Comment-Response Document 2013-16
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
European Aviation Safety Agency Comment-Response Document 2013-16 Appendix to ED Decision 2016/028/R RELATED A-NPA: 2013-16 — RMT.0583 (MDM.003(C)) — 15.12.2016 Table of contents 1. Summary of the outcome of the consultation ................................................................................................. 2 1.1. Overview of comments ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Statistics of comments ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.3. Review of comments — data and arguments analysis ............................................................................ 5 1.4. Review of comments — conclusions ....................................................................................................... 7 2. Next steps ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 3. Individual comments ........................................................................................................................................ 9 4. Attachments ................................................................................................................................................. 221 TE.RPRO.00064-003 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 1 of 221 An agency of the European Union European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to A-NPA 2013-16 1. Summary of the outcome of the consultation 1. Summary of the outcome of the consultation In the Advance Notice of Proposed Amendment (A-NPA) 2013-16 ‘Lead Flight Test Engineer Licence’1, which was published on the EASA website on 13 August 2013 and was open for consultation until 13 November 2013, EASA examined the need for a lead flight test engineer (LFTE) licence, and the following options were proposed: — Option 0: No licence. The qualifications/experience of the LFTE remain as per Annex I (Part 21). — Option 1: Create a licensing scheme for the LFTE. 1.1. Overview of comments There was a considerable number of commenters who provided feedback on the A-NPA and expressed their views. 262 commenters representing: — individual opinions; — their organisations (SNPAC, GIFAS); — aircraft manufacturers (Airbus, Airbus Helicopters, Leonardo (AgustaWestland), Dassault, Pilatus, Diamond); — engine and avionics manufacturers (Rolls-Royce, Snecma, Turbomeca, Thales); — training schools; — national aviation authorities (NAAs) (France, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden); — others (military, etc.). 433 comments: — submitted from various countries in Europe (France, Italy, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden); and — some of the comments were submitted from manufacturers or organisations outside Europe (Honda aircraft, SFTE (USA)). 1 https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendments/npa-2013-16 TE.RPRO.00064-003 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 2 of 221 An agency of the European Union European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to A-NPA 2013-16 1. Summary of the outcome of the consultation 1.2. Statistics of comments The A-NPA contained 11 questions. 1.2.1. The first 6 questions were addressed specifically to national aviation authorities (NAAs). French Swedish British Dutch German No Question NAA NAA NAA NAA NAA Do you have flight test activities in your country as no 1 Yes Yes Yes n/a defined in Part-21? comm Do you have a system for licences (or equivalent e.g. no rating, authorisations) for crew members other than Yes No no n/a comm pilots for the purpose of flight test? 2 Please provide the rationale for having (or not) a no licensing scheme for crew members other than pilots Provided n/a n/a n/a comm for the purpose of flight test. How many LFTE/FTE licences (or equivalent) do you 0 (20 no 3 200-300 0 n/a have in your country? eligible) comm How many people that would qualify as LFTEs are no 4 100 N/A 4 n/a employed by the NAAs? comm Do you anticipate TC or STC activities in your territory in no 5 Yes Yes Yes n/a the future? comm To be If a LFTE licence requirement would be introduced in recovered no 6 your country how would you estimate the impact of the No cost High n/a from comm additional administrative cost? applicant Option preferred 1 0 n/a 0 n/a While 1 NAA (DGAC/DGA) expressed a clear preference for an LFTE licensing scheme, 2 NAAs (CAA Sweden and CAA-NL) opted for Option 0 (No licence), and 1 NAA (UK CAA) stated that more information is required in order to select an option. 1.2.2. The next 4 questions were addressed to all the stakeholders and enquired into: — the number of persons with flight test engineering duties: the responses indicated that there are up to 3 000 persons; — the number of the potential LFTEs as per the Annex I (Part 21) definition: the responses indicated that there are over 400 persons; — 11 of the LFTEs were identified as currently operating independently; — the number of persons holding a licence: the responses indicated that there are between 300 to 350 licensed LFTEs. TE.RPRO.00064-003 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 3 of 221 An agency of the European Union European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to A-NPA 2013-16 1. Summary of the outcome of the consultation 1.2.3. The last question enquired into the choice for Option 0 (no licence) or Option 1 (licence), as well as the rationale to support the choice. The result of the votes is provided in the graph below. The graph above presents the number of comments received, grouped per State where the commenters were most probably employed, with the intention to illustrate the geographical distribution of the commenters and to provide an indication of whether the issue raised is State- TE.RPRO.00064-003 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 4 of 221 An agency of the European Union European Aviation Safety Agency CRD to A-NPA 2013-16 1. Summary of the outcome of the consultation specific or European-wide. Since in many cases the State where the comment was submitted from was not clearly stated in the response nor was it easy to determine it, the graph should only be viewed as an estimate. During the revision carried out by the A-NPA 2013-16 Review Group2, some of its members noted that this graph would not provide a complete picture and requested to also include an analysis of the citizenship of the commenters, irrespective on the State where they are employed. As EASA did not request nor collect data on the citizenship of the commenters, data was provided by some industry group members. Based on the industry assessment, it may be noted that although the majority of the commenters who responded to the A-NPA (and supporting the licensing scheme) were French or Italian nationals, some other commenters in favour of a licensing scheme were of other nationality, even if mostly employed in France (thus accounted for in the column for France). To summarise, the majority of the answers are in favour of an LFTE licensing scheme. These answers were provided mainly by commenters from two States; few responses have been received from States other than France and Italy. 1.3. Review of comments — data and arguments analysis With regard to the rationale for opting for an LFTE licensing scheme or not, some large aeroplane/rotorcraft manufacturers and some NAAs provided the following arguments in support of the option in favour of a licensing scheme: — An LFTE licensing scheme would improve the crew resource management (CRM) commonality with the pilots, which would be essential especially in the critical phases of flight test. If an LFTE is trained in-house and a pilot is trained at an approved training organisation (ATO), a difference in the CRM may be possible. — An LFTE licensing scheme would imply that training would be completed at an ATO, thus ensuring a better training harmonisation. Additionally, medical checks will be clearly defined and standardised and will be under the responsibility of organisations properly overseen by the competent authority. — If the licensing scheme requirement is not re-established, the LFTEs (currently licensed) would face a loss of social status and privileges (pension rights and insurance), which may lead to social tensions. Some CS-23 manufacturers and some NAAs instead provided arguments against an LFTE licensing scheme: — An LFTE licensing scheme would not add a clear safety benefit. Once the competency and training requirements for the LFTE have been regulated (as already defined in Annex I (Part 21)), a licence brings very limited added safety benefit. Companies holding a design organisation approval (DOA)/production organisation approval (POA) should be those overall responsible for the qualification of their staff. Proper oversight of LFTE competence and training is ensured by the competent authority as part of the oversight of the organisation. 2 https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/rulemaking-docs-npa-rg-A-NPA-Review-Group-RMT.0583-(MDM.003(c))---Issue-1.pdf