2 Civil aviation
| (31113)
15469/09
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(09) 611
| Draft Regulation on investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation
|
| Legal base
| Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department
| Transport
|
| Basis of consideration
| Minister's letter of 4 March 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report
| HC 5-iii (2009-10), chapter 6 (9 December 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| 11 March 2010
|
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Cleared |
Background
2.1 Recommended international standards
and practices for air accident investigation are laid out in an
annex to the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 (Chicago
Convention), to which all Member States are signatories.
2.2 The Community:
· engages
in close cooperation and mutual assistance in the field of air
accident and incident investigation; and
· has
established common basic obligations through Directive 94/56/EC,
which establishes fundamental principles governing the investigation
of civil aviation accidents and incidents.
2.3 This draft Regulation is intended
to build upon and replace Directive 94/56/EC. It would enhance
cooperation in the field of air accident investigation by coordinating
activity through a new European Network of Civil Aviation Safety
Investigation Authorities, so formalising the existing informal
cooperation between national Safety Investigation Authorities.
The objectives of the Network would be contained in a legally
binding framework but the proposed Regulation would not create
a new Community body — the Network would have no legal personality
and its mandate would be limited to an advisory and coordination
role. In case voluntary cooperation could not resolve issues,
the proposed Regulation would provide a number of obligations
within the legally binding framework, which would:
· update
and replace the key elements of Directive 94/56/EC;
· ensure
common obligations for Member States in relation to the organisation
and independence of national Safety Investigation Authorities;
· enshrine
in Community law the international standards asserted in the Chicago
Convention, particularly in regard to protection of information;
· elucidate
the roles and requirements of the European Aviation Safety Agency
and national Safety Investigation Authorities; and
· ensure
the preservation and protection of sensitive information and evidence.
2.4 The draft Regulation would prohibit
disclosure of sensitive safety information except for use in safety
investigations, in order to promote an honest and open reporting
culture. The majority of records protected by the proposed Regulation
are already protected by existing legislation, but three new types
of information have been included in the draft text, in order
to improve cooperation.
2.5 When we considered the proposal,
in December 2009, we noted that the Government:
· welcomed
this proposed Regulation and was supportive of the objectives
sought by its provisions; and
· believed
that improved assistance and collaboration in the investigation
of air accidents and incidents would lead to a better understanding
of the causes of accidents and therefore to increased safety in
aviation.
We heard also that the Government was
launching a formal written consultation process on the draft Regulation,
as the proposal might be of interest to airlines departing from
the UK, all of whom would be required to produce a list of persons
on board an aircraft in the event of an accident to the aircraft,
in order to facilitate information sharing and support to the
families of victims. We said that, although this proposal seemed
unexceptionable, we wished to have the outcome of the Government's
consultation on it before considering the matter further.
The Minister's letter
2.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State, Department for Transport (Paul Clark) says that:
· the
Government's consultation on the proposal was due to close on
3 March 2010;
· negotiations
are progressing rapidly in Council working group and the Government
anticipates that the Spanish Presidency will seek a general approach
at the Transport Council on 11 March 2010; and
· subject
to review of textual revisions arising from the outcome of working
groups on 1 and 2 March 2010, it is possible that the Government
might wish to support such a general approach at the Council.
So he writes now with a summary of
responses to date to the consultation and to provide us with information
on the progress made in negotiations.
2.7 The Minister tells us that the
Government has received nine responses to its consultation document[6]
on the proposed Regulation, saying that:
· these
included responses from bodies representing pilots and passengers,
as well as a response from one airline and one manufacturer;
· of
the nine responses, four provided direct answers to the questions
raised in the document and five provided general comments and
observations;
· all
responses were broadly supportive of the proposed Regulation;
· none
raised any issue which has not already been subject to discussion
in working group or which has caused the Government to alter its
negotiating position; and
· in
summary, all respondents agreed that there was a need for change
in order to improve the efficiency of investigations of accidents
and incidents in civil aviation across the EU and approved the
broad thrust of the Commission's impact assessment, conclusions
and preferred options.
2.8 The Minister then expands on some
of the detail arising from the consultation, saying that:
· all
respondents supported the proposed creation of a European Network
of Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authorities, commenting
that such a system would strengthen the coordination of activity
and lead to improved safety in aviation — it has been agreed
in the working group that a network should be established and
negotiations are ongoing to determine the core functions of this
network;
· given
European Aviation Safety Agency's responsibility to produce airworthiness
directives, respondents recognised the need for the agency to
have a role in safety investigations;
· however,
most did not agree entirely with the Commission's approach to
the agency's involvement — respondents suggested that the
agency, as the EU safety regulator, should participate but only
in manner which did not impinge on the independence of the investigator
in charge and did not lead to a conflict of interest with the
agency's regulatory responsibilities;
· respondents
suggested that the agency's involvement should be aligned with
the role of advisor as set out in International Standards and
Recommended Practices annexed to the Chicago Convention —
such responses match the view expressed by the Government in on-going
working group discussion;
· all
respondents supported the Commission's proposal that the agency
should have full access to all of the information contained within
the European central repository of mandatory occurrence reports
to enable it to undertake analyses of occurrences and enhance
its capability to deliver effectively its safety responsibilities;
· working
group negotiations have led to changes to the Article outlining
the role of the agency and the Government is reassured that these
changes reflect the concerns expressed by respondents —
amendments to the text have modified the agency's involvement
to that of advisor, in line with International Standards and Recommended
Practices, and clarified its role so as to limit its rights to
those afforded to safety regulators, thus ensuring the agency's
participation will not lead to a conflict of interest with its
regulatory responsibilities;
· the
importance of protecting sensitive safety information was recognised
and supported by all respondents — the majority even suggested
that the text could be strengthened in order to reinforce the
maintenance of a "just culture" approach of open reporting
designed to improve aviation safety;[7]
· participants
in the working groups are supportive of the need to maintain a
just culture approach of open reporting and negotiations are ongoing
to ensure the wording of the text adequately protects sensitive
safety information;
· respondents
recognised the benefits of the swift production of a passenger
list in the event of an accident and were broadly supportive of
the Commission's proposal that such a list should be provided
as quickly as possible;
· however,
rather than the Commission's focus that such a list should be
produced within one hour, one respondent suggested that the requirement
to produce an accurate list should take precedence over the need
to produce a timely list and that, in some cases, one hour might
not be a practicable timeframe;
· participants
in the working groups support the production of a passenger list
as soon as possible after the occurrence of an accident and the
scope of the proposal is to be extended to incorporate this obligation;
· negotiations
are ongoing and it has not yet been agreed, should a time limit
be set, how quickly passenger lists would have to be produced;
and
· respondents
agreed with the Commission's proposal that Member States should
have in place a national plan to provide assistance to the victims
of civil aviation accidents and their relatives — there
is strong support in the working group for this and, consequently,
the scope of the proposal is to be extended to include explicit
reference to this requirement.
2.9 The Minister says that, following
closure of its consultation, the Government will publish a summary
of all responses on the Department website; that in the meantime,
it is satisfied that all responses to the consultation have informed
its negotiating position; and that it is sure that the issues
raised are being reflected in the discussion and emerging textual
revisions from the working group.
2.10 The Minister also tells us that
the European Parliament is at an early stage in its consideration
of this proposal and has provisionally scheduled its plenary first
reading for June 2010.
Conclusion
2.11 We are grateful for the Minister's
comprehensive account of where matters stand on this draft Regulation.
We note that the Government's consultation seems to have revealed
nothing that invalidates our original view that this proposal
is unexceptionable and we now clear the document.
6 See http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/2010-03/consultation.pdf.
Back
7
The concept of a "just culture" is designed, in the
context of promoting safety, to protect honest mistakes from being
seen as culpable. Back
| 
