ICAO says Belgian aviation is short on safety-procedures

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 18 Aug 2007, 15:05

I don't really understand what they mean but here is the article:

http://www.hln.be/hlns/cache/det/art_55 ... n=homeArt7

It seems we got a 3 out of 10 in safety procedures rating...

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 18 Aug 2007, 15:57

ICAO is a very serious organisation. If they say Belgium gets 3/10 it is 3/10. Hope the Belgian authorities get their act together and correct the situation quickly. Or do they need an accident first ? And on top of this our best pilots are leaving the country. Are we going to become a banana republic or kingdom in terms of civil aviation ?

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 18 Aug 2007, 17:28

It's usually better to check the source(s) first, because otherwise we get overreactions.

- The audit was done from 7-16 February 2006;

- the full report is online since November 2006 (and thus not hidden for the public because there were elections coming on, as Het Laatste Nieuws states, quoting from Belga press Agency);

- we're not the worst student of the class: there are 8 sections, and Belgium indeed scores one time below average. For all other 7 sections, we're on or above the global average:

* Primary Aviation Legislation: 9/10 (global average is 7)
* Specific Operationg Regulations: 8/10 (average 6)
* State Civil Aviation System and Safety Oversight Function: 6/10 (average 6)
* Technical Personnel Qualification and Training: 3/10 (average 6)
* Technical Guidance, Tools and the Provision of Safety-Critical Information: 7/10 (average 4)
* Licensing, Certification, Authorization and Approval Obligations: 9/10 (average 7)
* Surveillance Obligations: 7/10 (average 6)
* Resolution of Safety Concerns: 7/10 (average 5)

- - -

link to "the points" - from which the press only mentions the 3/10 (although they must know the other results also):
http://www.icao.int/fsix/auditRep3_CSA. ... lgium&i=18

link to the full audit: 154 pages, but seems only available in French.
http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAf ... ort_fr.pdf

link to same reports on other countries:
http://www.icao.int/fsix/auditRep1_csa.cfm

- - -

Therefore my points for this journo-report:
10/10 for making people / passengers unnecessary afraid;
0/10 for information (actually for desinformation: to withhold important information you have, in order to come to a wrong conclusion - beeldvorming)

757Mech · Post by **757Mech** » 18 Aug 2007, 17:28

Hi,

It doesn't surprise me to read this. Year after year the government didn't look after the aviation business, they aren't just interested in it, recall all the different Belgian airlines that went down in the last ten years. The government didn't anything about it, look even to the DHL history, nightflights, Noise problems at daytime...

Therfore there aren't many people/organisations they were interested to invest into the business. To give certian specific training you need a lot of recources espacially in the aviation business.

For example maintenance, till now a handfull of schools gave people a possibility to learn for an aircraft technician.
In september last year the European government (EASA) that are managing the european rules in the aviation environment made a general ruling for maintenance people, everybody that work on an aircraft need a basic liscence and a type rating just like a pilot.
None of those schools are yet approved to give the appropriate basic training.
Belgian airlines have to go for the moment to foreign training centra to give their mechanics the proper training they need to get their licsence...

There are now a few of those schools that I know that are almost ready, e.g. Ostend, one in the french speaking part of Belgium but their within cooperation with a foreign training centre and also one is starting up in Zaventem in coop. with BA...

ICAO just see facts, how many training centres are there for maintenance that are fully approved by EASA/BCAA...None
I don't know how many training facilities there are for cabin crew... but if you see the belgian score ICAO give, that's not gona be much I think...

Several people tried to start up training facilities in the past but the government wasn't intrested at the time... nowdays their is a change but it still need a lot of time to build, organise and don't forget to train the people (to learn for a aircraft technician you have to count at least 3 years and then you don't even have a type rating yet)...

R

tjoepke · Post by **tjoepke** » 18 Aug 2007, 18:43

757Mech wrote:
ICAO just see facts, how many training centres are there for maintenance that are fully approved by EASA/BCAA...None

(to learn for a aircraft technician you have to count at least 3 years and then you don't even have a type rating yet)...

R

The absolute minimum in order to obtain a part66 B license (or in plain English 'aircraft technician') is 2 years. That is if you have taken the courses in a part147 institution. Ostend is approved for about 80% of the submodules, that means that former students still have to complete their theoretical part after they graduate and also that the minimum experience to apply for the license goes from 2 years to 3 years. Personally I find myself in this situation. After having contacted several 147institutions in other countries (+ search for some sort of quality reference) I can only conclude that their are extreme differences in the price but apparently also in the quality of these institutions. In human language, sometimes it felt like I was comparing a 3 star restaurant with the Mac Donalds, and at the end, the result (on paper) appears to be the same. Therefore I don't think that people should panic when seeing this 3/10 rating on Technical Personnel Qualification and Training as it does not reflect the maintenance quality. As 757mech said, it does give a clear signal to the Belgian authorities to 'finally' arrange approved facilities for students who wish to become a technician.

for the ones that are still interested in this line of profession,
read http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Regulation/r ... Part66.pdf

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 18 Aug 2007, 19:23

LX-LGX : you told me read to read the press (on another subject). I read the press and don't have time unless I am paid for it (probably like you are) to read ICAO reports in extenso. I know one has to be careful when journalists publish something. If you give them an interview, some will just take one sentence of what you said and publish it out of context, giving it a completely different meaning.
So, poor press coverage. And situation not that bad.

But improvements necessary in a number of fields. Hope the Belgian authorities take notice. That was the purpose of the ICAO report, was it not ?

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 18 Aug 2007, 20:46

Air Key West wrote:LX-LGX : you told me read to read the press (on another subject). I read the press and don't have time unless I am paid for it (probably like you are) to read ICAO reports in extenso. I know one has to be careful when journalists publish something. If you give them an interview, some will just take one sentence of what you said and publish it out of context, giving it a completely different meaning.
So, poor press coverage. And situation not that bad. But improvements necessary in a number of fields. Hope the Belgian authorities take notice. That was the purpose of the ICAO report, was it not ?

IMO, the i'm always very carefull about press coverage.
ICAO report is not so bad if you readit carefully.
If belgian autorities takes notice of the problems and give the right solution, it's OK for me.
It's not so bad !

jan_olieslagers · Post by **jan_olieslagers** » 18 Aug 2007, 21:06

Not too bad indeed. Most negative points are administrative - and who can blaim a foreigner for not understanding Belgian administration? Few Belgians can work it out, let alone foreign inspectors! Let us mainly be glad and proud of the many positive points. Newspapers don't, of course, especially cheap newspapers.

As to the level of education of trainers: my own poor little experience with them is very positive. On a couple of occasions I discussed PPL flying with pilots from UK, France, Germany, Italy, time and again I had no trouble standing my ground. As a small country between larger ones, we are naturally aware of differences between countries, which is far less obvious to pilots from "big" countries. But this applies primarily to private flying, professional pilots will be more internationally minded anyway.

jan_olieslagers · Post by **jan_olieslagers** » 18 Aug 2007, 21:13

Airbus330lover wrote: IMO, the i'm always very carefull about press coverage.

Could you kindly explain how this phrase was meant to read? It's a bit obscure to me presently.

jan_olieslagers · Post by **jan_olieslagers** » 18 Aug 2007, 21:28

LX-LGX wrote:there are 8 sections, and Belgium indeed scores one time below average. For all other 7 sections, we're on or above the global average

So if I read you all right, any decent newspaper would have headed "Our country far above average on civil aviation safety" ?

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 18 Aug 2007, 23:17

As I was unable to go to the socker tonight, I’ve looked a bit deeper into this story.

In the first post from this topic, Fly4hours mentioned the Flemish newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws as source. And that newspaper quoted Belga Press Agency as their source. So far, so good. I’ve checked if the other Flemish newspapers also took over this story, and guess what Jan: our own Frut (Gazet van Antwerpen) also has it. But they mention another source = the French newspaper La Libre Belgique. And those guys from La Libre have made a hot story of it: they mention that the survey was done 07-16 February, that the government has received the report some time later, but has forbitten publication before 14 June 2007 because it was a bad report for Belgian aviation (14th June 2007 = just few days after our Federal elections from 10th June 2007).

My guess – and I correct myself from a previous post: it’s not disinformation, but just a series of errors from the journalist from La Libre:

1. the survey was done 07-16 February 2006, and not 07-16 February 2007 as he (it’s a Philippe) assumed! It was on ICAO’s website as from November 2006.

2. The journo says there was a press embargo till 14th June 2007. But how can a government forbit publication, till June 2007, from a report that is/was online since November 2006???

3. our Philippe understood ICAO’s remark “consent signed on” wrongly as “our government has signed off the survey”. But “consent” here only means “to give approval to do the survey”. Take a look at the dates in the short fact sheet = http://www.icao.int/fsix/auditRep1_csa.cfm : for most countries, it’s "consent signed on" somewhere in June 20007! ICAO’s administration has probably sent reminders to those who haven’t officially returned their agreement for the survey (even it the survey was already been done). If the journo would have looked at the dates from Bulgaria, Gambia, Fiji, Malaysia, Congo, New Zealand, ..., he should have seen that 14th June 2007 was a pro forma date: these countries still must have their survey! Congo f.e. may expect ICAO from 8-17 April 2008, but they've signed the consent on 15th June 2007.

4. in French, “contenu” means “what’s in something”. So the journalist probably thought: our minister of Transport has waited to sign off the content of the report till 4 days after the elections. Where as it was just the date of signing off the pro forma consent.

5. And now I’m rather furious: the LL-journo was also unable to understand the real content of the survey (the full 154 pages) (he says it's 157). He thought it was a bad report, because there are so many remarks in it. But if one really understand it, one has to conclude like luchtzak.be member Airbus330lover that problems are taken care off: “ICAO report is not so bad if you read it carefully… If Belgian authorities takes notice of the problems and give the right solution, it's OK for me. It's not so bad!” (end of quote Airbus330lover).

So the journalist focusses on the 3/10 of the one issue in the school points overview, knowing that his editor in chief likes these kind of articles. And he adds some quotes from the report. Newspapers only sell with bad news, you know. On what page would his story have ended up, if he would have said: "Belgium scores 9/10 for Primary Aviation Legislation" and another 9/10 for Licensing, Certification, Authorization and Approval Obligations"?

Relevant (sic) articles from La Libre:

Sécurité aérienne: le ciel belge peu sûr (my translation: aviation safety: Belgian skies unsafe)
http://www.lalibre.be/article.phtml?id= ... _id=364955

Les aéroports aussi sont en default (my translation: airports also to be blamed)
http://www.lalibre.be/article.phtml?id= ... _id=364956