Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Licensed Aircraft Engineers
I would wish to reply to your Press Release
09/2005-06 dated 13 October 2005 which deals with an enquiry into
the remit and work of the Civil Aviation Authority. I represent
the Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers (1981) of which
I am the Vice Chairman. Our Association is an independent trade
union, recognised by the Certification Officer.
As Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAME)
we only use a part of the CAA, as I suspect do most of those who
use its services and pay its charges. The areas we use are:
1. The regulatory processes that deal with
the maintenance of aircraft, control of the maintenance of aircraft
and control of the maintenance organisations under EASA Part 145.
2. Training Establishments under EASA Part
147.
3. The issuing of EASA Part 66 licence requirements.
4. Regional and central CAA Surveyors
5. Charges levied against the civil aviation
industry.
Our reply will be centred around the above five
sub headings contained within the requirements of Part M as promulgated
by EASA. As can be readily seen, in our particular case, EASA
is the regulator and the UK CAA are sub contracted by EASA to
carry out certain regulatory duties on their behalf. It would
appear to us that apart from Annex 2 aircraft the task of safety
regulation falls upon EASA and EASA uses National Authorities
(ours is the UK CAA) to ensure the dictates of EASA are carried
out; almost a master and servant situation. In our opinion it
is this change of direction from being a stand alone Authority,
as envisaged at the time of the CAA's inception in 1972 to that
of a Competent National Authority under the control of the EU
commissioners and the EU parliament as is the present situation,
that does need an inquiry as to what the remit of the UK CAA should
be and is it capable of fulfilling that remit?
TO FULFIL
THE REQUIREMENTS
OF EC DOCUMENTS
(EC) No 2042/2003 which deals with continuing airworthiness
of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances and
on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these
tasks.
(EC) 1592/2002 which established EASA and set
up common rules in the field of civil aviation.
(EC)No 488/2005 on the fees and charges levied
by the European Aviation Safety Agency.
It is imperative that a competent Authority
is maintained within the UK to carry out the work required of
such an organisation as ordered by Regulation Document (EC) No
2042/2003. It will also be a requirement of the UK parliament
and incumbent government to ensure that a body recognised by the
government is in place to administer the Air Navigation Order
on the government's and parliament's behalf.
You give a list of issues that your Committee
will wish to look at during the enquiry. The following are our
opinion on them.
Your first point is concerned with: The remit,
structure and powers of the CAA".
The remit of the CAA, in our opinion, has changed
considerably since the inception of the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA). Safety Regulation is now in the hands of the Commissioners
and ultimately the European Parliament and the EU judiciary. Our
CAA is now in place to ensure that the rules and regulations coming
from EASA are complied with. No more do they make those regulations
or rules, they only abide by those issued by a European Agency
and ensure that those regulations are obeyed by those organisations
and personnel to whom they apply. Even though the remit may have
changed we still need the CAA (or something similar) to carry
out the safety regulations delegated to it by EASA. It will certainly
need the powers that it presently holds to ensure that it may
enforce the EASA requirements as spelled out in Part M of (EC)
No 2042/2003.We also have to remember that annex 2 aircraft (ie
those aircraft that are not controlled by the EASA) will need
a regulatory authority to ensure that they meet all the requirements
and regulations spelled out by the present British Civil Airworthiness
Requirements (BCAR) and the Air Navigation Order (ANO). In our
opinion, due to the foregoing reasons, the only thing that requires
a change is the remit. The present structure and powers must remain.
If we look at our sub heading 4 which deals
with central and regional surveyors of aircraft regulation and
safety, then, in our opinion, it is likely that we would ask that
this part of the National Authority (CAA) should be expanded somewhat,
the reason why will be discussed when we look at its growing EU
cooperation and general discharge of its duties.
Your second point is: The performance of the
CAA in relation to its statutory objectives and functions".
The CAA carries these out, as far as aircraft
maintenance and safety are concerned (the area we are concerned
with) in an exemplary manner, it cannot be faulted on how it carries
out its duties to the ANO, BCAR, and EASA. It sets an example
to the rest of Europe as a fully compliant National Authority
with EASA Safety Regulations that are spelled out in Section M
and EC No 2042/2003.
Your third point is: The effectiveness and efficiency
of the CAA's regulatory framework".
The regulatory framework is perfectly transparent
via the CAP's and Airworthiness Notes. It is effective and was
certainly efficient prior to EASA. We would need to look at the
CAA's charges. As you are aware, our National Authority is one
of the few authorities who charge for safety regulation, some
member states meet the whole of safety regulation, others, part
of the charges. The UK meets none of the safety regulation charges
and the government requires the aviation industry to bear the
regulator's costs which have to be set at a level which enables
it to achieve a rate of return on capital employed, currently
at 6%. The UK government's problem now is that EASA charges for
its regulatory services, the services presently paid to the CAA.
The Industry will need to see some movement in charges away from
the UK CAA. It certainly will not pay twice. What you need to
ask yourselves is who will pay the charges that the CAA needs
to maintain its viability when EASA is duplicating the charges
that industry must pay for safety regulation?
Your fourth point is The effectiveness and efficiency
of the CAA in the general discharge of its duties".
We have few problems with those items as regarding
LAME's but 90% of the time the CAA is efficient and effective.
One of our problems is that the CAA can be seen as very autocratic.
It does not like to be seen as wrong, but of late, as far as we
are concerned, it does appear to be much more flexible in its
approach to our queries, perhaps we put our point of view better?
There are a few problems with the transferring of the BCAR licence
to Part 66, but this is improving and in some cases can be laid
on the customer who knows the deadline is coming but does nothing
about it. We think efficiency could be improved if they, the CAA,
would again divide the departments dealing with aircrew licensing
and LAME licensing. This problem backed by a not very efficient
electronic answering service means that contacting the personnel
licensing departments can be very difficult indeed. This problem
may look trivial to the reader but causes much frustration for
the LAME.
Your final point is perhaps the prime cause
of worry as to the viability of the CAA and what of its future?
Since it has to fund itself with charges garnered from the UK
civil aviation industry to pay for regulation plus 6% return on
capital, from where will the funding be obtained now that the
UK civil aviation industry has to pay its charges to EASA at the
rates set down in (EC) No 488/2005? From where will the money
be obtained to keep the CAA in being? We have to have a competent
authority EASA requires it of all member states, who will pay
for it? In all honesty, you cannot expect the industry to support
EASA and the CAA in its present form. Mr Patrick Goudou, the CEO
of EASA, at a meeting held at the Royal Aeronautical Society (in
early October) did suggest that the competent authorities of each
member state would do work for EASA on a sub contract basis; it
is doubtful that this sub contracted work would support the UK
CAA in its present form. In fact it is a two edged sword, it cannot
pay sub contract fees until it collects charges from the industry
so that it may pay its staff, expected to be 300, and also the
sub contract fees that cover work carried out by the competent
National Authorities. I would also point out that, at the present
moment, EASA charges are slightly less than those charged by the
UK CAA.
Whilst the foregoing would suggest that the
present CAA should be considerably downsized in one particular
instance we would suggest it does need to expand. This revolves
around the general aviation section of the industry, in particular,
the light aviation end. You are probably aware that there are
more general aviation aircraft than there are commercial airliners
operating within the UK on the UK register. A large number of
light aircraft are privately owned or are used by flying clubs
and light taxi services. A lot of the maintenance is carried out
by very small maintenance companies, sometimes just one LAME.
The current and proposed charges levied against such organisations
by the CAA could see many of these small maintenance organisations
reach financial failure. We are aware that some of the senior
surveyors of the CAA are of the opinion that the light aviation
LAME sells himself/herself short, citing that a BMW car mechanic's
time is charged at three times that of a person certifying for
safety of a light aircraft. That may be so, but the certifier
can only charge what the customer is prepared to pay. The owner
can transfer his maintenance to any maintenance organisation within
EASA which gives a lower quote, all maintenance organisations
now meet the same regulations, a scenario that will be exploited
by some customers at the expense of the UK LAME. In the proposed
charges 2005-06 the CAA is proposing that the cross subsidy of
General Aviation by the aircraft operator with aircraft above
15 tonnes will eventually cease. In other words, GA will pay the
going rate for regulation to meet the CAA charges. It will be
phased in, but again, the GA industry can only charge what its
customers are prepared to pay. We need to be aware that annex
2 aircraft will always meet the CAA charges; the majority of these
will be below 15 tonnes and privately owned a prime example for
other foreign Competent Authorities to carry out their maintenance.
We have suggested that the CAA should look at
self regulation" for general aviation, but by using regional
CAA offices keep an oversight on the maintenance organisations
on their territory which we believe would lower charges. Devolvement
was suggested as a possible means forward, but to do this would
require more surveyors at regional level. The CAA says general
aviation charges are under review and we hope to move the case
for lower charges for some of general aviation when the review
takes place. We believe that such a move is of the utmost importance
to general aviation and our members.
In conclusion, it is difficult to envisage what
the CAA does as a whole because so many of us only use one part
of what is available. We believe we know how the CAA deals with
our five sub headings. On the whole we are reasonably satisfied
with the points that you wish to investigate. We believe, that
the CAA will have to downsize, unless the government picks up
the tab. But providing the CAA is prepared to do something about
devolving general aviation safety regulation, we would seek an
expansion of regional surveyors. We are satisfied in the way that
the CAA presently fulfils its role and its transparency in the
civil aviation industry. Unfortunately, due to the acceptance
of EASA it would appear that all National Authorities are subservient
to Europe, this will inevitably lead to some modification of the
CAA and ultimately lead to a much downsized Authority which will
rely on what it can earn in sub contracted duties, regulation
of annex 2 aircraft and possibly some UK government input into
its coffers.
2 November 2005
| 
