What a mess our country’s government is in with the decision made by the DOT (United States Department of Transportation). The impact on our aviation is real, and it will be difficult to repair the negative effects caused by not following the established rules and commitments. Everything I’ve read on this subject is true, and the most delicate aspect is that we still haven’t realized we were actually violating the treaties, the bilateral agreement with the United States from 2015. The problem is technical, but the presidency wants to portray it as political and try to cover it up that way. That’s the worst part; in fact, it’s worse than what happened because it means they haven’t grasped the true nature of the problem.
First of all, we must acknowledge that the contexts surrounding the decisions made by AIFA and AICM to unilaterally reduce hourly operations without prior meetings to reach an agreement are different. I don’t know why the aeronautical authorities don’t adequately explain the matter to those who make the final decisions; that would make things easier. Airlines already make a significant effort with flights originating 40 kilometers from their main hub (AIFA), which is AICM, and now, just as they’re managing to get by with limited connectivity due to AIFA’s location, they’re being affected in this way. It’s simply unacceptable. When will the authorities learn to listen to experienced aviation experts and avoid ignoring obligations that could seriously compromise us, as in this case?
I understand that the issue of cargo in the aircraft’s hold at AICM has been resolved. I don’t know if it’s a permanent solution or if it’s only pending negotiations between the parties, but that’s a relief. In aviation and other areas, international treaties are binding; only the constitution supersedes them. In this particular case, there is no violation of the constitution, therefore, compliance is mandatory.
Many organizations point out potential negative impacts on aviation almost daily. Well, there was a time when dues to the ICAO were not paid, for whatever reason. Something like eighty million pesos were owed. If you don’t pay, you’re out of the game, so reluctantly, payment had to be made to maintain the right to all the benefits of belonging to the countries registered with this crucial international organization.
I maintain that civil aviation involves many legal complexities that must be handled civilly. At the very least, it is justifiable to seek advice from someone knowledgeable in these matters. Members of the administration even asked me what would happen if this debt to the ICAO were to go unpaid.
The same thing happened with the first restructuring of the DGAC (General Directorate of Civil Aviation). There were several trips, quite costly, to be taken as an example of the guidelines from EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency). The administration, from the top of the transportation sector, failed to gauge the reaction of ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), even though they knew that these organizations were supporting, through a clear contract, the process of updating ICAO requirements. This was after the first downgrade in 2010, and knowing the reasons that led to it. Well, they ignored it and didn’t work properly to resolve all the sticking points in the negotiations. The result was the second downgrade. If we continue to fail to understand that we have an obligation to adhere to the ICAO annexes, we will not move forward, and it makes us vulnerable, whether for political reasons or for an event that warrants sanctions, as is the case here.
On the other hand, the ICAO’s recommendations, which often feel like mandatory requirements, are being distorted or obstructed, or more is being demanded than what’s contained in the annexes. This is detrimental to us in at least two ways: First, the true purpose of the annexes is lost, and second, too many obstacles are placed in the way of achieving the regulations’ true objectives. When, for example, during the FAA’s 2020 safety review, we became so entangled in irrelevant matters that it caused utter chaos—they only reviewed compliance with three annexes, and we fared terribly—now, with the review of all nineteen annexes, we’re in for a rude awakening.
It’s true that each country has the right to add points to the annexes, and this is a sovereign right, but why complicate things so much and hinder the proper development of civil aviation? We have the problems that have arisen in the past with obtaining licenses for Aeronautical Technical Personnel (ATPs), often frustrating people’s desire to enter the field. I suggest we adhere to the provisions of the ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation annexes and the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), created to facilitate compliance with the ICAO annexes, and stop making excuses.
Source: a21
