under the Chicago Convention by limiting mandatory inspections to aircraft or operators for which there is indication of possible deficiencies and by avoiding to impose systematic random inspections which could be considered as contrary to the Chicago Convention. Detailed examination of the relevant provisions of the Chicago Convention is set out in the Communication 'Defining a Community Aviation Safety Improvement Strategy' referred to above.
The need for such an initiative is further reinforced by the recent terrorist events in the United States of America. The safety assessment of third country aircraft can indeed cover the ICAO security requirements of Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention and assist ICAO in the monitoring role it will have to play to ensure the effective and uniform application of these standards.
In February 1997, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a safety assessment of third countries aircraft using Community airports i. As the proposal was not adopted within the timescale laid down by Article 189c (f) and (g) of the Treaty in force (now Article 252 of the Amsterdam Treaty), the proposal lapsed and the present new proposal is submitted, taking into account the views expressed by the Council in its Common position i and the European Parliament in its second reading i.
Taking note of the agreement between the British and Spanish authorities concerning the airport of Gibraltar, the Commission finally decided to present again its proposal.
The Commission has considered the compatibility of the proposal with the principle of subsidiarity by addressing the following questions.
a) What are the objectives of the proposal in relation to the obligations of the Community and what is the Community dimension of the problem -
The third aviation package has created an internal aviation market where the rules for the operation of air services have been largely harmonised thereby providing a satisfactory basis for improving the safety of the Community citizens travelling by air on such services.
Recent experience has shown that carriers from third countries do not always apply the minimum international safety standards while having access to the Community airports thereby creating a threat for Community citizens travelling with such carriers or living near Community airports. In order to address this problem, some Member States already carry out ramp inspections of foreign aircraft but in an isolated manner. The purpose of this Directive is to extend this practice to the whole Community territory.
b) Does competence for the planned activities lie solely with the Community or is it shared with the Member States-
The envisaged action does not relate to an exclusive competence of the Community.
c) Which solution is most efficient in comparison between Community measures and measures of the Member States, what added value does the proposed Community action provide and what are the costs of no action-
Measures taken by Member States in isolation are less efficient than co-ordinated action with exchange of information enabling an earlier identification of possible deficiencies. In addition, Member States would benefit of the strength of a common stance with regard to third countries and avoid that unsafe aircraft could be redirected to neighbouring airports where such inspections would not be carried out.
In order to provide for homogeneous, effective and well co-ordinated action, it is necessary to introduce legal measures either in the form of a Directive or a Regulation.
e) Is uniform regulation necessary or is it sufficient to draft a Directive which outlines the general objectives while leaving execution to the Member States-
It is considered sufficient to use a framework Directive, setting goals that the Member States will apply with a degree of freedom. However, due to the technical nature of this subject and the need to ensure efficient co-ordination and sharing of information, it has been necessary sometimes to look into matters in more detail.
Accordingly, the Commission reached the conclusion that its proposal is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
Article 1
This Article states the objective of the Directive.
This Article sets the scope of the Directive. It excludes light aircraft which do not participate in commercial air transport and State aircraft.
This Article lays down the necessary definitions
Article 4
This Article describes all the information that the Member States will collect in order to facilitate the assessment. It includes the information that will generally be available on aircraft or operators when an abnormal situation arises, the information concerning ramp inspections which have been carried out, the follow-up information after initial ramp inspections and also the information that could be available from other sources than the competent authorities. It also suggests to use a form similar to one given in annex. This phrasing gives the necessary flexibility to modify the form based on the operational experience without having to change the annex.
This Article requires the Member States to proceed to ramp inspections of aircraft suspected of non-compliance with international safety standards. It also sets out the procedure, the framework of which is contained in an Annex which also contains a suggested form (same comment on form as in previous Article). The detailed procedure is left to the Member States and leaves them the opportunity to use the operational procedure presently designed by the JAA on behalf of ECAC.
This Article describes how the information should be exchanged in order to ensure a Community-wide coverage for the whole system. The detailed operational procedure to set up a compatible data base system and to exchange information is left to the Member States and leaves them the opportunity to use the infrastructure presently designed by the JAA on behalf of ECAC.
This Article aims on the one hand at protecting the information exchanged to ensure the functioning of the system, and in particular the confidentality of the voluntary contribution of the crew of the inspected aircraft, in order to facilitate the gathering of useful information without fear of retribution; on the other hand, it aims at publishing regular information to enable the citizens to measure the importance of the exercise and to identify the aircraft grounded as well as the corrective measures subsequently taken.
This Article requires the Member States to ground dangerous aircraft and details the actions to be taken to ensure that the grounding can be accomplished.
This Article sets out the procedures for the taking of measures for the implementation of the Directive and provides for decisions to address the problems which may have surfaced after the assessment procedure has been applied and a safety hazard has been identified. It gives various possible level of response according to the severity of the hazard.
This Article deals with bans and conditions imposed on operators in case of serious concerns for air safety.
This Article establishes the procedure necessary for the application of Articles 9 and 10 by setting up a committee.
This Article provides for the drawing up of a report on the application of the Directive and of possible proposals to revise it.
Procedural Articles.