Effect of Brexit on UK certificates etc.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those readers who would like to get an accurate picture of current Brexit state of play in relation to the UK Aerospace Industry, I'd recommend a browse through Dr Richard North's latest piece at his blog EUReferendum.com . Dr North references the European Commission Notice to Stakeholders, dated 13 April 2018.
Dr North further writes.
Those readers of nervous disposition or terminally closed mind perhaps should not read Dr North's blog!
Dr North further writes.
Those readers of nervous disposition or terminally closed mind perhaps should not read Dr North's blog!
But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.
additionally he states:
Outside the EEA there is no possibility of the UK gaining associate membership of EASA
Perhaps the good Dr North would care to inform the assembled readers here when Switzerland became a member of the EU? Neither is Switzerland a member of the EEA, yet they are a member of EASA. If Switzerland can be granted an exception, so can the UK.
But let's assume the EU don't want Britain to have an exception, to punish us for our audacity to refuse to continue funding their gravy train - what then? Let's take the next subject matter.
if Britain leaves the EU without agreeing a deal that includes associate membership of EASA, Rolls-Royce's products will not be able to be signed off in the UK and will, therefore, be unable to take to the air.
From that statement, you could take it as read that EASA determines what Rolls Royce can and can't do. Really? So they can determine that Rolls Royce engines running in Asia, in the Americas, North and South, become suddenly unairworthy? Again, perhaps Dr North would care to point out at which point EASA could unilaterally declare an FAA Type approval invalid? After all, engines fitted in those regions will be in alignment with the FAA type approval, not necessarily EASA approvals.
Let's take that a step further. The USA is not an associate member, yet they can have Pratt and Whitney PW600 engines EASA certified. But Rolls Royce can't? Really? Type ratings are simply a cost of doing business - you develop a new product, you need it certified. Inside or outside of EASA, Rolls Royce will continue to have it's products both FAA and EASA certified. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Or will Russia have to become an associate member of EASA in order that the Aviadvigatel PD14 jet engine becomes certified?
The Blog is another contribution to Project Fear, part (sorry, gave up counting after the 825th headline saying why Brexit is 'wrong', 'bad' or any other epithet the Elite in Brussels and their useful idiots deign to call it.
Last edited by Steve6443; 29th Apr 2018 at 20:52.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve You're sounding a little shrill and very defensive. Chill a little, open your mind, read the blog properly and you'll find your questions/objections properly answered. We're not looking at Project Fear here but rather Project Fact.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve, a couple things. Yes, switzerland is not part of the EU, however, it is a member of european common market and abides by all basic EU rules including the freedom of movement and the final legal authority of the ECJ. The latter is a prerequisite to be a part of EASA.
No, EASA does not regulate engine approval in Asia or the US, however, many regulators use a shorter certification process that is based on the acceptance of the EASA certification, especially the US as FAA and EASA have a reciprocal acceptance agreement, which will be null and void for UK products come BREXIT if no deal is found, which would in turn invalidate any certification based on that no longer existing EASA certification. Of course everything can be recertified, which will cost a lot of money and some time, as by now not only the initial data is available but also a lot of operational experience and probably some ADs which might change the outcome or certification standard as those have developed over time as well.
Of course the FAA can decide following their own legal advice to still honor the no longer valid EASA certification, but considering the US stance in the open sky negotiations i‘m rather doubtful about that. After all RR competes (not very well seeing the 787 fiasco) with US companies in the same market, and protecting those would certainly fit the America First attitude of the current administration.
No, EASA does not regulate engine approval in Asia or the US, however, many regulators use a shorter certification process that is based on the acceptance of the EASA certification, especially the US as FAA and EASA have a reciprocal acceptance agreement, which will be null and void for UK products come BREXIT if no deal is found, which would in turn invalidate any certification based on that no longer existing EASA certification. Of course everything can be recertified, which will cost a lot of money and some time, as by now not only the initial data is available but also a lot of operational experience and probably some ADs which might change the outcome or certification standard as those have developed over time as well.
Of course the FAA can decide following their own legal advice to still honor the no longer valid EASA certification, but considering the US stance in the open sky negotiations i‘m rather doubtful about that. After all RR competes (not very well seeing the 787 fiasco) with US companies in the same market, and protecting those would certainly fit the America First attitude of the current administration.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's fine that you consider me shrill and defensive, I have the least to worry about Brexit of anyone here. I am so relaxed, you wouldn't believe it. But what I see is lies and deceit being spread about Brexit. What is all the more incredible is that even though I have pointed out glaring factual errors in Dr North's blog, you still refer to it as anything other than a work of fiction.
Steve...
Leaving the details of Dr North’s Blog aside do you:
1: Accept that to be part of EASA you have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the aviation arena?
2. Accept that Rolls Royce themselves have said they anticipate having to rearrange engine approval/sign off if we leave EASA?
Leaving the details of Dr North’s Blog aside do you:
1: Accept that to be part of EASA you have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the aviation arena?
2. Accept that Rolls Royce themselves have said they anticipate having to rearrange engine approval/sign off if we leave EASA?
Last edited by wiggy; 30th Apr 2018 at 07:15.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve, a couple things. Yes, switzerland is not part of the EU, however, it is a member of european common market and abides by all basic EU rules including the freedom of movement and the final legal authority of the ECJ. The latter is a prerequisite to be a part of EASA.
So? You are still missing the point. Dr North's blog was filled with factual inaccuracies - he claimed that membership of EASA required being either in the EU or the EEA, which Switzerland isn't. May I also point out that the Swiss do not accept the ECJ as the final legislative authority? The EU is still trying to negotiate a deal on this, the Swiss are still refusing to be bound by foreign judges.
No, EASA does not regulate engine approval in Asia or the US, however, many regulators use a shorter certification process that is based on the acceptance of the EASA certification, especially the US as FAA and EASA have a reciprocal acceptance agreement, which will be null and void for UK products come BREXIT if no deal is found, which would in turn invalidate any certification based on that no longer existing EASA certification. Of course everything can be recertified, which will cost a lot of money and some time, as by now not only the initial data is available but also a lot of operational experience and probably some ADs which might change the outcome or certification standard as those have developed over time as well.
Of course the FAA can decide following their own legal advice to still honor the no longer valid EASA certification, but considering the US stance in the open sky negotiations i‘m rather doubtful about that. After all RR competes (not very well seeing the 787 fiasco) with US companies in the same market, and protecting those would certainly fit the America First attitude of the current administration.
Of course the FAA can decide following their own legal advice to still honor the no longer valid EASA certification, but considering the US stance in the open sky negotiations i‘m rather doubtful about that. After all RR competes (not very well seeing the 787 fiasco) with US companies in the same market, and protecting those would certainly fit the America First attitude of the current administration.
However let's get back down to planet Earth. Let's assume that UK leaves EASA without a deal. What does that mean for Lufthansa, Air France, KLM - in fact every airline flying around with UK avionics, UK engines on their aircraft. Will they suddenly be grounded because the EASA certification is null and void? The wings on an Airbus are made in UK - are these no longer certified?
You see, the fact is, a solution will be found - it will have to be found. Common sense will ultimately prevail. And then we will see the claims of doom and gloom for what they are. Works of fantasy. My personal opinion is that existing certification will remain in place - the impact on European companies would be too heavy to contemplate otherwise. If the only companies impacted were from UK, then yes, I could believe the EU would play hard ball. But not when EU companies stand to lose more.
Carrying on, new products will have to be certified. But that's no difference to an American or Russian company applying for their product to be certified. To those who believe Brexit will damage / destroy the UK Aviation sector, this is just hogwash. Now, licensing for airmen, that's a different kettle of fish......
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As previously said, Switzerland don't.
Again, as previously said, they will have to 'arrange' something. It's a cost factor. Nothing more, nothing less. The statement from Dr North that Rolls Royce products would be grounded is just absurd.
Last edited by Steve6443; 30th Apr 2018 at 07:49. Reason: trying to get rid of the superfluous 'quoted by wiggy' - at last ;)
Well here's another version of how the ECJ complication could play out:
https://news.sky.com/story/govt-to-s...-line-11151049
The Government is exploring Article 66 of EASA regulations, which establishes a clear legal route for third-party country participation.
In a future scenario where the UK is an associate member, a domestic dispute over the application of safety regulation would be under the jurisdiction of UK courts.
However, under Article 50 of the same EASA rules, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the ultimate arbiter of EASA rulings.
Norway and Switzerland have joint committees to allow that jurisdiction to operate indirectly, but it still exists.
Some Brexiteer MPs may feel that such jurisdiction oversteps or blurs the Prime Minister's much-heralded "red line" of no ECJ jurisdiction after Brexit.
In a future scenario where the UK is an associate member, a domestic dispute over the application of safety regulation would be under the jurisdiction of UK courts.
However, under Article 50 of the same EASA rules, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the ultimate arbiter of EASA rulings.
Norway and Switzerland have joint committees to allow that jurisdiction to operate indirectly, but it still exists.
Some Brexiteer MPs may feel that such jurisdiction oversteps or blurs the Prime Minister's much-heralded "red line" of no ECJ jurisdiction after Brexit.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve. I've posted this elsewhere on Pprune but I think it answers your point
EASA comprises the following: the 28 EU member States all of which have full voting rights. The 3 European Economic Area (EEA) member States(Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) plus Switzerland. The latter 4 States have reduced voting rights but in all other respects are regular EASA members.
Despite your assertion, both the Commission and Dr North have consistently demonstrated that they "know what they are talking about". In this particular case, the point being made is that on "Hard Brexit" with no agreement, UK becomes a "Third Country" (an EU legal term) and thus, by default, a non-EASA member as membership is only open to EU and EEA member States plus Switzerland which has a special deal and which, according to the Commission, will never be repeated.
The solution to the problem is either stay in the EU or leave EU but retain EEA/Single Market membership (we are current EEA members under the EU banner) by rejoining EFTA (European Free Trade Association - UK was a founder member but we left to join the EEC) and thus join Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland under the EFTA banner (Switzerland is EFTA but not EEA - confused yet?).
Incidentally, going the EFTA/EEA route following Brexit will not only take us out of EU but keep us in the EEA/Single Market and also solve the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border conundrum. As they say, "what's not to like?".
You then move on with
I'm not sure whether you realise it but here you are quoting Dr North quoting the Daily Telegraph . To keep things in context you really should have include Dr North's preceding words
Your other points seem to have been covered by other Ppruners, so who am I to embellish their work.
You make also care to note that the EUReferendum.com blog is a "Brexit blog" and that Dr North is a leading proponent of Brexit. He is not, however, a leading proponent of "National Suicide".
But the commission immediately pointed out that we cannot remain in EASA because, as the rules make clear, this is open only to EU members.
additionally he states:
Outside the EEA there is no possibility of the UK gaining associate membership of EASA
Perhaps the good Dr North would care to inform the assembled readers here when Switzerland became a member of the EU? Neither is Switzerland a member of the EEA, yet they are a member of EASA. If Switzerland can be granted an exception, so can the UK.
additionally he states:
Outside the EEA there is no possibility of the UK gaining associate membership of EASA
Perhaps the good Dr North would care to inform the assembled readers here when Switzerland became a member of the EU? Neither is Switzerland a member of the EEA, yet they are a member of EASA. If Switzerland can be granted an exception, so can the UK.
Despite your assertion, both the Commission and Dr North have consistently demonstrated that they "know what they are talking about". In this particular case, the point being made is that on "Hard Brexit" with no agreement, UK becomes a "Third Country" (an EU legal term) and thus, by default, a non-EASA member as membership is only open to EU and EEA member States plus Switzerland which has a special deal and which, according to the Commission, will never be repeated.
The solution to the problem is either stay in the EU or leave EU but retain EEA/Single Market membership (we are current EEA members under the EU banner) by rejoining EFTA (European Free Trade Association - UK was a founder member but we left to join the EEC) and thus join Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland under the EFTA banner (Switzerland is EFTA but not EEA - confused yet?).
Incidentally, going the EFTA/EEA route following Brexit will not only take us out of EU but keep us in the EEA/Single Market and also solve the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border conundrum. As they say, "what's not to like?".
You then move on with
if Britain leaves the EU without agreeing a deal that includes associate membership of EASA, Rolls-Royce's products will not be able to be signed off in the UK and will, therefore, be unable to take to the air.
This was reported in the Telegraph, which gave some details but didn't really have the measure of the story.
You make also care to note that the EUReferendum.com blog is a "Brexit blog" and that Dr North is a leading proponent of Brexit. He is not, however, a leading proponent of "National Suicide".
Steve5443
Well and succinctly put. It's relatively easy for the 'doomsters' to raise negative arguments and statements. They'll conjure up bogeymen when and where they've never previously existed !
Here's an idea: Using EASA drafted, previously agreed contracts, agreements and legislation change the title at the head of the relevant document to whatever you want to call it.
There it is, solved ! If it isn't solved at that point, wait until - for example - the BMWs pile up at the factory gates, then it will be solved, quickly.
Well and succinctly put. It's relatively easy for the 'doomsters' to raise negative arguments and statements. They'll conjure up bogeymen when and where they've never previously existed !
Here's an idea: Using EASA drafted, previously agreed contracts, agreements and legislation change the title at the head of the relevant document to whatever you want to call it.
There it is, solved ! If it isn't solved at that point, wait until - for example - the BMWs pile up at the factory gates, then it will be solved, quickly.
Here's an idea: Using EASA drafted, previously agreed contracts, agreements and legislation change the title at the head of the relevant document to whatever you want to call it.
There it is, solved !
There it is, solved !
BREXIT Day :....EASA gets crossed out, UK CAA gets inked in.
Brexit Day plus a week or so - You get ramp checked in the States, your widget paperwork is examined, your friendly FAA man looks at the amended paperwork and asks " it says UK CAA here , where in the UK now are your widgets checked for continued compliance..... "
Tut, tut. C'mon chaps use your imaginations ! The location of checking isn't the point. The point is the wording on the documentation and the stamp of engineering acceptance that perhaps accompanies it.
Most countries, that have an approximate educational equivalence in or out of the EU , accept each others standards and specifications - CE is widely accepted as is still, BSS.
Whether the examinations are held in Munich, Timbuctoo or Balham High Rd. makes absolutely no difference.
The transference of independence back from the EU to GB can be a path as smooth or, as rocky as some of the participants wish to make it. At the moment there seems to e a significant number of influential people on the EU side who wish to make matters as difficult as possible, with the intention of, perhaps, trying to punish GB for its temerity in both leaving and exposing the fault lines within the EU
To all the doomsters I would remind them that GB provides a huge export market for the EU. They need our goodwill. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Most countries, that have an approximate educational equivalence in or out of the EU , accept each others standards and specifications - CE is widely accepted as is still, BSS.
Whether the examinations are held in Munich, Timbuctoo or Balham High Rd. makes absolutely no difference.
The transference of independence back from the EU to GB can be a path as smooth or, as rocky as some of the participants wish to make it. At the moment there seems to e a significant number of influential people on the EU side who wish to make matters as difficult as possible, with the intention of, perhaps, trying to punish GB for its temerity in both leaving and exposing the fault lines within the EU
To all the doomsters I would remind them that GB provides a huge export market for the EU. They need our goodwill. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrary to popular opinion the EU does NOT need the UK, the converse is arguable and it's easy to get the relevant figures for imports and exports. The problem in many cases is that we have inward investment for manufacturing companies who have tight coupled supply chains across the single market. For them the easiest solution would be to move the plants from the UK to welcoming sites in the EU and ship complete product here just as if we were China, Brazil, India or Tanzania. That makes our balance of payments, GDP and employment position worse. It isn't the only answer though and it affects many other businesses such as financial services (a very big part of the UK economy).
I don't know where this idea originated that the EU does things to us here in the UK , but it makes no sense since we are an influential member and have been for decades, so the vast majority of stuff the EU does is supported and, in a surprising number of cases, initiated by the UK, generally because it makes good sense in terms of socio-economic consistency and good practice. It is true that the implementation goes awry from time to time, partly because Brussels gets it wrong sometimes and partly because of "gold plating" here in the UK. However suggestions that the UK bureaucracy is somehow superior to the EU bureaucracy just reduces me to hysterical laughter........we can't even fix a pothole and tidy up litter.
There are many potential solutions to the issues raised by Brexit, in aviation and many other industries, some very simple in concept. However turning those ideas whether simple or complicated into practical agreed systems to replace the ones we already have requires a lot of effort and many months if not years of time. That then begs the question "What are the benefits of all this work?" so far I have heard not a single plausible answer to that question.
I don't know where this idea originated that the EU does things to us here in the UK , but it makes no sense since we are an influential member and have been for decades, so the vast majority of stuff the EU does is supported and, in a surprising number of cases, initiated by the UK, generally because it makes good sense in terms of socio-economic consistency and good practice. It is true that the implementation goes awry from time to time, partly because Brussels gets it wrong sometimes and partly because of "gold plating" here in the UK. However suggestions that the UK bureaucracy is somehow superior to the EU bureaucracy just reduces me to hysterical laughter........we can't even fix a pothole and tidy up litter.
There are many potential solutions to the issues raised by Brexit, in aviation and many other industries, some very simple in concept. However turning those ideas whether simple or complicated into practical agreed systems to replace the ones we already have requires a lot of effort and many months if not years of time. That then begs the question "What are the benefits of all this work?" so far I have heard not a single plausible answer to that question.
There doesn't appear to be an answer because there doesn't appear to be a question !
Perhaps slightly unwittingly, you put your finger right on it. Quote: "practical agreed systems to replace the ones we already have ..."
If as you write we already have them and they are ' practical agreed systems' then nothing, apart from the name or title of the replacement issuing or supervising authority, needs to change. In this respect, the CAA clearly has the means and the expertise to manage the takeover..
Perhaps slightly unwittingly, you put your finger right on it. Quote: "practical agreed systems to replace the ones we already have ..."
If as you write we already have them and they are ' practical agreed systems' then nothing, apart from the name or title of the replacement issuing or supervising authority, needs to change. In this respect, the CAA clearly has the means and the expertise to manage the takeover..
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it's not, well not in the commercial world. Just for the sake of it an outlandish what if: Imagine you need to carry a piece of paper on your aircrfat saying the widgets that hold your wings on have been checked by a EASA department in Munich to ensure they conform to a certain standard and that same department in Munich is responsible for ensuring continued compliance..
BREXIT Day :....EASA gets crossed out, UK CAA gets inked in.
Brexit Day plus a week or so - You get ramp checked in the States, your widget paperwork is examined, your friendly FAA man looks at the amended paperwork and asks " it says UK CAA here , where in the UK now are your widgets checked for continued compliance..... "
BREXIT Day :....EASA gets crossed out, UK CAA gets inked in.
Brexit Day plus a week or so - You get ramp checked in the States, your widget paperwork is examined, your friendly FAA man looks at the amended paperwork and asks " it says UK CAA here , where in the UK now are your widgets checked for continued compliance..... "
The same shop which previously checked that your widgets are compliant will continue to check the widget for compliance. The only difference is that instead of EASA approved, it will be CAA approved. And instead of the CAA following EASA test methodology to determine compliance, the CAA compliancy which align with either FAA or EASA, which ever is simpler. The CAA will likely also approve US shops to carry out the same compliancy as if they (the CAA) were still part of EASA, so even having compliancy checked in foreign countries won't be a difficult task.
It's NOT difficult......
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards your question: The benefits of all this work will be that we will regulate ourselves, that we will not be subject to the rulings of some bureaucrats somewhere we've never heard of, let alone ever wanted to visit. The money we send to Brussels will stay in this country, paying for bureaucrats to regulate our aviation industry, their wages being pumped back into the British economy, boosting the overall welfare of all. THAT is the benefit. We will not see EASA rulings banning the IMCr because it doesn't fit with the LBA's own script of how instrument flying should be. We will have rules based on OUR needs, not on the worst compromise that all nations agree to. We didn't need EASA in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Why are we so sure that we will need EASA in the 2020s, especially with technology on our side?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards your question: The benefits of all this work will be that we will regulate ourselves, that we will not be subject to the rulings of some bureaucrats somewhere we've never heard of, let alone ever wanted to visit. The money we send to Brussels will stay in this country, paying for bureaucrats to regulate our aviation industry, their wages being pumped back into the British economy, boosting the overall welfare of all. THAT is the benefit. We will not see EASA rulings banning the IMCr because it doesn't fit with the LBA's own script of how instrument flying should be. We will have rules based on OUR needs, not on the worst compromise that all nations agree to. We didn't need EASA in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Why are we so sure that we will need EASA in the 2020s, especially with technology on our side?
Last edited by Johnm; 30th Apr 2018 at 15:21. Reason: correct quote tag
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who think BREXIT implies Britain governed for the British I advise a look at how many international agreements across aviation and countless other fields affect our sovereignty and ability to legislate, the scale will astound you. It’s in the thousands and around 700 to 800 have been effected as a member of the EU and will need to be re-done by the U.K. as a non-member. I don’t look at either the EU or the U.K. through rose coloured glasses and the volume of work essentially in the class of wheel reinvention that Brexit causes implies the benefit needs to be immense to make it worthwhile and as far as I can see it’s close to zero.
from a personal perspective as an EASA ppl/ir holder flying an ELA2 EASA aircraft EASA is a clear improvement on CAA with the likelihood of getting better still if the current direction is maintained. I appreciate that others may find difficulties but regulators rarely please many of the regulated, so there’s no glorious nirvana for any of us.
from a personal perspective as an EASA ppl/ir holder flying an ELA2 EASA aircraft EASA is a clear improvement on CAA with the likelihood of getting better still if the current direction is maintained. I appreciate that others may find difficulties but regulators rarely please many of the regulated, so there’s no glorious nirvana for any of us.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from a personal perspective as an EASA ppl/ir holder flying an ELA2 EASA aircraft EASA is a clear improvement on CAA with the likelihoid of getting better still if the current direction is maintained. I appreciate that others may find difficulties but regulators rarely please many of the regulated, so there’s no glorious nirvana for any of us.
