Joint Committee on Transport and Communications debate -
Wednesday, 24 Oct 2012

Discussion with Irish Aviation Authority

Acting Chairman (Deputy Patrick O'Donovan)

I welcome Mr. Eamonn Brennan, chief executive officer of the Irish Aviation Authority, who is here to advise the joint committee on new rules for pilots proposed by the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, and to answer questions on the recent closure of the Pilot Training College, Waterford.

I draw attention to the fact that, by virtue of 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Opening statements made to the committee and the proceedings of the meeting will be published on the committee's website. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Brennan to proceed with his presentation.

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

I will make a point of trying to make this short because I am trying to be specific to the topics on which the authority was asked to attend rather than giving a general presentation on the authority. I will introduce our team by noting that to my right is Captain James Courtney, who is an Airbus 330 captain. Mr. Kevin Humphreys is director of safety regulation and is the former chief accident investigator in the State, and Mr. Martin Purcell is our head of licensing and oversight of flight training organisations, FTOs, etc.

I will not waste a long time but will provide members with a quick overview. The Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, is a commercial semi-State agency. Our primary functions are the safety regulation of civil aviation in Ireland, that is, all Irish carriers, whether they operate in Ireland or in Europe, the overseeing of the training of technical staff, pilots, aircrew and so on, and the provision of air traffic control services in Irish airspace and on portions of the north Atlantic as well as at the main State airports. In addition, we regulate the airports. We have 670 staff, who primarily are technical staff such as pilots, aeronautical engineers, air traffic controllers, experts in avionics, radio officers and so forth. We receive no State funding and our total assets are €207 million. Last year, we made an operating profit of just under €18 million.

In respect of safety oversight, our key role and main function is the safety oversight of civil aviation in Ireland, namely, the oversight of aircraft, aviation personnel, airports and airspace from a safety perspective. We comply with all the international and European standards and are ranked among the best in both Europe and the world in terms of the safety oversight of civil aviation. Members will appreciate that Ireland has a long history of aviation. A number of large leasing companies are located in Ireland, including entities such as GECAS. One third of all aircraft that are leased in the world are leased from Irish companies. Safety oversight is internationally benchmarked by the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. It completed an audit of the Irish Aviation Authority last year in which we were ranked fourth in the world, with Canada, France and the United Kingdom marginally ahead of us. I note, however, we were significantly ahead of the United States, Germany and many of the large manufacturing nations. Consequently, we have a very good, internationally established and highly thought of safety record in aviation.

On efficiency, the authority has spent a lot of time in recent years trying to be as efficient as possible. While we have one of the lowest charges in Europe, we are also ranked among the most cost-effective aviation authorities in Europe. This is internationally benchmarked by Eurocontrol independently. We have kept our fees for safety regulation more or less the same since 2007, and the authority has assisted the State in carrying out a number of initiatives with regard to Shannon Airport and aviation policy. The authority also represents the State at various functions in terms of ICAO and the European Union.

I will move to the proposed flight time limitations and will provide the joint committee with a little background, after which we will then take questions. I thought I should address the generalities first. The flight time limitations regulation is a European Union regulation that is implemented by the Union's safety agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA. The Irish Aviation Authority oversees compliance in Ireland of the European Union standards. While we do not set the standards, we oversee their compliance. The current system of flight time limitations is known as Subpart Q of European Union Ops and has been in operation since 2008. Consequently, I presume the subject of today's discussions is the new flight time limitation scheme that is currently being debated by EASA and is expected to come to fruition in the coming months. The European Union regulation establishes two things: rules on flight and duty time limitations and rules on rest requirements for flight crews. Subpart Q is being revised to ensure all European flight time limitations are consistent across the European Union. The idea of this regulation is to achieve consistency among all the member states of the European Union. As for timescale, EASA published a new scheme on 28 February, that is, its opinion on the scheme. We expect the finalisation of the scheme by mid-2013 and expect the scheme to be implemented in the period 2014 to 2016.

I turn to the second item the joint committee asked the authority to address today, namely, Pilot Training College, Waterford. The IAA regulates flight training organisations in accordance with the European Union regulations for safety. The flight training organisations, FTOs, are not bonded companies. It is interesting they are not bonded either in Ireland or the United Kingdom. As recently as yesterday, the United Kingdom published guidance for pilots who are in training, the essence of which is that such organisations continue not to be bonded and that it is a difficult situation. IAA audits and oversight checks on flight training organisations relate to the safety of training organisations. Our primary role is to ensure they are done safely, that the people are fed into the system safely and that everything is done in that fashion. Questions have arisen concerning the financial check on licence approvals relating to this, but that relates to the resources to ensure the quality of the flight training and not to the commercial viability of the business. We do not carry out such a check. We examine whether such organisations have resources sufficient to maintain their simulators, aircraft and so on but we do not consider the financial viability of such a company.

I thought I would keep my address short, if that is in order. I will answer any question members wish, but I thought I would address the specific topics I was asked to do.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Patrick O'Donovan)

I thank Mr. Brennan for his presentation. While a number of members have signalled their intent to ask questions, I seek clarification on one point. While Mr. Brennan stated the flight training organisations are not bonded in Ireland or the United Kingdom, for clarity, are they bonded in other European Union member states?

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

My information is that by and large, they are not. They most certainly are not in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome both Mr. Brennan's presentation and its brevity. It is welcome because members wish to deal with a number of questions. If I may, I will deal with both aspects of the presentation separately. I have had an opportunity to discuss the flight time issues in respect of the EASA rules with a number of pilots and my questions will be asked from that context. I will focus on five areas in particular. First, there is the issue of the short call stand-by. Pilots have indicated to me that a crew member wakes up at 4.30 a.m., starts a stand-by duty at home at 5.30 a.m. until, perhaps, 11.30 p.m. The pilots are concerned about the length of time and state this will be 22 hours from the start of the stand-by and 23 hours after having woken up. They believe that period is too long and has the potential to have an impact on their capacity to act safely.

The second issue pertains to night duties. I understand three independent scientific reports were commissioned by EASA in 2011 which concluded that flying at night should be limited to a flight duty of ten hours. I understand that anything above that would create critical levels of fatigue and potential safety risks. The witnesses might give their views on this issue. The solution being put forward from the pilots' perspective is to limit night flights to approximately ten hours as a basic rule. They also suggest that specific scientific research on night operations longer than ten hours be commenced to allow for a potential review of these rules in future, but until then, their attitude is it is not adequate.

I refer to long work days and multiple take-offs.

There is a view that the greater number of take-offs done in a day impacts significantly on fatigue levels. I am not a pilot but I understand it can be intense work.

Another issue brought to my attention is the notion of the pilot’s home base. Some airlines redesignate the home base of the pilot almost every week to reduce costs. There is a view that the designation of a home base should be permanent.

There is general acceptance from pilots of the 1,000 hour rule as a move in the right direction. There is, however, a view that it could be strengthened by defining the calendar year as commencing on 1 January rather than 1 April which allows 1,800 hours flying within a year and a half rather than two years.

There is a meeting about these proposals on Friday at which the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, will have an opportunity to flag its acceptance or otherwise. The pilots would like to think from a safety perspective that the IAA would not agree to them as drafted and notify the Department of its concerns.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Regarding the recent events around the pilot training centre in Waterford, many members have met with the families involved who have been deeply affected. It is a unique situation. I believe, without setting a precedent, the IAA should find a way of assisting those involved who find themselves in exceptionally difficult circumstances. People remortgaged their homes or borrowed from family members to do this particular training course. I would hope there is a way of recompensing the individuals affected without setting a precedent.

Earlier Mr. Brennan spoke of the role of the IAA in the financial checks, licence approval and quality assurance of flight training. Should the authority have a stronger role in this regard? Should we, as legislators, give the authority more powers to ensure the events with the Waterford training centre do not happen again? I accept the accounts of the company involved were audited and Enterprise Ireland, a significant shareholder, should have had greater oversight. Perhaps introducing a bond for flight training companies is the solution. Short of all this, should the authority have a greater role in examining the commercial viability of training centres?

I am not making any allegations under parliamentary privilege but it has been suggested that one of the directors of the flight training centre in Waterford, Mr. O'Byrne White, also sat on the board of the IAA. Can Mr. Brennan clarify this and if there are any corporate governance concerns that may arise as a result?

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the IAA for its presentation. One of the main issues with these proposed rules will allow for pilots to be on stand-by call for 22 hours a day. A pilot could be asked to fly even in difficult conditions. This can be extended by an hour in unforeseen events. We are aware that unforeseen events can happen often in the aviation industry. The employer can state the pilot’s discretion is not acceptable. I am told that in some cases pilots have been fired for refusing to work hours in which they felt they could not operate safely. Should airport stand-by and short call stand-by have the same cap of 16 hours?

The European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, commissioned reports have recommended a limit of ten hours to avoid critical levels of fatigue, yet the EASA has recommended 11 hours and more. What is the authority’s opinion on this?

Multiple take-offs are the most stressful and tiring part of a pilot’s job. Research shows that fatigue builds up faster with every separate take-off a pilot performs in a shift. Research has also shown that duty should be reduced by a minimum of 30 minutes after a pilot performs a second take-off. EASA wants this to be after the third take-off and only by 30 minutes. Does the IAA believe the proposal to limit this to twice weekly one hour extensions, to reduce the daily maximum flight time as of the second take-off and to reduce by 45 minutes as of the fourth take-off is a solution?

At present pilots can have their home base changed at their employer’s whim. EASA wants to introduce the principle of permanence. This is a good move but needs to be provided for in legislation. The current proposal is that permanence should be observed. Pilots are concerned with the soft language used in the rule and believe it needs to be strengthened.

Does the IAA agree that there should be an upper limit on the number of hours per day a pilot should work? Does the IAA agree that take-offs and landings significantly increase fatigue?

Deputy Seán Kenny

Some months ago we had IALPA, the Irish Airline Pilots Association, before the committee during which it told us at great length the difficulties pilots face in the competitive airline business. It suggested a cap should be placed on the 22 hour stand-by, particularly for the short call stand-by. IALPA’s medical expert regarded ten hours as the safe maximum period but EASA allow between 11 and 12.5 hours.

It also raised the issue of multiple take-offs, long working days and fatigue. It said most airline accidents happen during landing or take-off and the long hours and fatigue could be a factor. I represent a constituency near an airport and aviation accidents are a worry for the community as well as the pilots.

The question of the home base was raised. In most occupations, a person is deployed at a headquarters, depot, station, hospital and so on and, therefore, he or she has a permanent base but I understand some airlines are changing bases from week to week and a pilot based in Dublin this week could be told his home base in Krakow next week and he or she must go there at his or her expense. They do not receive additional remuneration to defray the cost of overnight accommodation and so on. This is a particular difficulty for pilots on the lower rungs of the salary scale. It is an additional cost for them and it needs to be examined.

Pilots have also raised the 1,000 hours per year issue and they want it examined as well.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

With regard to the Waterford training college, I am surprised there was no bonding, whether it was a requirement or not, because based on the costs associated with fulfilling the training criteria and having spoken to a parent of the one of the students, I found it remarkable that the regulatory authority did not have a protection system in place for people being trained to join the aviation ranks. I do not know of any other third level qualification that a student could secure in the State where he or she would face such a liability. We must consider that this qualification is not made available by the State, yet the State requires it to be carried out in this manner.

There is a requirement on the committee to carry out an investigation into what happened in the Waterford training college debacle because there has to be lessons for the Department which should lead to it implementing changes. My understanding is there is nothing to prevent the same happening again and potentially the same characters could present themselves via a new legal entity to offer the same service, rather like Ronseal doing exactly what it says on the tin. The same thing, therefore, could happen again to another wave of students. Suggestions have been made that this may well be about to happen in Waterford. I have significant concerns that more unsuspecting students and parents, to whom Deputy Dooley referred, could wind up in that scenario. The committee should initiate a series of hearings as soon as possible to find out what happened and to make recommendations to the Department to make sure it cannot happen again.

I am not a legal practitioner but I wonder how a company with students in Florida managed to fold the tent without not only the Department but the Director of Corporate Enforcement or the Revenue Commissioners blowing the whistle at an earlier stage to seek court protection for the students. I do not know of a third level institution in which a student could be treated like this while securing a nationally recognised qualification. The students have been shabbily treated and they and their parents deserve much better. I propose that the committee, as a matter of urgency, undertake a forensic investigation into what happened in Waterford and to bring forward recommendations to make sure it does not happen again. The pursuit of the regulatory authority or the company by the parents and the students is a separate issue but there is an onus on us. We must act and do something.

Deputy Joe O'Reilly

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the committee's deliberations and I will honour the Chairman's courtesy by being as succinct as I can.

I had a heartbreaking meeting with a family from my area in Leinster House recently. The son had paid €60,000 to PTC. They are an excellent local family and they are working people who earn their money in an ordinary, decent fashion. They could not afford the fees and they borrowed a considerable amount. What has happened to them is unacceptable, heartbreaking and wrong. I will not name them as there is no need to do that. The IAA provided a three year licence. If it was the authority's responsibility to know PTC had the resources to provide quality, safe training, it is Jesuitical to separate that from commercial viability. It either was viable to provide training or not and the authority failed to establish that. That raises fundamental questions, including about the role of other agencies, to which Deputy O'Donovan referred.

PTC went into liquidation on 2 October. On 3 October, a new company was registered called Clearsky Pilot Training College Limited. There is an allegation that the chief executive officer and some other directors of PTC are involved in the new company and it may be a reincarnation of the old sick animal, which is disturbing. It merits a response and close scrutiny.

I echo the appeal that was well made by Deputy Dooley. The IAA's resources are in good nick currently. There are exceptional circumstances in this case and the authority and other agencies cannot deny culpability even on technical terms. Everybody in society is culpable to the extent that there should be greater vigilance. Given the gravity of the situation and the horrendous position these young people are in, will the authority make an exception of their cases and provide compensation to them? They should be compensated and they should get another opportunity. It is a heart rending story. They are innocent victims. It is not good that people like us are splitting hairs about who has responsibility while they suffer. They are young people of huge ability and great initiative and their families have great drive and ambition. It is not right to respond this way.

I await the response of the officials. While Deputy O'Donovan called for further investigation, which is the prerogative of the committee, of which I am not a member, and this has merit, there is the immediate issue facing the students and I would like that addressed. I thank the Vice Chairman for his indulgence.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I second Deputy O'Donovan's call for a forensic investigation into what went on.

I am from Kilkenny. As long as I was a member of the local authority and also on the regional authority, the pilot training college at Waterford Airport was regarded as creating great job opportunities. I remember preparing strategic plans that centred on the pilot training college at Waterford Airport. It is a unique situation and warrants an investigation to ensure it does not recur.

Vice Chairman

I apologise if some members did not get to contribute as early as they should have because I took over the Chair after the meeting started. If members are agreeable we will take some answers now because there were some good, focused questions. I will allow other members to come in afterwards.

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

I will take the questions in the order they were asked and may ask my colleagues to answer some of them.

On the EASA flight and duty limitation requirements, the essential point is that this is a Europe-wide scheme that deals with different types of operator, including long haul operations to Asia, transoceanic operations to the United States and short haul operations in Europe. There are various categories within these regulations that govern everything. With regard to the maximum of 1,000 flight hours in 12 months, I feel obliged to point out some things that are important to realise. First, that works out at about 19.23 hours per week. This is not just a general limit - it is backstopped. There are actually 14 day and 28 day limits - a maximum number of hours a pilot can fly in 14 days and a maximum number in 28 days. For instance, if a pilot does a 16 hour duty period twice in one week, equivalent rest periods are provided for, under which the pilot does not show up until the latter half of the following week. All of these kinds of constraint and safeguard are built in. The FTL is about providing proper flight times and duty.

As well as the social interest the committee considered, it might also consider talking to operators such as Aer Lingus, CityJet and Ryanair because the airline operations also need flexibility for delays and weather. However, the limitations in flexibility are built into the proposed rules. The rules take account of increased rest periods and reduced flight time. In addition, EASA consultation has taken place over the past two or three years. Some 49,000 submissions have been made to EASA on flight time limitations from pilot associations, employers and aviation authorities. We are trying to achieve a balance so that all social interests are taken into account - those of the employers and those of the employees. As the regulator, we would not agree with any system that we do not believe to be fundamentally safe.

I will ask Captain Courtney to answer the specific questions on multiple take-offs shortly. Deputy Dooley asked about PTC. Geoffrey O'Byrne White is a director of the Irish Aviation Authority and the former chief executive of Air France-CityJet. I understand he worked for PTC for three to four months. PTC was only discussed on one occasion at a board meeting of the Irish Aviation Authority and he excluded himself from that at the direction of the chairman and himself. He had no part in the discussion, nor was he party to any discussions concerning PTC ever. I can vouch for that. He is a man of the highest integrity. He provides to the board expertise on how to run an airline, which is very important, as one can imagine.

I will ask Mr. Kevin Humphreys to answer the question on the scientific reports etc. I will then ask Captain Courtney to deal with the question on multiple landings.

Mr. Kevin Humphreys

On the question of scientific advice, EASA commissioned a scientific report and we in the Irish Aviation Authority have forwarded a comment that we were not happy with the amount of scientific advice that was taken on board. In its documentation EASA fully acknowledged that the scientific advice amounted to caution and there were several recommendations, but they were not actually definitive. The Deputy spoke about fatigue. Fatigue is not a medical matter. It is to do with the duration of work and people's tolerance for working at night or working in the morning, so one size does not fit all.

We have forwarded a statement today to the EASA committee, which is discussing this. It is important to note that this is the opinion of EASA that is going forward to the EU process, so it is still not finalised. One would imagine there will be several opportunities for it to be changed should the majority of the states wish to do so. I should advise the committee that most of the aviation authorities in Europe have welcomed this amendment to a system called Subpart Q mentioned by Mr. Brennan, which has only been in place since 2008. So this is a very early stage to be reviewing a process. The purpose of this amendment is to tighten up areas in which individual states would have the flexibility to have different rules in these parts. Rather than having one state allow a certain rest period, or having split duties whereby staff go to one destination and have to wait four hours there before they come back, all of these anomalies have been taken out to level the playing field. Obviously more scientific advice remains to be taken. That is all I have to say on the scientific matter.

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

I will ask Captain Courtney to answer the questions on take-offs and landings and short-term stand-by.

Captain James Courtney

Short-term stand-by is something that has been going on for many years. Europe had not introduced regulations in this area, particularly on home stand-by, until these new regulations came into play. In consultation with all stakeholders - authorities, pilots and airlines - it came up with what I think is a good set of regulations. These have tightened up significantly on some of the states' existing regulations because each state effectively regulated itself in the area of stand-by. I believe it is quite well done.

Some people asked about the short-term call-out. I have done stand-bys for 20 years. I am effectively at home and not up, in uniform and ready to go to the airport, but could be sleeping at night. A pilot is given time to prepare to go to the airport and then do his or her duty. While that is not tiring, stand-bys done at the airport can be. I am delighted that the regulations in that area have been considerably tightened up. In some other states there were no regulations defining where crew members on stand-by should be. The new regulations now clearly stipulate the type of accommodation, which must be away from the general public and have quiet areas for resting etc. I welcome the new regulations because prior to this there were no tight regulations on the matter.

There have been regulations on multiple take-offs and landings for as long as I can remember. Those regulations have not changed considerably and in fact they have been tightened up, particularly those relating to night operations. While it might look somewhat complicated from a pilot's point of view, a very good table has been produced. This outlines every hour a pilot works and reduces it if it starts heading into night duties. The rule associated with reducing the maximum flight time from the third sector onwards of 30 minutes is a long-standing arrangement that has never caused any issues.

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

I will come to PTCs shortly. I ask Mr. Humphreys to answer the question on accidents, take-offs and landings, and general accidents as a result of fatigue.

Mr. Kevin Humphreys

We would not necessarily agree with the statement read at the last meeting when we were present in the Gallery. Of course the most crucial points are take-off and landing, which is where the aeroplane makes contact with the earth again.

The international data show that the most common cause of accidents is loss of control in flight. This is where the aeroplane goes out of control at high altitude and crashes, like Air France Flight 447 or the accident involving Colgan Air Flight 3407 in the US.

It is important to note that we are a safety regulatory body. It is the safety of the fare-paying passenger we are concerned with, not necessarily the interests of the airline or labour groups within that activity. We dedicate our oversight to the fare-paying passenger. The contention that aeroplanes mostly have accidents at take-off and landing is not necessarily correct.

The old limit for night flights was 11 hours and 45 minutes, which has been reduced to 11 hours. It is an effort to compromise so the reductions have taken place, as Captain Courtney noted. With regard to multiple take-offs, we must remember that in Ireland, we regulate an airline that flies as far as Florida and one that flies from Galway to the Aran Islands, so we cannot have the same requirements for each operation. Someone going to the Aran Islands might do nine or ten take-offs and landings, and that has been limited. In effect, this amendment to Subpart Q has taken every part into consideration. There are no absolutes with safety and one is always trying to improve the situation, and that is what we are trying to do. That is what this does and we support it, as do all the other aviation authorities, with some caveats.

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

I will ask Captain Courtney to discuss the 1,000 hour limit raised by Deputies Dooley and Ellis.

Captain James Courtney

Deputy Dooley raised the question of why it should be from the calendar year. That is very much lined up with whatever leave arrangements pilots or cabin crew have. If the holiday period is from 1 April to 31 March, which happens in many airlines, the airlines also do the 1,000 hours, or the 900 hours that currently exist, in that period to line that up and make sure it works nicely. It is important to point out that this new 1,000 hour limit is a welcome development that will take out some of the anomalies that exist with the current arrangements. Again, this is a further protection that the EASA has built in to the new regulations. It is important to point out that the new regulations are very much focused on the issue of fatigue and fatigue management. Any new changes that were introduced were intended to tighten up that area.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

What about the issue of the home base?

Captain James Courtney

The issue of the home base was not very tightly regulated. With the new regulations, they have introduced requirements that the home base must have what they call an element of permanence attached to it. Again, that will limit operators' abilities because if they wish to change bases regularly, as some operators do, they will now have to introduce a level of permanence, as it is called. If an operator needs to change the base, it will have to do it with a considerable amount of notice and give staff extra days off in preparation to allow them to get to the new base. The EASA has also introduced an additional requirement that while an operator is getting staff to the new base, this is counted as part of their duty time, which was not previously in existence. The new regulations associated with the home base have tightened up the regulations more so than the current arrangements.

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

It is important we have a sense of balance. I would respectfully suggest to the Chairman that the committee look for the airlines' point of view as well. As the regulator, we are trying to ensure best practice and steer the best course. The EASA course and all the consultations have been done to that end.

On the issue of the Pilot Training College, PTC, in Waterford and in respect of Deputy Dooley's question as to whether there should be a greater role for the IAA - he got in first with all the good questions - the Commission for Aviation Regulation currently bonds airlines and travel agents. Our view is that there is a role for the commission going forward and I accept that case would be fine without any doubt.

On the point picked up on by Deputy O'Reilly about the role of the IAA, our role is very clearly defined by legislation and the joint aviation requirement, JAR, rules, which are European rules. We are specifically excluded from having a role in consumer protection so we do not have that role. If one looks at the PTC situation, one can see it was a success. I remember coming before an Oireachtas committee four or five years ago where a member berated me for limiting the growth these people could have and argued we were overly restrictive in applying the regulations. I think the member in question was Deputy Eoin Ryan. That was the tone of the argument. The PTC was a very successful organisation which trained hundreds of pilots each year and placed them with companies like Ryanair and Aer Lingus so, prima facie, everything looked very good. I will ask Mr. Purcell to outline what we have done since the PTC failed. It is interesting to note that in the case in the UK where the flight school went under and in a number of other cases, they have done nothing like what we have done. We have repatriated students and one of the most important things we have done is to seize their training records to ensure that where they carried out an hour's training, that was credited to them going forward. That is the single most important issue in that regard.

To cut to the chase, if we were to go down the road of compensating for every commercial licensed entity that failed, we would not operate for very long. That is a fundamental line to cross. I have full sympathy with the families and my heart goes out to them. The Minister and I met them. It is a dreadful situation but I would say very forcefully that the people who have not been called to account are the directors of the company. The minute this happened, they headed for the hills, which frustrated our efforts considerably. We could not find them and were not contacted by them. Essentially, all the students left in Florida were left for the IAA to repatriate, and we funded that. We had no contact with the directors. The first thing we heard was that an administrator had been appointed and there was a plan and now we have liquidation, which is what happens in these cases. I have no problem with being held to account for our actions but the people who are the principal players in this and who took the deposits off the students and their families, which is a terrible situation, have not been held to account. I am aware of people who borrowed money. I told the Minister that we are going round in a circle with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the IAA but the people who could solve this did not help. We sent inspectors to the US and provided assistance and briefing to students. Virtually everyone in this room has written to us at some stage so we have proactively tried to do everything we possibly can, not to fix the situation but to assist the students because it is not a very good situation. I would hate it myself, as would any parent. I will ask Mr. Purcell to outline what was done.

Mr. Martin Purcell

Once we received notification of the difficulties with the PTC in Florida, we immediately dispatched an officer to the facility in Florida and, at the same time, sent a member of staff to Waterford. This was for two main reasons. The primary one was to get hold of the training records associated with the students because once we had them, that enabled us to put together rectification solutions for each student. I will deal with that in more detail in a moment. It also allowed us to have a presence on site to establish fully what was happening. It was also a focal point in Florida for the students and for the other facilities affected by the shutting down of PTC in Florida.

We suspended the flight training organisation, FTO, approval for PTC Florida and PTC Waterford in order that no more students would come into the system. We caught it at the point where we were just dealing with the number of students who were affected at that moment in time. Nine staff within the authority were involved in setting up a dedicated helpline which operated over a three week period during our opening hours and dealt with queries from the students and their parents.

They have also dealt with various representations from some of the Deputies present and also from air pilot representative bodies and other flight training organisations, which have made contact to establish if there is any way they can assist. E-mail contact has continued in many cases between each student and the individual officers who are looking after their cases. The Irish Aviation Authority has liaised with the two main flight training organisations in Ireland, that is, the National Flight Centre, NFC, in Weston and the Atlantic Flight Training Academy in Cork. With their assistance we have been able to put together various packages to assist the students and to enable them to meet the various requirements to attain their licences.

In addition to the work of the Atlantic Flight Training Academy and the NFC, the training in Florida has in many cases continued under the American system. Many students are continuing their licence progress in Florida. Some students have moved to the Atlantic Flight Training Academy in Cork, primarily those based in Waterford at the time the problem arose. They have now taken up and continued training in that area. Of the 34 students in Waterford, a total of 29 are in the Atlantic Flight Training Academy in Cork at the moment. Some 82 students remained in Florida for training at the Florida Institute of Technology, FIT, which drew up a co-operative agreement with one of the flight training organisations here and was able to provide the outstanding elements of training. A total of 22 of the pilots have continued under the American system and have been allowed to continue the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, powered parachute land, PPL, element of it. It is important to note that when a trainee is building for a licence he cannot cherry-pick certain elements; he must complete specific sections. The completion of the FAA PPL section will allow these students to continue additional training in another environment.

We mentioned that the NFC and Atlantic Flight Training Academy were the two main training providers which have assisted us and this collaboration is continuing. NFC has a presence in Florida where it delivers ground training. We continue to provide flight theoretical examinations in this area and we have a team going out this weekend to provide examinations in Florida next weekend. While Pilot Training College, PTC, Florida has ceased operations in Florida we have not ceased and we continue to support the students there in attaining their examinations and progressing to receive their commercial pilot license, CPL. In several cases students who have been affected by this have finished training and have been issued with a CPL since this unfortunate situation occurred.

Mr. Kevin Humphreys

Deputy O'Donovan made a valid point. These people have elected to spend their funds on this particular type of training. However, it is important to note that things were different under the old schemes. For example, I was fortunate enough to get a cadetship in the Air Corps and Captain James Courtney was fortunate enough to get a cadetship in Aer Lingus, but these schemes no longer exist. People are left to their own devices now. This area is being addressed seriously in the United States. The cost of training for the finished article, that is to say, a pilot who can genuinely operate commercially, is almost €150,000. This is to be expended over a period of two or three years. It is capital intensive and the return is rather more long term.

We fully sympathise and empathise with families involved. This is not the first time this has occurred in Ireland. It happened in Cork in the 1980s and people were left high and dry in the same way because the business element of the training business is precarious. There is a short training period. It is rather intensive. There is intensive ground school training and then intensive flying. The reason people moved out to Florida was to take advantage of the good weather, which we do not have. However, in the absence of sponsorship by the airlines and the State, this area is open to this type of abuse, which is technically a Ponzi scheme. We fully understand this and we have deep sympathy for the families, but until these loopholes are closed off by the appropriate agencies the potential still exists for such problems. We are not the appropriate agency, by the way; we are a safety regulatory body. I fully accept Deputy O'Donovan's point.

A further point relates to our system of education. We do not regard this as a third level requirement although there is plenty of scope for it. Dublin City University and the University of Limerick are offering these courses but they are self-funded. They do not qualify for university grants and they do not qualify for subvention by the airlines either. The poor student must put himself through the basic requirements to gain his commercial pilot license which will cost €120,000. Then he must get a type rating whereby he can operate for an airline and this will cost a further €30,000 and he must pay this. Traditionally, if one had a cadetship in the Air Corps this training cost was taken from one's salary. Similarly with Aer Lingus, because one had a career prospect of 20 years, the money would be repaid. However, the self-sponsored student is not in that lucky position and this is a lacuna in our education and training requirement which should be seriously addressed. I accept the points made.

Vice Chairman

We need to move on as quickly as possible.

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

I did not answer one question. Reference was made to Clearsky Pilot Training College. A new company, Clearsky Pilot Training College has been registered but no application has been made to us. It has sought no approval from us and we are the appropriate licensing authority. We are aware of it and it appears to be the same people but there is not a great deal we can do about it unless they apply to do something but we will keep it under observation. The law is pretty straight in this regard and we must play a straight bat, but we are cognisant of the situation. It is not something that will go unnoticed.

Vice Chairman

I thank the witnesses. I was planning to ask them to clarify the situation of the new company with the same people involved. I will call Deputy McHugh, Deputy McLoughlin and Deputy McConalogue.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I welcome the delegation and I thank the committee for allowing me to ask questions as a non-transferred member of the committee. I have listened attentively to the specific roles and responsibilities of the authority and I appreciate the definitions provided. It is important to have clear lines of definition when we are trying to explore solutions to a major problem and this case requires a solution to a major problem for many families. There is a particular dilemma for the families. I have before me a list of transaction dates, including 15 June, 30 May, 5 June, 4 May, 15 June, 21 June, 24 May, 15 May, 13 June, 2 May, 21 May, 1 May and 15 June 2012. An average of €20,000 was handed over to the Pilot Training College in Watford during a period of up to four weeks prior to the authority being notified that there was a problem at the commercial end between the institute in Florida and PTC Waterford. This is a hard dilemma facing these parents and students.

I have five specific questions but I will be quick because I am mindful that time is against us. Will the delegation reiterate its specific role? Does the IAA examine a company and determine whether it has sufficient resources to safely provide the training required? Does the IAA do this internally or does it commission an independent body to evaluate whether a company has sufficient resources to carry out training in a safe way? How often are these evaluations carried out, whether internally or externally? When was the most recent evaluation carried out, if at all? If so, was the IAA satisfied with that evaluation? Is the evaluation available to members of the committee?

I wish to support my colleague, Deputy Patrick O'Donovan. We need to explore further the issue of culpability. I appreciate what the witness says. The ultimate culpable body is the company that has left these families high and dry. Deputy O'Donovan's proposal is seconded by Deputy Ann Phelan. It needs to be taken seriously. I am not telling the witnesses their business but it is something to be considered. This matter should go to the Director of Corporate Enforcement. I am making this suggestion as a particular route for this committee to explore. Corporate, white collar crime is involved in this instance. All that money paid in the months of May and June was never sent to Florida. I supplied the list of dates and I know that not one penny went to Florida. Where did that money go? The families want to know how they can repay their loans. The families know they do not have the sympathy of the public because of the cost of the course, which was €80,000. When people hear the cost of the course they presume the families are made of money. I know from my contacts that they took out loans to cover the cost. The banks will be knocking on their doors asking them to repay the loans while the ultimate culpable body gets away scot free. I reiterate a proposal for consideration by the committee. The Director of Corporate Enforcement should be asked to attend this committee and there should be an investigation into this debacle.

Vice Chairman

The committee will consider that proposal at another time.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I thank the sitting committee members for allowing some of us to attend the meeting today and to put questions on behalf of our constituents. Mr. Humphreys was very upfront and honest in his assessment when he spoke about the precarious business element of these schools. It was alarming to hear that existing legislation technically allows for a type of Ponzi scheme to develop. Deputy O'Donovan's proposal has been seconded. I hope the committee will conduct a forensic examination of all these events and make recommendations to the Minister. There needs to be legislative change. I also endorse Deputy McHugh's call for the Director of Corporate Enforcement to investigate this matter. This is essential.

I have a number of questions. In 1992, the European College of Aeronautics based in Cork also closed down, with a similar impact on families. I refer to the Official Report at that time which records a response on the matter from the then Minister, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, now a European Commissioner. This was 22 years ago. We know that the business element is precarious. We also know that State bodies such as Aer Rianta and IDA Ireland were shareholders in the European College of Aeronautics in 1992. The taxpayer was an investor in that college and it was a precarious business. Those were the lessons from the situation in 1992. The Irish Aviation Authority Act established the Irish Aviation Authority in 1993. Twenty years later it has all happened again, and nobody, including the Minister, is taking responsibility. The families have used their life savings to pay for these qualifications for their sons and daughters.

The authority's responsibilities include an examination of the management structure and the continuing evidence of sufficient funding. It must also have regard to safety regulations. It must give a clean bill of health to a company's finances. I refer to the authority's report in which it states there were no indications of any deficiencies with regard to resources and provision of approved training courses for the number of students registered with PTC and that all training was to be of a required standard. It further stated in the report that financial evaluation is not intended to be a consumer protection provision. However, families would be confident to invest in a company if it had been given a financial clean bill of health by a Government agency, albeit not funded by the taxpayer. Enterprise Ireland invested €400,000, along with a grant of €8,000. I think this would make families confident that the company was a safe place for their investment. They would regard it as a pretty good bet because the company had a clean bill of health from the IAA and Enterprise Ireland had invested a fortune in taxpayers' money.

The accounts of the company were not qualified by Cooney Carey. There are a number of statements by the accountants which must have caused alarm bells to ring. It was stated that the negative capital and reserves of the company were almost €2.2 million - €2,171,533 - as of 31 December 2010. That last sentence is my own qualification. The report states:

These conditions indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt over the company's ability to continue as a going concern. ... The financial statements do not include any adjustments that would result if the company was unable to continue as a going concern.

That is pretty worrying for any lay person. It is clear from the accountants' report that this company was quite financially precarious. Yet the company was given a clean bill of health and Enterprise Ireland invested in it. The families continued to pay the fees in good faith.

Vice Chairman

Deputy Mac Lochlainn, I am trying to be as liberal as possible but we need to vacate this room by 1.45 p.m. and other speakers are indicating.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I appreciate the assistance of the Chair. I am almost finished. Mr. Purcell referred to those who remained and are availing of training in Florida and Ireland. They are paying more money for this training. What is the situation for families who cannot afford to pay further? This is the nub of the issue.

I do not wish to attribute responsibility to the Irish Aviation Authority for what has happened. Everyone, including the Minister, the Department and ourselves, has to find a solution and learn the lesson.

The Irish Aviation Authority runs its affairs competently and is financially sound. Ireland has the third best record in Europe and I commend the authority on this. What can be done for those families who cannot afford to pay for continuing training for their children? It is not a large group. Can a solution be found to help them? They acted in good faith. They had confidence in the imprimaturs given to the company by the various State agencies. This is the objective of this meeting. The lessons will be learned, the committee will issue a report and I am confident there will be resulting changes in the legislation. This is the second time we have been burned.

The Clearsky issue will have to be dealt with. I commend Deputy McHugh for his proposal. We cannot allow a situation in which directors have walked away from their responsibilities and abandoned these families. They have set up a holding company and a new company to provide refresher training to qualified pilots, which is legally permitted. This is making a mockery of corporate policy.

There is a role for the Director of Corporate Enforcement to look at all of this.

I thank the IAA for flying them home. The authority is assisting with those who can afford to continue training, but there are families which cannot and which have put their life-savings into this. These families acted in good faith. Let us try to find a solution for them.

Vice Chairman

I regret that I must absent myself to attend another meeting. I propose that Deputy Patrick O'Donovan take the Chair again. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I thank the committee for its courtesy in allowing me to speak. I would endorse the comments of Deputies Mac Lochlainn and McHugh and I do not wish to repeat them.

Undoubtedly, the State has failed in providing adequate protection for those who took up places on this course. As has been outlined, overall through the IAA, the Department of Transport, the education system and Enterprise Ireland, we failed to ensure there were adequate protections to prevent something like this occurring. As we have seen, we should have learned the lessons of the previous instance. We can spend time now trying to ensure a recurrence is prevented. I also endorse the suggestion that this be referred to the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

The nub of the argument relates to those students who have been left high and dry. Many of them are left with loans and without the ability to find funding to continue their training. We failed to provide them adequate protection, which means we need to find a solution that can assist them in moving on. Many of them saved to undertake this course. Many took out loans which they are now paying back without ever getting the training. They have been left with no way forward. Their situation is urgent. It is not something on which we can dwell for very long.

We have all been in contact with the various Departments. We also have been in contact with the IAA. So far, no solution has been found for those involved. There is nothing obvious. I would ask the IAA to find a solution that can allow these students to complete their training, and I call on the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, to take the lead in that. The students must do so within a particular timeframe to avoid the training they have undergone needing to be taken again. We do not have the liberty of time to dwell on that. Ensuring we do not repeat the mistakes that were made in this situation will not assist the students either. While I call on the Minister and the IAA to engage with each other, perhaps the IAA would respond by outlining here what type of solution we can offer to those students to allow them to finish their training course.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Patrick O'Donovan)

The IAA might reply to that before we conclude.

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

There were many questions and I do not want to appear to be trying to dodge them. I fully agree with Deputy McHugh that, from the payment of funds of this company in recent months, it appears it was trading while insolvent. That should probably go to the Director of Corporate Enforcement. Like the Deputy, I cannot understand it.

It would take me a few minutes to go through the issues in terms of the checks we carried out, but I would be willing to provide them to the Deputy afterwards if he wishes. All the internal checks we carry out relate mainly to the safety of the aircraft, the provision of the aircraft, the flight manuals, the instructors, the airworthiness, the simulators, and so on. Those are the main checks we carry out and they are carried out by our professional staff of pilots and flight engineers. That is done regularly.

We would have regular contact. For instance, we conducted a standards audit in April 2012 and we found that all was in order. The director, Mr. Humphreys, was in Florida a month or so before they went out of business. The Florida staff stated that the relationship was fine. There was money owed but it was okay. They were carrying out their activities, doing their training, and so forth. The reality is that-----

Deputy Joe McHugh

When was that check in Florida?

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

We carried out a check in April. That was an audit standard on PTC Waterford and we found it was in order. However, that was not a financial check. I am coming to it.

Deputy Joe McHugh

Did Florida state that money was owed?

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

Yes.

Mr. Kevin Humphreys

Mr. Brennan and I had a meeting with the principal of PTC. He came to see us. We asked him straight out. We asked what his situation was and would he still be able to provide this training. He replied that he was having difficulties with Florida Institute of Technology and he would be fine until the middle of 2013, when he would need more students to come in to keep his business going. We took him at his word.

At Mr. Brennan's direction, I went down to the Florida Institute of Technology and met the principals, the head of flight training and the chancellor of the university. This is a huge university. It is the old University of Melbourne in Florida. It has magnificent facilities. Its flight training school goes right out onto the international airport at Florida. It has everything one could want in a structured flying school by way of accommodation, facilities and lecture halls. I visited the hangar and saw the aeroplanes, which were in mint condition. One could not ask for anything better.

When I met the two principals of the university who are university professors, they stated it was confidential information and they were not at liberty to tell me the financial position, but they were having trading difficulties. That was early June and shortly afterwards the relationship broke down. What happened was Florida Institute of Technology stated that Waterford could not continue to pay it and it owed the institute so much money that they were ceasing trading.

Immediately, there was a bit of a panic because the students thought that, due to their visas, they would be thrown out of America and that they would be put out of their accommodation, but, in fact, the Florida Institute of Technology accommodated everyone for up to three months at the institute's expense.

An important point I would make is that I went down there to do what I could to salvage the reputation of Irish aviation. As far as the possibility of trying to do this again with anyone is concerned, our reputation is seriously damaged. We, as the regulator, had to point out that we are a safety regulator. We are interested in the quality of the aeroplanes, the instruction, the instructors and the standard of training being provided.

I have had the misfortune to visit Florida to collect the bodies of Aer Lingus cadets who were killed in an accident there. I have had the misfortune to visit the accident site where trainee cadets and pilots were killed in our own flying schools in Cork. Thanks be to God we have not had that experience with this. Although it is little comfort to families who have lost money, our responsibility is for the safety, and that is what we believe we have delivered. The matter of the financial irregularities is for another organisation.

If we ever have difficulties with a flying school, the proprietor states that we are closing down the business on dubious safety grounds which leaves him or her in the position of having to tell all the cadets that he or she cannot continue. That is the dilemma for us. Where we in good faith believed that the quality of the training was up to scratch, that was the limit of our remit and that is the way we acted.

I fully acknowledge that the lessons from ECA in Cork were not learnt. Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, then Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, appointed me to chair a task force on that, but all the recommendations were not taken on because the main players are the airlines and the educational institutions, not the regulatory body.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Patrick O'Donovan)

I ask Senator O'Donovan to be brief.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

I apologise to the Chair. I am Cathaoirleach of the Seanad today and I had to rush off for a vote a while ago. Unfortunately, I did not hear all of the replies from the IAA but I was here for some of them. I understand the difficulties of its representatives.

Having probably been the first to raise the matter in the Seanad in the first days of July, almost four months have elapsed since.

I sent a detailed letter with a series of questions to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, and the week before last he came to the Seanad to respond to an Adjournment matter I had tabled.

I know certain positive actions have occurred since the debacle. Nevertheless, there has been a severe delay in dealing with the matter; the Minister is indicating it is not his responsibility and the witnesses are saying, to an extent, that it is not theirs either. I am not saying that it is the responsibility of the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, but where does the buck stop? This seems to be a great crime and many young people and their families have been deprived of significant sums of money. Somebody must get to the bottom of this. I am not a member of this committee and I ask the Chairman and others to seek a full investigation.

Almost four months ago I wrote the letter to the Minister asking if the Garda had been asked to investigate the matter. As other speakers have noted, large sums of money have been taken by the company. I have information going back to December last year, which is almost 12 months ago, that serious auditing questions were being raised about the company. I do not know if the witnesses have any input in looking at the audited accounts of the Pilot Training College, PTC, in Waterford. Somebody should have a look at them. It is bordering on criminal activity - if it is not criminal - that deposits and large sums of money were extracted from unsuspecting parents and young people whose life ambition was to be trained as a pilot. That is my concern.

Four months ago I asked the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement be brought in. I know the IAA has indicated it has limited powers but along the line the Minister or somebody else must take control of the issue. It is not good enough for us, as elected representatives in the Seanad or Dáil, to tell parents that the training institution could collapse leaving no recourse for those who have suffered a loss. I have much else to say but there should be an investigation.

If there are not sufficient powers for the committee to have a greater investigative role, perhaps legislation should be changed so it can have such a role. I am concerned that nobody has indicated a responsibility for this in the past four months. The Minister kicked this to touch when he responded on the issue in the Seanad. Many of the questions I ask today I posed to the Minister in the first week or ten days of last July but I have not yet got a satisfactory answer. It is suspicious that people involved in the former company now seem to have set up shop again. I hope the regulatory authority will not provide these people with any help in setting up a new training college. There is something radically wrong in the country if that can happen.

I am not sure if the witnesses have any answers. I regret that I missed much of the debate because of my position this week. Nevertheless, I have deep concerns but I have not received the answers I have sought from the Minister either by letter or in the Seanad over the past three or four months. Time is passing quickly and the trainee pilots and their parents deserve better answers both politically and from the IAA. They have not got what they are entitled to so far.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Patrick O'Donovan)

I can understand the IAA position. In fairness to the people tied up in this, we might be rushed today because the committee started later than normal and must finish earlier. In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, I propose that the committee revisit the issue as soon as possible in order to carry out a full investigation of what happened and, as noted by other speakers, to put measures in place to ensure this cannot happen again. More importantly, there should be an attempt to see if the committee can recommend remediation to the families and students involved. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Irish Aviation Authority-----

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I put the question out there with regard to some type of assistance for the families that cannot afford to continue the training as we speak. I did not get a response. The authority has a healthy financial position so could anything be done?

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

I will answer the questions. If there are further hearings I would respectfully suggest that the committee should invite the principals of the company before it. We seem to be going around in a circle and there is frustration with the process. Our board is directing that we cannot take on the liability of this. Our legal advice is that if we took on liability for this, we would effectively secure a preferential creditor in the company; in effect, we would treat one class of creditor better than another, even when we have absolutely no liability. I have huge sympathy for the families but the point has been made that bills cannot be paid on sympathy. I do not want to mislead the Deputy but we are not in a position to hope to do what he mentions. Otherwise, the Revenue Commissioners and everybody else would be asking where the process would stop.

There should be a broader solution. I respectfully suggest that the committee should bring the principals of the company before it to detail what was done and where the money went. We had audited accounts from Cooney Carey signed off up to August 2011. Somebody indicated that we did not look at Pilot Training College but we did more than that by examining Shemburn, the consolidated holding company. Looking at PTC would have been irrelevant as the consolidated structure is the larger company. There were checks and we asked our accountants to consider the matter. We got statements etc. from Cooney Carey right up to then. If we cannot rely on audited accounts, statements and representations by auditors, we cannot know what we are at.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I accept the legal advice. Has the authority considered reporting the accountancy firm to the relevant regulatory authority?

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

Not at the moment.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Will that be considered?

Mr. Eamonn Brennan

The question was asked about whose role this was. I would welcome a body like the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement bringing together all sides. We are only dealing with a third of a circle. If the directors and accountants were here they could explain the position more clearly. From our perspective, all the flight safety matters are clean, along with flight records and aircraft. Everything we had to cover is 100%, although I understand the frustration that we are taking a defence that we are only in charge of a portion of the issue. I am genuinely sorry for that frustration.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

That is fine. I propose that the committee considers referring the Shemburn company and companies held by it to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement for investigation. I also propose that the committee should recommend that the accountancy company Cooney Carey be investigated by the relevant regulatory authority arising from the reports given to a regulatory body of this State.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I second those proposals. I take the point about liability. We often see a case with a Minister or Department formulating a package to assist people left in distress. That seems to be the only option in this case. I propose that the committee recommend that the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, look at the matter again with regard to assessment of a package that could assist the people left high and dry in their training.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Patrick O'Donovan)

There have been a number of proposals. In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, it has been agreed by the committee to undertake a full forensic investigation as to what happened here. With the agreement of the clerk and the Chairman, we hope time will be scheduled as soon as possible for meetings on the matter. I hope committee and non-committee Members will be invited to attend those meetings.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I appreciate why that is being done.

I ask that the following three proposals be considered by the inquiry, first, the timeframe for completion of that report be defined as soon as possible; second, to refer the company and its accountants; third, that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar consider a compensation package unique to the students in view of their circumstances.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Patrick O'Donovan)

With the agreement of members I ask the clerk to the committee to liaise with the Chairman to schedule the hearing as soon as possible.

I thank the Irish Aviation Authority for their attendance. I acknowledge the presence of people in the Public Gallery who are affected by this. I assure the committee we will revert to this in the near future. We take on board the suggestions made by the IAA for the conduct of an inquiry.

I propose the suspension of the sitting to allow the officials from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Coast Guard to take their seats.