Originally Posted by
highcirrus
For those readers who would like to get an accurate picture of current Brexit state of play in relation to the UK Aerospace Industry, I'd recommend a browse through Dr Richard North's latest piece at his blog
EUReferendum.com . Dr North references the European Commission
Notice to Stakeholders, dated 13 April 2018.
Dr North further writes.
Those readers of nervous disposition or terminally closed mind perhaps should not read Dr North's blog!
Or better, perhaps those who understand REALITY should visit the site, read it and dissect it, critically. The notions put forward are pathetic and ridiculous in the extreme. Let me take a couple of points from that Blog (I could take more, but it's so depressing just how easily his claims can be refuted and dismissed.)
But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.
additionally he states:
Outside the EEA there is no possibility of the UK gaining associate membership of EASA
Perhaps the good Dr North would care to inform the assembled readers here when Switzerland became a member of the EU? Neither is Switzerland a member of the EEA, yet they
are a member of EASA. If Switzerland can be granted an exception, so can the UK.
But let's assume the EU don't want Britain to have an exception, to punish us for our audacity to refuse to continue funding their gravy train - what then? Let's take the next subject matter.
if Britain leaves the EU without agreeing a deal that includes associate membership of EASA, Rolls-Royce's products will not be able to be signed off in the UK and will, therefore, be unable to take to the air.
From that statement, you could take it as read that EASA determines what Rolls Royce can and can't do. Really? So they can determine that Rolls Royce engines running in Asia, in the Americas, North and South, become suddenly unairworthy? Again, perhaps Dr North would care to point out at which point EASA could unilaterally declare an FAA Type approval invalid? After all, engines fitted in those regions will be in alignment with the FAA type approval, not necessarily EASA approvals.
Let's take that a step further. The USA is not an associate member, yet they can have Pratt and Whitney PW600 engines EASA certified. But Rolls Royce can't? Really? Type ratings are simply a cost of doing business - you develop a new product, you need it certified. Inside or outside of EASA, Rolls Royce will continue to have it's products both FAA and EASA certified. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Or will Russia have to become an associate member of EASA in order that the Aviadvigatel PD14 jet engine becomes certified?
The Blog is another contribution to Project Fear, part (sorry, gave up counting after the 825th headline saying why Brexit is 'wrong', 'bad' or any other epithet the Elite in Brussels and their useful idiots deign to call it.