Capt Kremmen
You posted earlier:
If as you write we already have them and they are ' practical agreed systems' then nothing, apart from the name or title of the replacement issuing or supervising authority, needs to change. In this respect, the CAA clearly has the means and the expertise to manage the takeover..
Perhaps I could draw your attention to the words of Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the CAA,
5 September 2017 ?
So we are very uncompromising in our view that we should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system in the UK. Indeed, we have consciously decided not to do that work as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option.
Of course in the very long term, it might be, but it’s not one we will be espousing.
Reuters
reports on 25 January 2018 as follows:
“It makes no sense to recreate a national regulator. At best, you replicate the vast majority of European regulation, and you’d have to do it over an extended period of time. At worst, you create unnecessary barriers,” CAA Chief Executive Andrew Haines said in a speech in September.
If Britain is not allowed to remain a part of EASA, the CAA would have to take over its responsibilities in making sure airlines respect safety rules and manufacturers and maintenance companies meet standards, raising questions about whether it has the capacity to do that.
Haines said the CAA was purposely not planning for that scenario “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option.”
UK aerospace industry body ADS, which counts Airbus (
AIR.PA) as a member, said last week it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over EASA’s current responsibilities.
In the short-term immediately after a "no deal Brexit", I'm not, therefore, entirely sure that, as you assert, "the CAA clearly has the means and the expertise to manage the takeover.." What do you think?