Brexit pushing UK out of EASA
 

I thought I'd seen a thread on this, but cannot now find it.

Is the UK about to fall off something of a regulatory cliff?

Sam - there is a LinkedIn thread running, started by Jonathan Smith from NATS/CAA, which you might find of use. Not sure if can post here, but you'll find with a search on LI.

There's a news item on the Flyer site with some discussion in the comments section:
https://www.flyer.co.uk/uk-must-leav...rexit-says-eu/

Fantastic news. Bring it on please.


*Uproarous round of applause from most pilots, engineers, ATCOs and other aviation professionals*

Be careful what you wish for!

Whilst I'd normally agree with your sentiment, quite literally nothing is worse than the catastrophic shambles that is EASA.

Really? How about the catastrophic shambles that is, erm, having nothing...? CAA estimate 5-10 years to create their own system.

Or, more likely, beg to stay with EASA but no longer with any voting rights...?

Thank you 'betterfromabove', will go take a look.

Exactly. A fully paid up club member with sod all voting rights is hardly an ideal solution

Uproarous round of applause from most pilots, engineers, ATCOs and other aviation professionals*

Not from this pilot and aircraft operator, while it is true the early days of EASA gold plated by U.K. CAA was painful things have radically improved in the last 5 years and are getting steadily better.

As the UK CAA is required to not only pay its own way but make a return on capital employed, the entire financial burden of re-creating a regulatory body to replace EASA would fall upon 'industry'. Don't expect the airlines or big airports (if we have any of either left when the likes of easyJet depart these shores) to pay for regulating GA, especially recreational flying. They used to - as an example Aerodrome Licensing where the likes of Heathrow and Gatwick used to subsidise small licensed grass airfields.

The UK has had a major input into EASA rulemaking and we're just seeing some stability returning to the industry. We need to be in a position to continue to influence and rein in the excesses of some of our partners.

TOO

Based on the CAA's past performance, anything they create will cost more, and work worse, than what we have now. Another "win" from Brexit.

Wait. The CAA has been performing better, offering an improved service and charging less thanks to EASA? Who knew?

First congrats to the forum for getting to a dozen or so posts w/o someone pitching in with a brexit rant (from either side of the fence). It would be nice to believe this could stay a grown-up discussion.

Two points

First, as I understand it (and I've done my homework to a degree). The vast majority of EU legislation and regulation (some 22000 items or more) is just going to be cut'n'paste straight into UK law (and so is EU case study, to assist in the legal interpretation of law). So the vast burden of all this is going to fall on a bunch of technocrats armed with little more than Microsoft Word and Adobe. Whatever happens after that to this "mountain of law" will depend on UK political culture in the next few dozen decades, but clearly, nothing much is happening "overnight" (where "overnight" equals most of our lifetimes). I've seen nothing to suggest that aviation would be a special case, and common sense - specifically the need to keep flying - suggests it would a strong contender for the default (change nothing) option.

Which brings me neatly to my second point...aviation has long been identified as the tip of the spear in this particular UK "adventure". Good ol Mr Ryanair has had a few rants of the subject. Whatever happens is gonna happen to aviation first so in many ways it will be the bellweather for events to come. That's why it is an interesting, pertinent topic and one hopes for an educated and fruitful discussion.

Exciting isn't it :)

It's like the rest of Brexit. If we put lots of effort in, are clever and very lucky, we'll only damage ourselves a bit. If we are careless or unlucky, we'll damage ourselves a lot. The current people running the show are neither clever nor lucky.

It's astounding to watch the British government, as a matter of policy, spend all its time on a venture designed to make us poorer, less influential and less open.

Paul

The "potential problems" are different for international passenger business vs everything else, from what I have read. Whilst non-international transport requires that UK develop its own regulatory regime, international transport has more of a problem.

Currently, airlines based in / authorised and regulated by a country that is a member of the Common Aviation Area (I can't bring myself to use CAA for that), namely EU Member States plus some neighboring countries like Morocco, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, may operate air routes between any airports located the Common Aviation Area. For the UK to remain a member of Common Aviation Area and therefore benefit from the European “Open Skies” requires that UK accepts the freedom of movement principle and acknowledges the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. See the problem?

Earlyin 2017 airlines were cautious about what the future might hold, but that has given way to “contingency planning” for a "no deal" scenario.

On 2 January 2018, Ryanair confirmed that its subsidiary, RyanairUK, had filed an application on December 21 for an air operating certificate (AOC) with the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority. If granted then Ryanair (the existing company) will not be able to fly routes between UK cities post Brexit, but Ryanair UK will, and so the affected slots and routes belonging to Ryanair will need to betransferred into Ryanair UK.

It is not just Ryanair: in October 2017, Wizz Air appliedfor a British AOC. Going the other way, in July 2017, the British airline EasyJet applied to Austro Control, the air navigation services provider controlling Austrian airspace, for an AOC and to Austria’s Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (bmvit)for an airline operating license. It will create a new airline, EasyJet Europe, headquartered in Vienna, that will operate flights both across Europe and domestically within European countries after Brexit. Currently those slots /routes all belong to EasyJet and these will need to be transferred or made available to EasyJetEurope.


Simples! (not really)

Indeed (and good post).

The elephant in room (well one of them anyway ;)) is the reaction/decision making of the good old paying public.

Do you book a holiday (involving flying) in the Easter of 2019 trusting politician and bureaucrats to sort all this out??? (see the not-so-dumb paying public may decide to give way to “contingency planning” for a "no deal" scenario, themselves.)

for me (Mr TightWad)

[ ] of course, where is the login for easyair.com
[x] Nae ****ing chance.

I would think the airlines contingency planning would include the potential for a significant (albeit probably short-lived) reduction in pax numbers.

But that's already the situation we're in. Commercial airports are all regulated by EASA, while all non-commercial licensed fields remain under CAP 168.

Without wanting to engage in all the political rubbish on both sides, it will indeed be interesting to see just exactly what happens to regulation post-EU membership (hate using the term "Brexit" - daft portmanteau made up by some clever-clogs trendy media type) and what happens to EASA.

Things have indeed stabilised, and some sanity has prevailed in recent years. In some cases. Others not.

My own opinion - and that's all it is, just an opinion, so feel free to disagree - is that the damage was done long ago when all this nonsense started with the JAA which grew into EASA. I'd rather be done with it to be honest.

If the CAA need to "start again", that's their problem to sort out. The CAPs would still exist and any existing EU legislation would be ported across to the CAA. Charges are still levied by and paid to the CAA so all that would happen would be no money going to EASA...

...but of course nobody really knows the truth. Happy to be corrected for anything I've said that's wrong.

The UK has little choice but to remain with EASA. The loss of voting rights is hardly helpful - I believe voting rights are proportional to the size of a country's industry, so Germany and France will rule the roost. That said, they already do to a large extent, with EASA's HQ in Cologne and a succession of French nationals running the Agency.

However, EASA has a dearth of expertise and the UK has been instrumental in sorting out a lot of the mess that the Agency has created, and I can't see them turning away our free expertise in future.

What is of greater concern is the bulk adoption of EU law into UK law. If the timing isn't right then it will mean that the UK will inherit a collection of current aviation laws that aren't fit for purpose, which EASA are currently looking to change at their usual glacial rate.

However, I believe that there are more differences filed with ICAO than there are standards, so plus ca change as we commence roll-out of a million Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMCs) to EASA diktats.

It is not a requirement to be in the EU to be part of EASA not all members are, so it will make no difference.

The difference is that as an EU Signatory Member, rather than an EU Member State, the UK automatically loses its voting rights.

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.

Ryanair now busy working out the wording of the "you may not be able to use this ticket" warnings that they're soon going to have to issue with each ticket, they tell us.

It's all very well writing off reality as being "Project Fear", but doesn't change the facts. The recently published analysis of the possible impact on business aviation presented 6 scenarios; these analyses always choose a range across the whole "best to worst" spectrum.

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.

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.

The real issue I think is that to to remain in EASA we would be bound by decisions of the European Court- some in government seem not to want that including our esteemed PM

What makes you think that?

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.

Brexit pushing UK out of EASA
 

Yes, indeed. My continental colleagues agree largely with us 2 Brits on the EAS board and can be expected to take the same line in the future as in the past and now in continuing to fight for a more proportionate / minimum framework of rules and keeping EASA's feet to the fire on the GA (reform) project.

DGR (President, Europe Air Sports), about to retire from all this in 2 months and do more flying after 16 volunteer years !

If that were the case, why would the EU have different terms for trading with members and non-members? If you're part of the club then you have to play by the rules and contribute to the running costs. Making an exception would put the whole project at risk. Plus, for many EU members the blow will be softened by the relocation of British industries to countries remaining in the EU.

The EU can afford to lose us, but can't afford to let us become freeloaders.

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

It's a shame really.. UK has such well established training and maintenance organizations, I doubt they will manage to maintain their international customers after EASA departure..

I propose that we adopt FAA rules. EASA is lot about protectionism rather than safety and FAA rules will be much cheaper and more sensible to operate under.

I second your proposal - motion carried...

:)

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.

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.

As a relative youngster, I believe it was going down the pan.

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 ?

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.