Effect of Brexit on UK certificates etc.

[ETOPS]

Recently the head of the CAA stated that they had done no work in preparing for the UK being ejected from EASA and the effect that would have on licences et. He said it was not a credible scenario.

This must have come as a surprise..

https://www.easa.europa.eu/brexit-negotiations

Certificates issued before the withdrawal date by the competent authorities of the United Kingdom on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Regulation and its implementing rules will no longer be valid as of the withdrawal date in the EU. This concerns in particular:
 Certificates of airworthiness, restricted certificates of airworthiness, permits to fly, approvals of organisations responsible for the maintenance of products, parts and appliances, approvals for organisations responsible for the manufacture of products, parts and appliances, approvals for maintenance training organisations, and certificates for personnel responsible for the release of a product, part or appliance after maintenance, issued pursuant to Article 5 of the Basic Regulation;
 Pilot licences, pilot medical certificates, certificates for pilot training organisations, certificates for aero-medical centres, certificates for flight simulation training devices, certificates for persons responsible for providing flight training, flight simulation training or assessing pilots' skill, and certificates for aero medical examiners, issued pursuant to Article 7 of the Basic Regulation;
 Certificates for air operators and attestations for the cabin crew, issued pursuant to Article 8 of the Basic Regulation;
 Certificates for aerodromes, certificates for ATM/ANS providers, licences and medical certificates for air traffic controllers, certificates for air traffic controller training organisations, certificates for aero medical centres and aero medical examiners responsible for air traffic controllers, certificates for persons
etc

[Gertrude the Wombat]

This must have come as a surprise..
Only to people who voted "leave" with their eyes shut, their fingers in their ears, whilst singing "la la la" at the tops of their voices. And even they are simply getting what they voted for.

It's not very often, let's be fair, that anyone does actually get what they vote for, but it does happen sometimes, so the clever trick, when voting, is to be prepared that the outcome might just be that you are actually successful.

[Capt Kremmen]

It becomes difficult only if you wish to make it so. It's primarily a paper exercise, simply change the name at the top of the relevant document. EASA becomes CAA which so far as GA is concerned it should always have been.

[rudestuff]

It’s up to the CAA whether a licence is valid or not. They issue the licenses. EASA can choose not to recognize it as an EASA licence, but last I checked the UK is still a member of the ICAO. Not that it matters, you don’t have to be in the EU to be in EASA.

[SWBKCB]

Not that it matters, you don’t have to be in the EU to be in EASA.

No, but on leaving the EU we would need to re-negotiate our membership. Just another thing on the "to do" list.

[highcirrus]

Not that it matters, you don’t have to be in the EU to be in EASA.

Currently the EU28 States are full voting EASA members. Also EFTA/EEA States, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein plus independent State, Switzerland are non-voting EASA members.

Unless UK remains in the EEA by rejoining EFTA after 29 March 2019 and transferring its EU EEA membership to EFTA EEA membership and then becoming a non-voting EASA member, UK will become a "Third Country" and, hence, not an EASA member.

The EASA map (https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country) shows current member States (use EASA member State filter).

[22/04]

I don't think most who voted for BREXIT voted for being in EASA without voting rights. They were prepared to take short term chaos for long-term a return of decision making to the UK. An independent CAA.

Those who voted for remain voted for the status quo.

Are we heading for something almost no one wanted?

[highcirrus]

22/04I don't think most who voted for BREXIT voted for being in EASA without voting rights

I'm not sure that I remember any reference to EASA on the referendum ballot paper in 2016.

I'd be very interested if you could refer me to survey evidence which confirms a significant volume of the people you allude to who: were prepared to take short term chaos for long-term a return of decision making to the UK. An independent CAA.

In terms of chaos (short term or otherwise), the EU Notice to Stakeholders (https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf) Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU Aviation Safety Rules would seem to indicate that if we do not retain EASA membership in some form or other, then chaos will indeed prevail.

Further, in terms of an independent CAA, in September last year, CAA chief executive Andrew Haines was "uncompromising" in rejecting the idea of planning for a new independent aviation safety system (and thereby seeking mutual recognition with the EU). The CAA had, he said, "consciously decided not to do that work as it would be misleading to suggest that's a viable option". Details here (http://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/News/Speeches_files/UKTiE%20-%20Andrew%20Haines.pdf).

Are we heading for something almost no one wanted?

Probably we are. If we leave the EU we lose voting membership of EASA. If we leave EFTA/EEA we lose non-voting EASA membership. If we become a "Third Country" we can probably cobble together something like the EASA/Turkish arrangement whereby Turkey is a high fee, non-voting supplicant who's DGCA is permanently in thrall to EASA. Given that it will take years to resurrect a half way efficient UK CAA to act as an independent aviation safety system in the event of leaving EASA, we'll be in Armaggedon territory fairly quickly thereafter, descending from membership of world aerospace leadership with hugely significant collective national experience, skill, innovation, manufacturing capability and technical excellence to a dark world of UK job losses, skill migration, airline closure and manufacturing collapse.

Do we all want this?

[22/04]

Probably we are. If we leave the EU we lose voting membership of EASA. If we leave EFTA/EEA we lose non-voting EASA membership. If we become a "Third Country" we can probably cobble together something like the EASA/Turkish arrangement whereby Turkey is a high fee, non-voting supplicant who's DGCA is permanently in thrall to EASA. Given that it will take years to resurrect a half way efficient UK CAA to act as an independent aviation safety system in the event of leaving EASA, we'll be in Armaggedon territory fairly quickly thereafter, descending from membership of world aerospace leadership with hugely significant collective national experience, skill, innovation, manufacturing capability and technical excellence to a dark world of UK job losses, skill migration, airline closure and manufacturing collapse.

This looks like the frightening talk which did not persuade remain result in the Referendum. I cannot see Mr Rees Mogg sitting back while we become a "vassal state" though.

[22/04]

Oh andI'm not sure that I remember any reference to EASA on the referendum ballot paper in 2016.

Not specifically, but in general we were told it would mean "taking back control"

[highcirrus]

22/04

This looks like the frightening talk which did not persuade remain result in the Referendum. I cannot see Mr Rees Mogg sitting back while we become a "vassal state" though.

May I trouble you for a reference to Mr Rees-Mogg's plan, following departure from EASA, to keep Airbus Broughton wing manufacture rolling, Rolls Royce Derby churning out Trents etc and a myriad supporting, sub-contracting manufacturers in business?

Similarly, I've probably missed his commentary on the EU Notice to Stakeholders. Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU Aviation Safety Rules, previously referred to and in particular his plan to counter the devastating effects of: Certificates issued before the withdrawal date by the competent authorities of the United Kingdom on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Regulation and its implementing rules will no longer be valid as of the withdrawal date in the EU. and thus keep flight crews, engineers, air traffic personnel, cabin crew, training departments etc, etc in business, earning to support families and providing significant contribution to the UK tax base. You see, whenever I look, I can't find any details of putative plans for a Rees-Mogg handling of this upcoming catastrophe.

[22/04]

The EU have to take that stance as that is what will happen if there is not a satisfactory outcome of the negotiations.

I think we rather hope that there will be a probably sector specific trade deal that will permit membership and voting rights for a fee, with an extended transition period to enable it.

Incidentally I didn't support the position we are now in 2015, but we are supposed to be healing our wounds and coming together to make it work.

[POBJOY]

The largest problem facing GA in the UK has nothing to do with leaving the EU.
We need to look closer to home and see what is happening to the actual 'facilities' that are either being reduced or becoming too expensive, or to complicated to use.
Most of the 'Airfield Issues' that are now upon us are regulations imposed from the airfield owners and nothing to do with the EU.
When places like Biggin Hill are actively making it difficult to operate a club, and also require 'schedule like' permission just to go flying then that is where the worry is.
There is also going to be a decided lack of licenced engineering availability as there are precious few new comers (that will take licences) in the system to replace the current people that actually 'sign off' the GA fleet.
Luckily we still have the LAA in place to assist the enthusiast, however they do not operate airfields so can not help on that front.
We have 'lost' a number of what used to be 'usable' GA facilities and very few if any new ones will be forthcoming. Much of this is due to 'developers' getting control and then 'squeezing' the users, and of course GA is not a 'Vote Getter' for any political party.

[highcirrus]

POBJOY

The largest problem facing GA in the UK has nothing to do with leaving the EU.

All the problems detailed above will impact UK GA as much as they will the Aerospace/Air Transport sectors following UK becoming a "Third Country" after 29 March 2019. Think EASA Part-FCL licensing, engineering licensing, airworthiness, air traffic control licensing etc, etc.

I do, however, agree with the main body of your post.

[highcirrus]

22/04

I think we rather hope that there will be a probably sector specific trade deal that will permit membership and voting rights for a fee

A recent report (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43719924) by the CBI employers' group called Smooth Operations, "suggests the UK could still exert influence over important regulatory decisions through continued membership of the many EU agencies - such as the ones governing aerospace and chemicals - in which other non-EU nations like Turkey currently participate."

The CBI is wrong in its statement in that it maintains that Turkey is a member of the EU Agency, EASA. A look at the EASA website (https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country) will confirm that this is in error and that Turkey is not an EASA member. The CBI is further in error by suggesting that Turkey could, through a sector specific trade deal "exert influence over important regulatory decisions" and that UK could exert similar, following Brexit.

The reality is contained here (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/WA%20SAFA%20Turkey.pdf) detailing a limited relationships known as Working Arrangements. One covers the collection and exchange of information on the safety of aircraft and another deals with the relationships between EASA and the Turkish Directorate General of Civil Aviation.

To quote Dr. Richard North at his website (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86828):This latter arrangement is as formal as it gets between the two organisations, which amounts to EASA notifying the Turks of changes to relevant standards and assisting them in understanding the applicable rules, "so as to facilitate their transposition and implementation.

In return for this largesse, the Turks "accept" that EASA will carry out standardisation visits and will rate the facilities inspected as "fully compliant" or in various degrees, "not compliant", whence the Directorate of Civil Aviation undertakes to act on the reports "in order to redress the identified findings". And, for such "services", the Civil Aviation Authority will be invoiced by EASA.

It is this arrangement or something very similar that UK can expect if it becomes a "Third Country".

Again, something we all want?

[highcirrus]

Capt Kremmen

Broughton wing manufacture (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/brexit-exposes-u-k-to-worldwide-raid-on-airbus-wing-production) to France, Germany or Spain.

Derby Trents - bonanza time for GE and Pratt.

Good luck on the "paper exercise for a largely seamless transition". I wish I could share your optimism.

What could derail the situation, I fear, is complete UK government lack of understanding of the EU and its workings.

[VictorGolf]

How about buying a large tub of Tippex (other brands are available) and altering FAA documents to CAA? That should do it.

[Katamarino]

It's primarily a paper exercise, simply change the name at the top of the relevant document. EASA becomes CAA which so far as GA is concerned it should always have been.

I'm guessing it will be a paperwork exercise where we have to send in our certificate, not being able to fly while it's away, as well as making a three figure payment to the good old boys at the CAA. Can't see them missing an opportunity to extort more cash from us.

[Katamarino]

How about buying a large tub of Tippex (other brands are available) and altering FAA documents to CAA? That should do it.

That would require common sense and a desire to be helpful to aviation, not something I've ever seen from our regulator...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I don't think most who voted for BREXIT voted for being in EASA without voting rights. They were prepared to take short term chaos for long-term a return of decision making to the UK. An independent CAA.
Disputes about the application of EASA rules are (or would be, if there ever were any) decided by which court? And refusing to be bound by which court is one of our red lines? QED.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

That would require common sense and a desire to be helpful ..., not something I've ever seen from ...
... a #brexiter.

[22/04]

Disputes about the application of EASA rules are (or would be, if there ever were any) decided by which court? And refusing to be bound by which court is one of our red lines? QED.

I thought there was a move towards allow the ECJ to have some role post BREXIT now. Taking account of its views or something.

[Steve6443]

Gertrude: Life existed before EASA. I recall my licence had JAR-FCL written on it. I didn't see any change when it was switched to EASA when it was renewed at the 5 year point. So what changes can I expect if it was returned to a JAR FCL licence, after all, these are internationally recognised standards.....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Gertrude: Life existed before EASA.
Sure, and we can return to those days easily enough, given enough money and time, and it's the latter that's the problem (money isn't a problem, because the costs can be recovered from the pilots). How is the CAA getting on with the necessary recruiting and training? About as well as the customs people are with the planning permission for the Kent lorry parks?

The only #brexit practicality that the government appears to be anywhere near ready for (subject to only the piss-take court case, which the government should win) is the BLUE PASSPORTS. But as that's obviously the most importing thing it has to sort out, it was quite right to do that first.

[BackPacker]

Gertrude: Life existed before EASA. I recall my licence had JAR-FCL written on it. I didn't see any change when it was switched to EASA when it was renewed at the 5 year point. So what changes can I expect if it was returned to a JAR FCL licence, after all, these are internationally recognised standards.....

Except for the tiny detail that the JAA no longer exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Aviation_Authorities

If the UK wants to "go back" to something, it would need to be the pre-JAR-FCL days. That's the 1980s.

[TheOddOne]

There's an old saying:

For things to stay the same, EVERYTHING must change!

TOO

[Bob Upanddown]

My "member or the EU" red passport is due to be renewed in 2020. So am I going to be banned from travel after March because my passport isn't Blue with "Free United Kingdom" on the front?? I don't think so.

I look at this document as telling UK to get ready for the change. If Andrew Haines is TOO STUPID to make any plan other than say the CAA will remain part of EASA, then he better move the Belgrano and it's staff to Belgium and try to regulate us from there because the UK will be out.

(I didn't vote for it!!)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

My "member or the EU" red passport is due to be renewed in 2020. So am I going to be banned from travel after March because my passport isn't Blue with "Free United Kingdom" on the front?? I don't think so.
What will change is that you will no longer have the RIGHT to travel to 27 countries. You can probably still go there, depending on what you want to do, but it will be with the PERMISSION and at the WHIM of a bunch of foreigners, instead of as of RIGHT. This, apparently, is what's called "taking back control".

[Capt Kremmen]

Excellent ! So it is back to how it was before the EU first drew breath ! And visiting the rest of the world, how will that work ?


I think that I can guess that it will be the same as it was before.

[Bob Upanddown]

What will change is that you will no longer have the RIGHT to travel to 27 countries. You can probably still go there, depending on what you want to do, but it will be with the PERMISSION and at the WHIM of a bunch of foreigners, instead of as of RIGHT. This, apparently, is what's called "taking back control".

Exactly. It might be a complete PITA to go to L2K for Lunch, who knows (not me, as all my flying has been whilst the UK has been in the EU)? Maybe we will need a Visa to go to France in a GA aircraft (like the US).
It is unlikely that, if I can get to France in a light aircraft in April 2019, I will be arrested for flying on a UK issued EASA licence issued when the UK was part of the EU and EASA.

Clearly aviation will change as we won't be in the EU. If nothing is agreed, it will be a large change and the EU are pointing that out but if CAA don't respond to this EU statement soon then the whole organisation will be seriously unfit for purpose come next April. They can't have their heads in the sand expecting nothing will change because we will still be in EASA because we might not.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Clearly aviation will change as we won't be in the EU. If nothing is agreed, it will be a large change and the EU are pointing that out but if CAA don't respond to this EU statement soon then the whole organisation will be seriously unfit for purpose come next April. They can't have their heads in the sand expecting nothing will change because we will still be in EASA because we might not.
If there are going to be big changes the CAA must already be most of the way through the recruiting and training and planning and IT systems projects, or they''ll be too late. More likely is that they haven't been allocated a budget for any of that, and they're telling their bosses daily "if you don't tell us what you want us to do, and don't give us the money to do it, then we won't be able to do it, and it's already too late". Replicated, no doubt, across most of the public sector.

[TelsBoy]

Ignoring the overtly political garbage on both sides of the argument which is derailing the thread off-track, nobody really knows what's going on, and that includes the regulator.


I am not losing any sleep over it. We will still ahve licenses and approved aircraft to fly. I couldn't care less about the process used as that'll be for the politicians and mandarins to sort out.

[A and C]

The problem is the UK wanting out of the Euopean court of justice in all areas, unfortunately all member EASA member states have the ECJ as the ultimate authority over the EASA activities.

It is difficult to see how the UK can be in EASA and not under the ECJ for aviation matters.

The question is does the UK stay under the ECJ for aviation or get out from under the EU completely ? If so would it not be better to throw in our lot with the FAA and join the worlds biggest aviation system ?

[TheOddOne]

If so would it not be better to throw in our lot with the FAA and join the worlds biggest aviation system ?

Why on earth would they have us? Can't see it, myself. The 'special relationship', if it ever existed, is long dead and buried.

TOO

[aox]

22/04



May I trouble you for a reference to Mr Rees-Mogg's plan, following departure from EASA, to keep Airbus Broughton wing manufacture rolling, Rolls Royce Derby churning out Trents etc and a myriad supporting, sub-contracting manufacturers in business?

Similarly, I've probably missed his commentary on the EU Notice to Stakeholders. Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU Aviation Safety Rules, previously referred to and in particular his plan to counter the devastating effects of: and thus keep flight crews, engineers, air traffic personnel, cabin crew, training departments etc, etc in business, earning to support families and providing significant contribution to the UK tax base. You see, whenever I look, I can't find any details of putative plans for a Rees-Mogg handling of this upcoming catastrophe.

You're talking about a man who looks forward to deregulation of employment and environmental matters, making it easier to sack people, entertaining ambitions for us to make do with similar environmental standards as India (he seems to not to have made any comments about the recent tide of plastic taking over TV coverage).

Would he dare to stand up and say deregulate aviation?

Actually I doubt he has an opinion.

A Google search for Jacob Rees-Mogg EASA produces results with the easa crossed out, and a search for his name with the word aviation has odd results. The second has him talking about cutting stamp duty, while the seventh says he has never been to IKEA and doesn't intend to start, and in the eighth he wants to reduce NHS spending.

Don't forget that we didn't have much aviation in the 18th century, which is where the third result says he is from.

[Steve6443]

22/04



May I trouble you for a reference to Mr Rees-Mogg's plan, following departure from EASA, to keep Airbus Broughton wing manufacture rolling, Rolls Royce Derby churning out Trents etc and a myriad supporting, sub-contracting manufacturers in business?

Similarly, I've probably missed his commentary on the EU Notice to Stakeholders. Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU Aviation Safety Rules, previously referred to and in particular his plan to counter the devastating effects of: and thus keep flight crews, engineers, air traffic personnel, cabin crew, training departments etc, etc in business, earning to support families and providing significant contribution to the UK tax base. You see, whenever I look, I can't find any details of putative plans for a Rees-Mogg handling of this upcoming catastrophe.

I'm struggling to see what Mr Rees-Mogg - or any other non minister, whether Brexiteer or Remainer - has to do with our future relationship with EASA? Nor about Airbus wing production in Broughton?

Getting back to reality, I'm surprised that wing production is still ongoing in UK at all since the British government has no shares in EADS and, irrespective of our position within the EU, it wouldn't surprise me that Airbus would - sooner rather than later - transfer the jobs to a lower wage economy. Perhaps because Britain would then have no incentive to purchase the A400M?

Going further with Rolls-Royce - yes, tariffs on engines could be damaging to them, especially as Sefran would be exempt from such tariffs but what percentage of their overall business are we talking about here? Customers can choose which engines they want and if Rolls-Royce continue to develop new, more capable engines, why wouldn't customers across the globe continue to specify them? Certification would just be another cost, a cost which they still have to pay today.

On a personal nature, I'm extremely relaxed about what happens after Brexit (I am assuming it will happen because if it doesn't, we would have demonstrated ourselves to be akin to an abused partner - wanting to stop the abuse, but not strong enough to consider life away from said abusive partner - in which case, the EU will know they can impose rules and restrictions on UK without hindrance.) because life will go on, trade will go on.

[Capt Kremmen]

Steve6443


Sound appraisal.

[highcirrus]

For those readers who would like to get an accurate picture of current Brexit state of play in relation to the UK Aerospace Industry, I'd recommend a browse through Dr Richard North's latest piece at his blog EUReferendum.com (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86849#disqus_thread) . Dr North references the European Commission Notice to Stakeholders (https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf), dated 13 April 2018.

This (Notice to Stakeholders) sets out in four pages just how totally dependent our aviation industry is for everything it does on authorisations granted by EASA, applying to every tiniest detail of how we make aircraft, to the running of our airports, to air traffic control, to the airworthiness of aircraft, to the certification and licensing of pilots, cabin crews, engineers, medical staff and trainers; in short, to every last item of what allows our aviation sector to function.

But as the document repeatedly makes clear, the moment the UK leaves the EU to become what it classifies as "a third country", every one of these authorisations and approvals will lapse. Unless each of them is replicated in time, our factories will close, our aircraft will be grounded, our airports and our entire £31?billion-a-year aerospace industry will shut down overnight.


Dr North further writes.

The only clue Mrs May has given as to how she thinks this chaos can be avoided, as she said at the Mansion House, is that we should be allowed to remain in EASA. This was echoed by our own Civil Aviation Authority, which knows it would take years for us to create our own system. But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.

And we cannot even apply for the right for our airlines to fly to the EU and other countries until the moment we become a "third country", by a process that could then take months or even years to negotiate. Some of the biggest industry players have been waking up to the threat all this poses. Airbus and Ryanair, for instance, have both spoken of the possibility that their UK operations could "grind to a halt".

In fact, easyJet has already relocated its base to Austria; and Rolls-Royce, the world's second-largest aero-engine manufacturer, we learned last week, is making preparations to move part of its operations to Germany.


Those readers of nervous disposition or terminally closed mind perhaps should not read Dr North's blog!

[m.Berger]

So we will remain making parts for Airbus post Brexit because by then we WILL be a low wage economy.

[Johnm]

One of the most fascinating aspects of this discussion and many like it is the notion that the EU institutions impose things on the U.K. Oddly enough we’re an influential full member of the EU up to now, so most of the rules and institutions represent a broad consensus of which we have been a party. We have opposed a few things along the way and in fairness it must be said we haven’t won many of those but we’ve also originated many and so led the way on them.

Re-establishing a relationship with the EU is not a trivial piece of work and the consequences of having no relationship at all will be messy to put it mildly. Currently we know how things work, legally, politically, socially and commercially. If we just walk away with no agreement all of that certainty simply disappears overnight. That doesn’t just affect our relationship with the EU, Our other trading partners work with us under EU arrangements so all that goes for a burton too.

After two years I’m still waiting for someone to balance this dog’s breakfast with a single benefit.

[Steve6443]

For those readers who would like to get an accurate picture of current Brexit state of play in relation to the UK Aerospace Industry, I'd recommend a browse through Dr Richard North's latest piece at his blog EUReferendum.com (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86849#disqus_thread) . Dr North references the European Commission Notice to Stakeholders (https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf), dated 13 April 2018.



Dr North further writes.



Those readers of nervous disposition or terminally closed mind perhaps should not read Dr North's blog!

Or better, perhaps those who understand REALITY should visit the site, read it and dissect it, critically. The notions put forward are pathetic and ridiculous in the extreme. Let me take a couple of points from that Blog (I could take more, but it's so depressing just how easily his claims can be refuted and dismissed.)

But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.

additionally he states:

Outside the EEA there is no possibility of the UK gaining associate membership of EASA

Perhaps the good Dr North would care to inform the assembled readers here when Switzerland became a member of the EU? Neither is Switzerland a member of the EEA, yet they are a member of EASA. If Switzerland can be granted an exception, so can the UK.

But let's assume the EU don't want Britain to have an exception, to punish us for our audacity to refuse to continue funding their gravy train - what then? Let's take the next subject matter.

if Britain leaves the EU without agreeing a deal that includes associate membership of EASA, Rolls-Royce's products will not be able to be signed off in the UK and will, therefore, be unable to take to the air.

From that statement, you could take it as read that EASA determines what Rolls Royce can and can't do. Really? So they can determine that Rolls Royce engines running in Asia, in the Americas, North and South, become suddenly unairworthy? Again, perhaps Dr North would care to point out at which point EASA could unilaterally declare an FAA Type approval invalid? After all, engines fitted in those regions will be in alignment with the FAA type approval, not necessarily EASA approvals.

Let's take that a step further. The USA is not an associate member, yet they can have Pratt and Whitney PW600 engines EASA certified. But Rolls Royce can't? Really? Type ratings are simply a cost of doing business - you develop a new product, you need it certified. Inside or outside of EASA, Rolls Royce will continue to have it's products both FAA and EASA certified. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Or will Russia have to become an associate member of EASA in order that the Aviadvigatel PD14 jet engine becomes certified?

The Blog is another contribution to Project Fear, part (sorry, gave up counting after the 825th headline saying why Brexit is 'wrong', 'bad' or any other epithet the Elite in Brussels and their useful idiots deign to call it.

[highcirrus]

Steve You're sounding a little shrill and very defensive. Chill a little, open your mind, read the blog properly and you'll find your questions/objections properly answered. We're not looking at Project Fear here but rather Project Fact.

[Denti]

Steve, a couple things. Yes, switzerland is not part of the EU, however, it is a member of european common market and abides by all basic EU rules including the freedom of movement and the final legal authority of the ECJ. The latter is a prerequisite to be a part of EASA.

No, EASA does not regulate engine approval in Asia or the US, however, many regulators use a shorter certification process that is based on the acceptance of the EASA certification, especially the US as FAA and EASA have a reciprocal acceptance agreement, which will be null and void for UK products come BREXIT if no deal is found, which would in turn invalidate any certification based on that no longer existing EASA certification. Of course everything can be recertified, which will cost a lot of money and some time, as by now not only the initial data is available but also a lot of operational experience and probably some ADs which might change the outcome or certification standard as those have developed over time as well.

Of course the FAA can decide following their own legal advice to still honor the no longer valid EASA certification, but considering the US stance in the open sky negotiations i‘m rather doubtful about that. After all RR competes (not very well seeing the 787 fiasco) with US companies in the same market, and protecting those would certainly fit the America First attitude of the current administration.

[Steve6443]

Steve You're sounding a little shrill and very defensive. Chill a little, open your mind, read the blog properly and you'll find your questions/objections properly answered. We're not looking at Project Fear here but rather Project Fact.

It's fine that you consider me shrill and defensive, I have the least to worry about Brexit of anyone here. I am so relaxed, you wouldn't believe it. But what I see is lies and deceit being spread about Brexit. What is all the more incredible is that even though I have pointed out glaring factual errors in Dr North's blog, you still refer to it as anything other than a work of fiction.

[wiggy]

Steve...

Leaving the details of Dr North’s Blog aside do you:

1: Accept that to be part of EASA you have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the aviation arena?

2. Accept that Rolls Royce themselves have said they anticipate having to rearrange engine approval/sign off if we leave EASA?

[Steve6443]

Steve, a couple things. Yes, switzerland is not part of the EU, however, it is a member of european common market and abides by all basic EU rules including the freedom of movement and the final legal authority of the ECJ. The latter is a prerequisite to be a part of EASA.


So? You are still missing the point. Dr North's blog was filled with factual inaccuracies - he claimed that membership of EASA required being either in the EU or the EEA, which Switzerland isn't. May I also point out that the Swiss do not accept the ECJ as the final legislative authority? The EU is still trying to negotiate a deal on this, the Swiss are still refusing to be bound by foreign judges.


No, EASA does not regulate engine approval in Asia or the US, however, many regulators use a shorter certification process that is based on the acceptance of the EASA certification, especially the US as FAA and EASA have a reciprocal acceptance agreement, which will be null and void for UK products come BREXIT if no deal is found, which would in turn invalidate any certification based on that no longer existing EASA certification. Of course everything can be recertified, which will cost a lot of money and some time, as by now not only the initial data is available but also a lot of operational experience and probably some ADs which might change the outcome or certification standard as those have developed over time as well.

Of course the FAA can decide following their own legal advice to still honor the no longer valid EASA certification, but considering the US stance in the open sky negotiations i‘m rather doubtful about that. After all RR competes (not very well seeing the 787 fiasco) with US companies in the same market, and protecting those would certainly fit the America First attitude of the current administration.

Firstly, forget the 787 fiasco - after all, the issues with fan blade separations on CFM engines could have significantly larger ramifications. Secondly, you're missing the point. If FAA certification is already there, why do the Americans need EASA certification? Alternately, what is to stop the same EASA (re)certification, piggy backed on the FAA certification, being applied for? It will become a cost factor, sure, but it's not the end of the world for the UK aerospace sector.....

However let's get back down to planet Earth. Let's assume that UK leaves EASA without a deal. What does that mean for Lufthansa, Air France, KLM - in fact every airline flying around with UK avionics, UK engines on their aircraft. Will they suddenly be grounded because the EASA certification is null and void? The wings on an Airbus are made in UK - are these no longer certified?

You see, the fact is, a solution will be found - it will have to be found. Common sense will ultimately prevail. And then we will see the claims of doom and gloom for what they are. Works of fantasy. My personal opinion is that existing certification will remain in place - the impact on European companies would be too heavy to contemplate otherwise. If the only companies impacted were from UK, then yes, I could believe the EU would play hard ball. But not when EU companies stand to lose more.

Carrying on, new products will have to be certified. But that's no difference to an American or Russian company applying for their product to be certified. To those who believe Brexit will damage / destroy the UK Aviation sector, this is just hogwash. Now, licensing for airmen, that's a different kettle of fish......

[Steve6443]

Steve...

Leaving the details of Dr North’s Blog aside do you:

1: Accept that to be part of EASA you have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the aviation arena?


As previously said, Switzerland don't.


2. Accept that Rolls Royce themselves have said they anticipate having to rearrange engine approval/sign off if we leave EASA?



Again, as previously said, they will have to 'arrange' something. It's a cost factor. Nothing more, nothing less. The statement from Dr North that Rolls Royce products would be grounded is just absurd.

[wiggy]

Well here's another version of how the ECJ complication could play out:

The Government is exploring Article 66 of EASA regulations, which establishes a clear legal route for third-party country participation.

In a future scenario where the UK is an associate member, a domestic dispute over the application of safety regulation would be under the jurisdiction of UK courts.

However, under Article 50 of the same EASA rules, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the ultimate arbiter of EASA rulings.

Norway and Switzerland have joint committees to allow that jurisdiction to operate indirectly, but it still exists.

Some Brexiteer MPs may feel that such jurisdiction oversteps or blurs the Prime Minister's much-heralded "red line" of no ECJ jurisdiction after Brexit.



https://news.sky.com/story/govt-to-stay-in-eu-air-safety-body-in-blurring-of-brexit-red-line-11151049

[highcirrus]

Steve. I've posted this elsewhere on Pprune but I think it answers your point But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.

additionally he states:

Outside the EEA there is no possibility of the UK gaining associate membership of EASA

Perhaps the good Dr North would care to inform the assembled readers here when Switzerland became a member of the EU? Neither is Switzerland a member of the EEA, yet they are a member of EASA. If Switzerland can be granted an exception, so can the UK.

EASA comprises the following (https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country/map): the 28 EU member States all of which have full voting rights. The 3 European Economic Area (EEA) member States(Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) plus Switzerland. The latter 4 States have reduced voting rights but in all other respects are regular EASA members.

Despite your assertion, both the Commission and Dr North have consistently demonstrated that they "know what they are talking about". In this particular case, the point being made is that on "Hard Brexit" with no agreement, UK becomes a "Third Country" (an EU legal term) and thus, by default, a non-EASA member as membership is only open to EU and EEA member States plus Switzerland which has a special deal and which, according to the Commission, will never be repeated.

The solution to the problem is either stay in the EU or leave EU but retain EEA/Single Market membership (we are current EEA members under the EU banner) by rejoining EFTA (European Free Trade Association - UK was a founder member but we left to join the EEC) and thus join Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland under the EFTA banner (Switzerland is EFTA but not EEA - confused yet?).

Incidentally, going the EFTA/EEA route following Brexit will not only take us out of EU but keep us in the EEA/Single Market and also solve the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border conundrum. As they say, "what's not to like?".

You then move on with if Britain leaves the EU without agreeing a deal that includes associate membership of EASA, Rolls-Royce's products will not be able to be signed off in the UK and will, therefore, be unable to take to the air.

I'm not sure whether you realise it but here you are quoting Dr North quoting the Daily Telegraph . To keep things in context you really should have include Dr North's preceding words This was reported in the Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/23/rolls-royce-mulls-european-move-brexit-deal-worries-grow/), which gave some details but didn't really have the measure of the story.

Your other points seem to have been covered by other Ppruners, so who am I to embellish their work.

You make also care to note that the EUReferendum.com blog is a "Brexit blog" and that Dr North is a leading proponent of Brexit. He is not, however, a leading proponent of "National Suicide".

[Capt Kremmen]

Steve5443

Well and succinctly put. It's relatively easy for the 'doomsters' to raise negative arguments and statements. They'll conjure up bogeymen when and where they've never previously existed !

Here's an idea: Using EASA drafted, previously agreed contracts, agreements and legislation change the title at the head of the relevant document to whatever you want to call it.

There it is, solved ! If it isn't solved at that point, wait until - for example - the BMWs pile up at the factory gates, then it will be solved, quickly.

[wiggy]

Here's an idea: Using EASA drafted, previously agreed contracts, agreements and legislation change the title at the head of the relevant document to whatever you want to call it.

There it is, solved !

No it's not, well not in the commercial world. Just for the sake of it an outlandish what if: Imagine you need to carry a piece of paper on your aircrfat saying the widgets that hold your wings on have been checked by a EASA department in Munich to ensure they conform to a certain standard and that same department in Munich is responsible for ensuring continued compliance..

BREXIT Day :....EASA gets crossed out, UK CAA gets inked in.

Brexit Day plus a week or so - You get ramp checked in the States, your widget paperwork is examined, your friendly FAA man looks at the amended paperwork and asks " it says UK CAA here , where in the UK now are your widgets checked for continued compliance..... "

[highcirrus]

wiggy Exactly so!

[Capt Kremmen]

Tut, tut. C'mon chaps use your imaginations ! The location of checking isn't the point. The point is the wording on the documentation and the stamp of engineering acceptance that perhaps accompanies it.

Most countries, that have an approximate educational equivalence in or out of the EU , accept each others standards and specifications - CE is widely accepted as is still, BSS.

Whether the examinations are held in Munich, Timbuctoo or Balham High Rd. makes absolutely no difference.

The transference of independence back from the EU to GB can be a path as smooth or, as rocky as some of the participants wish to make it. At the moment there seems to e a significant number of influential people on the EU side who wish to make matters as difficult as possible, with the intention of, perhaps, trying to punish GB for its temerity in both leaving and exposing the fault lines within the EU

To all the doomsters I would remind them that GB provides a huge export market for the EU. They need our goodwill. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[Johnm]

Contrary to popular opinion the EU does NOT need the UK, the converse is arguable and it's easy to get the relevant figures for imports and exports. The problem in many cases is that we have inward investment for manufacturing companies who have tight coupled supply chains across the single market. For them the easiest solution would be to move the plants from the UK to welcoming sites in the EU and ship complete product here just as if we were China, Brazil, India or Tanzania. That makes our balance of payments, GDP and employment position worse. It isn't the only answer though and it affects many other businesses such as financial services (a very big part of the UK economy).

I don't know where this idea originated that the EU does things to us here in the UK , but it makes no sense since we are an influential member and have been for decades, so the vast majority of stuff the EU does is supported and, in a surprising number of cases, initiated by the UK, generally because it makes good sense in terms of socio-economic consistency and good practice. It is true that the implementation goes awry from time to time, partly because Brussels gets it wrong sometimes and partly because of "gold plating" here in the UK. However suggestions that the UK bureaucracy is somehow superior to the EU bureaucracy just reduces me to hysterical laughter........we can't even fix a pothole and tidy up litter.

There are many potential solutions to the issues raised by Brexit, in aviation and many other industries, some very simple in concept. However turning those ideas whether simple or complicated into practical agreed systems to replace the ones we already have requires a lot of effort and many months if not years of time. That then begs the question "What are the benefits of all this work?" so far I have heard not a single plausible answer to that question.

[Capt Kremmen]

There doesn't appear to be an answer because there doesn't appear to be a question !

Perhaps slightly unwittingly, you put your finger right on it. Quote: "practical agreed systems to replace the ones we already have ..."

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..

[Steve6443]

No it's not, well not in the commercial world. Just for the sake of it an outlandish what if: Imagine you need to carry a piece of paper on your aircrfat saying the widgets that hold your wings on have been checked by a EASA department in Munich to ensure they conform to a certain standard and that same department in Munich is responsible for ensuring continued compliance..

BREXIT Day :....EASA gets crossed out, UK CAA gets inked in.

Brexit Day plus a week or so - You get ramp checked in the States, your widget paperwork is examined, your friendly FAA man looks at the amended paperwork and asks " it says UK CAA here , where in the UK now are your widgets checked for continued compliance..... "

Let me give you a simple solution.

The same shop which previously checked that your widgets are compliant will continue to check the widget for compliance. The only difference is that instead of EASA approved, it will be CAA approved. And instead of the CAA following EASA test methodology to determine compliance, the CAA compliancy which align with either FAA or EASA, which ever is simpler. The CAA will likely also approve US shops to carry out the same compliancy as if they (the CAA) were still part of EASA, so even having compliancy checked in foreign countries won't be a difficult task.

It's NOT difficult......

[Steve6443]

With regards your question: The benefits of all this work will be that we will regulate ourselves, that we will not be subject to the rulings of some bureaucrats somewhere we've never heard of, let alone ever wanted to visit. The money we send to Brussels will stay in this country, paying for bureaucrats to regulate our aviation industry, their wages being pumped back into the British economy, boosting the overall welfare of all. THAT is the benefit. We will not see EASA rulings banning the IMCr because it doesn't fit with the LBA's own script of how instrument flying should be. We will have rules based on OUR needs, not on the worst compromise that all nations agree to. We didn't need EASA in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Why are we so sure that we will need EASA in the 2020s, especially with technology on our side?

[Johnm]

With regards your question: The benefits of all this work will be that we will regulate ourselves, that we will not be subject to the rulings of some bureaucrats somewhere we've never heard of, let alone ever wanted to visit. The money we send to Brussels will stay in this country, paying for bureaucrats to regulate our aviation industry, their wages being pumped back into the British economy, boosting the overall welfare of all. THAT is the benefit. We will not see EASA rulings banning the IMCr because it doesn't fit with the LBA's own script of how instrument flying should be. We will have rules based on OUR needs, not on the worst compromise that all nations agree to. We didn't need EASA in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Why are we so sure that we will need EASA in the 2020s, especially with technology on our side?

Even North Korea has twigged that in the age of global travel and economics regulation is by consensus amongst nations. EASA didn't ban the IMCR it faced up to trying to get national ratings sorted on a European wide licensing system the solution was IR(R) mountain ratings and Brevet de Bas were similarly coped with. EASA is a decision made primarily with the convenience of CAT in mind so pilots from any country can fly Easyjets anywhere with no problems, we get some benefits and EASA has already twigged that light touch risk based approach to GA is a better answer and is making progress down that road. It's a slow process but the direction is sensible.

[Johnm]

For those who think BREXIT implies Britain governed for the British I advise a look at how many international agreements across aviation and countless other fields affect our sovereignty and ability to legislate, the scale will astound you. It’s in the thousands and around 700 to 800 have been effected as a member of the EU and will need to be re-done by the U.K. as a non-member. I don’t look at either the EU or the U.K. through rose coloured glasses and the volume of work essentially in the class of wheel reinvention that Brexit causes implies the benefit needs to be immense to make it worthwhile and as far as I can see it’s close to zero.

from a personal perspective as an EASA ppl/ir holder flying an ELA2 EASA aircraft EASA is a clear improvement on CAA with the likelihood of getting better still if the current direction is maintained. I appreciate that others may find difficulties but regulators rarely please many of the regulated, so there’s no glorious nirvana for any of us.

[Steve6443]

from a personal perspective as an EASA ppl/ir holder flying an ELA2 EASA aircraft EASA is a clear improvement on CAA with the likelihoid of getting better still if the current direction is maintained. I appreciate that others may find difficulties but regulators rarely please many of the regulated, so there’s no glorious nirvana for any of us.

The only reason things are getting better are due to a certain gentleman who is head of EASA. When he leaves, it is anyone's guess as to whether the next person to sit in that chair will continue the GA friendly route he has begun - it all depends on mentality. To claim that CAA = bad, EASA = Good based on the intentions of one manager is a bit short sighted, to say the least.

[highcirrus]

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 (http://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/News/Speeches_files/UKTiE%20-%20Andrew%20Haines.pdf) ?
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 (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-aviation/eu-could-dash-hopes-for-uk-to-remain-in-aviation-safety-agency-idUKKBN1FE2T6) 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 (https://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/overview?symbol=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?

[Capt Kremmen]

Nothing that Andrew Haines has said expressly shuts the door against the more than likely possibility that the CAA will move fairly smoothly into transition mode. The CAA have had - in one guise or another - 80 plus years to acquire the aviation administrative skills necessary to see them thru' Brexit transition. That's about seven or eight times longer than EASA have had to make their presence felt.

It is said that Andrew Haines has been wearing for sometime a rather pained "I don't believe it" expression on his otherwise cheerful countenance, isn't because he's suffering from piles but simply because the shock of the Referendum and its likely impact on the CAA is still registering. Who, could have foreseen it ? The 'elites' certainly didn't.

[Johnm]

Surely no-one thinks the history of U.K. CAA was GA friendly do they. My whole point is that neither CAA nor EASA have been without fault, but the CAA under Andrew Haines made substantial improvements working with Patrick Ky at EASA. Patrick Ky is there for at least another 5 years Andrew Haines is already moving on and CAA is staffed and geared up to work as a NAA within EASA, changing that will be non-trivial and whether it is then as GA friendly as EASA completely unknown. Better the devil you know etc. etc.

[Steve6443]

Better the devil you know etc. etc.

And there you have it. Too afraid of change, you'd prefer to relinquish all national identity and become a good European, controlled by the unelected and unaccountable.

[Johnm]

And there you have it. Too afraid of change, you'd prefer to relinquish all national identity and become a good European, controlled by the unelected and unaccountable.

i am not afraid of change I’ve spent the last 50 years causing it to happen in a wide range of contexts. However I’ve always done that on the basis of a simple risk reward equation. How risky and costly is the change and how great the benefit. Brexit and leaving EASA fails every version of that test I’ve seen thus far.

Moreover the growing collaboration amongst European countries through the EU Treaties is inspiring. Do I think the EU is marvellous, no it’s flawed and imperfect but with a positive vision. Do I think the U.K. is perfect, far from it, you only need to drive the potholed roads and watch the news to see that. The UK in the EU can drive a positive future, outside who knows?

[robin]

It's not about fear of change. It's simply that there is no chance the UK Govt would want to re-establish the CAA of old. It would cost too much.

The CAA is much cheaper as an NAA under EASA and that will decide whether or not we leave EASA

[highcirrus]

Capt Kremmen

You mention:
the more than likely possibility that the CAA will move fairly smoothly into transition mode

Could you provide us with some evidence that this will be so on 30 March 2019 in the event of a "no deal Brexit"? You see, the entire UK Air Transport/Aerospace Manufacturing industry cannot be reliant merely on a "likely possibility" on the day but must have absolute certainty so that the effects of the Notice to Stakeholders (https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf) Withdrawal of the UK and EU Aviation Safety Rules, do not take effect:

Certificates issued before the withdrawal date by the competent authorities of the United Kingdom on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Regulation and its implementing rules will no longer be valid as of the withdrawal date in the EU. This concerns in particular:

 Certificates of airworthiness, restricted certificates of airworthiness, permits to fly, approvals of organisations responsible for the maintenance of products, parts and appliances, approvals for organisations responsible for the manufacture of products, parts and appliances, approvals for maintenance training organisations, and certificates for personnel responsible for the release of a product, part or appliance after maintenance, issued pursuant to Article 5 of the Basic Regulation;

 Pilot licences, pilot medical certificates, certificates for pilot training organisations, certificates for aero-medical centres, certificates for flight simulation training devices, certificates for persons responsible for providing flight training, flight simulation training or assessing pilots' skill, and certificates for aero medical examiners, issued pursuant to Article 7 of the Basic Regulation;

 Certificates for air operators and attestations for the cabin crew, issued pursuant to Article 8 of the Basic Regulation;

 Certificates for aerodromes, certificates for ATM/ANS providers, licences and medical certificates for air traffic controllers, certificates for air traffic controller training organisations, certificates for aero medical centres and aero medical examiners responsible for air traffic controllers, certificates for persons responsible for providing practical training or assessing the skills of air traffic controllers, issued pursuant to Articles 8a, 8b and 8c of the Basic Regulation.

If you're stuck for an answer, maybe ask your MP at WriteToThem (https://www.writetothem.com/) .

Maybe also ask him/her why the government isn't pursuing Brexit via EFTA/EEA membership, when all these problems would disappear and UK would have some breathing space to arrange real independence/reorganisation and possibly become worthy again of the title Great Britain?

[Johnm]

JAR and later EASA were established primarily to support CAT across the EU and a few neighbouring states who wanted to join the party. The goal was to ensure that, for example, a pilot with a German ATPL living in Austria could fly a French registered aircraft from Budapest to London with the minimum of paperwork. GA got swept up in all this by people who didn’t really understand it. Much lobbying and EASA hiring a number of people who hold and use PPLs has started the process of rowing back to situation rather better than Pre-EASA in many states. Though some NAAs are more helpful in this than others.

Brexit needs to either remain with it by agreement or find a way to replace it all, which won’t be easy or quick.