Brexit pushing UK out of EASA

[Sam Rutherford]

I thought I'd seen a thread on this, but cannot now find it.

Is the UK about to fall off something of a regulatory cliff?

[betterfromabove]

Sam - there is a LinkedIn thread running, started by Jonathan Smith from NATS/CAA, which you might find of use. Not sure if can post here, but you'll find with a search on LI.

[Mark 1]

There's a news item on the Flyer site with some discussion in the comments section:
https://www.flyer.co.uk/uk-must-leave-easa-brexit-says-eu/

[TelsBoy]

Fantastic news. Bring it on please.


*Uproarous round of applause from most pilots, engineers, ATCOs and other aviation professionals*

[ZFT]

Fantastic news. Bring it on please.


*Uproarous round of applause from most pilots, engineers, ATCOs and other aviation professionals*

Be careful what you wish for!

[TelsBoy]

Whilst I'd normally agree with your sentiment, quite literally nothing is worse than the catastrophic shambles that is EASA.

[Sam Rutherford]

Really? How about the catastrophic shambles that is, erm, having nothing...? CAA estimate 5-10 years to create their own system.

Or, more likely, beg to stay with EASA but no longer with any voting rights...?

[Sam Rutherford]

Thank you 'betterfromabove', will go take a look.

[ZFT]

Really? How about the catastrophic shambles that is, erm, having nothing...? CAA estimate 5-10 years to create their own system.

Or, more likely, beg to stay with EASA but no longer with any voting rights...?

Exactly. A fully paid up club member with sod all voting rights is hardly an ideal solution

[Johnm]

Uproarous round of applause from most pilots, engineers, ATCOs and other aviation professionals*

Not from this pilot and aircraft operator, while it is true the early days of EASA gold plated by U.K. CAA was painful things have radically improved in the last 5 years and are getting steadily better.

[TheOddOne]

As the UK CAA is required to not only pay its own way but make a return on capital employed, the entire financial burden of re-creating a regulatory body to replace EASA would fall upon 'industry'. Don't expect the airlines or big airports (if we have any of either left when the likes of easyJet depart these shores) to pay for regulating GA, especially recreational flying. They used to - as an example Aerodrome Licensing where the likes of Heathrow and Gatwick used to subsidise small licensed grass airfields.

The UK has had a major input into EASA rulemaking and we're just seeing some stability returning to the industry. We need to be in a position to continue to influence and rein in the excesses of some of our partners.

TOO

[Katamarino]

Based on the CAA's past performance, anything they create will cost more, and work worse, than what we have now. Another "win" from Brexit.

[INeedTheFull90]

Based on the CAA's past performance, anything they create will cost more, and work worse, than what we have now. Another "win" from Brexit.

Wait. The CAA has been performing better, offering an improved service and charging less thanks to EASA? Who knew?

[The Old Fat One]

First congrats to the forum for getting to a dozen or so posts w/o someone pitching in with a brexit rant (from either side of the fence). It would be nice to believe this could stay a grown-up discussion.

Two points

First, as I understand it (and I've done my homework to a degree). The vast majority of EU legislation and regulation (some 22000 items or more) is just going to be cut'n'paste straight into UK law (and so is EU case study, to assist in the legal interpretation of law). So the vast burden of all this is going to fall on a bunch of technocrats armed with little more than Microsoft Word and Adobe. Whatever happens after that to this "mountain of law" will depend on UK political culture in the next few dozen decades, but clearly, nothing much is happening "overnight" (where "overnight" equals most of our lifetimes). I've seen nothing to suggest that aviation would be a special case, and common sense - specifically the need to keep flying - suggests it would a strong contender for the default (change nothing) option.

Which brings me neatly to my second point...aviation has long been identified as the tip of the spear in this particular UK "adventure". Good ol Mr Ryanair has had a few rants of the subject. Whatever happens is gonna happen to aviation first so in many ways it will be the bellweather for events to come. That's why it is an interesting, pertinent topic and one hopes for an educated and fruitful discussion.

Exciting isn't it :)

[PaulisHome]

I've seen nothing to suggest that aviation would be a special case, and common sense - specifically the need to keep flying - suggests it would a strong contender for the default (change nothing) option.

Exciting isn't it :)

It's like the rest of Brexit. If we put lots of effort in, are clever and very lucky, we'll only damage ourselves a bit. If we are careless or unlucky, we'll damage ourselves a lot. The current people running the show are neither clever nor lucky.

It's astounding to watch the British government, as a matter of policy, spend all its time on a venture designed to make us poorer, less influential and less open.

Paul

[John R81]

The "potential problems" are different for international passenger business vs everything else, from what I have read. Whilst non-international transport requires that UK develop its own regulatory regime, international transport has more of a problem.

Currently, airlines based in / authorised and regulated by a country that is a member of the Common Aviation Area (I can't bring myself to use CAA for that), namely EU Member States plus some neighboring countries like Morocco, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, may operate air routes between any airports located the Common Aviation Area. For the UK to remain a member of Common Aviation Area and therefore benefit from the European “Open Skies” requires that UK accepts the freedom of movement principle and acknowledges the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. See the problem?

Earlyin 2017 airlines were cautious about what the future might hold, but that has given way to “contingency planning” for a "no deal" scenario.

On 2 January 2018, Ryanair confirmed that its subsidiary, RyanairUK, had filed an application on December 21 for an air operating certificate (AOC) with the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority. If granted then Ryanair (the existing company) will not be able to fly routes between UK cities post Brexit, but Ryanair UK will, and so the affected slots and routes belonging to Ryanair will need to betransferred into Ryanair UK.

It is not just Ryanair: in October 2017, Wizz Air appliedfor a British AOC. Going the other way, in July 2017, the British airline EasyJet applied to Austro Control, the air navigation services provider controlling Austrian airspace, for an AOC and to Austria’s Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (bmvit)for an airline operating license. It will create a new airline, EasyJet Europe, headquartered in Vienna, that will operate flights both across Europe and domestically within European countries after Brexit. Currently those slots /routes all belong to EasyJet and these will need to be transferred or made available to EasyJetEurope.


Simples! (not really)

[The Old Fat One]

Simples! (not really)

Indeed (and good post).

The elephant in room (well one of them anyway ;)) is the reaction/decision making of the good old paying public.

Do you book a holiday (involving flying) in the Easter of 2019 trusting politician and bureaucrats to sort all this out??? (see the not-so-dumb paying public may decide to give way to “contingency planning” for a "no deal" scenario, themselves.)

for me (Mr TightWad)

[ ] of course, where is the login for easyair.com
[x] Nae ****ing chance.

I would think the airlines contingency planning would include the potential for a significant (albeit probably short-lived) reduction in pax numbers.

[NorthSouth]

as an example Aerodrome Licensing where the likes of Heathrow and Gatwick used to subsidise small licensed grass airfieldsBut that's already the situation we're in. Commercial airports are all regulated by EASA, while all non-commercial licensed fields remain under CAP 168.

[TelsBoy]

Without wanting to engage in all the political rubbish on both sides, it will indeed be interesting to see just exactly what happens to regulation post-EU membership (hate using the term "Brexit" - daft portmanteau made up by some clever-clogs trendy media type) and what happens to EASA.

Things have indeed stabilised, and some sanity has prevailed in recent years. In some cases. Others not.

My own opinion - and that's all it is, just an opinion, so feel free to disagree - is that the damage was done long ago when all this nonsense started with the JAA which grew into EASA. I'd rather be done with it to be honest.

If the CAA need to "start again", that's their problem to sort out. The CAPs would still exist and any existing EU legislation would be ported across to the CAA. Charges are still levied by and paid to the CAA so all that would happen would be no money going to EASA...

...but of course nobody really knows the truth. Happy to be corrected for anything I've said that's wrong.

[jez d]

The UK has little choice but to remain with EASA. The loss of voting rights is hardly helpful - I believe voting rights are proportional to the size of a country's industry, so Germany and France will rule the roost. That said, they already do to a large extent, with EASA's HQ in Cologne and a succession of French nationals running the Agency.

However, EASA has a dearth of expertise and the UK has been instrumental in sorting out a lot of the mess that the Agency has created, and I can't see them turning away our free expertise in future.

What is of greater concern is the bulk adoption of EU law into UK law. If the timing isn't right then it will mean that the UK will inherit a collection of current aviation laws that aren't fit for purpose, which EASA are currently looking to change at their usual glacial rate.

However, I believe that there are more differences filed with ICAO than there are standards, so plus ca change as we commence roll-out of a million Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMCs) to EASA diktats.

[horizon flyer]

It is not a requirement to be in the EU to be part of EASA not all members are, so it will make no difference.

[jez d]

It is not a requirement to be in the EU to be part of EASA not all members are, so it will make no difference.

The difference is that as an EU Signatory Member, rather than an EU Member State, the UK automatically loses its voting rights.

At face value, the forfeit of voting rights may not seem to be that much of an issue. After all, we're all after the best, the most practical and the safest aviation standards, aren't we?

If only that were the case...

General Aviation is one the most disparate industries on the planet. Why do we have so many 'alphabetti-spaghetti' GA associations? Because we have so many conflicting interests. And that's only at national level.

Extrapolate this out to conflicting interests between nations and the web becomes well and truly tangled.

The UK has a maritime climate, hence the high value of the IMC rating for British pilots. Southern European GA pilots meantime like to fly when the weather suits, which it does 360 out of 365 days of the year, so it was a low priority on their wish-list.

Airspace classification is another web-entangled battleground, but that's a topic for another thread.

As I mentioned before, the UK is unlikely to be left out in the cold when it comes to consultation on future EASA diktats, as we hold a level of expertise that few other EASA members can equal. But without voting rights the challenge becomes that much harder and that much more 'diplomatic'.

Thank goodness that we have the likes of Europe Air Sports on our side, as the UK CAA are going to have to get used to the begging bowl approach from now on.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Ryanair now busy working out the wording of the "you may not be able to use this ticket" warnings that they're soon going to have to issue with each ticket, they tell us.

[Katamarino]

There seems to be more than a 'sniff' of Project Fear in some of these comments.

It's all very well writing off reality as being "Project Fear", but doesn't change the facts. The recently published analysis of the possible impact on business aviation presented 6 scenarios; these analyses always choose a range across the whole "best to worst" spectrum.

In this case, all 6 were negative. They couldn't find a single potential positive impact.

Sticking fingers in ears and pretending everything will be rosy is fine, but not exactly useful.

[Capt Kremmen]

Project Fear presented a picture of 'negative possibilities'.

It is well for the professional doomsters to remember that the need to preserve trade including aviation trade is foremost. Making sure that current arrangements continue to work, is in the interests of all the parties, including those with a different political agenda.

[22/04]

The real issue I think is that to to remain in EASA we would be bound by decisions of the European Court- some in government seem not to want that including our esteemed PM

[abgd]

It is well for the professional doomsters to remember that the need to preserve trade including aviation trade is foremost.

What makes you think that?

[Capt Kremmen]

Mundane matters such as the continuance of the international carriage of goods and services, the preservation of aviation jobs and aviation related employment, the maintenance of reciprocal aviation agreements and treaties all wrapped up in a multi billion pound international aviation industry.

[David Roberts]

'Thank goodness that we have the likes of Europe Air Sports on our side, as the UK CAA are going to have to get used to the begging bowl approach from now on.

Yes, indeed. My continental colleagues agree largely with us 2 Brits on the EAS board and can be expected to take the same line in the future as in the past and now in continuing to fight for a more proportionate / minimum framework of rules and keeping EASA's feet to the fire on the GA (reform) project.

DGR (President, Europe Air Sports), about to retire from all this in 2 months and do more flying after 16 volunteer years !

[abgd]

Mundane matters such as the continuance of the international carriage of goods and services, the preservation of aviation jobs and aviation related employment, the maintenance of reciprocal aviation agreements and treaties all wrapped up in a multi billion pound international aviation industry.

If that were the case, why would the EU have different terms for trading with members and non-members? If you're part of the club then you have to play by the rules and contribute to the running costs. Making an exception would put the whole project at risk. Plus, for many EU members the blow will be softened by the relocation of British industries to countries remaining in the EU.

The EU can afford to lose us, but can't afford to let us become freeloaders.

[jez d]

David, sorry to hear that you are retiring in a couple of months. EAS has been lucky to have you at the helm and GA industry owes you and your association a large debt of gratitude in keeping EASA's 'feet to the fire'!

Best regards,

JD

[Martin_123]

It's a shame really.. UK has such well established training and maintenance organizations, I doubt they will manage to maintain their international customers after EASA departure..

[Jettiejock]

I propose that we adopt FAA rules. EASA is lot about protectionism rather than safety and FAA rules will be much cheaper and more sensible to operate under.

[Sam Rutherford]

I second your proposal - motion carried...

:)

[PDR1]

But you still need a CAA that has the resources and competence to act as the regulator, and on the "poluter pays" proinciple that probably means the annual license renewal fee would go up to around £100,000.

Alternatively we could all transfer licenses and registrations to the N-register. Those who currently do this will no doubt have a view on how "simple" and "cheap" this approach might be.

PDR

[W Smith]

Commenting on the Flyer article referred to above, Cliff Whittaker - former CAA Head of Licensing Policy - posted the following:

------------------------“HMG and CAA may decide to leave the EASA regulatory system, but the UK industry and the licensed pilots and engineers working here don’t have to if they don’t want to. Outside of the EASA system we will be a third country. Pilots and engineers living in 3rd countries can hold European (FCL or 66) licences – they just have to choose the member State they want to be regulated by – e.g. Ireland? There are plenty of ‘European’ aircraft maintenance companies (Part M, 145) in 3rd countries and plenty of training schools offering Part-FCL courses in such countries too. Their approvals are regulated by EASA directly from Cologne. If the UK leaves EASA, any UK company can transfer its approval to EASA and any pilot or engineer can keep their Europe wide privileges by having their licence re-issued by another State. Training schools that want to continue to offer Part-FCL courses would have to do this and so would their instructors and examiners – UK national approvals and instructor/examiner certificates are not valid for Part-FCL. Companies and personnel that want to be UK national can stay with the CAA. UK airlines are already taking steps to stay European by moving their principal places of business to mainland Europe – So expect Easyjet etc’s Part-145/M to transfer to EASA and their engineers to another Member State, along with the pilots. And does anyone seriously think that Rolls-Royce is going to leave the EASA system? The fact is that if the UK leaves EASA it will hand over all remaining regulatory oversight of big commercial aviation in the UK to EASA and other Member States. So much for taking back control! Having lost control of the commercial industry to Europe, the DfT and CAA may as well make things easy for UK registered aircraft by leaving in place the ANO provisions that make EASA certificates and licences valid for UK aircraft. They could then make UK national approvals, licences valid for all UK-registered aircraft, including those that were ‘EASA aircraft’. Then those building, owning, maintaining and flying aircraft in the UK could carry on pretty much as now. The only real effect would be that the role of CAA and DfT would be greatly diminished.
That is why the UK should remain in the EASA system, whatever else happens.” ----------------
He mentions RR. To them you can add the Airbus factories, BAES Civil at Prestwick, and all the systems, parts and materials companies that supply them, who will remain in the UK but retain European approvals overseen direct from Cologne. Commercial industry from airlines, design and manufacturing companies, systems and equipment manufacturers, maintenance organisations, and flying schools running CPL and Type Rating courses are going to stay with EASA whatever the government decides or the British people allegedly want. To do otherwise would be commercial suicide. The DfT/CAA have a stark choice - stay in EASA and continue to have a seat at the rulemaking/decision making table, or leave aand let EASA regulate our companies and the other member states license our pilots and engineers. Sure, the UK could reinstate a full national system of company approvals, and personnel licences, but who is going to buy them? A small group of anti-European aviators who are happy to give up Europe-wide privileges to make a point? Also, bear in mind that the CAA has to be paid for by those it regulates. With the income from commercial industry gone, the cost of any national system will fall entirely on the (private) flyers who use it.
There is also an article by Cliff Whittaker in the January Flight Training News that explains that all of this happned before when Turkey was excluded from Europe by the abolition of the JAA system - and consequently the consequences for the UK of putting itself outside EASA are known. It's worth a careful read through.

[Capt Kremmen]

I'm a little surprised by all those who seem to think that GB aviation won't prosper outside EASAland.


What do they think was happening to GB aviation before we joined the EEC/EU ?


More to the point; there are many more countries operating efficient and dynamic aviation industries outside EASA than there are within. The likes of Brazil, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Indonesia, China, India appear to be sufficiently well organised to run their aviation affairs quite successfully without the intervention of the restrictive EASA.

[PDR1]

What happened before? The CAA was much bigger, with a budget that was orders of magnitude greater, so that it could undertake the required roles. Even if someone was going to bung them the money (which no one has even slightly indicated that there might be a willingness or ability to do, spare £350m/wk notwithstanding) it would take a decade to rebuild the organisation with the technical expertise to to take on the job.

PDR

[airwave45]

What do they think was happening to GB aviation before we joined the EEC/EU ?




As a relative youngster, I believe it was going down the pan.

All those world famous British aircraft that were produced in the 50's, 60's and 70's that are still flying now. . . erm, anyone ?

[Capt Kremmen]

Hunter, Harrier, Buccaneer. Hawk, Vulcan, Canberra. To name a few. They seemed reasonably innovative and successful.


Won't mention Concord. Commercially the Yanks were more successful. We lost our lead in the aftermath of the Comet debacle.


"Going down the pan". You should have been at Farnboro' during the 50s and 60s.

[ZFT]

I'm a little surprised by all those who seem to think that GB aviation won't prosper outside EASAland.


What do they think was happening to GB aviation before we joined the EEC/EU ?


More to the point; there are many more countries operating efficient and dynamic aviation industries outside EASA than there are within. The likes of Brazil, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Indonesia, China, India appear to be sufficiently well organised to run their aviation affairs quite successfully without the intervention of the restrictive EASA.

I can only assume that you don't have recourse to interface with many of the NRAs on your list?

[Capt Kremmen]

Too obscure for me !

[PDR1]

"National Regulatory Authorities"

GTBoS

PDR

[Daysleeper]

Hunter, Harrier, Buccaneer. Hawk, Vulcan, Canberra. To name a few. They seemed reasonably innovative and successful.
"Going down the pan". You should have been at Farnboro' during the 50s and 60s.

Er you do know they are all military products and have little or nothing to to do with the civil oversight and regulatory system and you may not have noticed but the world has moved on by half a century.

[Bergerie1]

W Smith,

Thank you for a strong dose of realism!

[Capt Kremmen]

Er you do know they are all military products and have little or nothing to to do with the civil oversight and regulatory system and you may not have noticed but the world has moved on by half a century.



Err, I think that the reference was to 'world famous British aircraft' and made no distinction between military and commercial.


One of my points concerned the ability - or otherwise of, the GB aviation industry before the Blessed Heath motored us into EU serfdom !

[PDR1]

...but we were discussing the Brexit consequences on the CIVIL regulatory/administrative system for aviation, which is why people have found your post confusing.

PDR

[airwave45]

Err, I think that the reference was to 'world famous British aircraft' and made no distinction between military and commercial.


One of my points concerned the ability - or otherwise of, the GB aviation industry before the Blessed Heath motored us into EU serfdom !

I did say "Still flying" Things like Cubs, Champs, 172's, 182's things that have stood the test of time, that people still want.

UK military aviation _may_ have been ok back then, the civil stuff was rubbish.
So, before we went into the EU, we were dismal.
Once we are out of the EU, we'll all but vanish.

[Jonzarno]

the civil stuff was rubbish

I don’t think so: Trident, BAC 111, 146, VC 10 :ok:

[LowNSlow]

Jetstream, bulldog.................

[LowNSlow]

airwave45 there was a lot of political stuff going on then with the end of the Marshall Plan etc. In 1945 the USA was the richest country in the world (the only country to financially profit from WW2), they had the foresight to take aluminium skinned aircraft to the masses. We stuck with fabric covered steel tube. Bugger.!

There is still a market for Austers, I sold my last one to a gentleman in Belgium and it was a more versatile aircraft than the Piper L4H I had before it.

Try to buy an Auster today ...................

You can loop a Cub as an old guy I worked with told me (nobody told him he couldn't). I'm a Brit, I bought the ancient Auster aeroplane, checked the paper work, it's stressed to +4.5g -1.5g so +3g loops are easy.................

[The Old Fat One]

Quoting from the good old beeb, pre the PMs Chequers talking shop.

This is exactly why I find the aviation/brexit nexus very interesting...and soon to be informative...

....Think of aviation, for example. No-one in the industry, or really anyone in government you can find, thinks there is much wrong with being in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The upheaval of leaving probably isn't worth it - essentially, if it ain't broke, don't fix it...

My bold.

Whilst clearly there are those on here that would disagree with the bolded bit, sadly for them, they are not just in the minority, they are positively wandering in the wilderness. UK-Government-Wise, for anybody who is anybody (including the most hard-line brexiteers) aviation, is a settled matter. Nothing is going to change.

There's only one problem with that...and it's rather a large one. The EU, which has thus far "negotiated" like the structural bureaucrats they are, (note, I write that as a matter of fact, not intended to be in any way judgemental) may decide the UK's position does not fit with their "book of rules".

And therein lies the interest (squared) in the aviation meets brexit issue. As well as being the most immediate and direct brexit-related concern of many aviation enthusiasts on here (especially those whose mortgages depend on it!!) It's a bell-weather issue for the whole shooting match is it not?

What happens to aviation will happen first and in the full bright glare of global media.

Exciting, is it not?

[Capt Kremmen]

Taking punitive action sometimes results in shooting oneself in the foot.

[PDR1]

....Think of aviation, for example. No-one in the industry, or really anyone in government you can find, thinks there is much wrong with being in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The upheaval of leaving probably isn't worth it - essentially, if it ain't broke, don't fix it...


...and of course that is demonstrably untrue, because to remain "unchanged" in EASA (even as a non-voting member) we must accept the supremacy of the ECJ as the ultimate arbiter. The Brexit Elite have repeatedly said this is an absolute red line that will never be accepted.

So to say "nothing will change" is a blatent lie - pretty well par for the course for brexiters I'll agree, but that doesn't make it true.

PDR

[The Old Fat One]

PDR1

Just for clarity...that's pretty much exactly what I am saying in the second part of my post, so we agree 100%.

Albeit, personally, I've stepped away from the whole brexit vesus bremain thing, I find it all very pointless now.

I'm far more interested in outcomes as they oh so slowly reveal themselves...I guess you'd call it a survivors mentality. ;)

[m.Berger]

"We lost our advantage after the Comet debacle."
Fifty years after Kitty Hawk and nearly seventy years ago.
There has not been a financially successful British civilian light aircraft since WW2
(barring, possibly the Pup.) France and latterly Eastern Europe knock spots off us, EU or no EU.

[Jan Olieslagers]

There has not been a financially successful British civilian light aircraft since WW2Depending on your defintions of "succesfull" and "light aircraft", the BN2 Islander scores not too bad.

France and latterly Eastern Europe knock spots off us France has done even poorer, their only success the DR400.

As for the demise of UK aviation industry after WW2, that is much more due to giving in to Uncle Sam than to giving in to Europe. Things went wrong around 1960, when "Europe" was still nowhere. RAF had no single reason to buy C130's, for only one example, the UK industry had perfect alternatives available. All politics, really.

[PDR1]

(barring, possibly the Pup.)

The Pup was a financial disaster. It's all in (of all places) Tony Benn's memoirs. When he was Industry Minister he was one of the most pro-aviation ministers we've ever had (well he was serving wartime pilot) and he went down to see Beagle with a view to granting a request for a £2m government grant to invest in volume tooling for the Pup and Basset. While there he flew both and liked them, But his finance team had gone over the books, and reported that the Pups were being sold (from memory) for about £3k each, but they were costing over £20k each to build due to barely having a single plane curve in any metal part. And what was worse was that Beagle's senior management didn't seem to be aware of this...

PDR

[Genghis the Engineer]

"We lost our advantage after the Comet debacle."
Fifty years after Kitty Hawk and nearly seventy years ago.
There has not been a financially successful British civilian light aircraft since WW2
(barring, possibly the Pup.) France and latterly Eastern Europe knock spots off us, EU or no EU.

Apart from the very successful British microlight industry, which has often delved into the light aircraft work. E.g. - TLAC (http://www.g-tlac.com/) or CFM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_Shadow) . Nearly 400 Shadows is hardly trivial, nor is the several thousand aircaft built by P&M (https://www.pmaviation.co.uk/) and its two predecessor companies: . The Bulldog was built as military but is now widespread in civilian use and been highly successful in both. The Slingsby Firefly was both civilian and military and seems to have done fairly well. The AMF Chevvron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMF_Chevvron_2-32) could have done better but wasn't an outright disaster.

And, as has already been said, the Islander.

G

[TheOddOne]

Actually, the success story of the past 30 years has been European collaboration, especially with Airbus. 50% by value of the A380 is British-built, principally the wings and the engines.

Presumably, Airbus will be looking elsewhere for these items post-Brexit. This will be a massive loss to the UK economy.

The other major industry that will go is UK car-building, a major export earner.

These 2 losses combined will wipe £billions off the UK economy, thank you very much.

TOO

[Genghis the Engineer]

That's a lot of assumptions - not apparently shared by various companies still investing in UK manufacturing capability.

G

[Capt Kremmen]

TOO


To whom do you think that Airbus will turn when they, according to your estimation can't or won't source British engines and wings ?


The Americans ? Their arch commercial rivals ? Yes, that's likely ! The Chinese ? The Brazilians? All that jigging, re-tooling, specifications, drawings and there is the little matter of a communications language acceptable to all.


Forget the latest Blairite announcement. The EU enjoys a massive trade surplus with GB. They ain't going to give that up in a hurry !

[PDR1]

To whom do you think that Airbus will turn when they, according to your estimation can't or won't source British engines and wings ?


They'll probably bring the wings in-house, setting up a wing assembly facility using the space and staff liberated by the soon-to-be abandoned A380 product line.

Engines are a commodity item, and there's no particular disadvantage to using american ones if they are economically competitive.

PDR

[m.Berger]

Islanders are outside the scope of private flying and I was not sure about the Pup. Although the microlights have been successful, the Shadow, in particular coming across as a very good aeroplane, most have been flexwings for recreational use. France has had generations of homebuilts; Jodels, Pottiers, Gardans and M. Colomban's odd but clever betises, to name a few. Rallye, 3000 plus airframes and Robin's 2000 or so versus what? The ARV Super Two?

[The Old Fat One]

We will also want to explore with the EU, the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution.

I want to explain what I believe the benefits of this approach could be, both for us and the EU.

First, associate membership of these agencies is the only way to meet our objective of ensuring that these products only need to undergo one series of approvals, in one country.

Second, these agencies have a critical role in setting and enforcing relevant rules. And if we were able to negotiate associate membership we would be able to ensure that we could continue to provide our technical expertise.

Third, associate membership could permit UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the ECJ.

For example, in the case of Switzerland, associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency means that airworthiness certifications are granted by its own aviation authority, and disputes are resolved through its courts. Without its membership, Swiss airlines would need to gain their certifications through another member state or through the Agency, and any dispute would need to be resolved through the ECJ.

Teresa May, 2 March My Bold.

There is zero surprise here (or there shouldn't be!) This approach was settled from day 1, but nevertheless worth quoting as it is now official government brexit policy.

That's a long way from saying it's going to happen as we all know. There are two challenges to everything she said today:

Her rickety, ramshackle coalition (and I include in that a bunch of hacked off tory eurosceptic hardliners). They can bring her and her plan down, if they have the stones.

And of course the structural bureaucracy of the EU negotiating players.

All to play for I'd say.

Footnote

tweet from the CBI:

"Excellent news if UK can stay in key agencies like EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) - glad PM has focused on them."

And for me this is the real interest...lots of people zoning in on aviation. Why? Because when the rhetoric of brexit finally becomes the reality of brexit, it happens here first.

I'm hogging the thread...I'll lurk for a bit and hope somebody else brings something interesting.

[md 600 driver]

Reading a news article in a old flyer magazine which shows the fatal accident rate in EASA member states as somewhere between 3 and 4 per 100,000 hours while in the USA it sits at 1.03 which is roughly a quarter
If its nearly 4 times more safe using F A rules why doesn’t the CAA just cut and paste the F A rules and make that law
and we tell EASA where to go

[Johnm]

Reading a news article in a old flyer magazine which shows the fatal accident rate in EASA member states as somewhere between 3 and 4 per 100,000 hours while in the USA it sits at 1.03 which is roughly a quarter
If its nearly 4 times more safe using F A rules why doesn’t the CAA just cut and paste the F A rules and make that law
and we tell EASA where to go

it’s because the FAA made instrument rating more accessible, the U.K. ended up with a fudge called the IMCR because the CAA wouldn’t budge on the loony European IR requirements and other European States didn’t even get the IMCR. EASA are the ones who who have introduced the CBIR and are undertaking further simplification across the 32 member states. They are also moving to simplify acceptance of FAA STCs

[gasax]

Apart from the very successful British microlight industry, which has often delved into the light aircraft work. E.g. - TLAC (http://www.g-tlac.com/) or CFM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_Shadow) . Nearly 400 Shadows is hardly trivial, nor is the several thousand aircaft built by P&M (https://www.pmaviation.co.uk/) and its two predecessor companies: . The Bulldog was built as military but is now widespread in civilian use and been highly successful in both. The Slingsby Firefly was both civilian and military and seems to have done fairly well. The AMF Chevvron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMF_Chevvron_2-32) could have done better but wasn't an outright disaster.

And, as has already been said, the Islander.


The very successful British microlight sector only existed as a result of the protectionist Section S airworthiness arrangements, without that, the continent suppliers would have cleaned up. The Bulldog is a success in civil hands 'cos its cheap - they were sold off as little more than scrap, as a commercial product it failed completely - which strangely is why its manufacturer no longer exists in any recognisable form. I seem to remember that the Islander was actually built in Romanian most of the time?

Ask Angus about the Chevvron and you'll get nothing more than expletives regarding the people who buy light aircraft. As ever a nice design with real promise, no real ability to produce it in numbers and no real thought to do so. (and yes I own one and it is lovely but......)

If Airbus see a real opportunity to relocate production to France it will happen. The only reason production exists in the UK is due to the technology behind the wing design - offer the chaps and chapess's relocation to Toulouse or Paris and forget BAe and wing fabrication - there is plenty of fabrication spare space in France.

If you want to find a genuine aviation success story - most of them lie in the parts, components and rather less glamorous areas frequented by Dowty and the like - and the withdrawal of EASA certification will hit them very hard unless some stupid politicians stop playing politics and actually do some thinking.

[Steve6443]

Actually, the success story of the past 30 years has been European collaboration, especially with Airbus. 50% by value of the A380 is British-built, principally the wings and the engines.

Presumably, Airbus will be looking elsewhere for these items post-Brexit. This will be a massive loss to the UK economy.

The other major industry that will go is UK car-building, a major export earner.

These 2 losses combined will wipe £billions off the UK economy, thank you very much.

TOO

I will agree with you with regards Airbus moving jobs abroad, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened, after all, the government no longer holds shares. However I'm not sure that the motor industry will move abroad, the lesson learnt by Audi when they moved the TT production to Gjör in Hungary is a subject lesson which many understand.

For those unaware, the workers at Audi Ingolstadt were earning sufficient such that they could afford to buy a TT. However when the production was moved to Gjör, the registrations shrank rapidly as the workers building the cars were no longer able to afford them. What I am saying is that UK is the world's 5th biggest economy. If the british economy suffers, then so too will Germany, so will France and Italy. After all, if millions of jobs vanish in UK, who will be able to afford German cars, french wine and italian - well, whatever they sell......??? The impact will hit Europe significantly because 20% of the German motoring exports come to the UK. If we are bankrupt, well, what will happen to Mercedes, BMW and co? Or do you believe that Turkey and Albania, for example, will take the share of German cars which Great Britain used to purchase?

[Jan Olieslagers]

"The very successful British microlight sector" does seem to be a thing of the past to me - I cannot remember any Brits design on the continent since the CFM Shadow. OTOH lots of C42's and Eurofoxen in the Isles.

On a sidenote, not directly related: Brussels is full of UK expats working as free-lance IT'ers, there must be a few thousands according to some. I see these people massively giving up UK nationality, most changing to the BE register but some to France and other continental countries. More losses for the Royal Treasury!

As for Islanders being manufactured in Romania: yes, but so were BAC 111's, and I even know of a Hungarian microlight builder who outsources production to Romania for even lower cost. And C42's are being produced in Ukraine. Race to the bottom, anyone?

[robin]

Ask Angus about the Chevvron and you'll get nothing more than expletives regarding the people who buy light aircraft. As ever a nice design with real promise, no real ability to produce it in numbers and no real thought to do so. (and yes I own one and it is lovely but......)


The Chevron - ugghh!

A nasty antisocial design that clutters up the circuit and should be put on a Guy Fawkes bonfire rather that let it commit aviation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

P&M Aviation still seem to be building and exporting flexwings, TLAC are doing okay, with British designs, into the British market at least - and Just Aircraft in the USA are doing reasonably well with variants.

But yes, the UK light aircraft design and build sector is tiny compared to what it once was. Personally I think that this has little to do with Brexit and/or EU membership, and everything to do with skills and aspirations. We stopped educating and training the sort of people who do that sort of innovation - the ambition became to have a safe job with a good pension in a big corporation.

Possibly the lack of big aerospace companies in, for example, the Czech Republic or the Ukraine, has been the main reason for their success in light GA manufacturing?

If we go to Germany, I would say that their success is in large part down to the Akafliegs, which have provided visibility and training in that direction, that has died out in the UK. So a small but healthy proportion of young engineers there have taken their careers in that direction. They illustrate that you can have both, but only if you have the right cultural structures. Britain gets the "big corporate" / "heavy metal" side pretty well, but not the small company / innovation / new product side that the Germans and Czechs do much better.

But I really don't think that this has anything to do with the EU.

G

[Jan Olieslagers]

that clutters up the circuit which circuit? I hope you are not talking about an aerodrome with one and only one circuit for gliders, SEP's, microlights, and airships? If so, the aerodrome is more to blame than the aeroplane designer.

[surely not]

I'm bemused by the comments on here re a successful UK GA manufacturing industry before we entered the EEC/EU. Dementia with rose coloured glasses seems to be prevalent!!

Beagle went bust with the Pup, their Airedale product was overweight and didn't sell, the 206 was very pretty but poorly built.
Britten Norman tried with the Nymph to challenge the 152/172 market .................. and failed
Lockspeiser LDA-1 was an interesting concept that nobody wanted
Cranfield A-1 could have been the Extra but it wasn't good enough
CMC Leopard personal jet........... never got past development stages
Trago Mills had the little SAH-1, but it didn't do anything.
ARV 2 showed promise then disappeared.

At the heavier end the BAe 125 was given away as there was no will power to develop a new version. Dassault had no problem and has the very successful Falcon range as a result.

The French have developed the TBM range in addition to the Robin range
The Swiss are coming on strong now with the PC-12 and PC-24
The semi successful Slingsby T-67 was originally a French design that Slingsby then stepped in and bought.

Where, apart from the excellent P&M designs, does the UK have any production facilities, design capability, willing investors?

[Jan Olieslagers]

... and add the Edgley Optica to the list of nice ideas that somehow didn't work out...
What does the P&M stand for?

[TheOddOne]

P&M Aviation was formed in 2003 combining the best of Mainair Sports and Pegasus Aviation

...from their website.

TOO

[Jan Olieslagers]

...from their website. ... whose coordinates remain carefully hidden ...

[patowalker]

https://www.pmaviation.co.uk

[Genghis the Engineer]

If we're pointing out people building UK designed aeroplanes in the UK, also...

Kit Aircraft | Aeroplane Servicing | Online Homebuild Parts Shop | TLAC | Norfolk UK (http://www.g-tlac.com/)

G

[Johnm]

If we're pointing out people building UK designed aeroplanes in the UK, also...

Kit Aircraft Aeroplane Servicing Online Homebuild Parts Shop TLAC Norfolk UK (http://www.g-tlac.com/)

G
typical of the modern U.K. to be celebrating the amateur in a shed when everybody else is building factories :-)

[Genghis the Engineer]

"Amateur in a shed" ?

G

[Johnm]

"Amateur in a shed" ?

G

homebuilders and their supply chains

[BoeingBoy]

Well to return to the subject of Brexit and EASA someone seems to have decided we need a negotiator to deal with it. This from another forums page:

Head of Airspace Strategy/Head of Aviation EU Exit Negotiations (https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1586968)

[Phororhacos]

Prior knowledge of airspace and the aviation sector is an advantage but not necessary.

Says it all really :-(

[Sam Rutherford]

I've just started my application process...

[abgd]

Maybe some enterprising person should buy the rights for the E-Go and move production to Broughton. Lots of cheap but highly skilled labour likely to be available soon. :(

[Jan Olieslagers]

A good idea, @abgd, but for some uncouth reason enterprising people seem to become rare in the UK - a surprising number of them popping up in Brussels and especially in its outskirts - a surprising part of them filing requests for citizenship in BE or other continental countries.

[Steve6443]

A good idea, @abgd, but for some uncouth reason enterprising people seem to become rare in the UK - a surprising number of them popping up in Brussels and especially in its outskirts - a surprising part of them filing requests for citizenship in BE or other continental countries.

Jan: you're mixing up "hangers-on of a certain gravy train" with enterprising people. The former are rarely the latter and the latter have no need or desire to be anywhere near the former.....

[Jan Olieslagers]

Point taken, @Steve, you might indeed well have a point. Difference between short-term view of opportunities vs. long term view of stable business, if I understand you all right? Only I am afraid today's world offers little promise of long-term stability, so day-to-day pragmatism seems to be the way to go. Sad, yes.

[Genghis the Engineer]

homebuilders and their supply chains



That is neither P&M nor, in large part, TLAC. Both are national authority approved manufacturers; the former has been in business in various guises for over a quarter century, the latter around a decade.

Of course, the most successful light aircraft manufacturing operation in the world at the moment is arguably Vans, who are almost exclusively supplying homebuilders. So, I wouldn't disparage that model either.

G

[abgd]

for some uncouth reason enterprising people seem to become rare in the UK
My neighbour has just announced a new job on the continent. His existing job in academia became insecure as a result of a drop in student numbers following the referendum so he's resigning before he is pushed. He will take his family including my son's best friend with him.
Kudos, it can't be easy to move to a lower paying job in a new country when you're 50.

[a.alexeev.p]

that is all so very sad and uncertainty is the worst :(

[Sam Rutherford]

So, I applied for this:

Head of Airspace Strategy/Head of Aviation EU Exit Negotiations (https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1586968)

I didn't get the job - didn't even get to interview. :)

Anyone know who was chosen and what they're planning to do between now and the Christmas holidays (which in work efficiency terms, the holidays start on about the 1st December), and then from about 7 January until the end of March?

I would imagine the next four weeks will be creating their team, and then what's left of January is finalising strategy.

So, that leaves February (unfortunately only 28 days as not a leap year) to, erm, negotiate.

Then, most of March to implement whatever has been, erm, negotiated...

[TelsBoy]

Hard lines Sam. Better luck next time...

I'd imagine it'll be some professional Civil Servant/Politico who knew the right folk. Probably no aviation background, or maybe the most tenuous of links.

All a total shambles.

[Sam Rutherford]

I wasn't interested in the job, but was interested in the process (and background story).

All gone very quiet, I don't know who they chose (if anyone), and/or what they're going to do.

In this timeframe, it's going to have to be a "we'll change nothing now, but implement future changes during the transition period'.

I think we're going to hear 'transition period' a lot over the next few months!

[PDR1]

I think we'll need to progressively migrate towards the transition phase (going forward).

PDR

[Sam Rutherford]

And then, another question (to which I don't think anyone has an answer).

Currently, an N reg arriving in the EU needs to pay EU VAT. This is a generalisation, but you get my drift.

Will this apply to G reg 'arriving in the EU' after March 29th? How many G reg owners still have the original purchase invoice, with VAT marked as paid?

Can opened, discuss...

[150commuter]

ISTR that being the case even when we were in the EEC but before it had become the EU. There were several cases of French customs (possibly others but France is where most G aircraft going abroad went) asking for the documentation and if it wasn't forthcoming demanding the VAT. I think these were mostly sorted out but there was a lot of bureaucracy involved. I know with more certainty about what happened with UK film and TV crews going abroad. Until about the early 1990s, so before the single market kicked in, they had to have carnets with absolutely every piece of equipment listed and these were quite often checked by French customs. If they'd actually lost something like a film magazine they'd not only have to replace it but would probably have to pay the VAT on it as well on the grounds that they might have sold it there. The main problem was that they were often held up for ages at the ports while all their equipment was checked against the carnet.

[Sam Rutherford]

We're dealing with film equipment carnets constantly around the world, and yes, they're a pain. Checking of the serial numbers down to individual batteries - can, and often does, take hours! Not just at each border, but the preparation/organisation in advance ensuring that the carnet information is correct (cross-checked with the gear that is going). That's before something is added (or also removed) just before departure!

The idea that this will carry across to UK European shoots is a horror I hadn't previously considered.

I'll add it to the list of unexpected/unintended consequences.

[PDR1]

We're dealing with film equipment carnets constantly around the world, and yes, they're a pain. Checking of the serial numbers down to individual batteries - can, and often does, take hours! Not just at each border, but the preparation/organisation in advance ensuring that the carnet information is correct (cross-checked with the gear that is going). That's before something is added (or also removed) just before departure!

The idea that this will carry across to UK European shoots is a horror I hadn't previously considered.

I'll add it to the list of unexpected/unintended consequences.

Don't forget this would also apply to your phone/laptop/tablet/smart-watch and indeed everything else that you have with you that is VAT-able in the EU.

In the EU tampons are VAT-able...

PDR

[Sam Rutherford]

It's going to be a long list...

Or it'll be business as usual, #Fudgit

[Mike Flynn]

It's going to be a long list...

Or it'll be business as usual, #Fudgitr


Of course it will be Sam.

How will the UK/EU cope with those of us with dual Irish and British nationality and passports.

We have a foot in both camps 👍

[Deltasierra010]

If the UK does leave the EU customs union cross border movement is going to be a pain in the ar**, visas, car documents, aircraft documents, import duty, VAT and delays. Changing to a new regulatory system for airworthiness is going to mean a lot of time and cost - again, we have got used to a free and easy travel and shipping, forget all that

[soay]

The indignity and inconvenience for travelling that we have to suffer as a result of terrorism is bad enough, but now Brexiters want to compound it, regardless of cost. It's a boondoggle!

[Sam Rutherford]

Found the guy who got the job!

https://www.linkedin.com/in/joe-delafield-85507b7b/

[TelsBoy]

What did I say? Professional Civil Servant with no aviation experience whatsoever. And we wonder why things are such a shambles in this country.

[Ebbie 2003]

I have never been too impressed with job hoppers.

It usually takes six months to hire someone, have them underperform and then get rid of them.

Not saying that is the case with Mr. Delafield.

Seems rather young too - does he even speak "aviation" at, 27/28, with what seems to be no experience of it I wonder.

My assumption here is that he will be heading a group of technical experts and his job will be to do the diplomatic thing and write reports; not matter who got the job we would all no doubt have concerns and likely the process and the outcome will please no one in the short to medium term.