(10)

Following the analysis by EASA of information resulting from ramp inspections carried out on aircraft of Union air carriers or from standardisation inspections carried out by EASA, as well as specific inspections and audits carried out by national aviation authorities, several Member States have taken certain enforcement measures and informed the Commission and the Air Safety Committee about those measures. Greece informed the Commission and the Air Safety Committee about actions it had taken with regard to the air carrier Olympus Airways.

(11)

Member States reiterated their readiness to act as necessary should any relevant safety information indicate that there are imminent safety risks as a consequence of a lack of compliance by Union air carriers with the appropriate safety standards.

(12)

By letter of 10 January 2016, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (‘ACAA’) informed the Commission about the progress in the implementation of the Afghanistan aviation law, the Afghanistan civil air regulations, the organisation of the ACAA, including the staffing and the training of inspectors, the procedure for certification of air carriers, results of the safety oversight activities conducted on air carriers certified in Afghanistan for the years 2014 and 2015, the reported safety occurrences and information on the accident investigations into recent accidents.

(13)

This information shows that a basic safety oversight system has been established in Afghanistan, but that there needs to be further development in the actual implementation of all international civil aviation safety standards. The information provided by the ACAA on safety oversight activities is superficial. The ACAA showed that during audits and inspections findings and observations are raised, however no evidence has been provided on the resolution of those findings, including a root-cause analysis and proper follow up by the air carriers concerned.

(14)

The ACAA indicated that the air carrier Pamir Airlines no longer holds an air operator certificate and that the passenger air carriers Afghan Jet International Airlines (AOC 008) and East Horizon Airlines (AOC 1013) have been certified by the ACAA. The ACAA did not provide evidence that the safety oversight of those two air carriers is ensured in compliance with international safety standards.

(15)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore assessed that the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union should be amended to remove the air carrier Pamir Airlines from Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 and to include the air carriers Afghan Jet International Airlines and East Horizon Airlines in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006.

(16)

By its letter of 20 July 2016, the Agence Nationale de l'Aviation Civile of Benin (‘ANAC Benin’) informed the Commission that the air operator certificate of the air carriers Aero Benin, Benin Golf Air, Cotair, Royal Air Limited, Trans Air Benin, Alafia Jet, Benin Littoral Airways and Africa Airways had been revoked.

(17)

By its letter of 18 November 2016, the ANAC Benin informed the Commission that a new air carrier, namely Air Taxi Benin (AOC No. BEN 004 ATB-5), had been certified since the last update it provided to the Commission. However, the ANAC Benin did not provide evidence that the safety oversight of that air carrier is ensured in compliance with international safety standards.

(18)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore assessed that the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union should be amended to include Air Taxi Benin in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 and to remove Aero Benin, Benin Golf Air, Cotair, Royal Air Limited, Trans Air Benin, Alafia Jet, Benin Littoral Airways and Africa Airways from that Annex.

(19)

On 8 November 2016, technical consultations were held between the Commission, EASA, a Member State and representatives from the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation of India (‘Indian DGCA’) and the air carrier Air India, certified in India. Those consultations were held within the context of the earlier agreement with the Indian DGCA, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006, to hold regular technical consultations with the Commission in order to discuss the obligations of the Indian DGCA with regard to the certification and surveillance of the air carriers it has certified.

(20)

During those consultations, the Indian DGCA provided information, which included analysis from its ramp inspection unit, on the performance of Indian air carriers under the SAFA programme, including that of Air India. In particular, the Indian DGCA provided detail on its interaction with Air India and other air carriers certified in India, within the context of its certification and surveillance obligations. In this regard the Indian DGCA provided an overview of surveillance activities, which included a summary of data for 2015 and 2016. The Indian DGCA also provided an update on its database management development programme.

(21)

Air India provided updated information with respect to its SAFA management programme, including specific information on how it manages reoccurring SAFA trend information. As regards its safety and quality management system, Air India reported on its internal meeting and organisational structure, on how flight safety information is disseminated and on its engagement with internal and external stakeholders.

(22)

During those consultations, the Commission reiterated to the Indian DGCA a number of elements with respect to the Indian DGCA's certification and surveillance obligations. In particular, whilst taking account of the transparent manner in which the Indian DGCA has provided safety related information to the Commission, that there is a continued need for a proactive approach by the Indian DGCA to the further development of its internal processes regarding certification and surveillance, including the tracking and monitoring of safety oversight as well as the follow up of findings.

(23)

In respect to Air India, whilst taking note of the level of detail Air India was able to provide, and the transparent manner in doing so, the Commission reiterated that sustainable improvements under the SAFA programme must remain a focused priority.

(24)

The Commission takes note of the information provided by the Indian DGCA and Air India. It is considered that, on the basis of all information currently available, including the detailed information provided by both the Indian DGCA and Air India at the technical consultation meeting of 8 November 2016, as well as the granting by EASA of Third Country Operator (‘TCO’) authorisations under Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 (6) to several air carriers certified in India, including Air India, there are at this stage no grounds for imposing an operating ban or operational restrictions on air carriers certified in India.

(25)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore considered that there are at this stage no grounds for amending the list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union by including air carriers from India.

(26)

The Commission intends to continue its official consultations with the Indian DGCA, pursuant to the provisions laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006, in particular in order to discuss the safety measures implemented by both the Indian DGCA and air carriers certified in India, including Air India, on an ongoing basis.

(27)

Member States are to continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on Indian air carriers, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

(28)

Should any relevant safety information indicate that there are imminent safety risks as a consequence of a lack of compliance with international safety standards, the Commission may be obliged to take further action, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005

(29)

Consultations with the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation of Indonesia (‘DGCA Indonesia’) continue with the aim of monitoring the progress of the DGCA Indonesia in ensuring that the aviation safety oversight system in Indonesia is brought in compliance with international safety standards. In that context, by letter of 15 November 2016, the DGCA Indonesia provided the Commission with additional information.

(30)

That letter included information on the decision on 15 August 2016 by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’) to upgrade the status of Indonesia to category 1 of the FAA's International Aviation Safety Assessment. The DGCA Indonesia expects an ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission in 2017 to verify the progress. The assessment by the Commission of the information that was provided by the DGCA Indonesia shows that the effective implementation of international safety standards is still at a low level and the DGCA Indonesia needs to continue to work on the implementation of corrective actions.

(31)

Through that letter the DGCA Indonesia also informed the Commission that four new air carriers had been certified since the last update provided by the DGCA Indonesia to the Commission, namely: AOC No 135-037, issued to Tri M.G. Intra Asia Airlines on 11 November 2015; AOC No 135-054, issued to AMA on 29 December 2015; AOC No 135-057, issued to Indo Star Aviation on 29 June 2016; and AOC No 135-058, issued to Spirit Aviation Sentosa on 7 March 2016. However, the DGCA Indonesia did not provide evidence that the safety oversight of those air carriers is ensured in compliance with international safety standards.

(32)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore considered that the list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union should be amended to include in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 the air carriers Tri M.G. Intra Asia Airlines, AMA, Indo Star Aviation and Spirit Aviation Sentosa.

(33)

Member States are to continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on air carriers certified in Indonesia, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

(34)

EASA wrote on five separate occasions between 8 October 2014 and 16 December 2015 to the Civil Aviation Organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran (‘CAO-IRI’), with respect to safety concerns relating to the ramp inspection results of the air carrier Iran Aseman Airlines under the SAFA programme. The SAFA data reflects evidence of a high number of recurring findings affecting the safety performance of Iran Aseman Airlines.

(35)

On 15 October 2014, Iran Aseman Airlines applied to EASA for a TCO authorisation. EASA assessed that application in accordance with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014.

(36)

EASA, in conducting its TCO safety assessment of Iran Aseman Airlines, raised fundamental concerns regarding the failure by Iran Aseman Airlines to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements. EASA therefore concluded that further assessment would not result in the issuance of a TCO authorisation to Iran Aseman Airlines and that it did not meet the applicable requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014. Consequently, on 3 August 2016, EASA rejected, on safety grounds, the TCO application.

(37)

On 8 November 2016, the Commission requested information from the CAO-IRI on the measures taken following the rejection of the TCO application of Iran Aseman Airlines. Since the safety concerns had not been resolved, both the CAO-IRI and Iran Aseman Airlines were given the opportunity of being heard on 22 November 2016 by the Commission and the Air Safety Committee in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.

(38)

On that occasion, the CAO-IRI provided information to the Commission and the Air Safety Committee on the development of its organisation, the implementation of new regulations, the safety oversight activities and the enforcement actions taken with respect to findings raised against Iranian air carriers in general, and Iran Aseman Airlines specifically. It also provided information on the safety promotion activities it has undertaken.

(39)

Iran Aseman Airlines provided information to the Commission and the Air Safety Committee on the corrective actions that were initiated since the TCO safety assessment, including information on corrective actions in the area of flight crew training and qualifications, flight and duty time limitations, airworthiness and maintenance control, the safety and quality management system, training of personnel and the resolution of SAFA findings. However, the information provided lacked sufficient detailed evidence of improvements in these areas, and specifically with regard to the airworthiness management of Iran Aseman Airlines and the functioning of its safety and quality management system.

(40)

The information available at present, based on the SAFA inspection findings and the TCO safety assessment, combined with the information presented by Iran Aseman Airlines, shows that there is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Iran Aseman Airlines and that Iran Aseman Airlines is not capable of addressing those safety deficiencies, as is demonstrated, inter alia, by the inappropriate and insufficient corrective action plan that it presented in response to the findings identified during the TCO safety assessment.

(41)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore assessed that the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union should be amended to include the air carrier Iran Aseman Airlines in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006

(42)

Member States are to continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on air carriers certified in Iran, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

(43)

Should any relevant safety information indicate that there are imminent safety risks as a consequence of a lack of compliance with international safety standards, the Commission may be obliged to take further action, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.

(44)

Since July 2009, all air carriers certified in Kazakhstan, except one, namely Air Astana, are subject to a full operating ban, mainly due to the inability of the authority responsible for the safety oversight of air carriers certified in Kazakhstan, the Civil Aviation Committee of Kazakhstan (‘CAC’), to implement and enforce applicable international safety standards. Air Astana was removed from Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 in December 2015 and is currently allowed to operate into the Union.

(45)

An ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission was conducted in April 2016 in Kazakhstan. That mission allowed ICAO to establish that the effective implementation of international safety standards has improved to 74 %. On 20 April 2016, ICAO removed the SSC on the certification of air carriers that was still outstanding.

(46)

From 19 to 23 September 2016, a Union on-site assessment visit was conducted in Kazakhstan. Experts from the Commission, EASA and Member States participated in that visit. During that visit the CAC demonstrated that it has made considerable progress in recent years. The CAC has focussed on the implementation of ICAO standards and recommended practices. The CAC has a traditional compliance-based approach to aviation safety and it recently began implementing contemporary aviation safety management techniques, including a State Safety Programme. It also made efforts to recruit and train additional inspectors for the oversight of the aviation industry in Kazakhstan. The executive team of the CAC has a high level of experience and the staff of the CAC is, overall, knowledgeable. The safety oversight system of the CAC is based on checking compliance with the regulations applicable in Kazakhstan, although it makes use of a rather rigid checklist approach.

(47)

Evidence indicates that the overall implementation of the tasks assigned to the CAC are compliant with ICAO standards, that the CAC has an audit and surveillance plan in place to perform safety oversight in respect of the air carriers certified in Kazakhstan, that it implements that audit and surveillance plan and that it performs ramp inspections.

(48)

By way of relevant sample of air carriers certified in Kazakhstan, two air carriers were visited during the Union on-site assessment visit. This sample included the two largest air carriers that at the time of the visit were still included in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006. The visit sought to verify the extent of their compliance with international safety standards. In addition, the visit, in accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, sought to make an assessment of the willingness and ability of each of these air carriers to address safety deficiencies. The main conclusion of the visits to these air carriers is that there was no lack of willingness nor a lack of ability to address safety deficiencies.

(49)

On 23 November 2016, the CAC presented to the Commission and the Air Safety Committee the measures taken in Kazakhstan to improve aviation safety. The main measures are the amendment of its civil aviation legislation and supporting regulations, improvements relating to the structure and staff of the CAC, the increase in the number of inspectors, the update of the system for managing the qualification and training of the inspectors, including additional initial, recurrent and on-the-job training to the inspectors. Furthermore, the CAC explained that it developed additional procedures and checklists, drafted the safety oversight programme, performed safety oversight activities and implemented a mechanism to resolve safety concerns. The improvements to the safety oversight system were illustrated by the enforcement actions taken by the CAC in 2015 and in 2016.

(50)

The CAC provided in its presentation a summary of its corrective action plan with regard to the observations raised during the Union on-site assessment visit. The corrective actions presented included the update of several procedures and checklists to improve the safety oversight activities, the implementation of an electronic database to support its surveillance process, the introduction of a voluntary incident reporting system, the drafting of a new training programme for 2017 and additional training activities to qualify more inspectors for dangerous goods ramp inspections.

(51)

On 23 November 2016, by way of relevant sample, the air carrier Aircompany SCAT gave a presentation to the Commission and the Air Safety Committee on its development, including the history, the network, the fleet and the perspectives and plans for the future of that air carrier. Aircompany SCAT also provided information on its maintenance and training organisation. It provided specific details on its safety management system and on the inspections and audits it has undergone. Aircompany SCAT showed that it is registered under the International Air Transport Association (‘IATA’) Operational Safety Audit Program (‘IOSA’) and that the maintenance organisation holds an EASA Maintenance Organisation Approval Certificate.

(52)

On the basis of all available information, including the results of the Union on-site assessment visit and the information provided during the hearing on 23 November 2016, it is considered that the CAC has made sustained improvements over a continuous time period. It is also recognised that the CAC has proved to be willing to engage on an ongoing basis with the Commission and that the CAC is transparent in its recognition that it is to continue its efforts to further develop its surveillance obligations and the resolution of safety concerns. It is assessed that the CAC has the ability to discharge its responsibilities with respect to the oversight of air carriers certified in Kazakhstan. During the hearing the CAC committed to fully engage in a continuing safety dialogue with the Commission, including through additional meetings, if and when deemed necessary by the Commission.

(53)

As to Aircompany SCAT, the air carrier certified in Kazakhstan that had, by way of relevant sample, been invited to the hearing, the information it provided on 23 November 2016 is considered to be satisfactory. In particular, it provided specific details in respect to the safety management system it has established.

(54)

Based on the results of the Union on-site visit to Kazakhstan, which included visits to the CAC and two air carriers, the presentation by the CAC and the air carrier Aircompany SCAT, there is sufficient evidence of compliance with applicable international safety standards and recommended practices on the part of the CAC and the air carriers certified in Kazakhstan.

(55)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore considered that the Union list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union should be amended to remove all air carriers certified in the Republic of Kazakhstan from Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006.

(56)

Member States are to continue to verify effective compliance by all air carriers certified in Kazakhstan with the relevant safety standards, through the prioritisation of ramp inspections pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

(57)

Should any relevant safety information indicate that there are imminent safety risks as a consequence of a lack of compliance with international safety standards, the Commission may be obliged to take further action, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.

(58)

An ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme audit of the Kyrgyz civil aviation system took place from 25 January to 5 February 2016. Based on the results of the audit, ICAO identified a SSC in the area of personnel licensing and training, concerning the issuance of pilot licences and ratings in the Kyrgyz Republic. On 30 June 2016, ICAO announced that the Kyrgyz Republic had implemented corrective actions and that the SSC on personnel licensing was resolved. However, the SSC pertaining to the certification process for the issuance of air operator certificates, identified by ICAO on 16 July 2015, is still outstanding.

(59)

On 8 July 2016, consultations were held between the Commission and representatives from the Civil Aviation Agency of the Kyrgyz Republic. During those consultations these representatives stated that the Kyrgyz Republic wished to engage with the Commission and to provide technical updates on its progress as regards its international obligations on aviation safety.

(60)

Based on the limited information provided by the Civil Aviation Agency of the Kyrgyz Republic, it appears that, although the commitment shown by the Kyrgyz Republic to engage with the Commission is to be commended, there is at present insufficient progress in respect to improvements in the implementation of international safety standards in relation to the certification and surveillance obligations of the Civil Aviation Agency of the Kyrgyz Republic.

(61)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore considered that at this stage there are no grounds for amending the Union list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union with respect to air carriers from the Kyrgyz Republic.

(62)

On 27 July 2016, technical consultations were held between the Commission and the Libyan Civil Aviation Authority (‘LYCAA’) concerning, in particular, the current operating ban imposed on all air carriers from Libya under Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.

(63)

During those consultations, the LYCAA provided detailed information pertaining to its development plans as regards its certification and surveillance obligations in respect of Libyan air carriers. The LYCAA reported that, within the restraints of a challenging operational environment, it is committed to carrying out its international obligations in relation to aviation safety.

(64)

The Commission welcomes the efforts being made by the leadership of the LYCAA and the fact that the LYCAA is committed to engage with the Commission in order to provide updates on the status of its certification and surveillance obligations.

(65)

However, the Commission notes that the challenging operational environment in Libya and the consequences thereof for the LYCAA as regards its ability to discharge its safety oversight obligations remain a key concern, as it prevents the containment of the aviation safety risks that led to the decision to put all air carriers certified in Libya on the Union list. It is considered, on the basis of all available information, that Libya cannot at present fulfil its international obligations in relation to aviation safety.

(66)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore considered that at this stage there are no grounds for amending the Union list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union with respect to air carriers from Libya.

(67)

The Commission and EASA have over the past period continued to provide technical assistance to the competent authorities of Mozambique. On 10 November 2016, the civil aviation authorities of Mozambique, the Instituto de Aviação Civil de Moçambique (‘IACM’), informed the Commission that it has recently taken a substantial number of actions in order to improve its regulations, infrastructures and organisation, as well as its oversight capabilities in the domain of flight standards and aerodromes. In addition, the IACM confirmed that staff has been recruited and that recurrent training has been provided in all technical domains.

(68)

However, the ability of the IACM to oversee the civil aviation activities in Mozambique is at this stage not yet fully in accordance with international safety standards. There is therefore insufficient evidence to justify a decision on an adjustment of the operating ban of all air carriers certified in Mozambique.

(69)

While improvements are not sufficient to warrant an adjustment of the current ban, the situation is promising enough to warrant an additional Union on-site assessment visit in the coming months.

(70)

According to the list provided by the IACM on 16 November 2016, two new air carriers have been certified in Mozambique, namely Archipelago Charters Lda (AOC MOZ-25), which is engaged in commercial aviation with helicopters, and Solenta Aviation Mozambique SA (AOC MOZ-23), which is engaged in commercial aviation with aeroplanes. The IACM also informed the Commission that the air operator certificate of the air carrier SAM — Solenta Aviation Mozambique SA (AOC MOZ-10), which was engaged in business aviation with aeroplanes, has been revoked.

(71)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore assessed that the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union should be amended to include the air carriers Archipelago Charters Lda and Solenta Aviation Mozambique SA in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 and to remove the air carrier SAM — Solenta Aviation Mozambique SA from that Annex.

(72)

The Commission, EASA and the competent authorities of the Member States have over the past period continued to closely monitor the safety performance of air carriers certified in the Russian Federation and operating within the Union, including through prioritisation of the ramp inspections to be carried out on certain Russian air carriers in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

(73)

On 28 October 2016, the Commission, assisted by EASA, met with representatives of the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency (‘FATA’). The purpose of this meeting was to review the safety performance of Russian air carriers on the basis of SAFA ramp inspection reports for the period between 18 October 2015 and 17 October 2016 and to identify cases which deserve special attention.

(74)

During the meeting, the Commission reviewed more in detail the SAFA results of six air carriers certified in the Russian Federation. The FATA informed the Commission that it took enforcement actions towards one of those air carriers by imposing a ban on that air carrier to operate flights to the Union.

(75)

Based on the available information, it was concluded that a hearing before the Commission and the Air Safety Committee of the Russian aviation authorities or of air carriers certified in the Russian Federation was not necessary.

(76)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore considered that there are at this stage no grounds for amending the list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union to include air carriers from the Russian Federation.

(77)

Member States are to continue to verify effective compliance with the international safety standards by the air carriers from the Russian Federation, through the prioritisation of ramp inspections, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

(78)

Should those inspections point to an imminent safety risk as a consequence of non-compliance with the relevant safety standards, the Commission may be obliged to take action against air carriers from the Russian Federation, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.

(79)

On 13 September 2016, a technical meeting was held between the Commission, EASA and the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (‘CAAT’). During this meeting the CAAT updated the Commission with information on the implementation of the corrective action plan that the CAAT developed to resolve the findings and the SSC that were identified by ICAO after the ICAO audit of January 2015. In particular, the CAAT provided information on improvements enacted since May 2016 with respect to its financing scheme, the development of its organisation, including the number of available inspectors, the newly appointed managers, the introduction of an information management system, improvement of the primary aviation legislation, the update of operating regulations and internal manuals, the training of inspectors and a new start to the safety oversight activities in Thailand.

(80)

The CAAT is currently working on the recertification of the air carriers certified in Thailand and in doing so it makes use of the structured five phase approach. This project commenced on 12 September 2016 and for the 25 air carriers that operate internationally it is scheduled to be completed in September 2017. According to the CAAT, sufficient inspectors and support from technical assistance providers are available to carry out the project. In this respect it is important to note that the CAAT still does not accept applications from new air carriers for air operator certificates and the existing air carriers are limited in increasing their activities. This contributes to manage the workload of the certification project and ensures that no new safety risks are introduced.

(81)

Based on the information presented during the meeting it became clear that, although the CAAT had indicated this to be a priority, the day-to-day oversight and surveillance of aviation activities is lagging behind. The inspection activities mainly take place in respect of airworthiness and not flight operations. According to the CAAT, the day-to-day oversight and surveillance of aviation activities will gradually improve when new inspectors are recruited and trained and the automated monitoring system is fully implemented.

(82)

On 14 November 2016, the CAAT provided additional information on the progress of the implementation of the corrective actions and details on recent oversight and surveillance activities. That information shows that operational inspections are carried out by the CAAT, that findings are raised and that the air carriers concerned have a process in place to react to such findings and implement corrective actions, which in turn are accepted by the CAAT.

(83)

The government of Thailand and the CAAT demonstrate a clear commitment to improve the safety oversight system in Thailand and that the CAAT has provided evidence that relevant progress has been achieved over the past 6 months. Moreover, the available safety information on air carriers certified in Thailand does not support a decision to impose a ban or operational restrictions. In order to monitor the situation closely, consultations with the authorities from Thailand are to continue, in accordance with Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 473/2006.

(84)

In accordance with the common criteria set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005, it is therefore considered that there are at this stage no grounds for amending the list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Union with respect to air carriers from Thailand.

(85)

Member States are to continue to verify the effective compliance with relevant safety standards through the prioritisation of ramp inspections to be carried out on air carriers certified in Thailand, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

(86)

Should any relevant safety information indicate that there are imminent safety risks as a consequence of a lack of compliance with international safety standards, the Commission may be obliged to take further action, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.

(87)

Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(88)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee,