---

8 Nov 2004 : Column 485W—continued

TRANSPORT

Motoring Costs

Mr. Burnett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's estimate is of the average cost of motoring per mile including depreciation, fuel and servicing; what sources were used to make the estimate; what factors are included in the estimate; and when the estimate was last revised. [195676]

Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 2 November 2004]: The estimated average cost of motoring per mile by car in 2002–03 was 39p for cars available to residents of households in Great Britain. This includes household expenditure on purchase, spares, repairs, insurance, taxation, fuel and parking, but excludes depreciation and costs paid by employers.

The Expenditure and Food Survey for 2002–03 was used for estimates of household expenditure on motoring and the National Travel Survey for 2002–03 was used for estimates of mileage by car drivers for personal travel. The estimate was produced for the purpose of answering this question.

Air Navigation Services

Mr. Stunell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the draft Single European Sky Implementing Rule on a Common Charging Scheme for air navigation services from (a) regional airlines and representative bodies and (b) the general aviation industry and representative bodies; and what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the proposals on the (i) regional airline and (ii) general aviation industry. [195824]

Charlotte Atkins: The Department has received 75 written representations from regional airlines, general aviation and their representative bodies on the draft Single European Sky Implementing Rule for a common Charging Scheme for air navigation services.

The Department has undertaken no formal assessment of the economic impact of the charging proposals as the detail of the Implementing Rule has not yet been finalised.

Air Safety

Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long it has taken to implement air safety recommendations made following each air safety incident since 1997. [195887]

Charlotte Atkins: The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) makes safety recommendations to a wide range of organisations including the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), overseas regulatory bodies, the new European Aviation Safety Agency, and aircraft and engine manufacturers.
 
8 Nov 2004 : Column 486W
 

The CAA publishes its responses to relevant AAIB recommendations by means of a FACTOR (Follow-up Action on Occurrence Report), and progress on implementation is recorded in an annual Progress Report. Since 2000, the CAA Annual Progress Reports have also included information on recommendations made to other bodies, though information on these is less detailed. The progress reports are available on the CAA website.

In the Annual Progress Report, recommendations addressed to the CAA will be classified as "open" or "closed". "Closed" indicates that all actions judged appropriate by the CAA have been completed or that the recommendation was not accepted by the CAA, and "open" indicates that action is on-going. In some instances further action may still be being progressed on closed recommendations by organisations outside the jurisdiction of the CAA. In these cases the CAA will continue to monitor progress as part of its normal regulatory activity.

Since 1 January 1997 the AAIB has made a total of 537 recommendations, of which 260 have been made to the CAA. Of the 235 recommendations accepted or partially accepted by the CAA, 34 remain open as at 3 November 2004. These include one from 2000, two from 2001, two from 2002, 20 from 2003 and nine from 2004. The timescales for implementation of accepted recommendations by the CAA vary considerably, from immediate action to a number of years, depending upon the impact upon safety and any requirements for further research.

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he has (a) contacted and (b) been contacted by (i) the European Aviation Safety Agency and (ii) other European certification agencies regarding failures in the winch manufactured by Hydrotechnics and used by the Aerophile Aerostat in the past five years; [196546]

(2) what representations he has (a) made to and (b) had from (i) the European Aviation Safety Agency and (ii) other European certification agencies concerning failures in any part of the Aerophile Aerostat in the past five years. [196548]

Charlotte Atkins: In the UK, aerostats (captive balloons) were exempt from any requirement for airworthiness certification prior to 28 September 2003, as explained in the answer of 6 October 2003, Official Report, columns 1057- 60W, given to the hon. Member. There was no reason for communications with any European certification body prior to that date.

Since 28 September 2003, neither the Government nor the Civil Aviation Authority has had contacts with EASA or other European certification agencies regarding any failures in any part of the Aerophile Aerostat.

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what powers he has to revoke licences for airworthiness certificates for aerostats currently in operation in the UK whose certification came through Grandfather rights; [196547]

(2) what account the certifying authority takes of a track record of a proven aerostat system when considering applications for certification; [196550]
 
8 Nov 2004 : Column 487W
 

(3) which organisation is responsible for administering the process of aircraft type certification for applications made in respect of UK manufactured products; and which organisation makes the final decision on whether specific type certification should be granted in respect of an application from a UK manufacturer; [196551]

(4) what applications for type certifications (a) have been made, (b) are pending and (c) have been granted in respect of tethered gas balloons manufactured in the UK; [196552]

(5) whether the organisation responsible for processing the aircraft type certification is required to carry out technical studies of (a) the winch apparatus and (b) other components of the Aerostat system; and whether it is (i) entitled and (ii) otherwise permitted to accept third party attestations regarding such components from responsible bodies for the purposes of processing such certifications; [196553]

(6) whether he has ascertained from the European Aviation Safety Agency whether the Health and Safety Executive is deemed to be a responsible body for the purposes of safety accreditation such that its certification of winch apparatus may be deemed sufficient for the purposes of aircraft type certification; [196554]

(7) whether the Health and Safety Executive is deemed by the Civil Aviation Authority to be a responsible body for the purposes of safety accreditation of the winch apparatus forming part of an Aerostat system such that its certification may be deemed sufficient for the purposes of aircraft type certification; [196555]

(8) what steps Lindstrand Technologies Limited of Oswestry, Shropshire, should take in order to acquire the necessary certification allowing the sale of their HiFlyer Aerostat in (a) the UK and (b) the EU; [196556]

(9) what formal certification of specification has been promulgated for tethered gas balloons (aerostats); on what date it was promulgated; and by which organisation. [196654]

Charlotte Atkins: The historical background to the certification of aerostats (also known as gas balloons) is set out at length in the answer of 29 September 2003, Official Report, 6 October 2003 columns 1057–60W given to the hon. Member. This answer outlines the changes to the treatment of such aircraft that were brought about by EC Regulation 1592/2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and related provisions for grandfather rights and transitional arrangements. EASA took up its certification responsibilities on 28 September 2003 and the necessary Commission Regulations detailing how these responsibilities are implemented are set down in Commission Regulations No. 1702/2003 and 2042/2003.

Article 10(1) of EC Regulation 1592/2002 provides that member states may react immediately to a safety problem which involves a product subject to the provisions of that regulation; this would cover the
 
8 Nov 2004 : Column 488W
 
revocation of a Certificate of Airworthiness for aerostats currently in operation in the UK whose certification came through grandfather rights.

Prior to 28 September 2003, the CAA were responsible for both administering the process of aircraft type certification for UK products and made the final decision on granting the certification. Since that date, with some minor exceptions, these have been the responsibility of EASA.

The only application to date for type certification for a UK manufactured tethered gas balloon has been for the Lindstrand HiFlyer (also known as the HiFlyer Aerostat) and was made on 9 September 2003. It is therefore subject to transitional arrangements whereby the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has continued to carry out the necessary certification exercise, which involves satisfying itself that the aircraft meets the applicable safety standards; its compliance findings would be deemed to have been made by the agency. The sale of this product in either the UK or the EU can be achieved by either continuing with and completing the current certification exercise through the CAA or by making a new application directly to EASA. The latter would also be likely to involve the CAA being asked to conduct the detailed certification work on behalf of the agency.

Under the procedures which the CAA is currently following for certifying the HiFlyer, the authority is required to satisfy itself that both the winch apparatus and all other components of a tethered gas balloon/aerostat meet applicable safety standards. This requires specific work to be carried out to show that compliance with the requirements is achieved. If the aerostat had a proven positive track record prior to the application the CAA will note it, but it will not defray any compliance showing. If the proven track record is adverse, the CAA will assure itself during the process that the designer is addressing the issues.

The formal certification specifications and processes have not yet been formally adopted and published by EASA. On 27 February 2003, the European Commission, through the auspices of the Central JAA, promulgated for comment a draft of a proposed certification specification and the CAA has been using these, in consultation with the agency, in order to progress the work on the HiFlyer,

The draft certification processes provide that use can be made of third part attestations such as "expert body" accreditations of winches and ground equipments, but the agency has not yet defined how particular organisations should be accepted as "expert bodies". For this reason, neither the agency nor the CAA has been able to deem formally that the Health and Safety Executive is a responsible body for the purposes of safety accreditation of the winch apparatus forming part of an aerostat system. However, the authority is reviewing the existing HSE accreditation and if satisfied that compliance is shown with safety standards will be able to accept its findings as a suitable third party attestation. There is no obligation to accept such attestations.
 
8 Nov 2004 : Column 489W
 

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received from certification agencies (a) in the UK and (b) elsewhere in the world concerning failures with the HiFlyer Aerostat manufactured by Lindstrand Technologies Ltd of Oswestry, Shropshire. [196549]

Charlotte Atkins: None.

---