Originally Posted by
airpolice
So, where I am going with this, is that if the UK leaves EASA and simply replicates (initially) EASA rules and requirements, they could then change it, bit by bit, to suit what they are told by Parliament to do.
Having the CAA change what recognition is given to the CFS approved output might be easier than getting Europeans to accept it.
That of course would just be the tip of the iceberg, and do wonders for retention, if say a time period for a return of service was a sure fire way to a civvy licence.
That's how I see it eventually panning out, on my side of the fence ( Engineering ) part 145 was brought out in the EU to bring about commonality, prior to that each aviation body, the CAA etc, had different requirements, modifications, airworthiness directives etc, so the likes of Airbus were having to build subtle variants of each aircraft to suit each country, something that was stupid as they all would fly in each others airspace etc, therefore Part 145 came into being and it was one supposed standard across the EU. ( personally I feel that the system was dumbed down at the time to the lowest country, as it was easier to dumb it down than to raise up their standards)
The US have also adopted / moved towards a version of Part 145 to bring standardisation between the EU and the US, this in turn has spread the world over and most countries like New Zealand and Australia have a similar version to Part 145, so like it or not I cannot see the UK going it alone and doing their own thing, Part 145 is here to stay in my eyes and we will probably adopt most if not all of EASA's dross.
The problem comes in that the CAA is now a shadow of it's former self having passed most of the tasks to the EASA and a lot of the skilled and qualified through industry engineers etc have left to be replaced by fewer college graduates and clerks, none of which have the skill set I believe they need.