Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports Volume 39 April 6, 2001

20010023156 Federal Aviation Administration, Regulation and Certification, USA
US and EU Co-Operation: The US Perspective
McSweeney, Thomas, Federal Aviation Administration, USA; The Future of European Aviation Safety Regulation: Proceedings;
[2001], pp. 2.1 - 2.4; In English; See also 20010023154; Copyright; Avail: Issuing Activity
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the perspective of one of Europe’s most important aviation partners, the USA. For
almost 70 years the USA and Europe have enjoyed unparalleled aviation cooperation that predates the Chicago Convention and
the formation of the European Union. Our collective challenge today is to ensure that such cooperation continues unabated, no
matter what form a new European aviation safety organization may take. Public safety is the paramount objective in aviation. In
this global environment, conducting safe air operations demands constant vigilance to ensure continued professional excellence
and aircraft airworthiness. In sharing a common objective to increase an already high level of aviation safety, we must also strive
to relieve - the burden of multiple certifications, redundant program oversight, and the costly duplication of effort that may occur.
The decisions made by the European Union in the creation of a new European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will have considerable
impact on our 70 year partnership. I want to thank Michel Ayral and Claude Probst for their willingness to open a dialogue
with the FAA on EASA, particularly in its ability to work with international counterparts. As in the past, we wish to be engaged
throughout these deliberations as a true partner in this effort. Other aviation authorities and industries will similarly be affected
by the changes in Europe, and I call upon all of these organizations to consider carefully what Europe is proposing and to advise
the Commission of your thoughts. I am a strong supporter of a single European authority, if appropriately structured. My comments
today will focus on how EASA as currently drafted might affect the movement of aeronautical products between Europe
and the USA. I understand that this is a proposal in evolution, and we will continue to follow its development closely. It is also
not my intention to comment on anything that is solely related to the operation of EASA within Europe, as I do not pretend to
understand what is best for the European Union (EU). Let me address what the U.S. sees as a basic framework for any cooperative
relationship with another country in order to facilitate the acceptance of each other’s certifications, approvals, and licenses.
Derived from text
Flight Safety; Aircraft Reliability; Aircraft Safety; Reproduction (Copying)
20010023157 Civil Aviation Authority, UK
The Interface Between the UK Rules and the EC
Allan, Robin, Civil Aviation Authority, UK; The Future of European Aviation Safety Regulation: Proceedings; [2001], pp. 5.1
- 5.6; In English; See also 20010023154; Copyright; Avail: Issuing Activity
Much of what I have to say will reflect the general experience of all Members of JAA and of the European Union. ”Europe”
impacts on UK aviation safety legislation in a number of ways: Eurocontrol JAA and JARs EU legislation including: EC Regulation
3922/91 Third package Other legislation not aimed at aviation safety but having an effect eg EMC Directive I will deal with
each of these in turn.
Author
Air Traffic Control; Electromagnetic Compatibility; Flight Safety; Aircraft Safety
20010023159 Civil Aviation Authority, Safety Regulations, Gatwick, UK
Observations from the Perspective of a National Safety Regulator
Profit, Richard, Civil Aviation Authority, UK; The Future of European Aviation Safety Regulation: Proceedings; [2001], pp. 7.1
- 7.5; In English; See also 20010023154; Copyright; Avail: Issuing Activity
A Short History of the JAA Arrangements The JAA, working in a structure of sectorial committees and working groups from
the national authorities, has produced an impressive list of regulations over the years - the Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs).
It has dealt with extremely complex and comprehensive matters - such as the development of the Requirements for the commercial
operation of large aircraft (JAR-OPS 1). It has developed and implemented procedures for the approval of manufacturers and joint
evaluation and certification of aircraft, engines, propellers and equipment. No mean achievement for a ’club’ of states run by a
secretariat which has no legal powers and is not recognised as a legal entity in its own right. However, there are limits to what
can be achieved by consensus. National aviation authorities may still apply regulations which differ from JARS that have not been
annexed to the EU Harmonisation Regulation if they notify the JAA of those differences. The rule-making process requires a general
consensus and is therefore a time consuming exercise, where one reluctant participant in a working group can slow progress
considerably. In short, JAA rule-making is inefficient and, since this does not result in binding regulation in many important areas,
it can be ineffective. Despite these inherent deficiencies, the JAA has achieved a lot for which it deserves credit, but it certainly
falls short of what is needed of a single European Aviation Safety Authority. For many years, the JAA member states have had
as their goal a true European Aviation Safety Authority. They knew, however, that such a body could really only begin to come
together when there were common European aviation safety regulation standards and procedures. by the 1990s, they felt that the
4