The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration.
Sounds like the CAA will have its work cut out to demonstrate that things are up to FAA standards.
From the
Financial Times:
UK aerospace industry warns of risk from leaving European agency
Trade body highlights threat to jobs and investment of withdrawal from aviation safety regime
Peggy Hollinger in London yesterday
Britain’s aerospace industry has warned that the government is putting jobs and investment at risk after the transport secretary revealed that the UK intends to leave Europe’s aviation safety agency at the end of this year to develop its own regulatory system.
“We have been clear that continued participation in EASA [European Union Aviation Safety regime] is the best option to maintain the competitiveness of our £36bn aerospace industry,” said Paul Everitt, chief executive of ADS, the aerospace industry trade body, in a statement late on Friday night. “UK influence in EASA . . . helps make our industry attractive to the investment it needs to be home to the development of a new generation of advanced aircraft technology.
“Government had promised it would consider harmonisation where it is in the UK interest . . . We are disappointed that it has not taken a more ambitious approach. It is essential that it works with us to deliver a regime that does not put jobs at risk.
”The industry’s warning followed comments by Grant Shapps in an interview on Friday with trade publications Aviation Daily and ATW in Washington. In the clearest statement yet of the government’s position on membership of the EU safety regulator, Mr Shapps said: “We will leave EASA. Over a period of time we’ll be wanting to develop our own [aircraft] certifications.”
Mr Shapps said the UK intended to be “particularly forward-leaning in technology and automation”. He cited urban air transport as an area where the country’s aviation regulator — the Civil Aviation Authority — could develop new types of safety certifications.“We’ll make sure our legislative framework is in a great place to enable those kinds of organisations to excel in the UK market,” he said.
The right to diverge from European regulatory regimes has become a mantra for the UK government as it negotiates the terms of its future trade relationship with the EU. The UK refuses to accept any role for the European Court of Justice, which means EASA membership is unacceptable without a compromise as the court has ultimate jurisdiction over the agency’s rulings. Companies across the UK aerospace sector will be dismayed by the transport secretary’s comments. Rolls-Royce and Airbus, two of the UK’s biggest aerospace exporters, have repeatedly emphasised the need for continued membership of EASA to help keep down costs.
The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration. EASA also has reciprocal agreements with authorities in Brazil and Canada, and soon Japan and China.
In January Tony Wood, the new president of ADS, voiced the industry’s deepening frustration at the UK government’s failure to accept the implications of divergence from EASA. He called on the government to clarify the alternative.
The industry has estimated that it would take a decade and cost between £30m and £40m a year to create a UK safety authority with all the expertise of EASA, against a current contribution to the European agency of £1m to £4m annually. While aircraft components are exempt from tariffs under World Trade Organization rules, the aerospace industry has long argued that divergence from European regulations would add cost and complexity to UK manufacturing and jeopardise export success. In 2018 the UK exported about £34bn in aerospace products.
The Department for Transport could not be reached for comment.
https://www.ft.com/content/0dc7128c-...b-339c2307bcd4