UK to Leave EASA

[LGW Vulture]

Not sure if this has been already posted but Grant Shapps has confirmed UK is leaving EASA and will be self certifying.

Wow. Big step.

....Mods please delete if old news.

[Airbubba]

From Aviation Daily:

UK ‘Will Leave’ EASA, Says British Transportation SecretaryBill Carey (https://aviationweek.com/author/bill-carey) March 06, 2020

https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/crop_freeform/public/2020-03/uk_transporation_secretary_grantshapps_cropped_photo_source_ bill_carey.jpg?itok=0TqPrkRcUK State Secretary for Transportation Grant Shapps meets with Aviation Daily.
Credit: Bill Carey

WASHINGTON—The UK will withdraw as a member state of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after a transition period and shift responsibility for aircraft certification and safety regulation to its own Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), British Transportation Secretary Grant Shapps said.“We will leave EASA,” Shapps said Mar. 6 during an exclusive interview with editors from Aviation Daily and ATW. “A lot of the expertise they have is UK expertise, in fact. A lot of the key leading lights were Brits.”

Shapps, in Washington for meetings with U.S. officials, said the withdrawal from Cologne, Germany-based EASA was being negotiated at EU headquarters in Brussels. The break will happen after Dec. 31, when EU law no longer applies to the UK.

“So, the powers will revert to the CAA, who are probably one of the world’s leading regulators and the expertise will need to come home to do that, but we’ll do it in a gradual way,” Shapps said.

Outside of EASA membership, the UK will seek mutual recognition of certifications in bilateral agreements with other countries and blocs, he said.

The CAA eventually will assume responsibility for new aircraft type certificates and airworthiness approvals. Shapps suggested urban air mobility (UAM) vehicles will be among the first examples, saying he had met with UAM developer Joby Aviation during his trip.

“Over a period of time we’ll be wanting to develop our own [aircraft] certifications,” Shapps said. “One of the things we’ll want to do is be particularly forward-leaning in technology and automation. We’ll make sure our legislative framework is in a great place to enable those kinds of organizations to excel in the UK market.”

Since its “Brexit” withdrawal from the EU in January, the UK has been considered a “third country” within EASA, a status that will continue through the end of the year.

“During this time, the UK will be treated as an EU member state but will no longer take part in any decision-making or decision-shaping activities at EASA,” the safety agency states on its website.

The transition period can be extended between the parties once by up to two years, EASA says, which does not mention any UK withdrawal. A decision to extend the transition period would have to be made by July 1, the agency says.

Shapps said EASA has initiated infraction proceedings against the UK over its decision not to enact SERA (Standardized European Rules of the Air) visibility and distance from cloud minima in Class D airspace.

A Conservative member of Parliament who serves as a cabinet secretary under British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Shapps said his party’s decisive victory in the December 2019 general election represents a mandate for independent action. Parliament ratified Brexit a month after the election, and the UK officially withdrew from the EU on Jan. 31.

“We’ve just won the election in a very big way with a big majority and a proper sense of direction for five years,” Shapps said. “As you would expect from an independent nation, we can’t be subject to the rules and laws made by somebody else, so we can’t accept rules from the EU Commission and we can’t accept rulings in terms of court cases from the European Court of Justice or anybody else, any more than the U.S. would.”



https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/uk-will-leave-easa-says-british-transportation-secretary

[DaveReidUK]

Absolutely unbelievable.

[eckhard]

“So, the powers will revert to the CAA, who are probably one of the world’s leading regulators and the expertise will need to come home to do that, but we’ll do it in a gradual way,” Shapps said.


A tacit admission that the CAA hasn’t really got the quantity nor the quality of staff needed to run things in the way they would like?

[ShyTorque]

Good! Let’s hope they can rescind the very imminent and stupid changes to the VFR rules.

[1daneman]

About time. Can i get my UK license :ok:.

[cashash]

About time. Can i get my UK license :ok:.


Was thinking that same - hopefully a return to the gold standard.

[anson harris]

What possible benefit is this to anyone? Absolutely ridiculous.

[Airbubba]

Was thinking that same - hopefully a return to the gold standard.

Yep, time to brush up on those relevant technical questions like what colour is the light in the laser gyros and how many detents are there on the speedbrake handle quadrant? ;)

[TURIN]

Does this mean I don't have to remove the restrictions from my B1 licence? Are we reverting to section L and BCARS?

What a farce!

[Una Due Tfc]

Lunacy. Not having the ECJ as an arbitrator could invalidate every LOA, the UK Ireland FAB will be screwed, SES gone.

[KeyPilot]

This is inevitable, for the reasons Shapps says.

And also a good thing - in my opinion!

[rmcdonal]

the UK will seek mutual recognition of certifications in bilateral agreements with other countries and blocs, he said. hopefully that makes it easier to convert your license rather than having to sit the 14 exams again.

[GKOC41]

Yaah bring back CAP371 4th Edition for the FTL - then the few Airlines that are actually left (- Monarch, Thomas Cook, Flybe) won't have a level playing field but BALPA will be happy

[SpamCanDriver]

What possible benefit is this to anyone? Absolutely ridiculous.

End of dangerous EASA FTL's and a return to scientifically backed ones

[Denti]

End of dangerous EASA FTL's and a return to scientifically backed ones
Biggest proponent of the EASA FTL was actually the UK in the relevant working groups.

There was actually a great paper from the Royal Aeronautical Society about the challenges for the CAA in becoming a full fledged authority again, which basically said that it takes hundreds of extra employees in required manpower and around 5 years to be able to fulfill all roles again. Will be an interesting time ahead for the UK aerospace sector i guess. But then, seeing that new simulators for example are danish certified instead of UK, there might be a reason for stuff like that.

[ZFT]

Biggest proponent of the EASA FTL was actually the UK in the relevant working groups.

There was actually a great paper from the Royal Aeronautical Society about the challenges for the CAA in becoming a full fledged authority again, which basically said that it takes hundreds of extra employees in required manpower and around 5 years to be able to fulfill all roles again. Will be an interesting time ahead for the UK aerospace sector i guess. But then, seeing that new simulators for example are danish certified instead of UK, there might be a reason for stuff like that.

The Danish qualifications in UK are only CAE FSTDs as their Head Office address is in Copenhagen!!

[DaveReidUK]

There was actually a great paper from the Royal Aeronautical Society about the challenges for the CAA in becoming a full fledged authority again, which basically said that it takes hundreds of extra employees in required manpower and around 5 years to be able to fulfill all roles again.

Here's the relevant extract - it makes sobering reading.

[Kit Sanbumps KG]

This is the most idiotic move. Brexiteers can look forward to the massive front-loaded cost of trying to turn the denuded and incompetent CAA into anything vaguely fit for purpose.

We’re much more likely to end up with something third world. In the meantime the UK industry will continue to collapse, the economic downturn will finish the kill on airlines and GA, and there will be nothing left to regulate.

There aren’t words to express my anger at what’s happening now.

[HolyMoley]

End of dangerous EASA FTL's and a return to scientifically backed ones

Dream on...

[TheOddOne]

I have a recently qualified PPL student who is going the modular route. While the Austrians will still accept his PPL and UK ATPL exams, he is planning on doing the CPL/IR in Sweden, ahead of applying for an Austrian licence. He sees that as the only realistic way of gaining employment in the future.

We've already seen the Irish calling out the UK CAA for incompetent administration of PPL exams, resulting in the CAA being forced to make changes, which apparently are so expensive to put in place, they are being subsidised. Even then, there is an argument from a section of industry that the change isn't being implemented properly (lack of feedback on wrong answers).

If all the perceived badness in EASA has been enacted by Brits in Cologne, do we really want them back again?

Mr Shapps needs to go to Boris and say 'Listen, I need £1billion to set the CAA up again. It would break Industry to pay for it'.

TOO

[Alpine Flyer]

The inability to fly within Europe without an EASA license or conversion to same might not be of much consequence as the Johnson administration is unlikely to negotiate a post-Brexit-deal that will allow UK citizens to work in the EU. That wouldn't be of any consequence either if the Brexiteers' land of milk and honey projections come true and British airlines prosper in line with the rest of the economy even without a deal. I would also severely doubt the likelihood of a conservative government backing safety-based FTLs rather than going for lax rules as a means to improve competitiveness. Time will tell and empty pockets might thwart the best of intentions.

[ShyTorque]

How did we survive before EASA (and JAR)?
Let's face it, over the last couple of decades the ever-changing aviation regulations have become a farce.

[TheOddOne]

How did we survive before EASA (and JAR)?

Quite badly.
I was denied a Class 1 medical in the early 1980's because I didn't meet the Olympic athlete standards of the time (I wear glasses). With the coming of more enlightened regulation, I was able to finally acquire a Class 1 in my 50's. I still exceed the current eyesight regulation.

TOO

[Jack D]

Quite badly.
I was denied a Class 1 medical in the early 1980's because I didn't meet the Olympic athlete standards of the time (I wear glasses). With the coming of more enlightened regulation, I was able to finally acquire a Class 1 in my 50's. I still exceed the current eyesight regulation.

TOO

Prior to joining EASA it was not uncommon for pilots who wear spectacles to hold a class 1 medical certificate, as long as required vision
standards were met.
Perhaps you had an underlying vision problem
which precluded the issue of a class 1 ? Simply requiring glasses wouldn’t affect the granting of a class 1

[Landflap]

Great news. Back to the good old days. Very high standards, centrally well administered. I have held all of the glorious UK licences. PPl, CPL, SCPL, ATPL. (Actually, I recall the latter being called the Air Line Transport Licence (ALTP, rather than ATPL or worse, Americanised ATP ). All centrally administered. If you wanted to fly UK registered aircraft you need a UK licence. What's difficult about that ? Same applied in the USA. Want to fly USA Registered aircraft (?).........get a FAA licence. Want to fly a European Registered aircraft, get a licence issued by the individual European Country's Regulatory Authority. Of course there was recognition. UK licence was world wide admired and obtaining the foreign licence was often the easy matter of obtaining a "validation". Some countries asked for local Air Law paper only. I flew on validations to my Uk gold standard from three seperate European Licensing Authorities and two Middle East. FAA insisted on full writtens but they were REALLY easy multi choice. Of course, and rightly so , Top Class UK CAA did not reciprocate. Quite rightly did not recognise other easy licences and you would need to pass all the difficult writtens.

I see nothing wrong in all of the foregoing and it maintained a very high standard, world recognised Professional qualification process.

We hear a lot of tripe about airspace restriction. UK never stopped other licenced carriers operating in UK airspace. USA & Europe never stopped UK registered aircraft flying in their airspace. Airspace regulation and licence regulation are seperate issues .

And, note to UK CAA (oh love it !) Can we go back to nine fully written exams, not this dumbed down multi choice trash ? For Meteorogy, for example, can we go back to the tough theory (part one) and the really tough practical(pat two) where we had to decode stations, plot a course, plot the isobars & fronts with pressure susytems , decode the actuals and write forecast for destination & alternates (get Buys Ballot all wrong & you would wind up all over the chart. !)

Note to foreign licence Regulators : As the new UK Licences will be the gold standards, we will expect foreign validations by just having to do your local Air Law exam ( not even that required by the Belgians in 1991) and just to be sure, this is for Licencing to fly registered aircraft of THAT country. Nothing, nothing, to do with the confusion of flying in foreign airspace

Finally, of course the new UK LIcence will at last be recognised as University degree acadamic standard, so, can I be first to get my Degree in Civil Aviation. You know, something like "UK CAA Honours, -Hamble " ; then I could put "UKCAA-Ham Hon" behind my name. Ta.

[ETOPS]

I've just been made aware that the above article contains this quote.

Shapps said EASA has initiated infraction proceedings against the UK over its decision not to enact SERA (Standardized European Rules of the Air) visibility and distance from cloud minima in Class D airspace.



Surely this isn't correct?

[FlyingStone]

Want to fly a European Registered aircraft, get a licence issued by the individual European Country's Regulatory Authority. Of course there was recognition. UK licence was world wide admired and obtaining the foreign licence was often the easy matter of obtaining a "validation". Some countries asked for local Air Law paper only. I flew on validations to my Uk gold standard from three seperate European Licensing Authorities

How about you fly all aircraft registered in 31 EASA member state on your UK EASA licence? Too complicated, I know. Let's simplify it with validations and air law exams.

[Gordomac]

LANDFLAP - Agree with all. I am a bit more simplistic and will also write to the new UK CAA requesting my degree to read ; UK ATPL-Oxon"

[TURIN]

Where exactly is all the money going to come from to enact this new 'gold standard' CAA? I don't remember that written on the side of a bus.

[citabria06g]

Note to foreign licence Regulators : As the new UK Licences will be the gold standards, we will expect foreign validations by just having to do your local Air Law exam

Astounding arrogance. I really hope you were being sarcastic, if not, just... wow.

Unfortunately I've seen so much of this tripe over the last year, it's hard to tell when people are joking and when they're being serious.

[FullWings]

I have mixed feelings about this. Some good stuff has come out of EASA but I think they lost the plot with FTLs.

It’s probably going to be fairly challenging for the CAA to change back to Regulator after their stint of rubber-stamping EASA output but it’ll likely work out in the end. Just as long as things are grandfathered through and we don’t have to re-apply for everything...

[NorthSouth]

I've just been made aware that the above article contains this quote.
Shapps said EASA has initiated infraction proceedings against the UK over its decision not to enact SERA (Standardized European Rules of the Air) visibility and distance from cloud minima in Class D airspace.
Surely this isn't correct?You're very diplomatic! Yes, it's the precise opposite of what is happening in 19 days time.

[Miles Magister]

Come on guys, read the text. Grant Shapps has stated that he thinks a lot of the EASA expertise is British people. This means that it is a threat to the Europeans that if a good deal is not struck then the UK will steal a lot of the EASA expertise back to the UK leaving EASA short of people and not able to function efficiently.

It is political posturing, in the end everything will just stay the same as it is.

[NorthSouth]

Come on guys, read the text. Grant Shapps has stated that he thinks a lot of the EASA expertise is British people. This means that it is a threat to the Europeans that if a good deal is not struck then the UK will steal a lot of the EASA expertise back to the UK leaving EASA short of people and not able to function efficiently.

It is political posturing, in the end everything will just stay the same as it is.Nothing personal Miles, but I think that's yet another example of the deluded and massively inflated British sense of self-importance that we have heard a lot in the last four years

[effortless]

Just curious but did anyone ask for this? Not manufacturers surely and i doubt operators. I guess that a few old farts like me who fly their weekend Slingsbys may want it.

[effortless]

I noticed that he was in Washington when he announced.

[Airbubba]

The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration.

Sounds like the CAA will have its work cut out to demonstrate that things are up to FAA standards.

From the Financial Times:

UK aerospace industry warns of risk from leaving European agency

Trade body highlights threat to jobs and investment of withdrawal from aviation safety regime

Peggy Hollinger in London yesterday

Britain’s aerospace industry has warned that the government is putting jobs and investment at risk after the transport secretary revealed that the UK intends to leave Europe’s aviation safety agency at the end of this year to develop its own regulatory system.

“We have been clear that continued participation in EASA [European Union Aviation Safety regime] is the best option to maintain the competitiveness of our £36bn aerospace industry,” said Paul Everitt, chief executive of ADS, the aerospace industry trade body, in a statement late on Friday night. “UK influence in EASA . . . helps make our industry attractive to the investment it needs to be home to the development of a new generation of advanced aircraft technology.

“Government had promised it would consider harmonisation where it is in the UK interest . . . We are disappointed that it has not taken a more ambitious approach. It is essential that it works with us to deliver a regime that does not put jobs at risk.

”The industry’s warning followed comments by Grant Shapps in an interview on Friday with trade publications Aviation Daily and ATW in Washington. In the clearest statement yet of the government’s position on membership of the EU safety regulator, Mr Shapps said: “We will leave EASA. Over a period of time we’ll be wanting to develop our own [aircraft] certifications.”

Mr Shapps said the UK intended to be “particularly forward-leaning in technology and automation”. He cited urban air transport as an area where the country’s aviation regulator — the Civil Aviation Authority — could develop new types of safety certifications.“We’ll make sure our legislative framework is in a great place to enable those kinds of organisations to excel in the UK market,” he said.

The right to diverge from European regulatory regimes has become a mantra for the UK government as it negotiates the terms of its future trade relationship with the EU. The UK refuses to accept any role for the European Court of Justice, which means EASA membership is unacceptable without a compromise as the court has ultimate jurisdiction over the agency’s rulings. Companies across the UK aerospace sector will be dismayed by the transport secretary’s comments. Rolls-Royce and Airbus, two of the UK’s biggest aerospace exporters, have repeatedly emphasised the need for continued membership of EASA to help keep down costs.

The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration. EASA also has reciprocal agreements with authorities in Brazil and Canada, and soon Japan and China.

In January Tony Wood, the new president of ADS, voiced the industry’s deepening frustration at the UK government’s failure to accept the implications of divergence from EASA. He called on the government to clarify the alternative.

The industry has estimated that it would take a decade and cost between £30m and £40m a year to create a UK safety authority with all the expertise of EASA, against a current contribution to the European agency of £1m to £4m annually. While aircraft components are exempt from tariffs under World Trade Organization rules, the aerospace industry has long argued that divergence from European regulations would add cost and complexity to UK manufacturing and jeopardise export success. In 2018 the UK exported about £34bn in aerospace products.

The Department for Transport could not be reached for comment.

https://www.ft.com/content/0dc7128c-600e-11ea-b0ab-339c2307bcd4

[PAXboy]

Shapps said:
A lot of the key leading lights were Brits.
Which indicates they no longer are and the ones who lead it are now retired!

SpamCanDriver
End of dangerous EASA FTL's and a return to scientifically backed ones
I doubt it, the Tories will allow the carriers whatever they want in the name of 'being better and more competitive'.

There is going to be a big cost and time lag to build up the knowledge and administrative systems to support all this. It is amusing that the Tories think that increasing the costs of multiple departments and agencies, rather than sharing the cost, is good for the nation. But this is not about money only politics.

[ProPax]

Well done, UK! It's time to finally shake off the burden of the Eurasian Island off the Great Britain Continent.

The only problem is, safety is proportionate to the number of participants with common rules and common experience. Breaking off the common safety convention or (as declared in this case) taking your own expertise out of it benefits noone.

[Auxtank]

BBC angle on developments;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51783580

[Icelanta]

Great news. Back to the good old days. Very high standards, centrally well administered. I have held all of the glorious UK licences. PPl, CPL, SCPL, ATPL. (Actually, I recall the latter being called the Air Line Transport Licence (ALTP, rather than ATPL or worse, Americanised ATP ). All centrally administered. If you wanted to fly UK registered aircraft you need a UK licence. What's difficult about that ? Same applied in the USA. Want to fly USA Registered aircraft (?).........get a FAA licence. Want to fly a European Registered aircraft, get a licence issued by the individual European Country's Regulatory Authority. Of course there was recognition. UK licence was world wide admired and obtaining the foreign licence was often the easy matter of obtaining a "validation". Some countries asked for local Air Law paper only. I flew on validations to my Uk gold standard from three seperate European Licensing Authorities and two Middle East. FAA insisted on full writtens but they were REALLY easy multi choice. Of course, and rightly so , Top Class UK CAA did not reciprocate. Quite rightly did not recognise other easy licences and you would need to pass all the difficult writtens.

I see nothing wrong in all of the foregoing and it maintained a very high standard, world recognised Professional qualification process.

We hear a lot of tripe about airspace restriction. UK never stopped other licenced carriers operating in UK airspace. USA & Europe never stopped UK registered aircraft flying in their airspace. Airspace regulation and licence regulation are seperate issues .

And, note to UK CAA (oh love it !) Can we go back to nine fully written exams, not this dumbed down multi choice trash ? For Meteorogy, for example, can we go back to the tough theory (part one) and the really tough practical(pat two) where we had to decode stations, plot a course, plot the isobars & fronts with pressure susytems , decode the actuals and write forecast for destination & alternates (get Buys Ballot all wrong & you would wind up all over the chart. !)

Note to foreign licence Regulators : As the new UK Licences will be the gold standards, we will expect foreign validations by just having to do your local Air Law exam ( not even that required by the Belgians in 1991) and just to be sure, this is for Licencing to fly registered aircraft of THAT country. Nothing, nothing, to do with the confusion of flying in foreign airspace

Finally, of course the new UK LIcence will at last be recognised as University degree acadamic standard, so, can I be first to get my Degree in Civil Aviation. You know, something like "UK CAA Honours, -Hamble " ; then I could put "UKCAA-Ham Hon" behind my name. Ta.

you talk about “Gold Standard”...well, we Belgians find that very amusing, as we had pre-JAR FCL the hardest theory and practical requirements and examinations. You have a point though: current EASA requirements are insulting to our profession. Get back the fully written and oral exams and get rid of multi-choice and question banks! Make the ATPL University level again, but done in 2 years instead of 4 , like before 2000.

[Marly Lite]

Taking difficult exams has little correlation to being a good pilot.

[Pricey95]

I’m not too sure how I feel about this with regards to the future, I see both sides of the argument.

I am currently studying for AustroControl ATPL Exams at BGS. I am an English pilot with an (EASA) Irish PPL & Class 1 medical and will probably be finishing my training (MEIR/CPL & APS MCC) after the transition period with EASA ends. Now, my predicament is that I had a UK class 2 medical 2 years before I started my training and the CAA refused to lift a restriction on my medical. Instead of fighting my corner, I transferred my records to the IAA who lifted my restriction and I then gained a Class 1 over in Dublin in November 2019. Now I’m pretty nervous that if I have to try and covert my licenses back to the UK (because of brexit) after my training for employment purposes then the CAA will put a restriction on my records again. Do the CAA keep a record of your records even though you go through the SOLI transfer process?

Can anyone offer their thoughts/advice? Has anyone been through this process before or can relate to it?

[Banana Joe]

Yes, avoid the UK CAA altogether.

[Pricey95]

Yes, avoid the UK CAA altogether.

I’m trying to for as long as possible! Was hoping for an opportunity with Ryanair or an airline that will let you fly on an EASA or Irish license, I know Aurigny do!

[flash8]

I started my training and the CAA refused to lift a restriction on my medical.

been there some years ago.... the CAA are totally out of touch with reality as far as medicals are concerned... nothing changes.

[Private jet]

Well, well, well, that big wheel surely does go round!
I'm no fan of EASA and its pointless bureaucracy but then I wasn't a fan of the "old style" CAA either. You know, archaic exams, astronaut medicals, jobs for the boys, the "ex RAF navigators club" that kind of thing. Still many of those people are long gone now so this could/should be a golden opportunity. It will be interesting to see what we eventually end up with, after all of those with vested interests have exercised their influence and lobbying skills. Some people will fall through the cracks during transition and should/must be treated sympathetically. I agree it was interesting that Shapps was in Washington when he made the announcement. Maybe regulatory alignment will be heading westbound more in the future.

[a5in_the_sim]

Scam call centre owner in custody after BBC investigation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51740214)

It doesn’t help when CAA staff are arrested for doing their job.

[old,not bold]

From my own experience of the steady deterioration of competence, knowledge and ability over the last 20 years in the CAA's Safety Regulation Group, I think the estimate of 5 years for the CAA to regain any resemblance to a leading aviation safety regulator, on a par with EASA and the FAA is wildly optimistic.

Bar a few exceptions, including some, I'm sure, that I don't know about, the last competent person left the building sometime before 2010, leaving behind the incompetent time-servers in their own little fiefdoms and silos, unemployable anywhere else. This is certainly true of Airworthiness and AME Training; I have not heard anything complimentary about a Surveyor in the last 10 years; the most typical comments are disbelief that anyone so poorly suited to the job could be employed to do it, usually with an anecdote about the latest stupid assertion from a Surveyor.

That's not to say that the pre-EASA CAA was good; it wasn't. But from that low point it has gone steadily downhill since the UK joined EASA, and I just don't see how they can recover to become a top rank independent Regulator in less than 10 years, ie the minimum time needed to recruit, train and develop through experience the expert staff it needs.

Mind you, if the UK loses much more of its design and manufacturing capability there won't be much to regulate and approve there; and if UK-registered airlines keep failing the same goes for Flight Ops and Airworthiness as well. There will always be a few airports to watch over, but perhaps not so many as before.

I'm no fan of EASA, but the thought of the present bunch of oxygen thieves in the CAA taking charge instead makes me very glad I'm out of it later this year to spend more time with my boat.

[hunterboy]

I can’t help feeling that the UK will try and do this on the cheap, as usual. No doubt, we will walk into the negotiations in good faith against economic blocks looking to deny any concessions for UK aviation simply to exert pressure in other areas. As mentioned above, the CAA is a shadow of its former self. I doubt there is the expertise to fill many of these senior roles within the U.K., unless airline management decide they fancy a few years at the regulator as a retirement job. Sadly, knowing the calibre and attitudes of some airline management, I can’t help but think we are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

[JFZ90]

Anyone know who is telling the government this is a good idea?

I can see a lot of industry people saying it's a bad idea.

Is it just idealistic nonsense? It doesn't feel part of the negotiation, with a view to changing intention later, does it?

[DaveReidUK]

Scam call centre owner in custody after BBC investigation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51740214)

It doesn’t help when CAA staff are arrested for doing their job.

Care to explain the relevance ?

[Fortissimo]

Re the EASA FTLs, they weren’t perfect by any means, but it’s worth bearing in mind that there were several EASA Member States that didn’t have any FTLs at all. So these crews were flying into the UK when grossly fatigued, and from a narrow UK perspective these were the crews who you might have met over Europe when their fatigue could have been your problem. Now, it’s slightly different.

You also have the comfort of knowing that when your UK licence takes you to an airport on the fringes of EASA land, said airport might have reached some auditable standards that are to your benefit.

Has Grant Shapps worked out how the UK CAA is going to get sufficient safety data to manage risk in the UK when it can only gaze fondly on its own navel or on the UK industry through the lens of a very small straw? Somehow, I think the political posturing will be more important than the realities of operating in a vacuum.

[Dannyboy39]

Anyone know who is telling the government this is a good idea?

I can see a lot of industry people saying it's a bad idea.

Is it just idealistic nonsense? It doesn't feel part of the negotiation, with a view to changing intention later, does it?
It's not a bad idea... it is nuts.

[CEJM]

I fail to understand why this is such a surprise to anybody. Membership of EASA is contingent upon accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, something the government has ruled out from the beginning. One of the main Brexit points was to “take back control” and not being subject to the ECJ.

[AviatorDave]

Prior to joining EASA it was not uncommon for pilots who wear spectacles to hold a class 1 medical certificate, as long as required vision
standards were met.
Perhaps you had an underlying vision problem
which precluded the issue of a class 1 ? Simply requiring glasses wouldn’t affect the granting of a class 1

Oh yes it does!
You can have a perfect eyesight and totally healthy eyes with your glasses, but if you exceed the nonsensical and arbitrary diopter prescription limits, you‘re out.
Happened to many of my pals, who had perfect eyes otherwise.

[BDAttitude]

Sounds like another mini-brexit debate within the brexit :rolleyes:.

[RVR800]

GS announcement was made in US (Washington) - is he minded to implement FAR?

[BONES_]

GS announcement was made in US (Washington) - is he minded to implement FAR?

or just simply brown nosing?

[switch_on_lofty]

I fail to understand why this is such a surprise to anybody. Membership of EASA is contingent upon accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, something the government has ruled out from the beginning. One of the main Brexit points was to “take back control” and not being subject to the ECJ.
Yes, not a surprise. I've been saying that it didn't add up to be in easa with govt position in real life for a while.
I don't really see the benefit (but then I didn't of brexit) in any tangible form.
I don't really know how big say Transport Canada is but they own their certification I think. Not sure I'd want to operate under Canadian FTL though...
I can't see the new CAA being say more anti fatigue than easa because industry would see that as being uncompetitive.

[Majorbyte]

This is inevitable, for the reasons Shapps says.

And also a good thing - in my opinion!
a good thing? you have to be joking!

[Majorbyte]

I'm afraid the reality is that the UK has been taken over by a fanatical group of people that hate Europe and hate Europeans, Brexiteers are akin to members of the National Front, going back to the old CAA national licence is a pathetic move, we are now a nation with a cancer of stupidity spreading through our population.

[Satoshi Nakamoto]

I have had the privilege of paying fees to convert my UK CAA ATPL to JAA ATPL to EASA ATPL and now back to UK CAA ATPL meanwhile flying the same aircraft on all the same routes.

[Airbubba]

GS announcement was made in US (Washington) - is he minded to implement FAR?

I'd say that the FAA's oversight of airline aviation is about right. As with any bureaucracy there will be some idiotic rules and enforcement but on the whole at the professional level I don't really wish they did more or did less.

Knowing that the feds can pop up at anytime keeps both the pilots and the companies pretty honest in my observation.

I don't think I've ever bragged about how hard it is to get a pilot's license in the U.S. I think Americans are more concerned with how much money we make and how much time off we enjoy. Other cultures are probably more interested in the number of stripes on the uniform and post nominal letters.

Will the CAA reinvent the wheel once more for a relatively small pilot market? Or, will they adopt (or re-adopt) successful rules already in place elsewhere? I think we already know the answer to that one. ;)

[BEagle]

Shapps does not have the power to make such a decision!

He told me on several occasions that there is no reason why the UK cannot be a non-EU EASA Member State such as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland currently are.

Those UK citizens who wish the UK to remain in EASA should write to their MP! Mine is Robert Courts; on 29th October 2018 he wrote: You will be aware that the Government is seeking a comprehensive air transport deal with the EU which secures continued participation within the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) system. He also wrote a footnote in manuscript stating: P.S. Good to gear from you on this point; I hope this is reassuring.

[anson harris]

Honestly - the lunatics are taking over.
Anyone who thinks that we'll be going back to the old FTLs is utterly, utterly deluded. It will be all the CAA can do for the 1st ten years to keep the existing AOC holders operating - they won't have time to return to the days of Empire, I'm afraid. And how are we going to certify aircraft? And anyone that has had anything to do with the medical department knows that, err, THERE ISN"T ONE. I'm looking forward to the absolute chaos of putting this Daily Mail driven idiocy into place. It's gonna be bad...

[PAXboy]

From a PAX perspective, I have no desire to see the FAA and their worldview anywhere near the UK. They have as much forgiveness to beg as Boeing.

Yet again we see the British thinking that they can go back to a better time. One of the staples of politcians is to claim that by 'going back' we can 'go forward'. Yet we all know that in our private lives this can never be acheived - so why do so many people buy this idea of a whole country going back to the future? It sounds easy and safe but experience says otherwise.

Whatever the CAA might be now, it is not gold standard for, in all the 19 years I have been in these forums - I have never heard a good word about the CAA. I have heard people defending many things but never the CAA. As has been said, to build up a new organisation will take more then five years. Respect from the rest of the world will have to be earned, especially if we cozy up to the FAA whose name is below mud.

One example of British govt incompetence: They stated that they would secure the borders of this country. We were supposed to have left the EU nearly a year ago - yet our outgoing borders are still open. Consequently, Whitehall has zero idea of who has left, or has not and overstayed their Visa. They had three years to recruit and train staff for that and failed. How long to build up a CAA? I know, just hire in your old mates from the golf course who say they know what to do ...

EASA may be many things but it is agreement with our neighbours and trading partners. Agreements reduce admin costs. But all is being lost by little boys playing at being politicians. The EU has seen three years of Sabre rattling and have our measure.

[aox]

Shapps does not have the power to make such a decision!

He told me on several occasions that there is no reason why the UK cannot be a non-EU EASA Member State such as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland currently are.

Those UK citizens who wish the UK to remain in EASA should write to their MP! Mine is Robert Courts; on 29th October 2018 he wrote: He also wrote a footnote in manuscript stating:
Perhaps a more accurate view now might be that Shapps doesn't have the power to oppose such a decision.

Perhaps if you revisit the subject with him now, he may be able to tell you the reasons against that he previously suggested would not exist. Then again, if he criticises his cabinet colleagues too much he can find himself a new job and be replaced with someone more compliant.

[KeyPilot]

Why are people so surprised and alarmed, that a post-Brexit UK government wants to take back control of the country's own laws as they relate to aviation?

Continuing as a non-EU EASA member is vassalage pure and simple. All the non-EU EASA members have far smaller populations - and aviation sectors - than the UK's.

And as for "it will take the CAA 10 years to become capable" - this is just project fear all over again. How long did it take EASA to set up? And that was really from scratch, in a city without a major aviation industry.

Post-EASA Britain will do just fine.

[Airbubba]

From a PAX perspective, I have no desire to see the FAA and their worldview anywhere near the UK. They have as much forgiveness to beg as Boeing.

Looks like the CAA is going to be doing the begging that the FAA will accept their work once they are out of EASA. If the CAA certification can't measure up to FAA standards, the world's largest aviation market will take its business elsewhere.

As cited above:

The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration.

From the article DaveReidUK posted:

Aerospace companies based in countries without aviation regulatory compliance with EASA [or the FAA] find selling aerospace products and providing aviation services to the US and Europe, and indeed other countries outside their immediate jurisdiction, difficult and subject to additional work. This is because EASA and the US FAA standards form the benchmark for products and services so companies will be required to show their products match up to these benchmark standards.

[KeyPilot]

Looks like the CAA is going to be doing the begging that the FAA will accept their work once they are out of EASA. If the CAA certification can't measure up to FAA standards, the world's largest aviation market will take its business elsewhere.

As cited above:



From the article DaveReidUK posted:

There was a time when UK standards were the reference for much of the world. They still are to a degree - long-withdrawn BCARs/CAPs/... are still used by some countries!

[zoigberg]

Key pilot.... yes exactly, there WAS a time.

[El Thermidor]

I'm intrigued. Given that over the past few years UK nationals working in EASA and the various other European agencies will, like me, have been acquiring some form of European citizenship (and EASA is in Germany, which allows dual UK-German citizenship if applied for before the end of the transition period), how many Brits will be willing to move back? Their jobs are secure, and if they've been working in Cologne since the beginning, as implied by Mr. Shapps, their lives must be pretty stable? Move back to regulate what little manufacturing is left?
I work in automotive at the moment, and have acquired a second European passport to maintain my position here. It would take quite the package to persuade me back right now.
I doubt that the UK has any right of recall over these people - they aren't diplomats - and so will have to be tempted back. What would tempt you back? Assuming, that is, that you aren't one of the jingoistic sorts on here who would never have gone in the first place...

[SMT Member]

Shapps does not have the power to make such a decision!

He told me on several occasions that there is no reason why the UK cannot be a non-EU EASA Member State such as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland currently are.

Then you're Mr. Shapps is an even bigger idiot than politicians in general. Remaining as a non-EU member of EASA would mean accepting the ECJ as the legal arbitrator, and the UK has made it abundantly clear that's not going to happen.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

The CAA employs as many people today as it did prior to EASA.

WWW

[KeyPilot]

Then you're Mr. Shapps is an even bigger idiot than politicians in general. Remaining as a non-EU member of EASA would mean accepting the ECJ as the legal arbitrator, and the UK has made it abundantly clear that's not going to happen.

Indeed. Anyone who thinks we were ever going to stay in EASA under Boris, is kidding themselves. It is totally contrary to the philosophy towards Brexit of his government.

Instead of lobbying MPs for something which won't happen, let's all do what we can to make UK PLC work in the new post-Brexit (and post-EASA) world.

[KeyPilot]

Also re this BS about it taking 10 years for the CAA to build up again - we can have a policy unilaterally to accept EASA licenses/Cs of A/etc. etc. without even validations required, for a transition period of even several years if needs be.

All will be well!

[ShotOne]

How many of those here who think this is a good idea have any skin in the game?

[KeyPilot]

How many of those here who think this is a good idea have any skin in the game?
Er, me for one.

Plus we all do for sake of our industry & wider economy

[ExSimGuy]

I'm well past the age for flying ANYTHING but a SIM these days :O, but I'm still a British citizen (until Scotland separates from the UK and the "lunatics who have taken over the asylum" :ugh:) but has our goverment gone totally insane when they time an announcement like ths just after the two aviation companies have gone bust in the last month and the whole industry is threatened by a world-wide virus threat?

On top of that, it's going to cost around TEN TIMES as much to support our own regulatory system as it previously cost us to share the cost with the rest of Europe -- just so that Johnson and Cummings etc can boast "We are the Wonderful UK, and we have nothing to do with that rabble off our shores" :confused:

[KeyPilot]

I'm well past the age for flying ANYTHING but a SIM these days :O, but I'm still a British citizen (until Scotland separates from the UK and the "lunatics who have taken over the asylum" :ugh:) but has our goverment gone totally insane when they time an announcement like ths just after the two aviation companies have gone bust in the last month and the whole industry is threatened by a world-wide virus threat?

On top of that, it's going to cost around TEN TIMES as much to support our own regulatory system as it previously cost us to share the cost with the rest of Europe -- just so that Johnson and Cummings etc can boast "We are the Wonderful UK, and we have nothing to do with that rabble off our shores" :confused:

Well it's coming on 1-Jan-2021 (unless some special agreement is made that we stay in EASA for an extra transition period).

If not now then when, in your opinion, should the government make this clear, and start preparing?

[aox]

Also re this BS about it taking 10 years for the CAA to build up again - we can have a policy unilaterally to accept EASA licenses/Cs of A/etc. etc. without even validations required, for a transition period of even several years if needs be.

All will be well!
How will these be renewed, if for instance a UK maintenance organisation is no longer allowed to sign out work on non-UK EASA aircraft?

[PAXboy]

KeyPilot
Also re this BS about it taking 10 years for the CAA to build up again - we can have a policy unilaterally to accept EASA licenses/Cs of A/etc. etc. without even validations required, for a transition period of even several years if needs be.
No - because those who are put in charge will be those who want to 'Put our own stamp on it." and "We aren't going to just rubber stamp the Euro-boys."

They will be TOLD to do their own thing so that No.10 can show how clever they are. ALL departments are going to face this and the true costs will be hidden.

[KeyPilot]

How will these be renewed, if for instance a UK maintenance organisation is no longer allowed to sign out work on non-UK EASA aircraft?
Variety of possible solutions:
- agree a comprehensive airworthiness bilateral with EU
- transition period of continued, temporary EASA membership or association
- agree stand-still arrangements with EASA
- etc.

Anyway I don't see how this is a problem:
- Non-UK reg'd a/c can be maintained in remaining EASA states
- UK reg's aircraft could have new UK Cs of A issued on back on EASA ones & UK AMOs can thus do work

[old,not bold]

The CAA employs as many people today as it did prior to EASA.

WWW
That's interesting; I wonder where they all are? Most if not all the regional offices have been closed, staff at Gatwick have been cut back, or so the remainder claim.

I don't know about the Economic Regulation element of the CAA; have they expanded hugely?

I'm not denying your statement, just looking for an explanation.

On a related subject, I wonder what the facts are behind Shapps assertion that EASA was run mainly by Brits who will all come back to the UK and sign up with the CAA to make the dream come true. Like, for example, how many Brits were employed in EASA at senior executive level in July 2019, how many of those would be forced to or wish to leave, and how many of those would actually join the CAA in an equally senior position as soon as they leave EASA. I wonder what the comparative remuneration would look like. (The only 2 Brits I can recall seeing presenting at workshops were, in one case, woefully ignorant of his chosen speciality (the room reacted with incredulous laughter to his answer to one question) and, in the other case, quietly encouraged to relocate his toxic personality from Gatwick to Cologne.)

In short, it sounds to me like another Brexiteer pipe dream. Am I wrong?

[NutLoose]

Well, having just spent a ton of time writing new maintenance programmes to appease EASA one wonders if it was all in vain.

One also wonders what will happen licence wise, I hold both, but going from section L to EASA I gained some types under grandfather rights, will I lose these that I have been certifying or will one get grandfather rights as everything shifts the other way. I suppose the ideal would be leave EASA but align with it.

The CAA will be screwed, not enough staff and no skill set anymore to deal with these things, didn't mods etc get farmed out across Europe with different countries responsible for different types etc? That will all need to come back in house for one.
ohhhhh dear.....

[TURIN]

Anyway I don't see how this is a problem:
- Non-UK reg'd a/c can be maintained in remaining EASA states
- UK reg's aircraft could have new UK Cs of A issued on back on EASA ones & UK AMOs can thus do work

Not when they go Tech on UK soil.
All I can see is current UK EASA MRO's losing work to EU EASA MROs.
Alternatively all UK MROs will need dual licenced engineers or we come to bilateral agreement in the same way we do now with US and other non EASA NAAs.
Great, more CBT coming our way.
I think I spend more time watching safety and training videos than I do actually fixing aircraft these days.

[WB627]

How will these be renewed, if for instance a UK maintenance organisation is no longer allowed to sign out work on non-UK EASA aircraft?

So if a UK maintenance organisation continued to work to EASA standards and got another organisation (possibly even EASA itself) to certify that it was working to those standards, would that not solve the problem.

If IRC in my industry we worked to ISO9002 and there were a number of independent organisations that could certify us for that.

Surely it's the regulations you are working to and proving that that is what you are doing, that is the issue, not where you are doing it? Correct me if I am wrong on this.

[Diesel_10]

Rant Alert!
JAR Ops, JAR 145 - developed by UK and Dutch - adopted by more than 120 authorities from 1992 onwards. Result, Safety improves and standardisation is fully understood.

French and Germans get all EU macho and develop Part 145, Part M, Part 66 and Part 21 by instigating all of it as EU Law - Result? Baffling amount of bureaucracy, rules and regulation changes introduced via NPA's, Guidance leaflets, AMOCs and God knows what else - oh and the infamous Comment Response Tool whereby everyone who is approved can whinge to Cologne but you still get what Cologne has pre-proposed. Yes those airworthiness 'experts' that have huge expense accounts, free car and tax advantages because they can speak two or more languages. Ask for a decision its like the Airbus 24 hour desk......we'll get back to you.

The whole idea was to have level playing field. When the Eastern European countries were added, they embraced the rules and regulations and carried on with what they were doing....much like the French.

So QM - CAMO Postholder wanting to renew his Part 66 Licence with 5 types (most of which are commercially irrelevant) £382 for 5 years from the UK CAA.
Co-worker, Post-Holder Airworthiness Review. Part 66 with 17 types (I kid you not) £15 for 5 years including Recorded delivery from Budapest

Recently I asked for the Approval Certificate from a Bulgarian Part M. It reads........Boeing All Types. Airbus All Types Embraer All Types. We however have to go through a rigmarole of Risk Assessment, Qualifications, Baseline AMP etc etc.......

Don't get me started on the 'Greying Out' of types not worked on in the last 6 months from your Approval Certificate. There is not one authority outside the UK that pursues this regime.

We have never been part of EASA. We have never had the 'Level Playing Field' - The CAA is nothing more than a Business. Profit and Loss.


:ugh:

[jimmievegas]

Yes those airworthiness 'experts' that have huge expense accounts, free car and tax advantages because they can speak two or more languages. Ask for a decision its like the Airbus 24 hour desk......we'll get back to you.Chip on your shoulder? ;-)
eading your post, it seems you have something factual to say but it's buried under so much jingoistic nation-bashing that it's hard to figure out. Would be better to stick to the facts, IMO.

[Diesel_10]

Chip on your shoulder? ;-)
eading your post, it seems you have something factual to say but it's buried under so much jingoistic nation-bashing that it's hard to figure out. Would be better to stick to the facts, IMO.

At my time of life....just tell it as it is. Facts. Unpalatable Jingoistic Nationalistic whatever. I'm sure the Liberalists will have a name for it. They're not happy unless they box me and label me before dismissing me. How I got through 46 years of aviation nonsense God only knows.

All of what I said is Fact.....In Quality Assurance Terms - Documentary Evidence, Beyond Reasonable Doubt but thank you for your feedback. Well intended as I'm sure it is. :)

[NutLoose]

Considering the CAA initially issued their guide booklet about converting a section L over to a part 66 licence and in it they gave examples of two aircraft to give you a group rating, under twin engine piston pressurised... they quoted two examples a Cessna 500 ( Citation Jet ) and a Cessna 441 if I remember correctly.. ( A TurboProp )

And considering the farce over the implementation of radio frequency changes and ELT fits with dates changing and slipping at the drop of a hat... Leaving EASA by the end of the year......hahahahaha, gold plate licence alright, probably due to them being as rare as rocking horse sh#t... They can't even turn around a current licence without a drama lasting weeks....


I think we are Doomed... Doomed I tell you... Doomed.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If the UK CAA were smart they would just adopt the entire FAA flight crew licensing system. US pilots have a lower overall incident accident rate as compared to EASA licensed pilots so the safety case is all ready made.

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. And if you wanted to give a hearty "F8ck You" to Europe that would be a pretty good way to do it.

[NutLoose]

That would never do, the Engineering licences are for life, where would the CAA be able to extract their pound of flesh from?

[Airbubba]

There was a time when UK standards were the reference for much of the world. They still are to a degree - long-withdrawn BCARs/CAPs/... are still used by some countries!

Years ago I needed to convert my FAA ATP to a CAA-style ATPL to operate some widebody aircraft registered in another country. Turns out the simplest way to do that was to convert the FAA ATP to the license of a third country which in turn was recognized by the CAA-style country.

The first conversion was a rubber stamp open book test with air law questions about unlit balloons after civil twilight below 18,000 feet and expired parachute inspection protocols. The second conversion written test had a bunch of wacko technical stuff about the mixer stage of the superheterodyne receiver and the purpose of the supercharger on a Merlin engine. I had to do some sim session with an emphasis on useful things like non-standard NDB holding. The examiner listed my many failure points on the sim ride but then magnanimously signed off my new CAA-style license. The license looked like a passport with a picture, a little string hanging out, numerous stamps, signatures and expiration dates.

As I've often observed here, some cultures seem to thrive on endless complexity but we Americans usually try to keep it simple when it comes to aviation.

If the UK CAA were smart they would just adopt the entire FAA flight crew licensing system. US pilots have a lower overall incident accident rate as compared to EASA licensed pilots so the safety case is all ready made.

Yep, the wheel has already been invented. Several times I suppose. ;)

[tucumseh]

This could get very embarrassing later this year at the Shoreham Inquest where, all things being equal, the CAA will get a good kicking.

[stevef]

A lot of criticism for the CAA here. To redress the balance, I've held an aircraft maintenance engineer's licence since 1986 (Section L and subsequent) and I've never had a problem with them. Quite the reverse, they've always been helpful and one very senior head of department was instrumental in pointing me towards a job when I was unemployed.
I miss my original licence number though. :-(

[NutLoose]

[QUOTE=stevef;10706937]A lot of criticism for the CAA here. To redress the balance, I've held an aircraft maintenance engineer's licence since 1986 (Section L and subsequent) and I've never had a problem with them. Quite the reverse, they've always been helpful and one very senior head of department was instrumental in pointing me towards a job when I was unemployed.
I miss my original licence number though. :-([/QUOTE ]

You know you could have retained your Section L, I did, and it is free with a Part 66. Even your 66 experience is acceptable these days, luckily previously I had a Spit I could list. The stupid thing was it was renewable every two years originally but then went to five, so is no longer aligned with the 66 renewal.

[stevef]

Nutloose:
But would that Section L licence retain the *old-fashioned* number (mine was in the 22000s) or would it be tied to the Pt 66 six-digit, one-letter reference? I've got a classic airframe validation that may come in useful sometime, as you do. :-)

[zoigberg]

In time yes, but not necessarily on 1-Jan-21

Brexiteers are pragmatists! :)


i posted this on another forum. But this was the opinion of the CAA itself in 2018

22 March, 2018

In response to the FT's article on 19 March ('MPs warn of Brexit damage to UK aerospace'), Andrew Haines said:

“Both the Government and the CAA have been clear that our collective preference is to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) once the UK formerly withdraws from the European Union. The international nature of aviation regulation has improved safety outcomes for passengers, and it is important we retain as much influence as possible in this global system.

In a speech I gave in September 2017, I was clear that I believe the UK should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system. If continued membership of EASA is unachievable, we should adopt the existing EASA regulatory system, rather than developing a new framework from scratch. This option is available to any third-party country, and is one that, I believe, would provide clarity and certainty for the aviation industry.”


So Brexiteers may be pragmatists, but the aviation industry and its regulators would undoubtedly be happier if it wasn’t happening.

[NutLoose]

Yes you can align with EASA, we do not doubt that, the problem is a lot of the services the UK CAA used to do in house were along with other European countries divided up with individual countries taking on certain tasks, after all there is no point every country doing the same task. When we leave and are no longer part of EASA we will have to take on those tasks again that had previously been "outsourced" to Europe. Something we probably no longer have the staffing for, or staff not necessarily sufficiently knowledgeable in those fields. That and traditionally the CAA has been looked upon as financially self supporting through fees etc, one has to wonder who is going to pay for all of this...... And I think we all know the answer to that one!

[kiwi grey]

It seems to me that the easiest route for at least Roll-Royce and the UK bits of Airbus would be to just completely ignore the "new, improved English CAA"
If these organisations maintain EASA registration - if necessary through their German subsidiary and/or French owners - they can still produce EASA-recognised airframes, engines and parts, which will be able to be fitted & maintained by EASA-registered MROs & airlines.

If the English CAA was then directed to get all jingoistic and not recognise EASA approvals, that would put the UK based industry in a pretty pickle, but the rest of the EU would probably shrug & walk away

[woptb]

Yes you can align with EASA, we do not doubt that, the problem is a lot of the services the UK CAA used to do in house were along with other European countries divided up with individual countries taking on certain tasks, after all there is no point every country doing the same task. When we leave and are no longer part of EASA we will have to take on those tasks again that had previously been "outsourced" to Europe. Something we probably no longer have the staffing for, or staff not necessarily sufficiently knowledgeable in those fields. That and traditionally the CAA has been looked upon as financially self supporting through fees etc, one has to wonder who is going to pay for all of this...... And I think we all know the answer to that one!

Totally agree Nutty,very little experience of production or design at Gatwick,pretty much all overseen by Cologne. Most current EASA UK based Pt.145’s will overnight become 3rd country EASA approved organisations, all this crap about sovereignty, is just that, crap! To work on EU registered or EASA associated nations Iceland et al, we will be governed by Cologne with no say.

Our CAA issued approvals will certainly initially be relatively worthless,that said we have a bi-lateral with the US ready to go,hurrah!

Anything we design or build,the majority of which currently seemlessly crosses internal EU borders carrying with it EASA certification, this will cease.

We’ll have to pay for both the CAA & EASA to certify,won’t that be nice!
An EASA bi-lateral won’t necessarily be automatically forthcoming,for CAA innovation read additional expense,time and all the lovely bureaucracies which will accompany it. This government are idiots, disrupting a 36 billion pound industry for the sake of political dogma!

[NutLoose]

And now FAA, EASA and CAA issued AD's to comply with ETC... how nice.

[NutLoose]

WOTBP, it's already started...looking for design engineers lol.

https://careers.caa.co.uk/search/?createNewAlert=false&q=&locationsearch=&optionsFacetsDD_customfield1=

[KeyPilot]

i posted this on another forum. But this was the opinion of the CAA itself in 2018

22 March, 2018

In response to the FT's article on 19 March ('MPs warn of Brexit damage to UK aerospace'), Andrew Haines said:

“Both the Government and the CAA have been clear that our collective preference is to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) once the UK formerly withdraws from the European Union. The international nature of aviation regulation has improved safety outcomes for passengers, and it is important we retain as much influence as possible in this global system.

In a speech I gave in September 2017, I was clear that I believe the UK should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system. If continued membership of EASA is unachievable, we should adopt the existing EASA regulatory system, rather than developing a new framework from scratch. This option is available to any third-party country, and is one that, I believe, would provide clarity and certainty for the aviation industry.”


So Brexiteers may be pragmatists, but the aviation industry and its regulators would undoubtedly be happier if it wasn’t happening.
Of course Haines is going to say that. Why would he want lots more work and stress? But it is his job to implement the policy of a democratically elected government - not to seek to resist it.

[KeyPilot]

And now FAA, EASA and CAA issued AD's to comply with ETC... how nice.
Yes but ADs are usually substantially the same across major regulators

[Deepinsider]

Nobody has mentioned ICAO.
Isn't that where agreed standards are set?
My licence to fly in UK/EU skies is issued
by an ICAO member state, not CAA or EASA
(only that ICAO member rego. of course)

[Aso]

Nobody has mentioned ICAO.
Isn't that where agreed standards are set?
My licence to fly in UK/EU skies is issued
by an ICAO member state, not CAA or EASA
(only that ICAO member rego. of course)

ICAO only set the toplevel rules and their main focus is on Air Navigation...

I keep hearing this song of Supertramp when I hear Grant Schnapps... "Dreamer, you are nothing but a dreamer" :rolleyes:

[Widger]

Of course Haines is going to say that. Why would he want lots more work and stress? But it is his job to implement the policy of a democratically elected government - not to seek to resist it.

He is no longer the boss of the CAA but holding another poisoned chalice as boss of Network Rail. Still working under Shapps though!

[zoigberg]

Of course Haines is going to say that. Why would he want lots more work and stress? But it is his job to implement the policy of a democratically elected government - not to seek to resist it.

Indeed they should be implementing policy. Two years ago, when the quote was made, it was not policy. I can’t think of any organisations in our industry that will be welcoming the extra legwork and paperwork that this is going to involve. Fine, we have to ‘deal with it’. But it will come at a cost, and Mr Haines was pointing that out at the time.

[Webby737]

WOTBP, it's already started...looking for design engineers lol.

https://careers.caa.co.uk/search/?createNewAlert=false&q=&locationsearch=&optionsFacetsDD_customfield1=

I think they're dreaming if they're going to find anyone (good) to work for those salaries !
I'm sure in the long term they will come up with a solution, but I see a future of more paperwork and regulatory hoops to jump though, as if we don't have enough already !

[Aso]

WOTBP, it's already started...looking for design engineers lol.

https://careers.caa.co.uk/search/?cr..._customfield1= (https://careers.caa.co.uk/search/?createNewAlert=false&q=&locationsearch=&optionsFacetsDD_customfield1=)

They mixed up the janitor salary with the one for a design engineer :8

[Flightmech]

They're only paying 40K for a SAFA inspector. I know that's different from an airworthiness surveyor but really?

[Emm4]

The proposal to take back responsibilities from EASA and return them to the UK CAA is another example of the recklessness and risk taking associated with BREXIT.
CAA was a staffed by many skilled people with world-wide recognition and that situation cannot be recreated in the near term. Many original CAA experts joined EASA but a good number of them have already retired or are approaching retirement. If they are to be invited to rejoin CAA, then it might be necessary to employ nurses, medical aids and defibrillators to keep them going! The likelihood is that the technical capability that will be needed by CAA will take many years to restore and that a semi-technical bureaucratic administration will be the intermediate outcome.
Our aviation industry does not need this major disturbance. The assumed benefits might help a few individuals but, overall, won't prove to be better for our industry than that already provided by EASA.

[Phantom Driver]

Time to chill . Remember , esteemed Transport Minister did say the process would be " gradual " .; that's political speak for " maybe never " . A lot of stuff coming out from current government seems to be chest thumping sound bites aimed at our beloved media , all forgotten by Joe Public a few days/weeks later , that's if it was ever noticed in the first place . Just like Galileo ; off the radar , but when the consequential penny drops in the corridors of power , then things might change .

However , in the meantime , all a good excuse to wind folks up on PP .

[Sallyann1234]

Ah yes - Galileo. The UK loses the high precision access. So we were promised our own GNSS. Now the government has realised how much it will cost so they have dropped it.

[hoistop]

Ah yes - Galileo. The UK loses the high precision access. So we were promised our own GNSS. Now the government has realised how much it will cost so they have dropped it.
You don´t need your own GNSS. You will have GPS in the package agreement with U.S. when you are taken over by Uncle Sam. And bilateral agreement with FAA will put you firmly on the other side of the Pond.
Restoring British Empire is just a dream that will be paid dearly.
I traveled thru New Zealand recently - a few decades ago, their foreign exchange with UK was close to 50%. Today is around 10% and declining. They are only talking about relations with Asian countries, not UK. Check on which issue their young PM came to office.
The Concorde was the first right move, albeit a money loser. Airbus - a sort of offspring, became a huge success, that drove then dominant U.S. industry to run and consolidate, but was eventually overtaken-to their fury. A small CS airplane from Canada drove Airbus to reengine its 320, pushing Boeing into another facelift to its venerable workhorse - a one too many. Europe/Airbus became a leader-with considerable input/share from U.K. And this might change with this insane idea of leaving EASA. Is this the agenda behind? Why did Secretary for Transport announce this in Washington?? Also, bear in mind that the only big engine manufacturer on this half of the planet is in U.K.
I just feel sorry for you and sorry for a lost opportunity for all of us in Europe. There is no real future for such (little) empires anymore. It is all about finding the answer to rising superpower in the East. Any grinding between U.S. and Europe is only giving them a boost. Aviation industry is an important tell-tale of what is coming.

[infrequentflyer789]

I traveled thru New Zealand recently - a few decades ago, their foreign exchange with UK was close to 50%. Today is around 10% and declining. They are only talking about relations with Asian countries, not UK.

Actually New Zealand's trade with UK cratered a few decades ago because the UK joined the EU and it's external trade barriers. Our EU membership caused New Zealand 7% or so GDP loss and lead to recession there. It has taken a long time for them to find footholds in new markets in Asia. Will NZ forgive and forget the pain we caused them by joining the EU - we'll have to wait and see.

[Cloudee]

Restoring British Empire is just a dream that will be paid dearly.
I traveled thru New Zealand recently - a few decades ago, their foreign exchange with UK was close to 50%. Today is around 10% and declining.
Might want to check your facts. 10 March 2020. 1 NZ$ = 0.48 UK pounds.

[Alex Whittingham]

You don´t need your own GNSS. My reading of this is that, in order to publish GPS/Galileo approaches the State needs to demonstrate some form of integrity control that it, itself, controls. Hence the EU has EGNOS, and of course more localised GLS approaches. If I have this right, once we leave the EU, the UK won't be able to offer EGNOS approaches because EGNOS is not under its control. I'd appreciate it if someone who knows the subject could confirm or deny my reading. I can't find anything specific in the Chicago Convention, PANS OPS etc. Or is it the case that the UK can legally publish approaches that piggy-back on the EU's EGNOS system?

[kingbing]

We may get some more answers from the Government next week in Parliament. Lord Whitty has secured a 1-hour debate on UK EASA membership. This should happen approx 14:00 on Thursday 19th March. Aviation minister Baroness Vere is expected to respond.

[etudiant]

Might want to check your facts. 10 March 2020. 1 NZ$ = 0.48 UK pounds.
Suspect the issue in question is the trade volume rather than the exchange rate

[Aso]

The proposal to take back responsibilities from EASA and return them to the UK CAA is another example of the recklessness and risk taking associated with BREXIT.
CAA was a staffed by many skilled people with world-wide recognition and that situation cannot be recreated in the near term. Many original CAA experts joined EASA but a good number of them have already retired or are approaching retirement. If they are to be invited to rejoin CAA, then it might be necessary to employ nurses, medical aids and defibrillators to keep them going! The likelihood is that the technical capability that will be needed by CAA will take many years to restore and that a semi-technical bureaucratic administration will be the intermediate outcome.
Our aviation industry does not need this major disturbance. The assumed benefits might help a few individuals but, overall, won't prove to be better for our industry than that already provided by EASA.

In the old days it was a leading light, in the old days they paid a decent salary.

Nowadays the leading lights are the people leaving the CAA to work for the airlines... :rolleyes:

[Cat Techie]

Does this mean I don't have to remove the restrictions from my B1 licence? Are we reverting to section L and BCARS?

What a farce!

Agree, a farce. I had the agruement with a B2 whom had grandfathered his B2 from BCAR L X,s. Gash sod as well.

[PaulH1]

Many CAA people left to assist in CAME and SMS systems. They created such complex regulations that they found that it was more profitable to leave the Authority and oversee the systems that they had created in the first place. As the old saying goes 'if you can't do it then teach it: if you can't teach it then examine it; if you can't examine it then regulate it'. !!

[vortexadminman]

were a total waste of time and effort. I had flown the 737 for years before taking the exams and there was nothing in all those tests that was useful. But I passed them any how. And have since then never used anything that was in the tests.

jobsworth or is it job’s worth? At least that clarification could be useful. Sure took a lot of them, spread out through the EU to come up with those exams in all the different languages.


Could not agree more !!! I did the same apart from military aircraft not a 737. After those exams I thought what was all that about!

[covec]

One wonders how on earth we managed pre JAR JAA EASA...😉

[Blu3wolf]

My reading of this is that, in order to publish GPS/Galileo approaches the State needs to demonstrate some form of integrity control that it, itself, controls. Hence the EU has EGNOS, and of course more localised GLS approaches. If I have this right, once we leave the EU, the UK won't be able to offer EGNOS approaches because EGNOS is not under its control. I'd appreciate it if someone who knows the subject could confirm or deny my reading. I can't find anything specific in the Chicago Convention, PANS OPS etc. Or is it the case that the UK can legally publish approaches that piggy-back on the EU's EGNOS system?
I thought the modern convention was Performance Based Navigation... define an RNAV approach and who cares if they use EGNOS, GPS, or celestial navigation so long as they meet the Required Navigation Performance?

[Bergerie1]

Too many posters are looking at the minutiae without considering the much bigger picture of the requirements of the regulation of aircraft manufacturing and aviaton services. If you read no more, please read pages 20 and 21 of this Royal Aeronautical Society document. The UK needs either to remain a full member of EASA or seek associate membership like Norway and several other countries.

Our politicians seem hellbent on seeking a 'so-called freedom' without considering the problems and costs that the aviation industry will have to bear.

. https://www.aerosociety.com/media/6797/raes_civil_aviation_regulation_-_what_future_after_brexit.pdf

[Taflen_Gymraeg]

They mixed up the janitor salary with the one for a design engineer :8

They seem to have done that on most of their roles. Like most public sector roles in the UK, they will only attract mediocre skilled people who are looking to blag some free training before jumping ship to a higher pay grade in the real world.

[kenparry]

B1: too true. But we are being driven by dogma, not by common sense.

[SAM 2M]

Well said.
UK was a leading world class Safety Regulator long before EASA was born.

[SAM 2M]

We managed just fine!

[Sallyann1234]

Our politicians seem hellbent on seeking a 'so-called freedom' without considering the problems and costs that the aviation industry will have to bear.


Don't feel you are being picked on. Many other industries have been given their own problems.

[DaveReidUK]

Well said.
UK was a leading world class Safety Regulator long before EASA was born.

We managed just fine!

We did indeed.

It's just a shame that we didn't think to put all those fine engineers, surveyors, regulators, etc into suspended animation when EASA came on the scene, in preparation for the day (coming soon, apparently) when we'll need them all again. :O

[Aso]

UK was a leading world class Safety Regulator long before EASA was born.

Should read "UK WAS a leading world class Safety Regulator." And we would all agree! :rolleyes:

Now to get 300+ top engineers and regulators in will be interesting.....

[Cat Techie]

There was a time when UK standards were the reference for much of the world. They still are to a degree - long-withdrawn BCARs/CAPs/... are still used by some countries!

Again, there was a time. LONG GONE! BCARs and CAPs used by other countries. Please tell me which ones? Are they in the northern and western hemispheres? One can read BCAR A requirements vs EASA requirements. I just hear the same stuff I hear from old age pensioners I work with. Shame their standards are below their verbal.

[torvalds]

In the light of these awesome/intelligent daily-political outbursts and grandstanding, is it sensible to start now an ATPL ground training in the UK, or better to find an ATO in the EU and distance learning?

[Hadley Rille]

LANDFLAP - Agree with all. I am a bit more simplistic and will also write to the new UK CAA requesting my degree to read ; UK ATPL-Oxon"
I like it. Get a PPL(Oxon) and seven years later they send you an ATPL(Oxon) in the post.

[clackerbag]

In the light of these awesome/intelligent daily-political outbursts and grandstanding, is it sensible to start now an ATPL ground training in the UK, or better to find an ATO in the EU and distance learning?

Bristol Ground School have their ATO through the IAA and offer the ability to sit Austro Control exams (rather than UK CAA exams) on site. Form my experience only a very small number of people are sitting the CAA exams now.

[Fortissimo]

UK was a leading world class Safety Regulator long before EASA was born.

In the long term the CAA will no doubt cope. The question right now is how long it will take the CAA to develop its capacity to regulate effectively across the full range of activity, including State of Design responsibilities and the like. That means putting in place the resources, the processes and the people. And for the regulation to be credible and acceptable to other parties, the people will need to be suitably qualified and experienced - they do not grow on trees and are not likely to come flocking to the door at Gatwick just to be paid peanuts.

Unless the Govt decides to put in some funding, the resourcing position will probably get worse. Besides the impact of the Coronavirus contraction, you could not blame an ATO for deciding to stay under the EASA umbrella, issue EASA licences and have its new pilots destined for UK operators pay to transfer their new EASA licence. Over 7000 UK ATPL holders have transferred their licences offshore since all this started. The CAA will get no income from licensing work for these people and will have to raise charges elsewhere, which will increase the financial burden at individual and organisational levels and drive even more away. Airbus has already indicated that it might need to transfer its manufacturing capability out of the UK, probably to the benefit of France and Germany, to avoid the needless complications of 3rd country involvement in certification and airworthiness assurance. So no revenue there either. And what of the MROs who rely on a mix of UK and EASA work to survive? Another expensive twin-track system? How many UK AOCs will start to transfer assets to EASA MS registers?

Despite statements here that the UK will continue to operate within the EASA system until the end of the transition period (see the CAA Brexit site), the European Commission has already (in Jan) directed the removal of UK CAA staff from all EASA decision-making or decision-shaping bodies, apparently in response to UK Govt noise about a hard line for negotiating (or not) the final Brexit arrangements. The CAA says it will recognise all EASA licences etc for 2 years from exit but AFAIK the Commission has given no such assurances - and why would it? It will be a key EU bargaining tool.

Regardless of which side of the Brexit divide you stand on, I think we might all agree it's a mess.

[torvalds]

Bristol Ground School have their ATO through the IAA and offer the ability to sit Austro Control exams (rather than UK CAA exams) on site. Form my experience only a very small number of people are sitting the CAA exams now.

Thanks clackerbag, I see. As you mentioned, perhaps Bristol though IAA seems to be the safer choice. I was planning to go with CATS Aviation, they told me I can sit Austro Control exams with them too (they are closer to where I live).
I am just worried what will happen if I fail to finish the training before 31st of Dec. Are they going to allow me to finish the training in the UK and sit Austro Control exams, or I have to start it from zero in January with an EASA ATO?

[jez d]

Torvalds, BGS have put a comprehensive guide on their website. You'll find the answer to your last question here: https://www.bristol.gs/uk-leaving-easa/

[torvalds]

Torvalds, BGS have put a comprehensive guide on their website. You'll find the answer to your last question here: https://www.bristol.gs/uk-leaving-easa/

Fantastic jez d. I appreciate your help!

[cashash]

Airbus has already indicated that it might need to transfer its manufacturing capability out of the UK, probably to the benefit of France and Germany, to avoid the needless complications of 3rd country involvement in certification and airworthiness assurance.

Not sure about that as Airbus have it as a corporate policy to source 40% of components from outside of the EU (and therefore EASA).

[Bunk-Rest]

Maybe people posting on this thread should start with ;-

I voted remain, and I think that......

or

I voted leave, and I think........

It would cut out a certain amount of absolute nonsense

[Bunk-Rest]

What are the snowflake generation afraid of, apart from themselves?

[Aso]

What are the snowflake generation afraid of, apart from themselves?

Please take your BS to the Sun or similar sites. We have a government that is dreaming and in that process is seriously messing up our industry. Aviation is Global and there are two flavors: FAA or EASA... Any aviation professional who believes that it makes sense and helps the world to get a third small rulewriter should call his "peer to peer" friend as he has a severe mental issue or lack of knowledge of the industry and regulations.

Is EASA great? No. Is it better than the FAA? In the last 2 / 3 years: yes! Will people like a 3rd authority? No! Just the paperwork it will add to an Easyjet or AIG if the simply want to move aircraft within the group... And again: where will they find the right staff? It has been a disaster to get good inspectors for the last 5 years and the quality dropped even with the low workload...

So in short: daydreaming by politicians....:yuk:

[Denti]

Despite statements here that the UK will continue to operate within the EASA system until the end of the transition period (see the CAA Brexit site), the European Commission has already (in Jan) directed the removal of UK CAA staff from all EASA decision-making or decision-shaping bodies, apparently in response to UK Govt noise about a hard line for negotiating (or not) the final Brexit arrangements.

I don’t think that has anything to do with the rhetorics of the UK government. It is simply a logical result of the current situation where the UK has to follow all EU rules but cannot legally have any say in them as the UK is now a third country. That is why there are no UK MEPs anymore, or any UK personnel actively working in any EU agency.

[happybiker]

That is why there are no UK MEPs anymore, or any UK personnel actively working in any EU agency.

There may not be any UK MEPs anymore but I am sure that there are UK persons employed by EASA before Brexit who continue to still be employed by EASA.

[wiggy]

I don’t think that has anything to do with the rhetorics of the UK government. It is simply a logical result of the current situation where the UK has to follow all EU rules but cannot legally have any say in them as the UK is now a third country. That is why there are no UK MEPs anymore, or any UK personnel actively working in any EU agency.

Agreed.... as in so many areas the U.K. now sits under european umbrella until the end of transition but has no say in the decision making process.

All well publicised years ago.

[Denti]

There may not be any UK MEPs anymore but I am sure that there are UK persons employed by EASA before Brexit who continue to still be employed by EASA.
You could be right, but as was alluded to in the post i replied to, all those in posts where decisions are made have been removed, as the UK cannot take part in any EU decision making anymore. It is not an EU member state after all, just a third country, and third countries (without a relevant agreement) cannot take part in any intra-EU decision making process. Of course those that hold a dual citizenship of an EU country are a different thing altogether.

[kiwi grey]

Of course those that hold a dual citizenship of an EU country are a different thing altogether.

Are Airbus (in particular, but other 'majors' as well) likely to going to start a citizenship sponsorship programme so that employees they consider valuable who hold only UK citizenship are assisted to gain EU citizenship? This would take cooperation from the receiving government, but I could see this as being advantageous to the receiving country as well as the employer.

[Webby737]

Are Airbus (in particular, but other 'majors' as well) likely to going to start a citizenship sponsorship programme so that employees they consider valuable who hold only UK citizenship are assisted to gain EU citizenship? This would take cooperation from the receiving government, but I could see this as being advantageous to the receiving country as well as the employer.

They don't need to at the moment.
Anyone with a UK passport can register as a resident in their country of residence in the EU till next year, I would assume that those ex-pats working for Airbus based in France, Spain etc. have already registered.
Of course what happens next year is anyones guess.

[ATC Watcher]

Careful there is a huge difference between registering as resident and applying for citizenship. since we talk about Airbus, both France and Germany have similar laws.. UK citizens were given until end of the year to enjoy the current EU benefits. After that that will fall under the normal alien status and apply for both work and residence permit. . To request citizenship you need to have a few criteria the most common are minimum 5 years residence in the country and speak the language , in Germany even pass a good language test . .It is not as simple anymore after the recent immigration laws. . Of course you could always try to apply for refugee status , then those are waved...:E

[infrequentflyer789]

UK citizens were given until end of the year to enjoy the current EU benefits. After that that will fall under the normal alien status and apply for both work and residence permit.

This isn't true, it would have been true under "no deal", but UK citizens resident in EU 27 or EU citizens resident in UK now have additional rights granted under the withdrawal agreement, these are over and above "normal alien status". The deal mandates specific "settled status" schemes in EU and UK, with qualifying criteria that are effectively the same as for EU freedom of movement. There are deadlines for applying though, and if you miss those then you will end up with "normal alien status".

See e.g. https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership/eu-uk-withdrawal-agreement/implementing-withdrawal-agreement/citizens-rights_en

[alfaman]

This isn't true, it would have been true under "no deal", but UK citizens resident in EU 27 or EU citizens resident in UK now have additional rights granted under the withdrawal agreement, these are over and above "normal alien status". The deal mandates specific "settled status" schemes in EU and UK, with qualifying criteria that are effectively the same as for EU freedom of movement. There are deadlines for applying though, and if you miss those then you will end up with "normal alien status".

See e.g. https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-union-and-united-kingdom-forging-new-partnership/eu-uk-withdrawal-agreement/implementing-withdrawal-agreement/citizens-rights_en
So it is true, if we exit with no deal - which seems ever more likely to me...

[Luc Lion]

So it is true, if we exit with no deal - which seems ever more likely to me...
The deal in question is the Brexit withdrawal agreement which was signed on January 24th 2020 and became effective on February 1st 2020.
It's kind of history now. ;-)

[ATC Watcher]

The deal in question is the Brexit withdrawal agreement which was signed on January 24th 2020 and became effective on February 1st 2020.
It's kind of history now. ;-)
Maybe I missed something but as I understood it the withdrawal agreement is just a framework. The meat on the bones have still to be negotiated during the current year and if there is no agreement it is back to a so called "hard Brexit" next February , and in that case teh socila benefits and special status during the transition for UK residents will end. Or did I get that wrong ?

[1daneman]

Fat bus driver-
"you think we will let you" Explains why we are not in eu.

[flyinkiwi]

Actually New Zealand's trade with UK cratered a few decades ago because the UK joined the EU and it's external trade barriers. Our EU membership caused New Zealand 7% or so GDP loss and lead to recession there. It has taken a long time for them to find footholds in new markets in Asia. Will NZ forgive and forget the pain we caused them by joining the EU - we'll have to wait and see.

The more appropriate question is, how much can NZ screw out of the UK now that they don't have the EU to hide behind and NZ's solid trade connections in other markets they aren't utterly reliant on UK trade? Boris better bring his chequebook.

[Luc Lion]

Maybe I missed something but as I understood it the withdrawal agreement is just a framework. The meat on the bones have still to be negotiated during the current year and if there is no agreement it is back to a so called "hard Brexit" next February , and in that case teh socila benefits and special status during the transition for UK residents will end. Or did I get that wrong ?
I am afraid you are mostly wrong.

The purpose of the withdrawal agreement is to safeguard some interests deemed critical by one or the other of the 2 parties, using a "grand-fathering" approach.
These points are settled independently of the existence or absence of a future bilateral deal between Great Britain and Europe.
The text of the agreement is here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1580206007232&uri=CELEX:12019W/TXT(02)

I suggest you particularly read the part II which concerns the citizens' rights.
Basically it says that the rights that were granted to UK citizens residing in continental Europe and of European citizens residing in UK are grandfathered after a registration process.
These rights encompass residency rights, work permit rights, employment rights, recognition of qualifications and social security rights.
The other parts concern economical interests, customs, licencing rights, Ireland and some other points.

I repeat : this agreement safeguards a number of things INDEPENDENTLY of the outcome of the deal presently negotiated between UK and Europe.
So they are not conditioned by the deal outcome.

[Contact Approach]

Can’t wait for the U.K. to find Itself with no airlines and no regulatory body in the not too distant future.

[ATC Watcher]

Luc Lion : this agreement safeguards a number of things INDEPENDENTLY of the outcome of the deal presently negotiated between UK and Europe.
So they are not conditioned by the deal outcome.
I did not realized that. Thanks for the info , I stand corrected ..

[airsound]

Luc - that's a fascinating document https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...12019W/TXT(02) and I thank you for linking it.

I struggled through some of it - but I didn't detect any reference to EASA. Does it have any relevance to the effects of the UK's leaving EASA?

airsound

[Luc Lion]

Airsound, I don't think that this document has any relevance to the consequences of UK leaving EASA.
And the only part that I can see as somewhat linked to pilots' worries if the chapter 3 "PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS".
However, this chapter is essentially making reference to other texts and it is almost indecipherable to me.

[alfaman]

Luc Lion :
I did not realized that. Thanks for the info , I stand corrected ..
Thanks from me too: I would say though, that rests on the UK acting in good faith, surely, which I'm not that confident about. Lets hope that good sense prevails.

[covec]

Thanks from me too: I would say though, that rests on the UK acting in good faith, surely, which I'm not that confident about. Lets hope that good sense prevails.
Applies to the EU too: Good Faith.

Let's "Hope" indeed though.

[notlikethat]

Another lifetime licence to renew. Perhaps IMC privileges back on ATPL.

[Longtimer]

With a 1735-page PDF document, EASA has published its complete set of "Easy Access Rules for Flight Crews" in accordance with regulation (EU) No 1178/2011. EASA eRules will be a comprehensive access system for the drafting, sharing and storing of rules. It will also act as the agency’s single source for all aviation safety rules applicable to any European airspace users.

View the full article (https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/EASA-Publishes-Easy-Access-Rules-For-Flight-Crew-Licensing-232419-1.html)

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Maybe I've missed something over the past 50 years, but ON BALANCE isn't/recently 'wasn't' the situation with Europe regarding both aviation and travel much better than the proposed regression back to the 1970s?

[alfaman]

Applies to the EU too: Good Faith.

Let's "Hope" indeed though.

Agree, although my understanding is that good faith is part of continental European legal culture, whereas it's not the case in the UK.

[Sepp]

With a 1735-page PDF document, EASA has published its complete set of "Easy Access Rules for Flight Crews" in accordance with regulation (EU) No 1178/2011. EASA eRules will be a comprehensive access system for the drafting, sharing and storing of rules. It will also act as the agency’s single source for all aviation safety rules applicable to any European airspace users.

View the full article (https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/EASA-Publishes-Easy-Access-Rules-For-Flight-Crew-Licensing-232419-1.html)

I get a 404 error from that link. 1735 pages of easy access info? Sums up EASA perfectly :ugh: Come back, JAR-1, all is forgiven!!

[Airbubba]

I get a 404 error from that link. 1735 pages of easy access info? Sums up EASA perfectly :ugh: Come back, JAR-1, all is forgiven!!

See if this link works:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy_Access_Rules_for_Aircrew.pdf

Wow, I think I'll stick with the FAA. :eek:

[torvalds]

I get a 404 error from that link. 1735 pages of easy access info? Sums up EASA perfectly :ugh: Come back, JAR-1, all is forgiven!!

Calm down dear!

That link points to an American website and not to EASA.

Tech State/Province: MN
Tech Postal Code: 55126-8067
Tech Country: US
Registrant Organization: Belvoir
Registrant Street: 535 CONNECTICUT AVE
Registrant City: NORWALK
Registrant State/Province: CT

it called avweb [dot] com

[Longtimer]

I get a 404 error from that link. 1735 pages of easy access info? Sums up EASA perfectly :ugh: Come back, JAR-1, all is forgiven!!

https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/general-publications/easy-access-rules-aircrew-regulation-eu-no-11782011

[Sepp]

https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/general-publications/easy-access-rules-aircrew-regulation-eu-no-11782011

Thank you! :ok:

[Contact Approach]

Given the current challenges facing aviation I can't really see this being a positive whatsoever.