Brexit pushing UK out of EASA
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 375
Likes: 31
From: UK
At face value, the forfeit of voting rights may not seem to be that much of an issue. After all, we're all after the best, the most practical and the safest aviation standards, aren't we?
If only that were the case...
General Aviation is one the most disparate industries on the planet. Why do we have so many 'alphabetti-spaghetti' GA associations? Because we have so many conflicting interests. And that's only at national level.
Extrapolate this out to conflicting interests between nations and the web becomes well and truly tangled.
The UK has a maritime climate, hence the high value of the IMC rating for British pilots. Southern European GA pilots meantime like to fly when the weather suits, which it does 360 out of 365 days of the year, so it was a low priority on their wish-list.
Airspace classification is another web-entangled battleground, but that's a topic for another thread.
As I mentioned before, the UK is unlikely to be left out in the cold when it comes to consultation on future EASA diktats, as we hold a level of expertise that few other EASA members can equal. But without voting rights the challenge becomes that much harder and that much more 'diplomatic'.
Thank goodness that we have the likes of Europe Air Sports on our side, as the UK CAA are going to have to get used to the begging bowl approach from now on.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 2
From: Iraq and other places
In this case, all 6 were negative. They couldn't find a single potential positive impact.
Sticking fingers in ears and pretending everything will be rosy is fine, but not exactly useful.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 2
From: Hampshire
Project Fear presented a picture of 'negative possibilities'.
It is well for the professional doomsters to remember that the need to preserve trade including aviation trade is foremost. Making sure that current arrangements continue to work, is in the interests of all the parties, including those with a different political agenda.
It is well for the professional doomsters to remember that the need to preserve trade including aviation trade is foremost. Making sure that current arrangements continue to work, is in the interests of all the parties, including those with a different political agenda.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 2
From: Hampshire
Mundane matters such as the continuance of the international carriage of goods and services, the preservation of aviation jobs and aviation related employment, the maintenance of reciprocal aviation agreements and treaties all wrapped up in a multi billion pound international aviation industry.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
From: Cirencester UK
Brexit pushing UK out of EASA
DGR (President, Europe Air Sports), about to retire from all this in 2 months and do more flying after 16 volunteer years !
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 5
From: The Wild West (UK)
Mundane matters such as the continuance of the international carriage of goods and services, the preservation of aviation jobs and aviation related employment, the maintenance of reciprocal aviation agreements and treaties all wrapped up in a multi billion pound international aviation industry.
The EU can afford to lose us, but can't afford to let us become freeloaders.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 375
Likes: 31
From: UK
David, sorry to hear that you are retiring in a couple of months. EAS has been lucky to have you at the helm and GA industry owes you and your association a large debt of gratitude in keeping EASA's 'feet to the fire'!
Best regards,
JD
Best regards,
JD
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: South of England
Commenting on the Flyer article referred to above, Cliff Whittaker - former CAA Head of Licensing Policy - posted the following:
------------------------“HMG and CAA may decide to leave the EASA regulatory system, but the UK industry and the licensed pilots and engineers working here don’t have to if they don’t want to. Outside of the EASA system we will be a third country. Pilots and engineers living in 3rd countries can hold European (FCL or 66) licences – they just have to choose the member State they want to be regulated by – e.g. Ireland? There are plenty of ‘European’ aircraft maintenance companies (Part M, 145) in 3rd countries and plenty of training schools offering Part-FCL courses in such countries too. Their approvals are regulated by EASA directly from Cologne. If the UK leaves EASA, any UK company can transfer its approval to EASA and any pilot or engineer can keep their Europe wide privileges by having their licence re-issued by another State. Training schools that want to continue to offer Part-FCL courses would have to do this and so would their instructors and examiners – UK national approvals and instructor/examiner certificates are not valid for Part-FCL. Companies and personnel that want to be UK national can stay with the CAA. UK airlines are already taking steps to stay European by moving their principal places of business to mainland Europe – So expect Easyjet etc’s Part-145/M to transfer to EASA and their engineers to another Member State, along with the pilots. And does anyone seriously think that Rolls-Royce is going to leave the EASA system? The fact is that if the UK leaves EASA it will hand over all remaining regulatory oversight of big commercial aviation in the UK to EASA and other Member States. So much for taking back control! Having lost control of the commercial industry to Europe, the DfT and CAA may as well make things easy for UK registered aircraft by leaving in place the ANO provisions that make EASA certificates and licences valid for UK aircraft. They could then make UK national approvals, licences valid for all UK-registered aircraft, including those that were ‘EASA aircraft’. Then those building, owning, maintaining and flying aircraft in the UK could carry on pretty much as now. The only real effect would be that the role of CAA and DfT would be greatly diminished.
That is why the UK should remain in the EASA system, whatever else happens.” ----------------
He mentions RR. To them you can add the Airbus factories, BAES Civil at Prestwick, and all the systems, parts and materials companies that supply them, who will remain in the UK but retain European approvals overseen direct from Cologne. Commercial industry from airlines, design and manufacturing companies, systems and equipment manufacturers, maintenance organisations, and flying schools running CPL and Type Rating courses are going to stay with EASA whatever the government decides or the British people allegedly want. To do otherwise would be commercial suicide. The DfT/CAA have a stark choice - stay in EASA and continue to have a seat at the rulemaking/decision making table, or leave aand let EASA regulate our companies and the other member states license our pilots and engineers. Sure, the UK could reinstate a full national system of company approvals, and personnel licences, but who is going to buy them? A small group of anti-European aviators who are happy to give up Europe-wide privileges to make a point? Also, bear in mind that the CAA has to be paid for by those it regulates. With the income from commercial industry gone, the cost of any national system will fall entirely on the (private) flyers who use it.
There is also an article by Cliff Whittaker in the January Flight Training News that explains that all of this happned before when Turkey was excluded from Europe by the abolition of the JAA system - and consequently the consequences for the UK of putting itself outside EASA are known. It's worth a careful read through.
------------------------“HMG and CAA may decide to leave the EASA regulatory system, but the UK industry and the licensed pilots and engineers working here don’t have to if they don’t want to. Outside of the EASA system we will be a third country. Pilots and engineers living in 3rd countries can hold European (FCL or 66) licences – they just have to choose the member State they want to be regulated by – e.g. Ireland? There are plenty of ‘European’ aircraft maintenance companies (Part M, 145) in 3rd countries and plenty of training schools offering Part-FCL courses in such countries too. Their approvals are regulated by EASA directly from Cologne. If the UK leaves EASA, any UK company can transfer its approval to EASA and any pilot or engineer can keep their Europe wide privileges by having their licence re-issued by another State. Training schools that want to continue to offer Part-FCL courses would have to do this and so would their instructors and examiners – UK national approvals and instructor/examiner certificates are not valid for Part-FCL. Companies and personnel that want to be UK national can stay with the CAA. UK airlines are already taking steps to stay European by moving their principal places of business to mainland Europe – So expect Easyjet etc’s Part-145/M to transfer to EASA and their engineers to another Member State, along with the pilots. And does anyone seriously think that Rolls-Royce is going to leave the EASA system? The fact is that if the UK leaves EASA it will hand over all remaining regulatory oversight of big commercial aviation in the UK to EASA and other Member States. So much for taking back control! Having lost control of the commercial industry to Europe, the DfT and CAA may as well make things easy for UK registered aircraft by leaving in place the ANO provisions that make EASA certificates and licences valid for UK aircraft. They could then make UK national approvals, licences valid for all UK-registered aircraft, including those that were ‘EASA aircraft’. Then those building, owning, maintaining and flying aircraft in the UK could carry on pretty much as now. The only real effect would be that the role of CAA and DfT would be greatly diminished.
That is why the UK should remain in the EASA system, whatever else happens.” ----------------
He mentions RR. To them you can add the Airbus factories, BAES Civil at Prestwick, and all the systems, parts and materials companies that supply them, who will remain in the UK but retain European approvals overseen direct from Cologne. Commercial industry from airlines, design and manufacturing companies, systems and equipment manufacturers, maintenance organisations, and flying schools running CPL and Type Rating courses are going to stay with EASA whatever the government decides or the British people allegedly want. To do otherwise would be commercial suicide. The DfT/CAA have a stark choice - stay in EASA and continue to have a seat at the rulemaking/decision making table, or leave aand let EASA regulate our companies and the other member states license our pilots and engineers. Sure, the UK could reinstate a full national system of company approvals, and personnel licences, but who is going to buy them? A small group of anti-European aviators who are happy to give up Europe-wide privileges to make a point? Also, bear in mind that the CAA has to be paid for by those it regulates. With the income from commercial industry gone, the cost of any national system will fall entirely on the (private) flyers who use it.
There is also an article by Cliff Whittaker in the January Flight Training News that explains that all of this happned before when Turkey was excluded from Europe by the abolition of the JAA system - and consequently the consequences for the UK of putting itself outside EASA are known. It's worth a careful read through.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 2
From: Hampshire
I'm a little surprised by all those who seem to think that GB aviation won't prosper outside EASAland.
What do they think was happening to GB aviation before we joined the EEC/EU ?
More to the point; there are many more countries operating efficient and dynamic aviation industries outside EASA than there are within. The likes of Brazil, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Indonesia, China, India appear to be sufficiently well organised to run their aviation affairs quite successfully without the intervention of the restrictive EASA.
What do they think was happening to GB aviation before we joined the EEC/EU ?
More to the point; there are many more countries operating efficient and dynamic aviation industries outside EASA than there are within. The likes of Brazil, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Indonesia, China, India appear to be sufficiently well organised to run their aviation affairs quite successfully without the intervention of the restrictive EASA.
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
All those world famous British aircraft that were produced in the 50's, 60's and 70's that are still flying now. . . erm, anyone ?
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 2
From: Hampshire
Hunter, Harrier, Buccaneer. Hawk, Vulcan, Canberra. To name a few. They seemed reasonably innovative and successful.
Won't mention Concord. Commercially the Yanks were more successful. We lost our lead in the aftermath of the Comet debacle.
"Going down the pan". You should have been at Farnboro' during the 50s and 60s.
Won't mention Concord. Commercially the Yanks were more successful. We lost our lead in the aftermath of the Comet debacle.
"Going down the pan". You should have been at Farnboro' during the 50s and 60s.
N4790P
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 231
From: Asia
I'm a little surprised by all those who seem to think that GB aviation won't prosper outside EASAland.
What do they think was happening to GB aviation before we joined the EEC/EU ?
More to the point; there are many more countries operating efficient and dynamic aviation industries outside EASA than there are within. The likes of Brazil, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Indonesia, China, India appear to be sufficiently well organised to run their aviation affairs quite successfully without the intervention of the restrictive EASA.
What do they think was happening to GB aviation before we joined the EEC/EU ?
More to the point; there are many more countries operating efficient and dynamic aviation industries outside EASA than there are within. The likes of Brazil, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Indonesia, China, India appear to be sufficiently well organised to run their aviation affairs quite successfully without the intervention of the restrictive EASA.
