US membership in ICAO - costs and requirements

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So, for example, without the ICAO agreement Delta would need to pay the importation duty on a 767 once landed at that foreign country airport, pay to have the 767 flight crew pilot certificates validated in that country prior to the flight, and pay to have the 767 AWC validated or be required to pay to have the 767 type certificated in that country. All of which would add up to a regular hefty bill considering Delta flies to many different countries each day, with many different aircraft and crews, each requiring the same additional costs currently exempt under ICAO as a contracting State.

But I’m not sure what other costs you are referring to in your Post #17?

Interesting how that would work without the ICAO agreement and that those costs are due to duties imposed by the governments involved.

Yes, let's try and figure out what those total costs are including those which are not imposed by a tax or duty. You are no doubt much more knowledgeable about this than I am, but here is what I would think of from my very limited knowledge:

The government must pay someone to review such agreements periodically, attend meetings to ratify changes, etc.
The FAA or some other agency must pay people to ensure that the US regulations conform to the ICAO agreements.
The FAA enforcement division must pay inspectors to try and enforce the US regulations in order to ensure compliance with the ICAO agreements.

The commercial aircraft operators must pay people to ensure compliance with the US regulations corresponding to these ICAO agreements.

The parts suppliers must engage in manufacturing processes and inspections to ensure compliance with US and ICAO regulations.

I imagine there are others or that one could break each of these categories down into smaller more particularized items. But is there anything big I am missing there?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Quick search on google scholar using search terms "costs of icao compliance" brings up a very large number of results. First one looks somewhat interesting - https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2004.02.004

 

[rotorwrench]

The government must pay someone to review such agreements periodically, attend meetings to ratify changes, etc.

US Mission to the ICAO

The FAA or some other agency must pay people to ensure that the US regulations conform to the ICAO agreements.

It doesn’t work that way. ICAO is a top-down entity. The contracting States develop a national aviation structure (legislative, CAA, regulatory) that meets the standards of the ICAO Articles and Annexes.

Once that national system is accepted by the ICAO (US in 1947), the ICAO regularly audits each contracting State on the safety and security of their national program. As long as the State maintains the ICAO accepted aviation structure, they leave it up to the national CAA to audit and maintain their own regulatory system. This is why you can see large differences in how each country addresses the ICAO standards. For example, on a scale, the FAA is the simplest system and the EASA is the most complex system, with each other State’s CAA in between depending on whose regulatory system they “copied.” So, there’s really no extra national costs to conform to the ICAO requirements except for the existing US mission costs.

The FAA enforcement division must pay inspectors to try and enforce the US regulations in order to ensure compliance with the ICAO agreements.
The commercial aircraft operators must pay people to ensure compliance with the US regulations corresponding to these ICAO agreements.
The parts suppliers must engage in manufacturing processes and inspections to ensure compliance with US and ICAO regulations.

All the above. In the course of their daily activities involving aviation safety, compliance, and security, the current FSDO ASIs handle these requirements. After all an ASI is an Aviation Safety Inspector who also carry a badge to that effect as well. If the operation or individuals are FAA compliant, they are ICAO compliant.

This is also why I’ve stated in the past that the aviation industry is considered a “closed” system, and that 80+% of our FARs are to maintain those ICAO standards and requirements. For example, when the TCCA initiated the Owner Mx category, all those identified aircraft no longer met ICAO standards, and are forbidden to leave Canada. So any change to a FAA regulation may cause a similar issue and is the reason it can take a long time to change such a regulation like the rewrite of Part 23.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

That points out another category of cost -

Fees paid to the ICAO by the US government to help support it’s mission.

Certainly the sum of all these cost items is not zero. Indeed including all the FAA costs which are mandated to meet ICAO requirements I imagine is a substantial portion of the FAAs total budget. How large is that?

Admittedly it would be hard to strictly parse out what is related to ICAO compliance and what is not. At the same time I imagine there are some items that can be strictly assigned, such as the cost of the representative whose job it is primarily to represent the US at ICAO meetings as well as the fees paid to maintain the ICAO (does the US cover most of that?)

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I have another question about the ICAO. Can only nation states be members? Or could another organization or corporation also be a member and guarantee that it complies?

 

[rotorwrench]

Certainly the sum of all these cost items is not zero.

Very doubtful its zero. But they been paying them since the 40s. I believe the initial supporters (US, UK, France) of the Chicago Convention/ICAO also pay a greater portion percentage wise than the remaining countries.

Indeed including all the FAA costs which are mandated to meet ICAO requirements

Actually the ICAO is not a regulatory authority so there is no “mandate” from them. Its all voluntary to join. So there are technically no FAA additional costs involved.

You’ll find prior to the conception and formation of ICAO, the US CARs already had the majority of the same basic rules we have now. And if you follow the history of the CAA you’ll find the CARs were developed as safety measures to protect the flying public.

In fact, it was a “mixture” of the existing 1947 rules from the US CAA, UK CAA, and French DGAC that established the initial ICAO Article requirements and Annexes. So the regulations the ICAO uses as their standards were in existence prior to the formation of ICAO.

I imagine is a substantial portion of the FAAs total budget. How large is that?

Don’t know. But I don’t recall seeing any ICAO line items in the FAA Budgets I’ve read. My guess, given the ICAO is attached to the UN, any US moneys spent probably come from the same budget coffers as the UN dues and similar payments from?

Can only nation states be members? Or could another organization or corporation also be a member and guarantee that it complies?

I’ve only seen nation States listed. And given ICAO standards require compliance/agreement at the legislative/executive level, I don’t see how any entity other than a nation State could comply with them. However, I have read in ICAO docs of associations with industry and governmental oversight type groups. But none of those are listed in the official member lists. The ICAO has an extensive website which may answer this and your other questions.