Federal Aviation Administration 0 Bilateral Safety Agreements June 7, 2005 0 U.S. Perspective on...

1Federal AviationAdministration 1

Bilateral Safety AgreementsJune 7, 2005

U.S. Perspective on Bilateral Safety Agreements:

Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going

Presentation to: Europe/U.S. International Aviation Safety ConferenceName: Mary Cheston

Date: June 7, 2005

Federal AviationAdministration



OVERVIEW

History and Background on U.S. Executive Agreements

Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASAs)

Other Executive Agreements

Beyond BASAs – The Future U.S./EU Agreement



U.S. EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

International agreements that are binding in the United States take two forms: Treaties and other Executive Agreements.

Traditionally, the Department of State has concluded Executive Agreements in the area of aviation safety.

• Executive Agreements are reported to the Congress but do not require formal Congressional approval.

• Executive Agreements have taken various forms: bilateral airworthiness agreements, bilateral aviation safety agreements, as well as Memorandum of Cooperation/Agreement.

• The FAA has received authority from the State Department to negotiate such agreements on behalf of the U.S. government.




Under U.S. law {49 USC}, the Administrator may exercise her authority consistent with international agreements.

In the absence of an international agreement, the FAA must make all findings and issue all approvals globally that would affect an aircraft’s airworthiness or operation.

FAA Approval(Design/Production/Maintenance)




Since 1929, FAA has used international agreements in order to efficiently approve aeronautical products from other countries.

Bilateral relationships are longstanding.• 8 of the U.S. airworthiness agreements were

originally concluded in the 1970’s;

• 10 others date to the 1930’s - 1950’s

(Australia, Belgium, Canada, France,

Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain,

Sweden, United Kingdom)



Bilateral Airworthiness Agreements (BAAs) were negotiated until 1996.

The current form of agreement is a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement or BASA.

BASA Executive Agreements are standard texts concluded by the Department of State and the Foreign Ministry.

Technical details of the cooperation between aviation authorities is included in Implementation Procedures (IP).




BASA and IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES

A BASA may have multiple IPs that address individual technical areas such as:

IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR AIRWORTHINESS (IPA)

Airworthiness approvals for civil aeronautical products Environmental approval and environmental testing

MAINTENANCE IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES

(MIP) Approval and monitoring of maintenance facilities and

alteration or modification facilities



SIMULATOR IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES (SIP) Reciprocal acceptance of flight simulator qualification

evaluations

IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR LICENSING (IPL)

• Conversion terms for flight crew licenses

BASA and IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES

+ +/or +/or

EXECUTIVEAGREEMENT IP IP IP

Airworthiness Maintenance Simulators



REQUIREMENTS FOR A BASA

Country must demonstrate a need for the agreement.

Country must have an independent and technically competent aviation authority in the discipline which the proposed agreement would cover.

• FAA conducts a technical assessment to determine the comparability of the U.S. system with the BASA partner’s regulatory system.

• Authority must demonstrate its technical abilities to apply U.S. standards through shadow certification projects (airworthiness), repair station audits (maintenance), etc.

FAA makes the technical recommendation to the Department of State to conclude an agreement.



BENEFITS OF A BASA

Agreement can be customized to match the capabilities of each partner.

Separation of the detailed technical working procedures from the Executive Agreement provides greater flexibility in making changes.

BASAs increase the level of cooperation and communication; keeps both sides vigilant and responsive to industry needs.



BASAs TODAY -- IPAs There are currently 30 bilateral agreements related to

airworthiness: 13 of these are BASA IPAs.

BASAs with IPAs

Brazil New ZealandCanada RomaniaFrance RussiaGermany SingaporeIsrael SwedenItaly TaiwanMalaysia U.K.Netherlands

BASAs with IPAs

Brazil New ZealandCanada RomaniaFrance RussiaGermany SingaporeIsrael SwedenItaly TaiwanMalaysia U.K.Netherlands

BAAs

Argentina FinlandAustralia IndonesiaAustria JapanBelgium NorwayChina PolandCzech Rep. South AfricaDenmark Spain

Switzerland

BAAs

Argentina FinlandAustralia IndonesiaAustria JapanBelgium NorwayChina PolandCzech Rep. South AfricaDenmark Spain

Switzerland



BASAs TODAY -- MIPs

There are BASA MIPs with three countries; MIPs are under negotiation in five others, including the European Union. (Note: Canada has maintenance recognition through earlier bilateral procedures.)

BASAs with MIPs

France Germany Ireland

BASAs with MIPs

France Germany Ireland



BASAs TODAY -- SIPs

The FAA has concluded BASA SIPs with Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

BASAs with SIPs Canada Switzerland United Kingdom

BASAs with SIPs Canada Switzerland United Kingdom



An IPL identifies the criteria for the conversion of pilot licenses and ratings relating to the airplane category.

The FAA and JAA reached agreement on the text for a “model” IPL in 2004. The IPL model has not been implemented with EU members due to proposed legislation transferring oversight of licensing to EASA.

Currently, resource constraints have limited the FAA’s ability to pursue IPLs with non-EU members.

BASAs TOMORROW -- IPLs



OTHER EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

FAA has determined that the development of a regulatory system can take significant resources, political will and time.

• For airworthiness, FAA has developed an interim step towards a BASA called a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) for Production Oversight.

– Negotiated at the aviation authority level once a country has established an inspection/manufacturing oversight system.

– Provides for production oversight support (audit assistance, etc.) where suppliers may exist.

– Currently, one MOC in place and another anticipated in 2006.



OTHER EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

This form of Executive Agreement will also be used to cover the U.S. acceptance of aeronautical products in EU Member States that are not overseen by EASA, e.g. Annex II aircraft —Memorandum of Cooperation for Civil Aeronautical Product Certification

• MOCs are binding on both Parties.

• Customized to match the fleet under a National Aviation Authority’s control.

• FAA anticipates the need for seven such MOCs with EU Member State aviation authorities.



BEYOND BASAs– THE NEW AGREEMENT WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION

New agreement with the European Community will represent the first U.S. aviation safety agreement with a multinational entity that is binding in multiple states.

• Presents unique challenges and opportunities.

• Goal is to balance the flexibility of the BASA structure with sufficient details to hold multiple Parties accountable.

[



U.S. aviation safety cooperation with the international community has been broadened to technical areas beyond airworthiness.

Airworthiness agreements are now customized to reflect capabilities of bilateral partners.

• Benefits: flexibility to amend them, ability to anticipate new events/ventures through special arrangements within the scope of the agreement

Aviation safety agreements support FAA’s vision of a network of aviation authorities working together to advance aviation safety; no single authority should be the world’s safety guardian.

SUMMARY – EVOLUTION OF U.S. AGREEMENTS

Federal Aviation Administration 0 Bilateral Safety Agreements June 7, 2005 0 U.S. Perspective on...

Documents

Transcript of Federal Aviation Administration 0 Bilateral Safety Agreements June 7, 2005 0 U.S. Perspective on...