REPORT on the proposal for a Council Directive establishing a Safety Assessment of Third Countries Aircraft using Community Airports (COM(97)0055 - C4-0140/97 - 97/0039(SYN))
29 October 1997
Committee on Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Mr Antonio Gonzalez Triviño
- By letter of 17 March 1997 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Articles 84(2) and 189c of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council Directive establishing a Safety Assessment of Third Countries Aircraft using Community Airports.
- A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL - DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
- B. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
- ANNEX
By letter of 17 March 1997 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Articles 84(2) and 189c of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council Directive establishing a Safety Assessment of Third Countries Aircraft using Community Airports.
At the sitting of 7 April 1997 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this proposal to the Committee on Transport and Tourism as the committee responsible.
At its meeting of 16 April 1997 the Committee on Transport and Tourism appointed Mr Antonio Gonzalez Triviño rapporteur.
At its meeting of 16 April 1997 it decided to include in its report the following motion for resolution pursuant to Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure which has been referred to it:
- B4-1235/96, by Mr Eolo Parodi and Mr Alessandro Danesin, on airport security, referred on 11 November 1996 to the Committee on Transport and Tourism as the committee responsible and to the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for its opinion.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism considered the Commission proposal and the draft report at its meetings of 23 September 1997 and 29 October 1997.
At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 19 votes to 0, with 1 abstention.
The following were present for the vote: Bazin, chairman; Lüttge and Sisó Cruellas vice-chairmen; Gonzalez Triviño, rapporteur; Aparício Sánchez, Baldarelli, Balfe (for Castricum), Bennasar Tous (for Ferri), Bernardini (for Klironomos), Camisón Asensio, Cornelissen, van Dam, Dary, van Dijk, Ferber (for Grosch), McIntosh, Megahy, Moreau, Simpson, Stenmarck, Watts.
On 21 May 1997 the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection decided not to deliver an opinion.
The report was tabled on 29 October 1997.
The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession.
A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL - DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a Safety Assessment of Third Countries Aircraft using Community Airports (COM(97)0055 - C4-0140/97 - 97/0039(SYN))
The proposal is approved with the following amendments:
Commission text(1) |
Amendments |
(Amendment No 1)
Recital 2
Whereas the Resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 15 February 1996 and the Council Conclusion of 11 March 1996 both point to the need for the Community to take a more active stance and develop a strategy to improve the safety of its citizens travelling by air or living near airports; | Whereas the Resolutions adopted by the European Parliament on 15 February 1996 and 17 July 1997 and the Council Conclusion of 11 March 1996 both point to the need for the Community to take a more active stance and develop a strategy to improve the safety of its citizens travelling by air or living near airports; |
(Amendment 2 )
Article 1
Objective
The purpose of this directive is to contribute to the improvement of air safety by checking third countries aircraft whenever there is suspicion that they are not operated in accordance with international safety standards, by collecting and disseminating the information related to shortcomings so that sufficient evidence can be established to decide on measures required to ensure the safety of the travelling public; and by providing for measures concerning the rectification of identified shortcomings. | The purpose of this directive is to contribute to the improvement of air safety by checking third countries aircraft whenever there is suspicion that they are not operated in accordance with international safety standards, by collecting and disseminating the information related to shortcomings so that sufficient evidence can be established to decide on measures required to ensure the safety of travellers, users and residents of areas near airports; and by providing for measures concerning the rectification of identified shortcomings. |
(1) OJ C 124, 21.4.1997, p. 39
(Amendment 3 )
Article 3
Definitions
For the purpose of this Directive, including its Annexes: | For the purpose of this Directive, including its Annexes: |
"Competent authority" means the administration, authority or any organization designated by a State to perform inspections of aircraft; | "Competent authority" means the administration, authority or any organization designated by a State to perform inspections of aircraft; |
"Confidential report" means a report submitted voluntarily by a person involved in or observing an incident; the report is de-identified by the receiving organization in order to ensure confidentiality; | "Confidential report" means a report submitted voluntarily by a person involved in or observing an incident; the report is de-identified by the receiving organization in order to ensure confidentiality; |
"Grounding" means the formal prohibition of an aircraft to leave an airport; | "Grounding" means the formal prohibition of an aircraft to leave an airport; |
"International safety standards" means the safety standards contained in the Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 as in force at the date of adoption of this Directive; | "International safety standards" means the safety standards contained in the Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 as in force at the time of the inspection; |
"Ramp inspection" means the examination on board and around an aircraft to check both the validity of the aircraft documents and those of its crew and the apparent condition of the aircraft and its equipment; | "Ramp inspection" means the examination on board and around an aircraft to check both the validity of the aircraft documents and those of its crew and the apparent condition of the aircraft and its equipment; |
"Third countries aircraft" means an aircraft operated by an air carrier of which the Air Operator Certificate is delivered by a State which is not a Member State of the Community. | "Third countries aircraft" means an aircraft operated by an air carrier of which the Air Operator Certificate is delivered by a State which is not a Member State of the Community or an aircraft which is not used or operated under the control of a competent authority of a Member State. |
(Amendment No 4 )
Article 4
Collection of information
1. Competent Authorities of the Member States shall collect any information deemed useful for the fulfilment of the objective stated in Article 1 of this directive, including: | 1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall collect any information deemed useful for the fulfilment of the objective stated in Article 1 of this directive, including: |
- Important safety information accessible, especially, through | - Important safety information accessible, especially, through |
Passenger complaints Pilots reports Maintenance organisation reports Incidents reports | Complaints by passengers, users and residents of areas near airports Pilots reports Maintenance organisation reports Incidents reports Relevant reports from other organisations, independent from the competent authorities of the Member States |
- Information on actions taken subsequent to a Ramp Inspection, such as | - Information on actions taken subsequent to a Ramp Inspection, such as |
Aircraft grounded Aircraft or operator banned from the country Corrective actions required Contacts with operator's competent authority | Aircraft grounded Aircraft or operator banned from the country Corrective actions required Contacts with operator's competent authority |
- Follow-up information concerning the operator such as | - Follow-up information concerning the operator such as |
Corrective actions implemented Recurrence of discrepancy | Corrective actions implemented Recurrence of discrepancy |
This information shall be kept, using a standard report form containing at least the items described in the form contained in Annex 1. | This information shall be kept, using a standard report form containing at least the items described in the form contained in Annex 1. |
2. Other organizations, independent from the competent authorities of the Member States, whose activities encompass the collection of incidents reports (including confidential | 2. Other organizations, independent from the competent authorities of the Member States, whose activities encompass the collection of incidents reports (including confidential reports), may also contribute to the exchange of information described in Article 6. |
reports), may also contribute to the exchange of information described in Article 6. |
(Amendment No 5 )
Article 5
Ramp inspection
1. The competent authority of each Member State shall ensure that third countries aircraft suspected of non-compliance with international safety standards landing at any of its airports is subject to ramp inspections as follows: | 1. The competent authority of each Member State shall ensure that third countries aircraft suspected of non-compliance with international safety standards landing at any of its airports is subject to ramp inspections. |
2.In particular, the competent authorities shall carry out ramp inspections on all aircraft: | |
a) all aircraft: | |
- showing signs of poor maintenance condition or with obvious damage or defect; | - showing signs or where information has been received of poor maintenance condition or obvious damage or defect; |
- which have been reported to perform abnormal maneuvers since entering the airspace of a Member State; | - which have been reported to perform abnormal maneuvers since entering the airspace of a Member State; |
- having been subjected to a previous ramp inspection which has revealed deficiencies as long as such deficiencies have not been corrected; | - having been subjected to a previous ramp inspection which has revealed deficiencies which give rise to serious concerns that the aircraft does not comply with international standards and where the Member State is concerned that the defects may not have been corrected; |
-where there is evidence that the competent authorities of the country of registration may not be exercising proper safety oversight; | |
b) 10% of the movements, with a minimum of once a week, of: | |
- an aircraft operator of which has been the subject of a standard report according to Article 4; | - where information collected under Article 4 gives cause for concern about the operator or where a previous ramp inspection of an aircraft used by the same operator has revealed deficiencies, pending the adoption of satisfactory arrangements for corrective measures; |
- an aircraft the operator of which or the country of the operator of which has been the subject of a decision according to Article 9; | - whose operator or the country of the operator has been the subject of a decision according to Article 9, pending the adoption of satisfactory arrangements for corrective measures; |
2. The ramp inspection shall be performed according to the procedure described in Annex 2 and using a ramp inspection report form containing at least the items described in the form appended to this Annex: On completion of the ramp inspection, the commander of the aircraft shall be provided with a copy of the ramp inspection report. | 3. The ramp inspection shall be performed according to the procedure described in Annex 2 and using a ramp inspection report form containing at least the items described in the form appended to this Annex: On completion of the ramp inspection, the commander of the aircraft shall be informed of the contents of the ramp inspection report and if deficiencies have been found the report shall be sent to the operator of the aircraft and to the competent authority of the country of registration. |
3. When executing a ramp inspection under this Directive, the competent authority shall make all possible efforts to avoid an aircraft being unduly delayed. | 4. When executing a ramp inspection under this Directive, the competent authority shall make all possible efforts to avoid an aircraft being unduly delayed unless there are reasonable grounds for a more thorough investigation. |
(Amendment No 6 )
Article 6
Exchange of information | Exchange of information and cooperation |
1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall participate in a mutual exchange of information. | 1. Member States shall make provisions for the exchange of information and cooperation between their competent authorities, the competent authorities of all other Member States and the Commission. |
2. All standard reports referred to in Article 4 (1) and the ramp inspection reports referred to in Article 5 (2) shall be made available without delay to the competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission, at their request. | 2. All standard reports referred to in Article 4 (1) and the ramp inspection reports referred to in Article 5 (3) shall be made available without delay to the competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission, at their request. |
3. Whenever a standard report shows the existence of a potential safety threat or a ramp inspection report shows an aircraft does not comply with international safety standards and may pose a potential safety threat, the report will be communicated without delay to each competent authority of the Member States and the Commission. | 3. Whenever a standard report shows the existence of a potential safety threat or a ramp inspection report shows an aircraft does not comply with international safety standards and may pose a potential safety threat, the report will be communicated without delay to each competent authority of the Member States and the Commission. |
(Amendment 7 )
Article 7
Protection of information
1. The information exchanged in accordance with Article 6 shall be used for the sole purpose of this Directive and its access will be limited to the participating competent authorities and the Commission. | 1. The information exchanged in accordance with Article 6 shall be used for the sole purpose of this Directive and its access will be limited to the participating competent authorities and the Commission without prejudice to the provisions laid down herein concerning the publication of groundings. |
2. Confidentiality of information given voluntarily, in particular by the crew of aircraft subjected to ramp inspections, will be ensured by de-identifying extensively the source of such information. | 2. Confidentiality of information given voluntarily, in particular by the crew of aircraft subjected to ramp inspections, will be ensured by de-identifying extensively the source of such information. |
(Amendment No 8 )
Article 8
Grounding of aircraft
1. In the cases of non-compliance with international safety standards which are clearly hazardous to safety, the competent authority performing the ramp inspection | 1. In the cases of non-compliance with international safety standards which are clearly hazardous to safety, the competent authority performing the ramp inspection shall ground the aircraft until the hazard is removed. |
shall ground the aircraft until the hazard is removed. | 2. In the event that an aircraft is grounded, the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection took place shall immediately inform the competent authorities of the countries concerned. |
2. In the event that an aircraft is grounded, the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection took place shall immediately inform in writing the operator and the competent authorities of the country | |
of the operator and of the Statewhere the aircraft is registered; | 3. If the deficiencies referred to in paragraph 1 above cannot be fully rectified at the airport of inspection, the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection took place may, in co-ordination with the State responsible for the operation of the aircraft concerned, prescribe the necessary conditions under which the aircraft could be allowed to fly safely without fare-paying passengers, to an airport at which the deficiencies could be corrected. |
3. If the deficiencies referred to in paragraph 1 above cannot be fully rectified at the airport of inspection, the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection took place may, in co-ordination with the State responsible for the operation of the aircraft concerned, prescribe the necessary conditions under which the aircraft could be allowed to fly safely without fare-paying passengers, to an airport at which the deficiencies could be corrected. | 4. In the circumstances referred to in paragraph 3, the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection took place shall notify the competent authority of the States which will be overflown by this aircraft as well as the State where the aircraft will land for repair. |
4. In the circumstances referred to in paragraph 3, the competent authority of the Member State where the inspection took place shall notify the competent authority of the States which will be overflown by this aircraft as well as the State where the aircraft will land for repair. | 5. The owner or the operator of the aircraft or his representative in the Member State concerned shall have a right of appeal against a grounding decision taken by the competent authority of the Member State. The lodging of an appeal shall not cause in itself the grounding to be suspended. |
Delete (see amendment No 9) |
(Amendment No 9 )
New article 8 a
Right of appeal | |
1. The owner or the operator of the aircraft or his representative in the Member State concerned shall have a right of appeal against a grounding decision taken by the competent authority. The lodging of an appeal shall not cause the grounding to be suspended. | |
2. Member States shall establish and maintain appropriate procedures for this purpose in accordance with their national legislation. | |
3. The competent authority shall properly inform the commander of the aircraft of the right of appeal. |
(Amendment No 10 )
Article 9
Safety improvement measures
On the basis of information made available through articles 4, 5 and 6, the Commission may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11 (2), decide, according to the importance of the perceived safety hazard: | On the basis of information made available through articles 4, 5 and 6, the Commission may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11 (2), decide, according to the importance of the perceived safety hazard: |
- systematic ramp inspection and other surveillance measures of a specific operator or of operators of a specific third country; | - systematic ramp inspection and other surveillance measures of a specific operator or of operators of a specific third country pending the adoption by the operator or the competent authority of that third country of satisfactory arrangements for corrective measures; |
- ban, or impose conditions on the operation of, a specific operator or operators of a specific third country from Community airports pending the adoption by the competent authority of that third country of satisfactory arrangements for corrective measures; | - ban, or impose conditions on the operation of, a specific operator or operators of a specific third country from Community airports pending the adoption by the competent authority of that third country of satisfactory arrangements for corrective measures; |
The Commission shall inform the Committee referred to in Article 11 on the results of any contacts established with the third country involved in order to offer a safety oversight assessment of its competent authority by a qualified team of experts; | The Commission shall inform the Committee referred to in Article 11 on the results of any contacts established with the third country involved in order to offer a safety oversight assessment of its competent authority by a qualified team of experts; |
(Amendment No 11 )
Article 10 (1)
Implementation measures
1. Member States shall report to the Commission the operational measures taken and the resources allocated to implement the requirements of Articles 4, 5 and 6. | 1. Member States shall report to the other Member States and to the Commission the operational measures taken and the resources allocated to implement the requirements of Articles 4, 5 and 6. |
(Amendment No 12 )
New article 10 a
Publication of groundings | |
1. Each competent authority shall as a minimum publish quaterly information available to the public concerning aircraft grounded during the previous three month period . | |
2. Such information will also include all aircraft, operators, countries of operators and States of registration whose aircraft have been detained more than once during the past 24 months. | |
3. The information published shall include in particular the type of aircraft, the name and country of the operator, the State of registration, the reason for grounding and the airport and date of grounding. |
(Amendment No 13 )
Article 12
Penalties
1. Member States shall lay down the system of penalties for breaching the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that those penalties are applied. The penalties thus provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. | Delete |
2. Member States shall notify the relevant provisions to the Commission not later than ... and shall notify any subsequent changes as soon as possible. | Delete |
(Amendment No 14 )
New article 13 a
Information report and revision | |
No later than two years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall draw up a report on its application, which, inter alias, takes into account developments in the European Union and in international fora. Such report may be accompanied by proposals for a revision of this Directive. |
Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive establishing a Safety Assessment of Third Countries Aircraft using Community Airport
(COM(97)0055 - C4-0140/97 - 97/0039(SYN))
(Cooperation procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council, COM(97)0055 - 97/0039(SYN)[1],
- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 189c and Article 84(2) of the EC Treaty (C4-0140/97),
- having regard to Rule 58 of its Rules of Procedure,
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A4-0335/97),
1. Approves the Commission proposal, subject to Parliament's amendments;
2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 189a(2) of the EC Treaty;
3. Calls on Council to incorporate Parliament's amendments in the common position that it adopts in accordance with Article 189c(a) of the EC Treaty;
4. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.
- [1] OJ C 124, 21.4.1997, p. 39
B. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
GENERAL REMARKS
The present draft directive is the first of a series of measures recommended by a High Level Group of Experts charged with defining a Community aviation safety improvement strategy (SEC(96)1083).
The report of this High Level Group has been the subject of the McIntosh report (A4-91/97) and Parliament adopted recently on last 17 July a resolution about a Community aviation safety improvement strategy. This resolution has considered in particular that:
- the aim of safety assessment of third country aircraft using Community airports must be to achieve a system of safety checks similar to port State control in the maritime transport sector, so that ICAO safety standards are also applied in respect of third-country aircraft;
- the European Union should draw up a "black list" of third-country carriers used by European passengers anywhere in the world and of all the air carriers established outside the EU with aircraft which use airports located in the EU, do not have adequate reporting systems and do not meet EU safety standards, with the aim of refusing them permission to land or take off in the EU; and should take into account how such standards would assess a high level of aircrew and cabin crew experience, training and skill levels, or the standard of ground and maintenance personnel and procedures in the operator's own state.
The Chicago Convention of 1944 already laid down certain minimum standards of airline safety as well as rules governing respect for these standards. In addition the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has developed a body of minimum safety norms which must be respected by airline companies. The European Community has also had a harmonised set of safety requirements for its operators since 1 January 1992 (Council Regulation 3922/91). EC carriers are consequently amongst the safest in the world.
However, the safety record of a number of third countries" aircraft is less comforting. This obviously affects both European citizens and air carriers when such operators use Community airports. The problem was highlighted by the February 1996 crash in the Dominican Republic of a Turkish aircraft chartered by a German tour operator in which all 176 passengers died. The cause of the accident was a minor technical problem which became a major disaster due to insufficient preflight ramp check and pilot error. Given the fatalities involved, this was a well-publicised accident, but numerous incidents not involving casualties are documented each day across the Community by aviation authorities and accident reporting bodies.
Many aircraft flying today, including in European fleets, are over twenty years old. With proper maintenance, they can continue to fly safely, but improper maintenance can lead to minor incidents or major accidents. Often the only people in a position to observe problems are the pilots themselves, as many operating parts can only be analysed in flight. This creates a huge problem for the pilots if their job security is at stake for reporting negligent company safety oversight procedures and for the maintenance crew who may not be aware of the performance record of certain parts during flight. This information is, nevertheless, crucial to airline safety and is specifically addressed in the current proposal.
Last year, in the United States, the Inspector-General of the U.S. Department of Transport, Mary Schiavo revealed in a book how substandard maintenance and persistent neglect for safety standards by ValuJet (a low-budget airline company) had led to the fatal crash in the Everglades in May 1996[1]. A catalogue of technical and procedural errors, coupled with too great an emphasis on commercial factors and too little on safety had led, inexorably, to this accident. In the United States, one consequence of full liberalisation of air transport and the consequent fierce competition for routes and services that has pushed ticket prices down has been the need for many low-budget operators to cut costs on aircraft maintenance charges. Another scandal, exposed in the book by the former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transport, lifts the lid on the dubious practice of using counterfeit spare parts in civil aircraft. Although the phenomenon does not yet seem to exist in Europe due to a JAA control system, the inevitable competitive pressures experienced by operators in a more liberalised market could result in some taking such short cuts to remain solvent. Europe needs to be vigilant. Whilst air transport liberalisation has not yet gone as far in Europe as it has in the USA, aviation safety must remain the first priority of all those concerned with the industry, be they operators, regulators, air-traffic controllers or cabin crew.
Clearly one underlying factor in a strategy targeting third-country aircraft must be compatibility with the principles governing international civil aviation. Recognition of valid certificates relating to airworthiness is enshrined in article 33 of the Chicago Convention, albeit on the condition that such certificates are based on the minimum standards fixed by the international aviation community. By extension, whilst no provision allows for a contracting party to question the safety oversight procedures of another, where there are grounds for suspicion that standards are not being respected the authorities of a State may, under article 16, search an aircraft and inspect the documentation. Nor do bilateral agreements lay down explicit provisions for compliance with safety oversight procedures. In the case of Europe, with its plethora of aviation partners and network of bilateral and multilateral agreements, checking up on efficient safety oversight in each partner country would be impractical.
COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL AND GROUNDS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The present proposal offers an alternative solution to checking third-country aviation safety and targets, by initially targeting the airlines rather than the aviation authorities. In conformity with the above-mentioned article 16 and Annex 8 of the Chicago Convention, the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) developed what is known as the SAFA procedure - Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft which forms the basis of this proposal. ICAO has also been operating its own voluntary Safety Oversight Programme since 1995 and offering assistance to contracting states in identifying deficiencies in their national procedures. Thus, the current proposal aims to collate information from pilots, passengers, maintenance engineers etc. If non-compliance with ICAO standards is suspected, checks may be carried out on foreign aircraft and evidence established, leading to a formal case being made to the aviation authorities responsible for overseeing their national operators, and ultimately grounding certain aircraft or banning certain airlines from using Community airports. In serious breaches of safety, national authorities will still be able to ground an aircraft immediately without having first to consult other EU members.
The essential requirements as far as meeting safety standards is concerned actually are no different from those supposedly already adhered to by ICAO members. There is thus no question of unfair discrimination against third country carriers - especially as the Community has bound its own members already to meeting these standards in an earlier Regulation. The most novel elements of the directive are as follows:
1) Article 4. JAA to centralise all information pertaining to ramp checks including any action taken.
2) Article 5. Specific conditions under which ramp checks must be carried out.
3) Articles 9 & 10. Collective Community action to be decided by the Commission ranging from the definition of content and procedures for ramp inspections to imposing systematic ramp inspections or bans on specific operators.
It is this last feature that lies at the heart of the directive and which has caused the most disagreement in preliminary debates in the Council. Essentially, the Commission is proposing that it decide (albeit through an advisory committee), on the basis of information fed to it from the JAA, whether or not to instigate specific surveillance of a third-country operator or to ban a specific country"s air transport operators from using Community airports. Recent experience of third country operators evading a ban in one Member State by simply landing across the border in a neighbouring Member State (airports of convenience) would seem adequate justification for this collective Community action. EU airlines and airport authorities naturally fear tit-for-tat retaliation from third-country airlines who find their aircraft detained, grounded or banned as a result of Community action. The likelihood of such retaliation as well as the effectiveness of the sanctions would, arguably, be diminished if the ban were Europe wide. Ideally, this sort of decision should be referred to the planned European Aviation Safety Authority, as the all-important issue of safety should not be clouded by political or commercial considerations. This article may therefore need to be reviewed in a couple of years once such an authority is established (see Amendment 14 ).
Another contentious point in the proposal is the extent of ramp inspections envisaged by the Commission. Article 5 provides for ramp inspections of:
a) all aircraft showing signs of poor maintenance or with obvious damage or which have been reported to perform unusual manoeuvres in EU airspace.
b) 10% of the movements (with a minimum of once a week) of any aircraft the operator or country of which has been the subject of a report or action for failing a safety check.
Your rapporteur proposes to amend this article in order to ensure that all aircraft, all operators and all countries of registration whose authorities are suspected of non-compliance with international safety standards should be inspected (amendment 5 ). Clearly what is required is an effective deterrent, which means that distinctions concerning the number of movements should not be relevant.
Another important question concerns the publication of the decisions of the competent authorities of the Member States to ground the aircraft until the hazard is removed. Your rapporteur proposes that such decisions should be made public: disclose to the public of detailed information on safetyrelated issues should be relevant to their air travel decisions (see Amendment 12 ).
One thing remains clear. The proposed SAFA procedure may help in identifying some malpractices currently overlooked but it will not be a panacea for aircraft safety. First of all, the ramp inspection will follow the procedure laid out in the annex which corresponds largely to current JAA practice. However such checks as are deemed necessary have to be undertaken in the short time it takes to prepare an aircraft for departure. According to the current proposal all possible efforts have to be made to avoid delaying an aircraft. Current JAA procedures only provide for a 10 minute inspection on a 45 minute turn-around time. Thus inspectors have to be selective in what aspects of the SAFA checklist they wish to concentrate on. Generally one inspector would inspect flight deck and cabin (documentation) whilst another inspects the aircraft itself. Checks are therefore necessarily limited or superficial and there is no opportunity to assess the condition of moving parts whilst the aircraft is stationary. Nevertheless, where there are good grounds for a more thorough inspection to be carried out before the aircraft continues its journey, the inspectors should be able to conduct such checks as are necessary in order to satisfy themselves of the airworthiness of the aircraft - even at the expense of inconveniencing the airline and waiting passengers (see Amendment 5 , last part).
It is probable that the airlines most at risk of not meeting required standards are those of poorer third-countries (many of whom have recently liberalised their own national air transport sectors) who lack the strong financial base or regular custom to maintain a viable business and who do not have governments prepared to inject vast sums of money into upgrading or maintaining an ageing fleet. These carriers (of passenger or cargo), operating on far tighter budgets, also tend to concentrate their operations at second-tier Community airports like Ostend, Maastricht and Rimini. For these smaller airports, where business is not so brisk as at main hubs, the commercial pressure of turning a blind eye to aircraft that do not quite meet the grade is obviously greater than at airports where airlines are vying fiercely for slots. It is important that the national inspectors authorised to conduct ramp checks do not neglect these smaller airfields where the number of incidents in relation to the total number of movements is often greater.
In conclusion, whilst inspectors and civil aviation authorities need to show sensitivity in handling the issue of safety of third-country carriers, they should not be permitted to compromise on the very factor they are endeavouring to improve, namely safer air travel in Europe. Safety is non-negotiable.
- [1] “Flying Blind, Flying Safe”, by Mary Schiavo, Avon Books, 1997.
ANNEX
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION (B4-1235/96)
pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure
by Mr Parodi and Mr Danesin
on airport safety
The European Parliament,
- having regard to Article 75(1)(c) of the Treaty on European Union, which includes transport safety among the fields of competence of the EU,
A. whereas a high percentage of air accidents occur during take-off or landing,
B. whereas full liberalization of air traffic in Europe will lead to an increase in the number of intra-Community flights,
C. whereas accidents are usually due to human error, poor aircraft maintenance, and technical problems on board, but can also be caused by defective airport structures,
1. Calls on the Commission to draw up without delay a white paper on minimum safety standards for Community airports with provisions governing in particular runway length, quality of instrument procedures and radio assistance, quality and accuracy of meteorological information, the proximity of residential areas and the use of stopovers in the event of poor weather conditions.