The impact of the new FAA and JAA regulations on flight simulators and flight simulator training

Citation

(1998), "The impact of the new FAA and JAA regulations on flight simulators and flight simulator training", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 70 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/aeat.1998.12770bac.001

The impact of the new FAA and JAA regulations on flight simulators and flight simulator training

The impact of the new FAA and JAA regulations on flight simulators and flight simulator training

The Flight Simulation Group of The Royal Aeronautical Society organised a conference at the society's headquarters recently. This was a continuation of their programme to encourage the establishment of international regulations for the Qualification of Flight Simulators.

The conference was entitled "The impact of the new FAA and JAA regulations on flight simulators and flight simulator training" and was attended by 143 delegates from 16 different countries. Among the prime aims of the conference organising committee was to try to bring to the notice of all concerned the potential difficulties arising from the positions of the European Joint Aviation Authorities and the European Union. To this end both the European Union and the Joint Aviation Authority were invited to send speakers.

The conference began with the UK CAA and US FAA signing an agreement, in the presence of the delegates, to accept the results of simulator re-evaluations conducted by each other. This has the potential of reducing the sometimes multiple evaluations carried out every year when a CAA registered airline wishes to have its simulator qualified by the FAA or when an FAA registered airline wishes to use a CAA qualified simulator. In introducing this signing Mr Richard Yates (JAA operations director) and Captain T. "Paddy" Carver (head of flight operations standards, UK CAA) praised the role of the RAeS in initiating the work of the International Qualification Test Guide in 1989. Similar comments were made by Mr Patrick Poe (director, FAA Europe, Africa and Middle East Office) who signed on behalf of the FAA, in the presence of Mr Paul Ray (manager, National Simulator Program, FAA).Mr Brian Hampson (chairman of the conference) represented the Society at the signing ceremony.

This agreement is based on the simulator implementation procedures (SIP) working plan which had been agreed between the JAA and the FAA in September 1997. The provisions of the SIP can be accessed by any country with which the FAA has a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA). To date these exist between the FAA and the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland and The Netherlands. Work towards adoption of the SIP with these other countries is either underway or to be commenced in the near future.

Following this signing ceremony Captain Erik Reed Mohn (representing IATA) read a Statement from IATA director-general, Pierre J. Jeanniot, OC, urging all governments and regulatory authorities to implement the reciprocal acceptance of flight simulators on an international basis in the course of 1998.

The conference chairman referred to the rumoured differences between the JAA and the EU and the difficulties this presented to the Industry, who were universally in support of standardisation of regulations. He hoped that the Keynote address by Mr C. Probst, Head of Unit, Directorate-General VII Transport, European Commission would quell some of the fears.

Mr Probst gave an excellent presentation on the position of the EU in regards to the JAA and the role of individual nations in the formulation of international agreements. While the EU did not have any quarrel with nations within the EU formulating agreements with nations outside the EU, the position of the latter was that such agreements had no legal standing. In signing EU Regulation 3922/91 all the nations within the EU had agreed that they could no longer act individually as far as adoption and amendment of rules is concerned. Member states can only apply community or national rules in operation on that date. Second, the application of those rules is mandatory, with the EU being responsible for the checking of the rules as being applied effectively and uniformly. The adoption by the Community of rules proposed by bodies such as the JAA can only occur if the proposals are consistent with the policies and rules of the Community. For example, the JARs might be adopted if they were agreed to be acceptable to the labour unions or if they served as a bargaining tool in trade negotiations with other States. The EU did accept that there was, perhaps, a need for a European Regulatory Agency similar to the FAA. However, the Commission had dismissed this approach because it would prove difficult to create such an agency when the JAA was already in place. As a result the Commission approved on 10 December 1996 a proposal for the creation of a European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) which would arrange for competent bodies to carry out some of the tasks associated with the regulation of the aviation industry. Individual nations would be asked to delegate all their existing agencies to the new organisation. The Transport Working Party of the Council was already at work examining the details with a target of December 1997 for the production of a broad outlook for EASA. The Commission will seek for a mandate in June 1998 to prepare a revised JAA Convention in order to create the EASA.

Mr Probst's address gave rise to several issues not least of which is whether matters affecting flight safety should be confused with labour negotiations or be used as bargaining positions in international trade negotiations. While listening carefully to Mr Probst's presentation, however, many delegates recognised that it might only be an opinion which seemed to be balanced equally by those who felt that 3922/91 was unworkable and that it was their intention to continue with national accountability and ensuing agreements until such time as the apparent vacuum in EU safety legislation was adequately addressed. What appears quite clear from discussions following the Conference is that the UK Government does not accept Mr Probst's interpretation. We look forward with interest to the result of discussions between the EU and JAA, and to the EU position in mid-1998 regarding the JAA and a new European Aviation Safety Authority.

For further information please contact Mr B.P. Hampson, c/o The Flight Simulation Group, The Royal Aeronautical Society, Hamilton Place, London W1V 0BQ, UK. Tel: +44 (0)171 499 3515; Fax: +44 (0)171 493 1438.