Close Vote, But Flight Crew Licensing Changes Pass

IAOPA is reporting in its newsletter that the European Parliament has approved EASA-FCL (Flight Crew Licensing) 22-16 despite a last-minute attempt to have it sent back to EASA for redrafting because of unresolved issues surrounding third-country licences. IAOPA says the vote was something of a surprise, as Parliament's Transport Committee chairman Brian Simpson and his socialist group voted in EASA's favour. Mr Simpson had expressed support for IAOPA's position on the N-register in the past and it had been hoped he would vote accordingly.

The advocacy organization says the passage of EASA-FCL despite the deleterious effect it will have on the GA industry illustrates not only the absence of any real democratic control over EASA but the failings of the whole European governmental structure. EASA-FCL was born out of a Basic Regulation written by European Commissioners with no electoral mandate; the details were added by bureaucrats at EASA who paid lip service to the idea of consultation with industry. When the time came to vote, the elected members of the European Parliament were denied the opportunity to pass judgement on the components of this long and complex document – they only had the power to accept all of EASA's proposals, or reject them entirely. Because the Commission's deadlines (themselves entirely arbitrary) are bearing down on us, MEPs are under enormous pressure to pass the legislation; failure to do so would have caused chaos and confusion among the national aviation authorities who are expected to begin implementing EASA-FCL by April next year, and it is a measure of the extreme level of concern MEPs have over the N-registration issue that many of them were prepared to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

The decision was effectively taken on August 31st by the Transport and Tourism Committee, which speaks for the whole Parliament on this issue. Thanks in part to the work of Herbert Habnit, founder of AOPA Netherlands, two MEPs, Peter van Dalen and Philip Bradbourne, had sought a resolution saying that EASA's third-country licensing proposals meant that many pilots would be severely disadvantaged, subject to additional training, examination and 'notable costs', and that the requirements were 'disproportionate'. EASA claims the shortcomings in its regulation can be overcome by a bilateral agreement between Europe and the US, but the van Dalen/Bradbourne motion points out that 'there is absolutely no evidence nor clear future prospects for the potential bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements being drafted and to be concluded before April 2014'(by which time the third-country provision of EASA-FCL must be fully implemented) that would solve these problems. It goes on to say there are no safety issues behind EASA's regulation, and adds that the draft regulation does not even conform to the requirements of the Commission's own Basic Regulation.

Four more votes would have tipped the matter in general aviation's favour. Mr Habnit was particularly disappointed at the failure of Mr Simpson and those in his sphere of influence to support the resolution. Mr Simpson had, says Mr Habnit, abrogated the provisions of the European Parliament's own 'Agenda for a Sustainable Future for General Aviation', adopted in 2009. There has, he adds, been no real attempt to quantify the cost of this politically-motivated attack on the GA industry. "Even EASA does not understand the consequences of its actions," he said

"It's a sad day," said IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson following the vote. "The MEPs were put under enormous pressure to push this through and were denied the ability to address the huge flaws in it. This could not have been railroaded through in a truly democratic process. Economically, the vote is seriously bad news for our industry. Many of those who have been flying perfectly safely for decades on FAA licences are not going to make the extraordinary investment of time, effort and money needed to get European IRs or other qualifications – they will simply give up. The European Parliament has blown a great hole in our industry with this vote, and because it has been bamboozled by EASA, it doesn't even know it.

"We now have to focus on the detail of the FCL annexe to the Bilateral Agreement to make sure that EASA and the FAA reach sensible agreements on what credits they will give to each other's training systems. It is unlikely that the 2014 deadline will be achieved given the amount of work that needs to be done, and the Commission has accepted that the deadline may need to be extended. Retrospective legislation like this is damaging and the Commission should now work hard with the industry to reduce as far a possible the negative impact of these decisions."

FMI: www.easa.eu.int, www.iaopa.org