|
EASANEWS04
EuropEan aviation SafEty agEncy
fEbruAry 2010
Aviation safety in 2009
Preliminary safety data for 2009 show that it was dent for aeroplanes registered in an EASA Member the decade 1999-2008 had every year on average 27 the year with the lowest number of fatal accidents State in commercial air transport*. Despite this, the non-fatal and 5 fatal accidents with 92 fatalities. on record for the 31 Member States of the European number of fatalities in 2009 (228 fatalities) was signif-In other world regions, the safety record in 2009 was Aviation Safety Agency. This good safety record was icantly above the decade average. The high number marred by an accident of an Airbus A310 in Comoros however overshadowed by the accident of an Airbus of non-fatal accidents (24) in 2009 indicates that fur-and a Tu-154 in Iran. In total there were 41 fatal ac-A330 over the Atlantic. This was the only fatal acci-ther progress in safety is necessary. In comparison, cidents involving aircraft registered outside EASA
Member States. This is below the decade average of 51 fatal accidents (1999-2008), but not the lowest in the decade. In these accidents there were 573 fatali-
Number of Fatalities 1229 1101 1013 fixed wing, above 2.250 kg, CAT
1019 783
726 606 779 507 570
147 187 28 5 7 127 146 25 157 228
Number of Fatal Accidents 8 11 2 5
6 3 6 1 23
59 56 47 43 60 55 37 405051
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Fatalities third country registered Fatal accidents EASA MS registered
Fatalities EASA MS registered Fatal accidents third country registered
ties, the second lowest number in the decade.
Preliminary data shows that in 2009 the number of fatal accidents worldwide in commercial air transport with helicopters was the second lowest for the dec-ade: only in the year 2000 the number of fatal ac-cidents was lower. When looking at the three-year moving average, it appears that for the last five years the average is more or less constant. The accident numbers for EASA Member States remain small and no further conclusions can be drawn. Two fatal ac-cidents occurred in Europe in 2009: two people died in Poland when an emergency medical helicopter crashed; in April, sixteen people died when a heli-copter crashed during an offshore flight from an oil platform to Aberdeen, Scotland. The full EASA Annual Safety Review 2009 will be pub-lished later this year.
* Fatal Accidents categorised as such using ICAO Annex 13 definition.Accidents include aeroplanes or helicopters with maximum take-off mass above 2.250kg conducting commercial air trans-port operations (including air taxi,ferry/positioning and emergency medical services).Aircraft registration was used to assign aircraft into world regions. All data is preliminary and subject to review and change as more information becomes available.
FEB. 2010
Product Safety: present and future challenges
The EASA Product Safety department is responsible for the rules related to design, production and maintenance of aircraft and related products and parts. These re-sponsibilities cover not only the actual plan-ning and production of rules, Acceptable Means of Compliance, Guidance material and Certification Specifications but also the support to implementation, the contribu-tion to ICAO and external relations activi-ties, the conduct of studies, the handling of exemptions and the monitoring of new developments. This work is done in close cooperation with other EASA departments
. AgustaWestland
and Directorates.
Rulemaking Programme_ In the field of Product Safety, the Rulemaking Programme comprises the following key activities:
The introduction of Safety Management Systems (SMS) into Regulations 2042/2003 and 1702/2003 and their adaptation to the new rule structure, taking into account the orientation taken follow-ing the comments received (tasks MDM.055 and 060 respectively). Enablers to SMS will also be addressed (e.g. human factors and system safety analyses). This adaptation to the new rule struc-ture is an example of EASA’s total system approach to aviation safety. Another example is the Opera-tional Suitability Data task (as described below).
Resulting from legal obligations, the adaptation of Part-M to the Basic Regulation (task MDM.047), the introduction of the permit to fly issued by the Agency into Part-21 (task 21.056), and the creation of operational suitability data (OSD: task 21.039) as part of the first extension. OSD is a new concept that formalises the Operational Evaluation Board and contributes to closing the gap between certifi-cation processes and operations and maintenance processes. This task 21.039 will also provide the framework for improving the safety level of the aircraft fleet in service, addressing issues such as aging aircraft and fuel tank safety.
A significant effort is underway to improve Part-66 relative to time limit for demonstration of knowle-dge, privileges for B1 and B2 licences, type and group rating, type training and a new licence for avionics engineers (tasks 66.004, 006, 009, 011 and 027 respectively). The corresponding opinions were adopted at the end of 2009.
A major improvement of Part-M is the contracting of technical services (task M.014) to adapt to new business models. An important enhancement of Part-145 is the single release to service (task 145.012), which will improve safety by providing one system.
Part-21 is being improved with regard to Airwor-thiness Directives (introduction of the Agency policy by task 21.010), replacement parts (task 21.046) and instruction for continuing airworthiness (ICA) (task MDM.056). This task will improve safety by defining a more robust process for ICA. Furthermore, a gen-eral review of the concepts of DOA (Design Organisa-tion Approval) and product certification will be pur-sued based on the present tasks and lessons learnt. A workshop on this issue is scheduled for mid-2010.
The work to provide a better regulation for general aviation will be continued by working on the Euro-pean Light Aircraft Process (task MDM.032), a new licence for engineers working on non-complex air-craft (task 66.022), and a task and study concerning the Basic Regulation that should provide a further improved regulation for aircraft qualifying for the ELA1 sub-process*.
A number of resources are devoted to improve the airworthiness codes and their AMC. Several of the tasks result from accident investigation recommen-dations (Low level fuel alerts - task 25.055 - is one example). Aircraft icing issues continuously demand significant attention. The incorporation of mature special conditions into airworthiness codes, reflect-ing in particular new technologies, has also started. With the considerable help offered by other EASA Directorates, this activity could be accelerated result-ing in airworthiness codes truly reflecting the state-of-the-art of aircraft design (tasks 25.070, 22.010, 23.014, 27&29.023, E.015 and VLA). The work on airworthiness codes is conducted as far as possible in harmonisation with FAA and TCCA (for example on fuel tank safety). The definition of a comprehen-sive list of subjects of common interest and associ-ated working methods is underway as high priority.
FEB. 2010
The support to the implementation of rules takes the form of advice to other Directorates, participa-tion in standardisation meetings and the organisa-tion of workshops. Communication with stakehold-ers will receive increased attention in the future.
ICAO and external relations_ The contribution to ICAO and external relations consists in:
Assisting in the resolution of findings related to airworthiness rules during ICAO audits and provid-ing comments to the ICAO state letters. The de-partment is also involved in the ICAO work relative to the replacement of the Halon based extinguish-ing agents by agents that do not contribute to Ozone depletion.
Regulatory cooperation with FAA and TCCA.
Liaising with stakeholders organisations, for ex-ample by participating in meetings of their special-ised bodies.
Cooperating with the Commission for the adop-tion of opinions.
Cooperating with EUROCONTROL with regard to on-board equipment issues.
Participating in the activities of standardisation bodies such as EUROCAE, SAE and CEN/CENELEC/ ETSI for the development of standards for on-board equipment.
Studies_ The conduct of studies is a necessary sup-port to rulemaking. In the past 5 years, the depart-ment has been conducting the following studies:
Fuel tank safety
Single engine commercial air transportation in instrument meteorological conditions
Job-cards
Methodologies for question data bank Part-66
Child restraint devices
Health and safety
Helicopters ditching
Fuselage burn-through
Bird strike
Review of cabin safety requirements Most of these studies are followed up by tasks in the rulemaking programme. A study on micro-lights will be performed this year to comply with recital 5 of Regulation 216/2008.
Exemptions_ The department reviews around 50 exemptions to implementing rules issued by na-tional authorities, by providing opinions or advice to the Commission in accordance with article 14 of the Basic Regulation. Most are related to the ap-proval of modifications and are handled using the article 14.4 process (exemption for unforeseen ur-gent operational circumstances or operational need of a limited duration). Others are handled under the article 14.6 (equivalent level of protection attained by other means): those issued for UK gliders or for the maintenance of Antonov 26 aircraft deserve to be highlighted.
Future chalenges_ Future challenges demand con-stant monitoring to anticipate the risks they may cre-ate. For example, future developments such as Very Light Jets (task 23.005) and Unmanned Aircraft Sys-tems (UAS) are being worked on. A certification policy for UAS was adopted by the Agency in 2009.
* ELA1 aircraft are defined by the criteria below:
1.
An aeroplane, sailplane or powered sailplane with a Maximum. Take-Off Mass (MTOM) less than 1200 kg that is not classified as complex motor-powered aircraft;
2.
A balloon with a maximum design lifting gas or hot air volume of not more than:
-
3.400 m3 for hot-air balloons
-
1.050 m3 for gas balloons
-
300 m3 for tethered gas balloons
3. A non-complex airship designed for not more than four occu-pants and a maximum design lifting gas or hot-air volume of not more than:
-
3.400 m3 for hot-air airships
-
1.000 m3 for gas airships
4.
An engine installed in aircraft referred to in this paragraph;
5.
A propeller installed in aircraft referred to in this paragraph.
. Paul Bowen/Dassault Aviation
FEB. 2010
standardisation: Taking cooperation with Member states to the next level
Thomas Mickler
Thomas Mickler joined EASA in November 2009 as Head of the Standardisation department. Through-out his 20 years of professional experience, he has held positions in various fields of civil aviation, such as Member of the Air Navigation Commission of ICAO and Director Flight Operations, Personnel Licensing and Accident Investigation Division of the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban affairs.
What are your objectives and the main chal-lenges you identify for the future?
Our objectives and challenges fall into two main categories: the continuous improvement of the existing standardisation process and the expan-sion of EASA’s competences. In the fields of initial and continuing airworthiness the standardisation process is now well established and quite mature. However, we are continuously striving to make a good product even better by increasing its qual-ity, efficiency and effectiveness: not only through a systematic evaluation of our customer feedback mechanism but also through an internal standardi-sation and training process. Another activity with the same aim is our endeavour to become ISO 9001 certified. We also plan to increase the number of product audits: this would ensure standardisation both at system and product level. The extension of our competences also poses some challenges, as the level of harmonisation and cooperation is quite different from the field of airworthiness. My overarching objective is to be able to gener-ate a global picture of a State’s safety performance through a phased approach. The first phase com-prises so-called combined standardisation visits to establish a baseline of comprehensive information on a State’s safety system. Combined visits, how-ever, involve large teams and are very cumbersome for both the national authorities and our teams. We are therefore working on a new concept, the Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA), which will constitute the second phase. The main idea is to increase the level of integration and cooperation with the National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) so as to be able to keep the relevant safety information continuously up-to-date. The CMA will incorporate a risk-based planning mechanism that will allow us to tailor our inspections in terms of scope, depth and interval to identified risk levels. I firmly believe the new concept will go a long way towards increasing the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the stand-ardisation process. The aim is to bring this system perfectly in line with ICAO’s concept so that ICAO can rely on our activities to a very large extent.
How does the cooperation with Member States work in the context of standardisation activities?
A good and trustworthy relationship with the Member States is for me one of the most essential prerequisites for our success. That is why we in-volve Member States directly in our activities, apart from the intensive cooperation during a stand-ardisation visit or its follow-up phase. We train standardisation inspectors from NAAs and have them participate in standardisation visits as team members. This not only supports us tremendously in our work, it in itself bears a standardisation effect. The team members apply their acquired knowledge normally in their own administration in order to be better prepared when it is their turn to be audited. Secondly, we perform annual standardisation meetings which allow Member States to share and discuss their experience and come up with acceptable solutions. Both activities consititute a proactive standardisation approach, which is a better way of reaching our objectives than through standardisation findings. We do not perceive ourselves as policemen, although in some instances we have to take appropriate measures.
We rather want to be seen as a coach who assists and explains in order to reach objectives. This however requires the right atmosphere and a lot of good will on the part of Member States, which we fortunately find in most of the cases. For the future implementation of the CMA we are plan-ning to take our partnership to the next level. We want to establish a platform that would allow us to exchange safety related information in a more efficient manner and to tailor our resources and activities to identified risks. The active participation by Member States is essential in this respect.
How will a smooth transition from the JAA to the EASA framework be ensured in the field of Stand-ardisation?
This is our objective for the first extension to the fields of Flight Operations and Flight Crew Licens-ing. With the closure of the JAA the Agency inher-ited certain responsibilities in the fields of OPS and FCL to bridge the gap until the Implementing Rules to the Basic Regulation enter into force. In order to fulfil these new obligations, two new sections were established by my predecessor Fran.ois Jan-vier. This allows us to continue JAA standardisation visits and assist in the transition. Not only do we share our field experience with our colleagues from Rulemaking, we will also accompany the implementation activities on the part of Member States right from the moment the new rules be-come applicable and assist if necessary.
The next step for the Agency are the areas of ATM/ANS and aerodromes. What will be the role of Standardisation?
The competence to perform standardisation in-spections has been assigned to us also for these areas. The role of Standardisation will therefore be essentially the same as in all other fields. However in Aerodromes and ATM/ANS, the mechanism and the intensity of cooperation were different from the JAA system. This is why we need to intensify our cooperation with Member States and EURO-CONTROL as early as possible to be able to facilitate the transition process. Clearly, our newly assigned competences overlap with present EUROCONTROL activities. We are therefore going to cooperate with EUROCONTROL with a view to optimise our activities within the standardisation framework es-tablished by the Basic Regulation.
FEB. 2010
Continuing Airworthiness
and Occurrence Reporting
By the EASA Certification Directorate
Current situation_ The ultimate objective of avia-tion safety management is to prevent accidents. Monitoring the aircraft in-service experience is essential to obtain a view of the achieved safety level, to identify targets for improvement, and vali-date or further develop airworthiness standards.
Thanks to the constant improvements in the safety of the design of modern aircraft, accidents are rarely caused by a single reason, but by combina-tions of causes. This also means that precursors exist to most accidents. Further improvement in safety can be achieved if the precursors are iden-tified and dealt with before they combine into a deadly chain of events.
To give a legal foundation to this priority activity, the European legislator mandates EASA to continu-ously monitor the Continuing Airworthiness of ap-proved type designs (CAW) as an obligatory core activity, as defined in article 20.1 (j) of the Basic Regulation (EC) No. 1108/2009.
Identification and mitigation of safety risks_ The activities to be subsumed under the term “CAW of approved type designs” are deriving from “Part 21” of Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 and comprise a large variety of analytical tasks aiming at the iden-tification and mitigation of established or potential safety risks, such as (non-exclusive list):
monitoring potential safety issues related to daily operations of approved type designs by analysing reported in-service difficulties and occurrences;
performing regular airworthiness reviews with Type Certificate (TC) holders;
involvement in accident and incident investiga-tion and responding to safety recommendations;
investigating and resolving all proven and sus-pected unsafe conditions;
exchanging safety data with foreign authorities in line with Bilateral Agreements and Working Ar-rangements;
reviewing and approving appropriate corrective actions developed by TC holders;
reviewing TC holders′ risk assessments and de-cision making on their acceptability;
drafting, publishing and disseminating relevant safety information in the form of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) and Safety Information Bulletins (SIBs).
All of the above is achievable only on the basis of complete, unambiguous and reliable data, i.e. oc-currence reports and/or any other safety-related information available from, for example, accident and incident investigations, National Aviation Au-thorities (NAAs), bilateral partners (such as US, Canada) and approved organisations. Today, in the “Part 21” process, the primary source of oc-currence data for the Certification Directorate are the TC holders of aeronautical products, parts and appliances. This is an indirect link where the infor-mation flows from the operators to the TC holder, who processes it and then contacts the Agency when an unsafe or potentially unsafe condition is identified. The tasks performed by the TC holder are monitored by the Design Organisation Approv-al (DOA) and are, therefore, under EASA control.
However, the upstream part of the dataflow, i.e. the transmission of the information to the TC holder, is outside of its control and of the EASA monitoring. The only way for EASA to control this part of the data flow is to access data reported by opera-tors, maintenance and production organisations, through their competent national authorities where relevant. EASA already receives some rel-evant “direct” data, but on an irregular and limited basis from NAAs and Accident Investigation Boards (AIBs), from other reporting entities on “EASA Form 44”, etc.
FEB. 2010
Current developments and future steps_ The aim of the Agency for the future years is to implement an occurrence reporting system enabling it to proc-ess in a structured manner all information that is already available from manufacturers, and to proc-ess in the future all information that will become available through the extended access to national data that is foreseen by the EU Regulatory system. EASA aims at establishing its own internal central-ised database and the appropriate workflows for the systematic storage and analysis of occurrence reports. This will enable the Agency to make use of large sets of aggregated occurrence data and take advantage of a central portal for the processing of individual occurrence reports coming from various sources (today mainly stemming from the TC hold-ers, but increasingly also from Form 44 reports and data provided by NAAs on a voluntary basis).
Revision of the Accident Investigation Directive_
EASA would significantly benefit from an improved access to occurrence data at NAAs. On 20 October 2009 the European Commission published a pro-posal for the revision of the Accident Investigation Directive 94/56/EC into a regulation. The proposal contains a provision according to which EASA shall be granted full and unrestricted access to all oc-currence data contained in the European Central Repository (ECR), which is based on the so-called ECCAIRS software. In line with this, it is expected that the European Commission will make a similar proposal for the revision of the Occurrence Report-ing Directive (EC) No. 2003/42/EC foreseen for the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011.
These are good news for EASA as a whole and for the Certification Directorate in particular. Although CAW activities by the Certification Directorate will also in the future mainly be triggered by Part 21 Occurrence Reporting, Certification staff will gain other possibilities to retrieve large amounts of oc-currence data on types under their direct respon-sibility and to conduct long-term trend monitoring and type comparison.
The Commission proposal for the integration of EASA into the ECR network also increases the need for the Agency to implement the internal central-ised Occurrence Reporting database (in the ECCAIRS format). Data collection will require a work-intense follow-up process in order to fully benefit from the information available. This is the pre-condition for EASA to further contribute to and benefit from the ongoing trend towards an intensified exchange of safety-relevant information in Europe.
Focus on eAsA’s new regulatory tasks
Aerodrome safety
The Task_ From 2010 onwards, EASA is preparing the rules for the safety certification of aerodromes and their safety-oversight by the national aviation authorities. This means the conditions of how to issue certificate, the obligations and privileges of certificate holders and the sanctions in case of non-compliance. Furthermore, EASA will provide rules and guidelines regarding aerodrome Safety Man-agement Systems (SMS).
EASA will base the rules on ICAO’s Annex 14 on aer-odrome design and operations, but will also fill in details in areas where that document remains silent, for example the appropriate resourcing and staff competences of the competent authorities. The re-sult will be harmonised yet proportionate Commu-nity-wide aerodrome safety rules, and a regulatory framework that is implemented and enforced by the authorities in the EASA Member States.
Benefits_ While many EASA Member States have or are in the process of certifying their airports to com-ply with their ICAO obligation, a few others have not yet put a national legal basis or an implemen-tation plan into place. Most countries still have to develop fully functioning aerodrome SMS. Clearer guidelines on SMS, change management and safety assessments will help define the responsibilities of aerodrome operators and the regulatory side. Europe-wide rules will result in a high, uniform level of safety. Common rules on SMS will help maintain and improve safety while traffic volumes are growing. The goal of more standardised and clear airport design and operations is the prevention of acci-dents and ground collisions that are still happen-ing too frequently1. Runway incursions represent a challenge to the entire aviation community and need to be reduced further.
Who will be affected?_ Future Community rules will apply to aerodromes that fulfil all following cri-teria: being open to public use; serving commercial air transport; providing instrument approach or de-parture procedures; having at least one paved run-way of 800 metres or above; or exclusively serving helicopters. EASA estimates that these are up to 500 aerodromes throughout Europe. The operators of the above category of aerodromes, their personnel, aerodrome operations, as well as the aerodrome equipment will be covered by the rules and be sub-ject to certification.
Implementation timescale_ While the future rules have to be adopted by 2013, the work has already started: in spring 2010 the terms of reference will be defined for the so-called “rulemaking tasks”. The EASA consultative bodies2 will then have a chance to comment and nominate persons for
FEB. 2010
Focus on eAsA’s new regulatory tasks
update on Authority and Organisation Requirements
the respective rulemaking groups. A full public consultation on the draft rules should begin by summer/autum 2011 in the form of a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA). Stakeholders’ com-ments will be summarised and replied to by EASA some time later in a Comment Response Docu-ment (CRD). In the beginning of 2012, EASA will make a well-argued case for its choice of rules in its formal Opinion to the European Commission. This Opinion is the basis for a legislative proposal by the Commission for the so-called “comitology” adoption process.
1 Based on data developed by the International Air Transport Asso-ciation (IATA), the Association estimates that 27.000 ramp accidents and incidents — one per 1.000 departures — occur worldwide every year. About 243.000 people are injured each year in these accidents and incidents; the injury rate is 9 per 1.000 departures. Ramp accidents cost major airlines worldwide at least US$10 billion a year, the data indicates.
2 These are for the NAAs the Advisory Group of National Authorities (AGNA) and for the aviation industry the Safety Standards Consulta-tive Committee (SSCC).
. LFV/Tommy S.fstr.m
and Air Operations
Following September′s Management Board and the agreed joint approach of EASA and Commission on the way forward for the first extension, the Agency initiated the comment review of the authority and organisation as well as air operations requirements. The comments are currently being analysed togeth-er with experts from national authorities and indus-try. Every single comment is analysed and the con-tent of the comments is summarised per paragraph. A summary response is provided, which includes the justification of changes and the amendment of the proposed rules itself. The Agency established five review groups, whose compositions are published on the EASA website:
One group addresses the general authority and or-ganisation requirements. It is composed of OPS.001 and FCL.001 drafting group members, complement-ed by additional experts including also the ATM and aerodrome domain. A first analysis of the com-ments, responses and amended rule changes will be discussed with the review group in February.
Four review groups were established in the field of air operations addressing Commercial Air Transport, Aerial Work, Non-commercial aviation with complex motor-powered aircraft and non-commercial opera-tions with other than complex motor-powered air-craft. The latter group is newly established while the other three groups are composed of OPS.001 draft-ing group members complemented by additional experts. The kick-off meeting for all groups took place on 25 January in Cologne.
In parallel the Agency initiated a rulemaking task on Flight time limitations and rest requirements for Commercial Air Transport by aeroplane. The group includes experts from aviation authorities, opera-tors and flight and cabin crew. The group reviews EU-OPS Subpart Q; addresses those areas/points in Subpart Q currently subject to national provi-sions; submits regulatory proposals (IR, CS, AMC, GM) based on the preferred option retained after a regulatory impact assessment; and takes into ac-count all relevant recent publicly available studies/ evaluations and operational experience. Its proposals shall also include:
the development and modification of individual schemes and the process for their approval (Art. 22 of BR), and
the use and role of Fatigue Risk Management Sys-tem (FRMS) in relation to the operator’s safety man-agement system (SMS) and to the use of individual schemes. The aim is to publish an NPA by the third quarter of 2010, enabling the Commission to adopt the fi-nal rule together with the initial OPS Implementing Rules.
FEB. 2010
// Quick News / // Quick News / // Quick News //
eu-Brazil: Negotiation of a Bilateral Agree-ment on civil aviation safety
In response to a growing global concern about the subject of pilot training following some high-profile accidents, EASA Executive Director Patrick Goudou called a one-day conference to debate the subject. Nearly 200 delegates from across the in-dustry came together in Cologne on 24 November 2009. Key note speakers were Patrick Goudou and the FAA Director of Flight Standards, John Allen.
Setting the context of the day, Patrick Goudou pointed out the need for a constant review of train-ing given the growing complexity and automation of modern aircraft. Fact is that today’s pilots have less opportunities to manually fly the aircraft and rules for training have not been amended signifi-cantly over the last 60 years to face the new chal-lenges. While acknowledging the complexity of the debate and that there was not a one size fits all “silver bullet”, Mr. Goudou stressed that EASA would engage with and facilitate pilot training ini-tiatives where needed.
Many strongly-held views about pilot training priorities were voiced during the day. There was consensus amongst all speakers that simply doing more flying hours was not a solution to inexperience; ultimately the selection of pilots was crucial to the de-sired qualities of professionalism being displayed. All parts of industry supported the IATA/ICAO initiative
consolidated Part-M
Our first reader-friendly technical publication is available for free download on the Technical Publi-cations page of the EASA website (http://www.easa. europa.eu/ws_prod/g/technical-publications.php). Further rules, as well as printed copies for sale, will follow soon.
Last October, the EU Council authorised the Eu-ropean Commission to start negotiations on a Bi-lateral Agreement between the EU and Brazil on civil aviation safety. An EU delegation (composed of representatives of the Commission and EASA) met the Brazilian authorities in Brussels on 14-15 December 2009 to launch the first formal round of negotiations. A draft executive Agreement and an Annex on initial airworthiness were discussed. Both delegations confirmed that the Agreement should be built upon existing cooperation be-tween the Brazilian Aviation Authority (ANAC) and EASA to cover, in the first place, issues of certifica-tion of aeronautical products (design and produc-
events
tion – conditions of acceptance will be addressed in detail in the relevant annex). Moreover, the delegations agreed to expand their cooperation on “safety initiatives” to ensure that they progres-sively coordinate safety policies and initiatives, exchange information and data, and develop joint programmes. A provision in the draft agreement establishes that the parties may agree to extend the scope of cooperation to other areas. Addition-al discussions on technical matters will be held in Brazil on 1-2 March 2010 (second round of negoti-ations). The Agreement could be signed during the next EU-Latin America Aviation Summit planned in Rio de Janeiro on 24-26 May 2010.
Are pilots trained to meet the challenge?
on evidence-based training (ITQI), granting that it would not completely replace prescriptive rules.
Looking ahead, Patrick Goudou concluded that EASA, after having reviewed the Conference mate-rial, would keep the debate alive. The High-Level Safety Conference on Strategic Key Issues for Glo-bal Aviation Safety at ICAO on 29 March–1 April 2010 includes pilot training as one of its agenda items. EASA will work with the FAA and ICAO to make appropriate changes where safety is served.
All Conference presentations are available on the Events page of the EASA website.
| 
IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-6-20 01:06:17
分享
收藏
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
发表于 2011-6-27 13:09:48