EASA after Brexit, a new worldwide ICAO dynamic ?

[Triskel]

EASA is an agency of the EU, established by directive EC 1592/2002, superseded by EC 216/2008. Non-EU members states are treated as 'Third Countries' which can use the EASA certification system but have no membership of the management board, hence no say in making the rules. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are not EU members but are part of the European Economic Community (EEC) and, as such, are subject to most EU laws (including free movement across borders). It will be interesting to see how the UK-EU relationship develops, with the UK as a Third Country in the eyes of EASA........

[roulishollandais]

There is no need to use the a.50 of the Lisbonne Treaty too quickly nore to use it !
In any case UK is ICAO .
I'm surprised to see so much hate from EU members trying to punish and chase UK .That is not the Chicago Convention Spirit. EU doesn't show the face of Friendship and Peace...

[4468]

Without EU membership you may comment proposed changes to the basic law but you won't have any MEPs or ministers or commissioners having a say in it. So the CAA would be no better off than Joe Pilot writing a comment (though their comment might get more attention).

Not that EU membership, nor MEPs, ministers nor commissioners allowed any input into the drafting of EASA FTLs anyway!

To the detriment of safety.

Precisely (in a nutshell) why a majority of my country, the fifth largest economy on the planet, the EU's biggest customer, and second largest economy currently in the EU, wants no further part in such an undemocratic, wasteful and out of touch organisation?

[4468]

wf

Many UK airlines were also 'staunch supporters' of EASA FTLs.

Quelle surprise!

[darkbarly]

Now exit is inevitable, any EU law currently applicable in the UK may be deviated from. Policing and oversight of commission regulations falls to each member state but any operator deviating could reasonably argue that in the interest of safety or survival it could not be expected to comply with a rule whose supremacy is temporary and, moreover, can not now be appealed to an EU court.

Come on BALPA, act now and challenge the 'scientific approach' to EU FTL and stop my employer f*((ing me over.

Apologies for the syntax failure, I am tired.

[OldLurker]

Now exit is inevitable, any EU law currently applicable in the UK may be deviated from.

Until exit takes effect (two years from starting the article 50 process) the UK is still in the EU and the law doesn't change. Maybe the law doesn't change even after that – nothing is certain yet.

Exit may not be inevitable: Parliament still has to declare exit, and it's been suggested that they might block it, though that seerms unlikely; and the SNP is trying to scupper the process too.

[darkbarly]

Until exit takes effect (two years from starting the article 50 process) the UK is still in the EU and the law doesn't change. Maybe the law doesn't change even after that – nothing is certain yet.

You are right, EU law applies but it can be circumvented, for operators and therefore FTLs, under the flexibility provisions of article 14 of the basic regulation. Now that the European parliament have stated their position and would also, subsequently, require the remaining 27 states to agree re entry for the UK, there is no way that the agency, the commission or the EU courts would formally entertain addressing any deviation or punitive action. By the time any deviation from a UK operator could be addressed by a UK court or the CAA legal enforcement department, it would be unreasonable to uphold a conviction under a diminishing and time limited rule.

So, during this transition period, the argument for sticking or busting the rules may come down to risk v reward for the operator. Any brief worth their fee could easily argue against the EU rules being restrictive, anti-competetive, unsafe etc. as long as reasonable steps were taken not to undermine reasonable standards such as national or icao types.

As I see it this is a tricky period, the transition, as a well funded operator could justify the expenditure required to work around previously imposed commission obstacles.

Take a scenario like grounding an aircraft designed in britain with a EASA type certificate using an EAD issued by EASA. In law, would it be unreasonable to continue to operate the type if it could demonstrate it continued to satisfy UK type design standards? Is it not highly likely that the operator of this type might bring a claim against, say, the UK CAA if their fleet was grounded, as there was no basis for appeal against the EASA decision using the EU legal system?

In 2 years time we will see how creative the stakeholders in UK commercial aviation have been. When parliament starts this exit process, I dont think operating or complying will be as clearcut and rigid as some think.