U.s.-Eu Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement

Article 15 is in fact an austerity clause. Under the heading „Retention of the regulatory authority“, it is stated that the agreement cannot be interpreted in such a way that it limits the power of the parties, inter alia, to „take all appropriate and immediate measures to eliminate or minimize any deviation from safety“. Where a regulatory authority takes such measures, it shall inform the other party therefly within fifteen days. Article 15 reaffirms the notion set out in Article 4 that the Agreement does not remove any of the main legal powers of the Parties for the purpose of creating and enforcing the regulatory measures necessary to protect aviation safety and environmental audits. The second new BASA Annex on Flight Simulation Equipment will allow for the mutual acceptance of compliance knowledge and documentation of the recurrent assessment and qualification of Full Flight simulators established in the EU and the US. It will save resources, including through the elimination of double assessments by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In the aviation sector too, costs will fall: operators of flight simulation aircraft will no longer be reassessed repeatedly and these savings can be passed on to airlines that send pilots for training. The agreement appears to make the oversight and enforcement of aviation legislation an international undertaking. In Article 13, the Parties agree to mutually support each other in obtaining „unfettered access“ to enterprises regulated in their respective legal systems. Article 8 of the Agreement provides that one of the provisions which may restrict the overall effectiveness of the Agreement is Article 11, which contains provisions strictly limiting the disclosure of protected and restricted information transmitted to regulated entities. It does not appear that such information can be exchanged between US and European authorities unless the prior written consent of the depositor or the disclosure of the information is required by law. This may constitute an obstacle to harmonisation, just as similar confidentiality protection measures have hampered the exchange of information between DG Competition in the European Union, on the one hand, and the post of Deputy Minister of Transport, Aviation and International Affairs, on the other, in the joint examination of applications for antitrust immunity. In addition to the new Annexes, the EU and the United States have agreed on an amendment to the BASA Maintenance Annex to allow maintenance organisations from all EU Member States to participate in safety cooperation in accordance with the BASA Framework, confirming the highest aviation safety standards of the European Union and the oversight function of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (hereinafter the “ AESA“).

These ESAs are typically used to facilitate EASA certification tasks or the validation of EASA certificates by a foreign authority. Unlike bilateral agreements, the SAA does not allow for the mutual recognition of quotas. THEA negotiates and concludes such agreements directly. Due to their nature, supervisory and enforcement functions related to maintenance and repair may be the most challenging area of the agreement for regulators and regulated businesses. The complexity of a modern aircraft is difficult to overestimate. For example, a Boeing 747-400 has six million parts, 171 miles of wiring and 5 miles of pipes. [7] There are many inspections, maintenance plans and tasks that need to be performed on a regular basis. There are also unplanned repairs and parts exchange. All aspects of aircraft maintenance and repair are tightly controlled by several thousand pages of rules, consulting materials, manufacturers` manuals, service bulletins, and other documents, adding an extra level of complexity…

Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.