Originally Posted by
Denti
Steve, a couple things. Yes, switzerland is not part of the EU, however, it is a member of european common market and abides by all basic EU rules including the freedom of movement and the final legal authority of the ECJ. The latter is a prerequisite to be a part of EASA.
So? You are still missing the point. Dr North's blog was filled with factual inaccuracies - he claimed that membership of EASA required being either in the EU or the EEA, which Switzerland isn't. May I also point out that the Swiss do
not accept the ECJ as the final legislative authority? The EU is still trying to negotiate a deal on this, the Swiss are still refusing to be bound by foreign judges.
Originally Posted by
Denti
No, EASA does not regulate engine approval in Asia or the US, however, many regulators use a shorter certification process that is based on the acceptance of the EASA certification, especially the US as FAA and EASA have a reciprocal acceptance agreement, which will be null and void for UK products come BREXIT if no deal is found, which would in turn invalidate any certification based on that no longer existing EASA certification. Of course everything can be recertified, which will cost a lot of money and some time, as by now not only the initial data is available but also a lot of operational experience and probably some ADs which might change the outcome or certification standard as those have developed over time as well.
Of course the FAA can decide following their own legal advice to still honor the no longer valid EASA certification, but considering the US stance in the open sky negotiations i‘m rather doubtful about that. After all RR competes (not very well seeing the 787 fiasco) with US companies in the same market, and protecting those would certainly fit the America First attitude of the current administration.
Firstly, forget the 787 fiasco - after all, the issues with fan blade separations on CFM engines could have significantly larger ramifications. Secondly, you're missing the point. If FAA certification is already there, why do the Americans need EASA certification? Alternately, what is to stop the same EASA (re)certification, piggy backed on the FAA certification, being applied for? It will become a cost factor, sure, but it's not the end of the world for the UK aerospace sector.....
However let's get back down to planet Earth. Let's assume that UK leaves EASA without a deal. What does that mean for Lufthansa, Air France, KLM - in fact every airline flying around with UK avionics, UK engines on their aircraft. Will they suddenly be grounded because the EASA certification is null and void? The wings on an Airbus are made in UK - are these no longer certified?
You see, the fact is, a solution will be found - it will
have to be found. Common sense will ultimately prevail. And then we will see the claims of doom and gloom for what they are. Works of fantasy. My personal opinion is that existing certification will remain in place - the impact on European companies would be too heavy to contemplate otherwise. If the only companies impacted were from UK, then yes, I could believe the EU would play hard ball. But not when EU companies stand to lose more.
Carrying on, new products will have to be certified. But that's no difference to an American or Russian company applying for their product to be certified. To those who believe Brexit will damage / destroy the UK Aviation sector, this is just hogwash. Now, licensing for airmen, that's a different kettle of fish......