KATE SARSFIELD / LONDON
As the European Union begins to enforce new airport security regulations, how will the measures affect the region's business aviation community?
Security is the buzzword for politicians in Europe and the USA, as events in the Middle East continue to heighten public fears of another devastating terrorist attack to mirror events of 11 September.
International governments are, not surprisingly, refocusing on the aviation industry in an attempt to calm nerves and offset the threat of another airborne onslaught.
With its heavy-handed, unequivocal approach to aviation security, the USA has delivered a hefty blow to business aviation operators and service providers through its enforcement of stringent and often crippling regulations. Watching from the sidelines, the European business aviation industry has held a collective breath while it waits to see what measures will be imposed by Europe's diverse governments.
In its latest document, 2320/2002, the European Commission has issued mandatory security requirements for airports handling commercially operated aircraft weighing over 10,000kg (22,000lb) (mid-size business jet upwards, for example), or with more than 19 seats.
The EC says the regulation, which came into force on 19 January, is an extension of the voluntary European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) document 30, in force for years in its 41 ECAC member states. "These are common basic standards which apply to any [commercial] airport located in the territories of the EU Member States [a number set to increase from 15 to 25 next year]," says the EC. By 19 April, each member state was required to adopt the regulations in the form of a national civil aviation security programme, tailored to the specific security requirements of that country.
These regulations cover airport planning and design; establishing boundaries between landside and airside; creating security restricted areas (known as a sterile area); surveillance of terminal areas; screening of staff, items carried and vehicles; screening of passengers and baggage; separation of arriving and departing passengers; increased security of catering supplies and establishing a national aviation training programme to enable aircrew and ground personnel to implement the security requirements.
The emergence of 2320 has taken some in the business aircraft industry by surprise. A manager of a large fixed-base operator (FBO), who wishes to remain anonymous, says several airport operators had no idea that the regulation existed, "until a UK government official told a conference in March that it had already been adopted. I'm not sure this [ignorance] is good news or not for the industry," the operator says.
As the business aviation industry gradually digests the contents of 2320, the EC will, from 19 July, begin legally enforcing the mandate. "What frightens the industry is the legally binding element of these regulations," says the EC. But it is insistent. "Nothing can be totally secure, but we will make life as difficult as possible for a terrorist in Europe, and to do this we have to strictly enforce these measures," it says. This will be undertaken initially at national level, but ad hoc inspections will follow. The EC's ultimate goal, however, is to formulate the best practices from member states from which harmonised regulations, document 622/2003, can be drawn, it says.
These are early days for the security regulation. Europe's airports which serve business aircraft have so far greeted the mandate with a mixture of cautious optimism and guarded resignation. The European Business Aviation Association, which this week hosts its annual European Business Aviation Convention and Exhibition in Geneva, Switzerland, has successfully persuaded the EC to consider tailored regulations for general aviation. "We welcome the EC's approach. What we want is a known standard of security that is in the interest of the Europe as well as business aviation," it says.
Is it relevant?
Many airports, nonetheless, question the relevance of 2320 to their day-to-day operations. They argue that security is already a key part of business aircraft travel and stringent security measures are constantly under review. Like other FBOs, Jet Aviation tightened security across its European bases after 11 September. "It made the aviation industry aware of the potential threat posed by an aircraft in flight, no matter what size," says Martin Bernegger, general manager of Jet Aviation's Zurich-based charter aircraft division.
He suggests that if 2320 leads to enhanced security and a reduced threat of terrorism, it will prove necessary and relevant. But Bernegger fears improvements to the new security infrastructure will mean hefty costs for the airports and aircraft operators. "These will have to be covered by additional charges [to the operator, which] will result in high additional costs for a relatively low number of passengers," he says.
Steve Grimes, chief executive of the UK FBO Metro Business Aviation, supports this view. He says that as all staff with airside access will be required to have identification and background checks, it will be seen as yet another revenue opportunity for operators of large commercial airports. Another FBO manager is considering turning away larger cabin aircraft over 20 seats as the cost of extra scanning equipment will be prohibitive, he says.
Europe's business aircraft operators, meanwhile are seeking clarity on their responsibilities. Bombardier Flexjet Europe managing director Daniel Maiden says: "There is widespread confusion regarding which elements of the ruling [passenger checks for example] apply to whom [airports or aircraft operators]".
The effectiveness of 2320 and its successor rests with its seamless adoption across the EU. However there are growing fears that certain countries will begin to impose stricter measures than others.
The UK is already considered a tough enforcer of aviation policy and, possibly faced with a heightened terrorist threat following its controversial role in the Iraq war, its security measures may be excessive. Furthermore, industry fears that the UK's security template could become the baseline for the rest of the EU. UK government officials decline to be drawn on specific aspects of its civil aviation security programme, but concede the measures are important and "a stepped approach to compliance will be maintained". This will be implemented firstly through "the issuance of deficiency notices; then enforcement notices, followed ultimately by prosecution, depending on the nature and scale of the non-compliance observed," says the government.
The industry is wary that small commercial airports and privately operated aircraft, not covered by 2320, could eventually be swept up in the national regulatory framework. A contributory factor, says Don Spruston, director general of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC), is a general ignorance of what business aviation is or does. Spruston applauds the EC for taking "a forward and responsible approach towards general aviation", and admits that some FBOs need to tighten security. However, he and other industry observers suggest that security will always have an inescapable political dynamic and the political establishment should stop pressing the panic button.
IBAC is calling for global harmonisation of security regulations. The Montreal-based trade association has worked closely with the International Civil Aviation Organisation to remove anomalies from its security Annex 17, and has made headway. For example, Spruston says: "The requirements for operators do not delineate between the type of aircraft. So a [single-engined] Cessna 172 would be subjected to the same regulations as a commercial airliner".
IBAC also wants to remove the requirement for security restricted areas at small airports, depending on the threat analysis, and allow these airports to establish independent security programmes. This, he believes will reduce regulatory and cost burdens.
He adds: "The ICAO security panel has now addressed this [and other issues] and following consultation, the amendment could be redrafted by the end of the year."
While the EC admits it will face a tough job harmonising its baseline standards across the culturally diverse EU, Spruston suggests the process at international level will be even more complicated, with 187 states in ICAO each with a single vote. "The aviation community has come a long way in the last three years in understanding better where the risks exist and we have a long way to go to make sure the provision is in place to match that risk," says Spruston. But he adds: "This issue must be tackled head on [by the international business aviation community] if we are to get it right."
Source: Flight International