EASA/Brexit
Haha shows that you have no clue... The Rulemaking Work Groups of industry professionals (including your beloved CAA!) make the initial rules, the NPA process allows all parties and stakeholders to respond instead of a single stupid UK CAA guy with his pet project that pushes his own ideas through, the need to have scientific data and consensus... All the things that the OLD CAA didn't have! Actually the new CAA guys and girls are well regarded in Cologne as they appreciate that it is a team effort.
It is the OLD CAA guys that seem to prefer personal "observations" over scientific data: we always did it like that so hence it is good....
Are they there yet? Nope, will they ever be there? Well there is moaning about any authority so I don't expect miracles but they are at least trying!
EASA showcases everything that Europe CAN do if we work together and give it time!
It is the OLD CAA guys that seem to prefer personal "observations" over scientific data: we always did it like that so hence it is good....
Are they there yet? Nope, will they ever be there? Well there is moaning about any authority so I don't expect miracles but they are at least trying!
EASA showcases everything that Europe CAN do if we work together and give it time!
Don’t see why not... you don’t have to be resident in, or a citizen of an EASA country to have an EASA licence. The question may should be, will you need a separate UK one?
Am I reading some of the posters correctly? They believe the EASA FTL’s are an improvement on CAP 371? They obviously don’t fly 85+ hour CAPs every month. They may work for a machine in terms of “ duty cycles”, but for a human being they are awful.
The first part is against EU rules and is not correct , the second sounds like corruption , and is punishable by law so I doubt seriously the statement of your " French F/0"
What is true is that you have to speak fluently French as in France , the basic regulations are in French and the spoken language inside AF is French. ( the same applies in some other EU countries , like Spain for instance)
What is true is that you have to speak fluently French as in France , the basic regulations are in French and the spoken language inside AF is French. ( the same applies in some other EU countries , like Spain for instance)
That statement is most definitely not true. It would be illegal under EU law. You do, however, have to have a very high proficiency in French language to pass the entry exams. I know of French nationals who have failed the French exam...
There are some non-French AF pilots, but not many.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the point about the ECJ jurisdiction has already been covered by several policy statements from the government, and it seems they are taking a pretty practical approach.
The ECJ may be the final arbiter within EASA or any other agency, but since we would always, as a non-EU country, have the option of withdrawing from EASA they therefore don't have final say over the UK. Thus the "red line" has not been crossed.
The ECJ may be the final arbiter within EASA or any other agency, but since we would always, as a non-EU country, have the option of withdrawing from EASA they therefore don't have final say over the UK. Thus the "red line" has not been crossed.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: california
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the point about the ECJ jurisdiction has already been covered by several policy statements from the government, and it seems they are taking a pretty practical approach.
The ECJ may be the final arbiter within EASA or any other agency, but since we would always, as a non-EU country, have the option of withdrawing from EASA they therefore don't have final say over the UK. Thus the "red line" has not been crossed.
The ECJ may be the final arbiter within EASA or any other agency, but since we would always, as a non-EU country, have the option of withdrawing from EASA they therefore don't have final say over the UK. Thus the "red line" has not been crossed.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will send your positivity about Easa FTL to some academics I know who think the scheme is fundamentally flawed and dangerous. I need to find a joke for them for April the 1st
The good thing about the EASA process for UK CAA in the last few years was actually that they got of their "we know all as we are the CAA" high horse and had to prove a lot of their subjective thoughts to their European counter parts... Now that was a painful process for all authorities including yours but the result is an agency build on competency rather than on "we have done it always like that"
Perfect? No.. Better than the old CAA? Yes!!
Global global, if your friends were academic enough we wouldn’t have the disaster of EASA FTL as they would have seen the fundamental flaws.The ECA quote that a number of EU states didn’t even have a set of FTL regulations until recently, the UK CAA having led the way in this field for decades.
A lot of clever people wanted to discuss the fatigue problems of EASA FTL
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/wak...pilot-fatigue/
Isn’t it strange to you that a country that had a fatal accident caused by fatigue is going in the opposite direction to your beloved EASA. ?
A lot of clever people wanted to discuss the fatigue problems of EASA FTL
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/wak...pilot-fatigue/
Isn’t it strange to you that a country that had a fatal accident caused by fatigue is going in the opposite direction to your beloved EASA. ?
Last edited by tubby linton; 31st Mar 2018 at 18:03.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trim Stab :
What would be illegal under EU ?
Do you mean the French regulations , i.e legal system , to be only in French ? I am afraid it is , and by law ( Loi Toubon ) and btw all the internal communication within the airline is only in French.
Same in Spain , I was recently part of a group having a conversation with the CEO of Vueling who tried unsuccessfully to have English as the legal language in his airline, but failed as any company registered in Spain, must use Spanish as its internal company language also by law.
That statement is most definitely not true. It would be illegal under EU law.
Do you mean the French regulations , i.e legal system , to be only in French ? I am afraid it is , and by law ( Loi Toubon ) and btw all the internal communication within the airline is only in French.
Same in Spain , I was recently part of a group having a conversation with the CEO of Vueling who tried unsuccessfully to have English as the legal language in his airline, but failed as any company registered in Spain, must use Spanish as its internal company language also by law.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
What is the French for stall again?
stalle stalle stalle
J'ai un peu de mal à comprendre.
stalle stalle stalle
J'ai un peu de mal à comprendre.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The sunny side
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see it like this: unless there is an aviation deal of some sort to keep the UK in the EASA system, all certificates/approvals/licenses issued by the UK CAA will loose mutual recognition in the EASA system on the day of BREXIT.
Why? Because as soon as a State leaves a controlled system, it can not be controlled and thus could/may/will deviate from the controlled system by applying its own interpretation of the rules/own standards/own oversight methods. Without a deal on aviation, the control of that State has gone and so the certificates issued by that State can only be derecognised by the controlled system - aka, UK issued licenses will not be considered approved in the EASA system.
Without a deal, and if you want to use your license in EASA-land (working for an EU operator), probably the way forward is to get a license from an EASA State.
Let's hope for a deal on aviation....
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT : if you have one , you can always keep it providing you do your renewals with EASA approved Instructors/ Examiners I suppose. Same as if you have an FAA licence today.
The nationality of the licence holder has nothing to do with the country of issue. .
The nationality of the licence holder has nothing to do with the country of issue. .
EASA FTLs
When these were under consideration by the EASA they were tasked, I’m guessing by the European Commission, with examining the available scientific data. The most recent scientific data had been produced by NASA, which long after the Bader Committee, came to very similar conclusions and the NASA conclusions were used to amend the FAA FTLs.
I am not aware that the NASA work was ever considered by EASA. If it was considered it seems to have been ignored when the EASA FTLs were proposed.,
When these new regulations came before the European Parliament for their approval, the European Parliament aviation sub committee recommended that the European Parliament should not approve these proposed FTLs but the European Parliament voted in favour. Why? What was the point of having a specialist committee examine the proposed FTLs and then ignore their recommendation!
I wrote to all my MEPs. Many of those that bothered to reply agreed that the proposals were wrong but they had to vote in favour because they had to vote with the block of MEPs with whom they were aligned.
The CAA were not perfect but neither was the EASA and the European Parliament in the production of these FTLs.
1066
When these were under consideration by the EASA they were tasked, I’m guessing by the European Commission, with examining the available scientific data. The most recent scientific data had been produced by NASA, which long after the Bader Committee, came to very similar conclusions and the NASA conclusions were used to amend the FAA FTLs.
I am not aware that the NASA work was ever considered by EASA. If it was considered it seems to have been ignored when the EASA FTLs were proposed.,
When these new regulations came before the European Parliament for their approval, the European Parliament aviation sub committee recommended that the European Parliament should not approve these proposed FTLs but the European Parliament voted in favour. Why? What was the point of having a specialist committee examine the proposed FTLs and then ignore their recommendation!
I wrote to all my MEPs. Many of those that bothered to reply agreed that the proposals were wrong but they had to vote in favour because they had to vote with the block of MEPs with whom they were aligned.
The CAA were not perfect but neither was the EASA and the European Parliament in the production of these FTLs.
1066
the European Parliament aviation sub committee recommended that the European Parliament should not approve these proposed FTLs but the European Parliament voted in favour. Why? What was the point of having a specialist committee examine the proposed FTLs and then ignore their recommendation!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the European Parliament aviation sub committee recommended that the European Parliament should not approve these proposed FTLs but the European Parliament voted in favour. Why? What was the point of having a specialist committee examine the proposed FTLs and then ignore their recommendation!
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: France
Age: 39
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let s be honnest, to have done it (and I m young), now when I see an advert stating "roster : I. Accordance with European FTL"
I just don't took further.
I know it was better for some countries in Europe and it is still better then some Asiatic countries or other ... But it is still ****.
It is why, all "good" airline have a schedule agreement more restrictif than FTL.
It is the case in my airline
I just don't took further.
I know it was better for some countries in Europe and it is still better then some Asiatic countries or other ... But it is still ****.
It is why, all "good" airline have a schedule agreement more restrictif than FTL.
It is the case in my airline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIG CORP RULES
Even if Maybot, Davis, Fox, Johnson et al manage to wrangle a deal whereby the UK is allowed to set it's own FTLs, do you all really believe for 1 minute that the UK airline bosses would roll over and say "good, back to CAP371!"? It matters little what laws our legislators pass, proof is the current gender pay difference machinations over a law passed decades ago but ignored by companies subject to UK law.
EASA has been a boon to the companies' rostering practices, sweating more work out of the assets and allowing less rest thereby making the profit figures look good. They are NOT going to accept from the CAA (who they?) nor the UK Parliament, a move back to more employee friendly practices so please wake up, smell the coffee and realise you're now in a worse place than before EASA reared it's Greek Mythology Hydra-like head.
Drifting sideways, if EU stops UK flying over/into their airspace, what proposals do they have when UK airspace is closed off to the newly found "enemy" in retaliation? A scan of FR24 any morning/evening will demonstrate the problem nicely when direct routes from/to North Atlantic airspace and EU no longer exist. Of course what remains of the century-old RAF will have difficulty in finding Typhoons & Tankers to police the patch, but that's for another thread.
Regarding the OP's concerns, I would have thought there are so many of "their" pilot flying for "us" and vice versa that the entire Western European aviation scene would collapse into chaos and stagnation. Once again, BIG CORP, who really decide what happens and instructs most governments as to what laws to draft and pass, will step in and intervene to ensure their financial interests are as undamaged as possible.
Those pesky peasants who buy and use their products and services should never have been allowed this semblance of democracy, it just gets in the way of smooth business expansion.
EASA has been a boon to the companies' rostering practices, sweating more work out of the assets and allowing less rest thereby making the profit figures look good. They are NOT going to accept from the CAA (who they?) nor the UK Parliament, a move back to more employee friendly practices so please wake up, smell the coffee and realise you're now in a worse place than before EASA reared it's Greek Mythology Hydra-like head.
Drifting sideways, if EU stops UK flying over/into their airspace, what proposals do they have when UK airspace is closed off to the newly found "enemy" in retaliation? A scan of FR24 any morning/evening will demonstrate the problem nicely when direct routes from/to North Atlantic airspace and EU no longer exist. Of course what remains of the century-old RAF will have difficulty in finding Typhoons & Tankers to police the patch, but that's for another thread.
Regarding the OP's concerns, I would have thought there are so many of "their" pilot flying for "us" and vice versa that the entire Western European aviation scene would collapse into chaos and stagnation. Once again, BIG CORP, who really decide what happens and instructs most governments as to what laws to draft and pass, will step in and intervene to ensure their financial interests are as undamaged as possible.
Those pesky peasants who buy and use their products and services should never have been allowed this semblance of democracy, it just gets in the way of smooth business expansion.
