If you purchase a WiFi router or other WiFi piece of gear, you expect it to work anywhere in the world. After all, that is what standards are all about. Except for some channels not being available in the US for example, your expectation is correct. If you inspect the specs on the box however, you will find an interesting note, at least if you buy your gear in Europe. The authorized output power is different in France from that in other countries of the Union! Why is this relevant?
Well, in daily practice you will not notice much of this discrepancy but in our little EU there are other examples of this parochial approach to handling things, to the greater glory of our politicians and their efforts to gain popularity even at the expense of public good. European Union public good to be sure.
When we step on board an aircraft, we expect to step out in one piece and becoming a statistic is far from our minds. This is the correct attitude, after all flying is still the safest method of transport and the odds of not getting hurt are all on our side.
But once relaxing on board, I am always bothered by the thought that, as we fly over the EU member states, the jurisdictions, penal
codes, practices et al are changing with each territory overflown and these do affect things like accident investigation and the willingness of flight crews and air traffic controllers to report incidents so that we can all learn from them. If a judge in some places has the power to decide whether you made an unintentional mistake in a professional capacity and throw you in jail for it, you will think twice before saying a word… Frankly, those judges don’t know an aircraft from a rat’s six o’clock yet they presume to pass judgment nevertheless. All this while aviation’s exemplary safety is based to a large extent on what we can tell each other about things that had gone wrong or were about to…
It is high time and laudable that the EU is finally pushing legislation that would, they claim, create a modern regulatory framework in European air accident investigation. Wow! But then we read that the role of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) would be in the exchange of safety related data. Hm. Is that not a bit on the thin side?
Brussels is stopping short of creating a European accident investigation body. Instead, they are promoting a “Network of Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authorities” composed of the heads of National accident investigation bodies. Well, we have seen that before if in other contexts. Spend a few years figuring out the terms of reference then another couple to elect a chair… A new talking shop par excellence.
Under the new legislation, accident investigators would have preeminence over local judiciary enquiries… except that the local judiciary would gain access to investigation material when this was (in their view…) in the “overriding public interest”. And which local judiciary official will feel that an aircraft accident wasn’t? Welcome to our little EU and the perpetual back-doors to let national interests prevail.
I know full well that Brussels is simply trying to be pragmatic. Had they gone for the real thing, a European accident investigation authority, they would probably not get anywhere. With this halfway house, at least something is likely to happen, assuming that the European Parliament and the Council approves the proposal.
As a European citizen, I do not care about national interests. When I am on board an aircraft, I want to be able to go to sleep with the thought that I am protected by European institutions and if by some odd chance I was to become a statistic, aviation should learn from it without interference from local, parochial interests.
It is a pity that this should remain mostly a dream for many years to come.
