Would you like to think that the aircraft you fly on is properly regulated

Do you think that Brexit means cutting the UK off from transnational bodies?

Hello and welcome to my latest CreatingRipples Podcast!

This weekend, whilst many were preoccupied by the Coronavirus crisis, sweeping across Europe, the UK’s Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, made an announcement, not to parliament for scrutiny, not via a press release, but whilst attending an aviation conference in the United States.

The announcement made, offers one of the most profound changes to aviation manufacturing in the UK and raises important and serious questions over continued air operations and of aviation safety.

Grant Shapps declared that the United Kingdom, bolstered by the definitive general election, was going to leave the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) at the end of 2020. This decision was to demonstrate to the clamouring masses of the British public, that they, the government were going to leave all the institutions of the European Union, and no doubt quietly under their breath, whatever the consequences.

In my view, this is one of the barmiest things to come out of government, so far, and has produced a near unanimity of opposition to his announcement. What is also telling, is the lack of strong political opposition coming from Westminster. Other than one comment on Twitter from Ed Davey, nothing from anyone else; I have warned you before about your expectations from Westminster politics!

What was telling about this announcement was the implication that British expertise was being brought home to create a glorious regulatory future for aviation in the UK. The comments failed to acknowledge the many years of partnership and collaboration between many experts of different European Nationalities, to create a structure, whilst not perfect, which nonetheless delivers important benefits to European Skies, Industry, Employees and most important of all, passengers. I think the Shapps commentary was ever so slightly insulting to our European partners; it came across as exceptionalist and catered only for the mantra of getting brexit done.

There are strong voices in opposition to this policy, however, I detected one voice, whilst suggesting its members wanted the UK to continue to be part of EASA, qualified it by apparently stating not if it meant that the UK would continue to be a ‘dumb follower of EU rules’; no bias there then?

For those of you who don’t know, every time you get into an aircraft, departing from your favourite airport, taking off up into UK skies and beyond into Europe, being attended to by by skilled cabin-crew and being flown by professional pilots, you do so because of the benefit delivered to you by EASA, the regulator and the laws it helps to create.

Whether it is the air you breathe (although there are global regulatory deficits in this area), the safety briefings you experience, or the very rivet or nut or bolt or oil used on your plane, it is governed by a principal regulation, certification and other standards, which require each aspect of your journey to be subject to a regulatory scrutiny and obligation.

I do wonder whether one aspect of the principal regulation (EU Regulation 1139/2018) has caused some disquiet amongst the government brexiratti? Article 85 sets out clearly, that in order to ensure that there is uniformity of the application of the law, monitoring inspections of Member States will be carried out. The new Article perhaps recognises the criticism laid at the door of EASA, with regards to enforcement and monitoring, an important point following the Boeing 737Max disasters and subsequent revelations and investigations. Let us remember, this law was created with UK input and was passed in Council, no doubt with the UK’s agreement.

Shapps talks about restoring the expertise back to the UK and elevating the role of the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to being the sector’s principal regulator. What he doesn’t say is that by estimates seen, this is likely to cost around £40m per year, against a current spend of up to £4m per annum; fiscally barmy isn’t it, but those clamouring masses are clearly demanding that we spend more money?

Shapps also talks about becoming a leader in automation; what automation? The automation of planes, yea that will come; the automation of ramp services, perhaps;  the automation of security, no sure about that one; more likely he’s referring to automation to be delivered by drones, American drones - I’ll let that one rest there!

The management of our departure from the EU is becoming embittered and amateurish.

The consequences of this announcement raises the prospect, despite many of us saying it won’t happen, that British registered aircraft may not be allowed to fly into Europe simply because the UK is not subscribed to EU regulatory requirements. Of course some listeners may say that’s rubbish because we will up to the end of 2020 have been compliant. It’s a fair point, but the simple fact is that on 1 January 2021, we will become a 3rd party country and therefore anything that has happened before is null and void, unless there is a trade deal with a reciprocal agreement on aviation regulation and that may require ultimate oversight by the European Court of Justice!

My other concern rests within the state of EU Regulation. Regulation is for the most part created by EASA with a huge help from the Aviation Industry and very few external stakeholders. The regime we have currently requires that 1139/2018 is law and must be followed. This regulation is supported by Standards that demonstrate how to comply with the law. Certification Specifications, Acceptable Means of Compliance and Alternative Means of Compliance are all classified as ‘soft law’, in other words, they are voluntary and non-enforceable. An aviation manufacturer or an airline simply needs to demonstrate that they comply with the law.

Now this is a very privileged position to be in; not many industries can claim to have this flexibility or lobbying power.

Now think about it from the UK’s perspective, particularly from a government’s perspective that believes in cutting ‘red-tape’, that’s regulation to you and me, you can perhaps begin to see where this is heading; are we to become the latest ‘flag of convenience’ for aviation?

I’ll tell you what’s dumb. Dumb is subscribing to this ill-informed decision. Dumb is believing that ‘red-tape’ needs to be cut. Dumb is failing to recognise the globalised structure of aviation and the importance of common regulation and standards. Dumb is offering the mantra that the UK has been sleep-walking for the last 45 years and has simply been following others rules and regulations.

We should all be concerned by this announcement, because if followed through, without respecting our European Partners and seeking regulatory convergence, then many jobs stand to be lost, many more safety deficits will arise and the safety of passengers will be called into question.

Over to you Mr Shapps, HM Opposition, The Transport Select Committee; some of us are watching you closely!

(This is the script for the CreatingRipples™ Podcast: The barmy decision on EASA & Aviation Safety. You can listen to Frank's Podcast here)