EASA name changed
mostly harmless
Because the non-EU members of EASA have all signed an agreement for 'third-party membership', which conveys fewer rights than full membership.
Today's 'Financial Times' is reporting that the current UK proposal for the Withdrawal Agreement has removed the section which deals with EASA. So current UK government policy is not to associate with EASA.
Today's 'Financial Times' is reporting that the current UK proposal for the Withdrawal Agreement has removed the section which deals with EASA. So current UK government policy is not to associate with EASA.
Because there needs to be a dispute resolution authority. If country A and country B are at loggerheads over how something is being done, or country C is refusing to implement an EASA requirement, the ECJ has the power and authority to legally enforce an outcome. The UK is refusing to have anything to do with the ECJ so therefore cannot remain in EASA.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following Brexit, the UK CAA have stated that they will be providing a pathway for those pilots whom (for the purpose of maintaining their employment) have transferred their license to some other European NAA to come back into the fold of the UK CAA and have their UK CAA license reissued (such that they'd then hold both an EASA license and a UK license)... which all sounds eminently sensible and can be reviewed here: https://info.caa.co.uk/brexit/commercial-pilots/
It's not clear what equivalent facilitation (if any?) EASA / EUASA will be providing for pilots to do that same thing in reverse, i.e. to SOLI from EASA to UK CAA and then, after Brexit, come back to EASA ?
And of course, post Brexit, there's always the old-school 'validation' process that can be utilised as a short-term stop gap, just like we used to do back in the day and still utilise in environs outside of EASA land.
It's not clear what equivalent facilitation (if any?) EASA / EUASA will be providing for pilots to do that same thing in reverse, i.e. to SOLI from EASA to UK CAA and then, after Brexit, come back to EASA ?
And of course, post Brexit, there's always the old-school 'validation' process that can be utilised as a short-term stop gap, just like we used to do back in the day and still utilise in environs outside of EASA land.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pub
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA in WA
Because the non-EU members of EASA have all signed an agreement for 'third-party membership', which conveys fewer rights than full membership.
Today's 'Financial Times' is reporting that the current UK proposal for the Withdrawal Agreement has removed the section which deals with EASA. So current UK government policy is not to associate with EASA.
Today's 'Financial Times' is reporting that the current UK proposal for the Withdrawal Agreement has removed the section which deals with EASA. So current UK government policy is not to associate with EASA.
The name change happened in July 2018.
"NEW: Key manufacturers warn serious risk in new Johnson Brexit deal plan, after Govt fails to reassure still seeks participation in EU agencies EASA, ECHA, EMA... BBC obtains letter from Aerospace body ADS over fears commitments in existing political declaration to be dropped"
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mauritius,soon or latter
Posts: 542
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to ask what will happen with the production of Airbus aircraft. There are lot of parts in every aircraft that is made or assembled in UK. If UK leaves EU without any aviation deal, does it mean that all components originating from UK will automatically loose EASA certificate? Is it possible to put non EASA certified components into aircraft and remaining airworthiness certificate issued by EASA ( or some other CAA that obey EASA rules and ECJ court instance) ?
Have Airbus done anything to make those components outside of UK?
Have Airbus done anything to make those components outside of UK?
Airbus can use parts from outside EASA area manufacturers. They do it from the US, from Canada, Korea and China as examples. So the UK should be possible as well. Especially with EASA certified parts that don't get changed.
mostly harmless
https://www.ft.com/content/ce837afe-...0-3b065ef5fc55
I dont think that the situation has changed since but cannot be sure.
I dont think that the situation has changed since but cannot be sure.
Must be possible to get the same anytime for the UK for sure. So many RR engines in use at Airbus...
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enders has declared in the past he would not see how Airbus would continue to have its wings manufactured in the UK if it did not remain in the customs union .
Not because of EASA but of the bureaucracy/delays its operations would be subject to.
I could not find the correct reference , but this article mentions it partially : https://www.ft.com/content/5c60b8ba-...6-46fc3ad87c65
Not because of EASA but of the bureaucracy/delays its operations would be subject to.
I could not find the correct reference , but this article mentions it partially : https://www.ft.com/content/5c60b8ba-...6-46fc3ad87c65
Enders has declared in the past he would not see how Airbus would continue to have its wings manufactured in the UK if it did not remain in the customs union .
Not because of EASA but of the bureaucracy/delays its operations would be subject to.
I could not find the correct reference , but this article mentions it partially : https://www.ft.com/content/5c60b8ba-...6-46fc3ad87c65
Not because of EASA but of the bureaucracy/delays its operations would be subject to.
I could not find the correct reference , but this article mentions it partially : https://www.ft.com/content/5c60b8ba-...6-46fc3ad87c65
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My remark was that if Airbus leave it will not be because of EASA but because the UK wanted to leave the customs union, which is a part of the EU which allows free movements of goods among its member states.
UK in theory could exit the EU but remain in the customs union .That is the whole discussion at the moment.
From looking at EASA's website it would seem that its full official title is "EASA - The European Union Aviation Safety Agency". In the text they refer consistently to "EASA", not EUASA.
So not really a name change; it's still EASA..
So not really a name change; it's still EASA..
The short form was kept. The name did change.
