1. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Mapping the Bilateral Environment for Aviation Safety: Maher Khouzam Transport Canada Civil Aviation
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

2. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Why ?
Raison d’être.
When?
Driving Environment.
What?
Bilateral Agreements, Arrangements …
Who ?
Partners, Potential Partners …
Where?
Canada – EU: Update.
Legacy
Future Expectations
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

3. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Raison d’être
Chicago Convention 1944
ICAO requirements
Airworthiness responsibilities
State of Design
State of the Operator
Civil Aviation Authorities
Responsibilities
Not transferable
Functions
Transferable
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

4. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Driving Environment
Exchange of Products
Extensive
Both ways
Airworthiness Requirements
Harmonized but not necessarily equal
Known differences
Safety control systems
Civil Aviation Authority
Airworthiness system
Reliable and predictable
Good communication
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

5. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Bilateral Agreements, Arrangements
Bilateral Agreements
State to State (BAA, BASA)
Technical Arrangements
Authority to Authority (TAA, TASA)
Cooperation Arrangement
Between Authorities
Mainly Pre-TAA
Arrangement on Importation of Product
Mainly to confirm State of Design responsibilities
Continuing airworthiness activities
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

6. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Bilateral Agreements, Arrangements
What do we recognize in our Partners:
Similar regulatory system
Ability to find compliance to our requirements
Similar airworthiness control system
High level of safety
Responsible Industry
What do we need to know:
Proper understanding of our differences
Exemption where given
What do we expect:
Effective communication
Full cooperation
Proper and swift corrective actions
So….
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

7. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Bilateral Agreements, Arrangements
What should we call them if not:
Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA)
as we mutually recognize that the exporting partner’s system produces the same results as that of the importing partner when providing compliance to the importing requirements.
Are they safety oriented only?
Absolutely Not!
But:
They allow each of the Partners to:
Spend more time and resources on the improvement of safety
Better harmonize their requirements
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

8. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Partners, Potential Partners …
Agreements
Canada – US
Extensive coverage
Extensive harmonization of standards
Main Differences:
US requirements are regulatory
Canada regulates conduct, not standards
Extensive Co-operation
Canada – France & Italy
Agreements to be terminated prior to signing with EU
Arrangements
EASA
JAA
ETC…
Reference
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

9. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Canada – EU
Background
Mid-Nineties
Canada – EU MRA
Addition of Airworthiness
Separate context
No single Agency in Europe
Mutual decision to pursue later
Creation of EASA – 2003
Canada - EU agree to resume talks
First meeting in January 2004 (Montreal)
Transitional Arrangement signed February 2004
Second Meeting March 2004 (Brussels)
Agreement in Principle, minor delay in EU
Obstacles resolved in Philly – June 2004
Canada !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (major delay – j’en passe)
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

10. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Canada – EU
Background…
May Alleluia
Diplomatic note sent to EU
Next meeting: Mid-July 2005
Expectations:
Review comments from Canada & EU states
Initial technical text
Raise text to Treaty
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

11. Agreements: A Canadian Perspective
Legacy, Epilogue or !!!
International Certification
One certification per aircraft type
Irrespective of a single set of requirements
Based on harmonized & non harmonised
One form for the release of new parts
One form for used parts
Harmonised standards
Don’t give up ….
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June

12. A Michelangelo Perspective
“The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.”
2005 Europe/US International Aviation Safety Conference, Cologne 7-9 June