EASA after Brexit, a new worldwide ICAO dynamic ?

[roulishollandais]

Coming back to basics and common way to flight safety ?

[Groundloop]

EASA and the EU are NOT the same so Brexit should not make any difference.

[UK019]

.. whilst I partly agree, I note that the very first words after "UK CAA" on my pilot's licence are "EUROPEAN UNION" ..

No difference? Hmm...

[Leg]

They are not the same, however to be in EASA one requires to be in the EU, any state can adopt EASA, the EU 'makes the rules', Brits will not like that one bit :=

[notapilot15]

I thought UK CAA didn't follow EASA much like all other aspects between UK and EU.

[v812]

Would we go back to CAP 371 ?

[OldLurker]

Don't panic, it's only the day after the vote! At least two years to go before actual exit! Lots of time for common sense to prevail. I'd bet on some kind of arrangement being made for the UK to stay within the EASA, or at least for the CAA to have a sensible working relationship with it.

[ExXB]

No problem for UK to stay with EASA, just like Norway or Switzerland. They just don't get a seat at the table.

You want to play in our playground? Then you play by our rules.

[roulishollandais]

CAP371 about pilots' fatigue and rest ?
Of course, why do we need the same rules in Norwey or Greece where climate and length of day are so different, in UK with Tea time or Italy with espresso ?

[lomapaseo]

No problem for UK to stay with EASA, just like Norway or Switzerland. They just don't get a seat at the table.

maybe like Annex 13 under ICAO rules, one can opt out of what you don't like, heck the FAR/JARS were like that for ages

[Aluminium shuffler]

In addition to Groundloop's response, I would add that EASA and flight safety are not the same, as witnessed with the new FTLs.

Notapilot, the UK us a full member of EASA. Whether that changes depends on the UK government, but it doesn't have to leave - as others said, EASA and the EU are not the same thing, and the UK followed all aspects of EU membership except the currency, which is why so many people are fed up with it (just like a hell of a lot of other Europeans). UK adherence to EU dictat was enforced far more rigorously and unfairly than anyone else's, so your idea that we didn't follow the rules is very, very mistaken.

[212man]

maybe like Annex 13 under ICAO rules, one can opt out of what you don't like
?? Annex 13 is Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation

[LLuCCiFeR]

How can it be any worse?

[grizzled]

EASA and the EU are NOT the same so Brexit should not make any difference.

With respect... You`ve posted that same statement on two threads -- even after being corrected the first time. EASA is an AGENCY of the EU. Just like ICAO is an AGENCY of the United Nations.

[Twiglet1]

CAP371 o yes please, back to factorisation of sectors over 7 hours, might as well bring back Flight Engineers whilst we"re at it.

[judge11]

Perhaps BALPA might find a cause to benefit all UK pilots and launch a campaign - the reintroduction of CAP371 and the consignment of EASA FTLs to the dustbin of Euro......oops, UK aviation history.

[tubby linton]

Goodbye to Eu261 and the parasite law firms that make a living from it.

[notapilot15]

Aluminium Shuffler

I don't know which rules UK CAA is following but BA is grinding down efficiencies a lot. Information about its technical diversions is bare minimum i.e, "it is a technical diversion" and public need not know more than that is a standard response. I hope UK CAA still has full control of the situation.

[Pace]

For N reg pilots based in Europe and the ridiculous dual licence requirements I wonder what effect if any this will have

[Sloppy Link]

I'm a two licence holder flying two different G registered aircraft (Annex II and EASA). I wonder what will happen now?

[UK019]

Goodbye to Eu261 and the parasite law firms that make a living from it.
Tubby, I think it may not be so simple. EU 261 applies to any passenger "Departing from a Member State" so unless I've got it wrong, any return journey from the EU to the UK will qualify. Additionally, I believe Switzerland applies EU261, despite being outside the EU. I'll wager we'll keep it.

According to Wiki, Gibraltar is about the only place exempt.

[tubby linton]

UK019, oh well, it would have been nice if it had gone. One of the more idiotic pieces of EU legislation where you can actually be in profit for a flight being late.

[UK019]

Totally agree Tubby. It staggers me that a Jumbo full of passengers being delayed for a valid safety reason (tech) can collect a quarter of a million or more because the airline won't risk their lives.

I was a "remain" voter, by the way - but that particular EU rule is, in my opinion, outrageous.:mad::ugh:

[tubby linton]

I have an EASA licence but the likelihood of being offered employment by any reputable european airline has always been nil so the freedom of employment in the EU has meant nothing for me.. A return to a CAA licence will therefore make no difference. I am just hoping that we can dump EASA FTL as soon as possible.

[Winnerhofer]

Back to EFTA!!!

[Rwy in Sight]

Tubby, I think it may not be so simple. EU 261 applies to any passenger "Departing from a Member State" so unless I've got it wrong, any return journey from the EU to the UK will qualify. Additionally, I believe Switzerland applies EU261, despite being outside the EU. I'll wager we'll keep it.

According to Wiki, Gibraltar is about the only place exempt.
I thought that the EU261 applies to flights to the EU as well.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, provided you are travelling on an airline based in an EU member state.

[Chronus]

Before the licence comes the medical. Brexit means no more EASA medicals and less bureaucracy for our AME`s and take down the sign "that way to the Republic. " I wonder what the effect will be on flight training here, there and everywhere.

[JDJ]

Membership of EASA is independent of membership of the EU.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country?easa_relationship[0]=field_easa_country_mbmo_target_id

With respect... You`ve posted that same statement on two threads -- even after being corrected the first time. EASA is an AGENCY of the EU. Just like ICAO is an AGENCY of the United Nations.
rttest

[DaveReidUK]

Membership of EASA is independent of membership of the EU.

Correct.

Iceland and Switzerland, for example, are EASA Member States.

[NEDude]

You do not have to be an EU member to be in EASA, it has been correctly pointed out that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway are all EASA members. But it is also true that EASA is an agency of the European Union.

EUROPA - Agencies of the European Union - EASA (http://europa.eu/about-eu/agencies/regulatory_agencies_bodies/policy_agencies/easa/index_en.htm)

[Una Due Tfc]

UK adherence to EU dictat was enforced far more rigorously and unfairly than anyone else's, so your idea that we didn't follow the rules is very, very mistaken.

Wake turbulence separation procedures in the UK are very different to ICAO/EASA standards.

EG in most of the world a 757 is a medium when following, heavy when being followed. Not so in the UK.

[Basil]

No problem for UK to stay with EASA, just like Norway or Switzerland. They just don't get a seat at the table.

You want to play in our playground? Then you play by our rules.
Flown all over the World; not a problem.

[Phileas Fogg]

They are not the same, however to be in EASA one requires to be in the EU, any state can adopt EASA, the EU 'makes the rules', Brits will not like that one bit

So if the EU makes the rules then how come 60+ y/o pilots can operate in and/or /overfly most EU countries except France and Italy?

Is this much the same as Mad Cow Disease, France (not the EU) blockaded British beef transits long after EU had lifted the ban whilst France had their own Mad Cows all along?

[Denti]

So if the EU makes the rules then how come 60+ y/o pilots can operate in and/or /overfly most EU countries except France and Italy?

That is history. Has been for quite a while. And even overflying of france was possible for a very long time, we have been doing it for more than 15 years. Scheduled flights to france were a different case though, but that has been possible for some years now as well.

[roulishollandais]

The 65 y/o limit replaced the former 60 y/o after pilots went to the EU Luxembourg Court saying there was an age discrimination. Discrimination is forbidden by Rome Treaty (EU) but really applied after the Amsterdam Treaty (EU too)... What will happen when these pilots will reach 65 ?
ICAO did forbid sum of ages greater than 120 but only a national or EU Court is able to decide if there is discrimination to be corrected. (Of course medical state must stay class I)

[Denti]

ICAO did forbid sum of ages greater than 120 but only a national or EU Court is able to decide if there is discrimination to be corrected. (Of course medical state must stay class I)

Check out EASA FCL.065. Pilots cannot work in commercial air transport if they are 60 or older and working in a single pilot crew, which for example applies to all rescue helicopter operations here. And over 65 it is not allowed at all. That is of course an age discrimination, however it is EU law and it will be interesting to see it challenged in court. One can still work in private ops without any age limit of course.

[handleturning]

Was at a presentation given by Chief Exec CAA last week (pre vote). He stated that it would be down to the Government to decide the position should we exit but he couldn't imagine them doing anything other than agreeing to carry on with EASA. He also said, as above, it would be compliance without influence.

[austrian71]

Its not a question IF you exit, its a question how fast you exit out of EU. and I hope for crews that you not have to exit out of EASA, but you got what the majority wanted, and I think the best is a fast exit, for all !

[Alpine Flyer]

Don't confuse JAA and EASA. JAA was open to all, EASA is an EU agency and their regulations are based on EU laws. The core of FTL is an EU law that required consensus between the EU parliament, the commission and the council of transport ministers. EASA is allowed to detail this law with their own certification specifications and acceptable means of compliance.

Without EU membership you may comment proposed changes to the basic law but you won't have any MEPs or ministers or commissioners having a say in it. So the CAA would be no better off than Joe Pilot writing a comment (though their comment might get more attention).

Don't bet con CAP 371 coming back. If EU-FTL means savings to the airlines, they'll probably lobby for keeping it, stating they can't bear the dual burden of a return to CAP 371 and losses caused by reduced market access, a weakened pound, whatever.

[Triskel]

EASA is an agency of the EU, established by directive EC 1592/2002, superseded by EC 216/2008. Non-EU members states are treated as 'Third Countries' which can use the EASA certification system but have no membership of the management board, hence no say in making the rules. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are not EU members but are part of the European Economic Community (EEC) and, as such, are subject to most EU laws (including free movement across borders). It will be interesting to see how the UK-EU relationship develops, with the UK as a Third Country in the eyes of EASA........

[roulishollandais]

There is no need to use the a.50 of the Lisbonne Treaty too quickly nore to use it !
In any case UK is ICAO .
I'm surprised to see so much hate from EU members trying to punish and chase UK .That is not the Chicago Convention Spirit. EU doesn't show the face of Friendship and Peace...

[4468]

Without EU membership you may comment proposed changes to the basic law but you won't have any MEPs or ministers or commissioners having a say in it. So the CAA would be no better off than Joe Pilot writing a comment (though their comment might get more attention).
Not that EU membership, nor MEPs, ministers nor commissioners allowed any input into the drafting of EASA FTLs anyway!

To the detriment of safety.

Precisely (in a nutshell) why a majority of my country, the fifth largest economy on the planet, the EU's biggest customer, and second largest economy currently in the EU, wants no further part in such an undemocratic, wasteful and out of touch organisation?

[4468]

wf

Many UK airlines were also 'staunch supporters' of EASA FTLs.

Quelle surprise!

[darkbarly]

Now exit is inevitable, any EU law currently applicable in the UK may be deviated from. Policing and oversight of commission regulations falls to each member state but any operator deviating could reasonably argue that in the interest of safety or survival it could not be expected to comply with a rule whose supremacy is temporary and, moreover, can not now be appealed to an EU court.

Come on BALPA, act now and challenge the 'scientific approach' to EU FTL and stop my employer f*((ing me over.

Apologies for the syntax failure, I am tired.

[OldLurker]

Now exit is inevitable, any EU law currently applicable in the UK may be deviated from.Until exit takes effect (two years from starting the article 50 process) the UK is still in the EU and the law doesn't change. Maybe the law doesn't change even after that – nothing is certain yet.

Exit may not be inevitable: Parliament still has to declare exit, and it's been suggested that they might block it, though that seerms unlikely; and the SNP is trying to scupper the process too.

[darkbarly]

Until exit takes effect (two years from starting the article 50 process) the UK is still in the EU and the law doesn't change. Maybe the law doesn't change even after that – nothing is certain yet.


You are right, EU law applies but it can be circumvented, for operators and therefore FTLs, under the flexibility provisions of article 14 of the basic regulation. Now that the European parliament have stated their position and would also, subsequently, require the remaining 27 states to agree re entry for the UK, there is no way that the agency, the commission or the EU courts would formally entertain addressing any deviation or punitive action. By the time any deviation from a UK operator could be addressed by a UK court or the CAA legal enforcement department, it would be unreasonable to uphold a conviction under a diminishing and time limited rule.

So, during this transition period, the argument for sticking or busting the rules may come down to risk v reward for the operator. Any brief worth their fee could easily argue against the EU rules being restrictive, anti-competetive, unsafe etc. as long as reasonable steps were taken not to undermine reasonable standards such as national or icao types.

As I see it this is a tricky period, the transition, as a well funded operator could justify the expenditure required to work around previously imposed commission obstacles.

Take a scenario like grounding an aircraft designed in britain with a EASA type certificate using an EAD issued by EASA. In law, would it be unreasonable to continue to operate the type if it could demonstrate it continued to satisfy UK type design standards? Is it not highly likely that the operator of this type might bring a claim against, say, the UK CAA if their fleet was grounded, as there was no basis for appeal against the EASA decision using the EU legal system?

In 2 years time we will see how creative the stakeholders in UK commercial aviation have been. When parliament starts this exit process, I dont think operating or complying will be as clearcut and rigid as some think.