Director: EASA to improve stakeholder consultation 

Jules Kneepkens is the rulemaking director at the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA ). 

To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here. 

As EASA has recently been given more responsibilities, and is about to get even more following an agreement on the second 'Single Sky' package, what kind of an agency and regulator does EASA intend to be? 

EASA has three main areas of responsibility: We are a safety regulator – together with stakeholders, we prepare the regulation and propose the text to the European Commission, which then goes through the decision-making process with the European Parliament. 

The second part of our work is standardisation. This means that after the rules are applicable, we check whether states implement the rules as we have agreed. If they don't, then they have to correct them and if they don't do so, we go to the Commission and say that we have a 'finding' and that a state is not implementing something as it should and that the Commission needs to take action. Action, such opting for an infringement procedure, is up to the Commission. 

Our third layer of work is certification. It means that we check all the technical equipment used in aviation and check everything when the planes are produced. We namely certify whether they are airworthy. We also issue 'airworthiness directives', which demand changes to models of aircraft, in cases where safety problems can occur. But it is up to the states to check whether the planes are airworthy also during their use. 

How has the transfer of competences gone? Was it a smooth process, or did you encounter some problems? 

Already before, EASA states were working together with the industry in the JAA to see how they could harmonise and standardise rules throughout Europe. So there was already a positive attitude to have more harmonisation. At the same time, they saw that it was done on a voluntary basis and that not all states implemented what was agreed. So they said that 'this does not work in the end' and decided to establish an agency under EU competence. The agency is about using a lot more power and making everything mandatory for all participants. That's how EASA came into being – through the member states' decision to establish it. 

When EASA was finally there, the first regulation said we would be first responsible for airworthiness. Then, the states were in principle no longer responsible for the certification of aeroplanes. But in the beginning, five years ago, there were only two people in the agency – so the moment we got the competence, we did not have the people to deal with it. So we made an arrangement with states so that they would assist EASA during the transition period and help us in certifying the aeroplanes. 

In the meantime, we were able to recruit a lot of people, so now we have sufficient staff to have the lead in all certification processes. Nevertheless, we still cooperate with member states in the certification process, because they have expertise we can make use of. 

The whole process has been quite smooth. In the beginning, of course, when you have something new, people are looking at what's going to happen, but luckily we have bridged the gap and people have gained a lot of confidence in EASA and the way we are working. And now everything goes as it should. 

With the first extension (2008), we talked about operation rules, licensing and third-country operators. This is a different animal, because there we don't deal with companies, but we have to deal with companies and individuals, and here we have a much wider audience and more people are affected by our rules. 

We drafted the rules during the last few years, and they are have now been out for four or five months and people see what we are proposing. Some like them and others don't, so here we still have to work a lot with all kinds of communities throughout Europe and explain what the intention behind the rules is, what exactly we are proposing and why. 

So, here we are still in a transition phase in which some support us and others have a lot of question marks. Now, we have to take the time to discuss and explain to them the idea behind the rulemaking and behind our proposals, and by taking more time, we think we are able to explain to them. It also involves changing things, because if they have better ideas than ours, then we are glad to change our ideas so that in the end we have rules that are supported by the majority of stakeholders. 

How transparent is the rulemaking process at EASA? 

In the rulemaking groups, we have representatives from different stakeholder groups. For example, on flight crew licensing, we had people from medical organisations, pilot associations, business and commercial airlines. In the beginning, they even participated in the drafting of the rules. But then it appeared that the people could not come to a conclusion. There was a lot of debate but no progress. Meanwhile, we have deadlines set by the Parliament and the Council and we have to deliver on time. 

So, at some point in time the agency said that we cannot deliver with these conditions, because we can't meet the deadline. Therefore they said 'we will do the drafting' and prepare the rules, and then we take more time in explaining the rules, rather than explaining the rules while we are drafting. That's when they stopped the working groups and we did the drafting. But we used for that all the material that had already been put on the table. 

Then we came out with the rules and some were surprised because they were not involved and not aware. So, in order to compensate, we have a lot a of regional workshops, where we explain what we are doing and what is in the text and encourage people to come up with a lot of comments so that we can improve the text that we have on the table. 

For the next extension of EASA's responsibilities to aerodromes and ATM as well as for the NPAs that we are going to do, we will change the way we are working. We will have more communication moments built into the rulemaking. [NPAs , or 'Notices of Proposed Amendment' are draft rules which are presented to the public and open for consultation. The rulemaking procedure foresees a comment period of at least three months in which everyone can comment on the draft rules. All the comments are then reviewed and the draft rules are amended if necessary.]

For example on ATM, we go and talk with high-level people from the different organisations and ask what they think of what we intend to do. Then we get feedback on our concept, which will be adapted to the comments given and then we start working. After, let's say a half a year, we go back to them and show progress, and ask whether they agree with it. If they don't agree, then they must have a very good argument and we need to change the text. Because we are not there to put on the table what we want - but to make rules that are useful and understandable and enhance the safety. Because all people participating in the process have one target – to enhance safety. Many ways lead to safety but you need to have everybody on board to achieve the maximum result. 

Sometimes stakeholders' views differ and the agency has to see how to balance things. It is of course the agency that takes the final decision. But we can also explain why we do what we do. 

So the stakeholder consultation will be changed with the future extension of EASA's responsibilities. Why is that? 

The problem with the current consultation has been that people are not aware of the way of thinking that had been developed for making the rules. Because if you are sitting together with a lot of people and you have a task to do, then you don't know at the beginning where you will be at the end. 

While we are having a lot of partners working with us in the rulemaking process, there are many others that are not sitting around the table. And if you don't tell them, in one way or another, what you are doing, then all those people that are not on the table are taken by surprise when you come with your proposals. And that's why we said that this cannot be the case, because there are so many things where a lot of people are affected, so we need to have a very regular communication to inform people on the way we are going so that people are not taken by surprise. 

What is your response to criticism about EASA having a bigger ear for unions than other stakeholders? 

There are a lot of people who say that we do this or we do that, but we always have to balance. No single partner can be dominant over the other. So we try to get everyone on board. Then, if one partner does not agree with what another is saying, then there is nothing we can do. We listen to everybody and everybody can have a valuable contribution, and in the end we have to take the route that is necessary. And sometimes person A is unhappy, sometimes person B. Meanwhile, all partners have the same value in the rulemaking process. 

Is EASA going to further extend its consultation period on the dossiers currently on the table up to summer 2010 or the end of this year (as requested by FNAM and AEA , for example) to give stakeholders more time to assess the proposed draft rules and provide input? 

It is not foreseen that the agency is going to extend the consultation periods on the published NPAs. However in the follow-up process of the given comments, the agency will take more time than usual. This will enable the agency to have profound discussions with stakeholders before it starts writing the answers for the Comment Response Document (CRD) and the possibility to adapt the proposals accordingly. 

What kind of new rules and consultations do you plan under your upcoming competences on ATM and aerodromes? 

We have to make rules regarding everything that is related to safety in air traffic management, which is quite a lot. There are rules that have to do with how to use certain equipment and how to organise certain training for people that are working on ATM. Also, how there should be a relationship between the ATM system and airports because they have to be related very closely and systems need to be compatible. So it will be a variety of rules. 

For airports, it will be about how airports have been built and how they should be built. In this regard, we will make use of annexe 14 of ICAO , which is about airports. Together with member states, we are translating these world rules into European rules. In these rules, you find a lot on how the airport safety management system should be organised, how the infrastructure should be organised in a safe way, and how the surroundings of an airport affect its safety. These are the domains we need to make rules for. 

When do you expect to be fully functional or have completed your rulemaking? 

What we put in place each time is the starting package, the basis. For example on airworthiness, we put it in place in 2003. But since then we are still adopting and adapting new rules. Because there are a lot of new developments, which mean that the rules from five years ago need to improve constantly. So the rulemaking does not stop when you have the basics in place. 

For example, for air operations (OPS) and licensing, we should be ready by 2012, but it will not be the end of the rulemaking, because there will still be a lot of developments which will push us to constantly improve the rulemaking. So we will continue, but the basis will be there in 2012. The basis for ATM has to be there by 2012 and the basis for airports by 2013. 

By 2013, we will thus have the basic rulemaking packages ready for the four domains. After, we need to continuously improve the rules in place. It is about maintenance of the rules.