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

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

additionally he states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

https://news.sky.com/story/govt-to-s...-line-11151049

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".

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.

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..... "

wiggy Exactly so!

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.

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.

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..

Let me give you a simple solution.

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

It's NOT difficult......

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

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

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

Capt Kremmen

You posted earlier:
Perhaps I could draw your attention to the words of Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the CAA, 5 September 2017 ?
Reuters reports on 25 January 2018 as follows:
In the short-term immediately after a "no deal Brexit", I'm not, therefore, entirely sure that, as you assert, "the CAA clearly has the means and the expertise to manage the takeover.." What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

Capt Kremmen

You mention:
Could you provide us with some evidence that this will be so on 30 March 2019 in the event of a "no deal Brexit"? You see, the entire UK Air Transport/Aerospace Manufacturing industry cannot be reliant merely on a "likely possibility" on the day but must have absolute certainty so that the effects of the Notice to Stakeholders Withdrawal of the UK and EU Aviation Safety Rules, do not take effect:

If you're stuck for an answer, maybe ask your MP at WriteToThem .

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