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."