UK to Leave EASA
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I have a recently qualified PPL student who is going the modular route. While the Austrians will still accept his PPL and UK ATPL exams, he is planning on doing the CPL/IR in Sweden, ahead of applying for an Austrian licence. He sees that as the only realistic way of gaining employment in the future.
We've already seen the Irish calling out the UK CAA for incompetent administration of PPL exams, resulting in the CAA being forced to make changes, which apparently are so expensive to put in place, they are being subsidised. Even then, there is an argument from a section of industry that the change isn't being implemented properly (lack of feedback on wrong answers).
If all the perceived badness in EASA has been enacted by Brits in Cologne, do we really want them back again?
Mr Shapps needs to go to Boris and say 'Listen, I need £1billion to set the CAA up again. It would break Industry to pay for it'.
TOO
We've already seen the Irish calling out the UK CAA for incompetent administration of PPL exams, resulting in the CAA being forced to make changes, which apparently are so expensive to put in place, they are being subsidised. Even then, there is an argument from a section of industry that the change isn't being implemented properly (lack of feedback on wrong answers).
If all the perceived badness in EASA has been enacted by Brits in Cologne, do we really want them back again?
Mr Shapps needs to go to Boris and say 'Listen, I need £1billion to set the CAA up again. It would break Industry to pay for it'.
TOO
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The inability to fly within Europe without an EASA license or conversion to same might not be of much consequence as the Johnson administration is unlikely to negotiate a post-Brexit-deal that will allow UK citizens to work in the EU. That wouldn't be of any consequence either if the Brexiteers' land of milk and honey projections come true and British airlines prosper in line with the rest of the economy even without a deal. I would also severely doubt the likelihood of a conservative government backing safety-based FTLs rather than going for lax rules as a means to improve competitiveness. Time will tell and empty pockets might thwart the best of intentions.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
How did we survive before EASA (and JAR)?
Let's face it, over the last couple of decades the ever-changing aviation regulations have become a farce.
Let's face it, over the last couple of decades the ever-changing aviation regulations have become a farce.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
How did we survive before EASA (and JAR)?
I was denied a Class 1 medical in the early 1980's because I didn't meet the Olympic athlete standards of the time (I wear glasses). With the coming of more enlightened regulation, I was able to finally acquire a Class 1 in my 50's. I still exceed the current eyesight regulation.
TOO
Quite badly.
I was denied a Class 1 medical in the early 1980's because I didn't meet the Olympic athlete standards of the time (I wear glasses). With the coming of more enlightened regulation, I was able to finally acquire a Class 1 in my 50's. I still exceed the current eyesight regulation.
TOO
I was denied a Class 1 medical in the early 1980's because I didn't meet the Olympic athlete standards of the time (I wear glasses). With the coming of more enlightened regulation, I was able to finally acquire a Class 1 in my 50's. I still exceed the current eyesight regulation.
TOO
standards were met.
Perhaps you had an underlying vision problem
which precluded the issue of a class 1 ? Simply requiring glasses wouldn’t affect the granting of a class 1
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great news. Back to the good old days. Very high standards, centrally well administered. I have held all of the glorious UK licences. PPl, CPL, SCPL, ATPL. (Actually, I recall the latter being called the Air Line Transport Licence (ALTP, rather than ATPL or worse, Americanised ATP ). All centrally administered. If you wanted to fly UK registered aircraft you need a UK licence. What's difficult about that ? Same applied in the USA. Want to fly USA Registered aircraft (?).........get a FAA licence. Want to fly a European Registered aircraft, get a licence issued by the individual European Country's Regulatory Authority. Of course there was recognition. UK licence was world wide admired and obtaining the foreign licence was often the easy matter of obtaining a "validation". Some countries asked for local Air Law paper only. I flew on validations to my Uk gold standard from three seperate European Licensing Authorities and two Middle East. FAA insisted on full writtens but they were REALLY easy multi choice. Of course, and rightly so , Top Class UK CAA did not reciprocate. Quite rightly did not recognise other easy licences and you would need to pass all the difficult writtens.
I see nothing wrong in all of the foregoing and it maintained a very high standard, world recognised Professional qualification process.
We hear a lot of tripe about airspace restriction. UK never stopped other licenced carriers operating in UK airspace. USA & Europe never stopped UK registered aircraft flying in their airspace. Airspace regulation and licence regulation are seperate issues .
And, note to UK CAA (oh love it !) Can we go back to nine fully written exams, not this dumbed down multi choice trash ? For Meteorogy, for example, can we go back to the tough theory (part one) and the really tough practical(pat two) where we had to decode stations, plot a course, plot the isobars & fronts with pressure susytems , decode the actuals and write forecast for destination & alternates (get Buys Ballot all wrong & you would wind up all over the chart. !)
Note to foreign licence Regulators : As the new UK Licences will be the gold standards, we will expect foreign validations by just having to do your local Air Law exam ( not even that required by the Belgians in 1991) and just to be sure, this is for Licencing to fly registered aircraft of THAT country. Nothing, nothing, to do with the confusion of flying in foreign airspace
Finally, of course the new UK LIcence will at last be recognised as University degree acadamic standard, so, can I be first to get my Degree in Civil Aviation. You know, something like "UK CAA Honours, -Hamble " ; then I could put "UKCAA-Ham Hon" behind my name. Ta.
I see nothing wrong in all of the foregoing and it maintained a very high standard, world recognised Professional qualification process.
We hear a lot of tripe about airspace restriction. UK never stopped other licenced carriers operating in UK airspace. USA & Europe never stopped UK registered aircraft flying in their airspace. Airspace regulation and licence regulation are seperate issues .
And, note to UK CAA (oh love it !) Can we go back to nine fully written exams, not this dumbed down multi choice trash ? For Meteorogy, for example, can we go back to the tough theory (part one) and the really tough practical(pat two) where we had to decode stations, plot a course, plot the isobars & fronts with pressure susytems , decode the actuals and write forecast for destination & alternates (get Buys Ballot all wrong & you would wind up all over the chart. !)
Note to foreign licence Regulators : As the new UK Licences will be the gold standards, we will expect foreign validations by just having to do your local Air Law exam ( not even that required by the Belgians in 1991) and just to be sure, this is for Licencing to fly registered aircraft of THAT country. Nothing, nothing, to do with the confusion of flying in foreign airspace
Finally, of course the new UK LIcence will at last be recognised as University degree acadamic standard, so, can I be first to get my Degree in Civil Aviation. You know, something like "UK CAA Honours, -Hamble " ; then I could put "UKCAA-Ham Hon" behind my name. Ta.
I've just been made aware that the above article contains this quote.
Surely this isn't correct?
Shapps said EASA has initiated infraction proceedings against the UK over its decision not to enact SERA (Standardized European Rules of the Air) visibility and distance from cloud minima in Class D airspace.
Surely this isn't correct?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Want to fly a European Registered aircraft, get a licence issued by the individual European Country's Regulatory Authority. Of course there was recognition. UK licence was world wide admired and obtaining the foreign licence was often the easy matter of obtaining a "validation". Some countries asked for local Air Law paper only. I flew on validations to my Uk gold standard from three seperate European Licensing Authorities
Where exactly is all the money going to come from to enact this new 'gold standard' CAA? I don't remember that written on the side of a bus.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: EDDM
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately I've seen so much of this tripe over the last year, it's hard to tell when people are joking and when they're being serious.
I have mixed feelings about this. Some good stuff has come out of EASA but I think they lost the plot with FTLs.
It’s probably going to be fairly challenging for the CAA to change back to Regulator after their stint of rubber-stamping EASA output but it’ll likely work out in the end. Just as long as things are grandfathered through and we don’t have to re-apply for everything...
It’s probably going to be fairly challenging for the CAA to change back to Regulator after their stint of rubber-stamping EASA output but it’ll likely work out in the end. Just as long as things are grandfathered through and we don’t have to re-apply for everything...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I've just been made aware that the above article contains this quote.
Surely this isn't correct?
Shapps said EASA has initiated infraction proceedings against the UK over its decision not to enact SERA (Standardized European Rules of the Air) visibility and distance from cloud minima in Class D airspace.
Come on guys, read the text. Grant Shapps has stated that he thinks a lot of the EASA expertise is British people. This means that it is a threat to the Europeans that if a good deal is not struck then the UK will steal a lot of the EASA expertise back to the UK leaving EASA short of people and not able to function efficiently.
It is political posturing, in the end everything will just stay the same as it is.
It is political posturing, in the end everything will just stay the same as it is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Come on guys, read the text. Grant Shapps has stated that he thinks a lot of the EASA expertise is British people. This means that it is a threat to the Europeans that if a good deal is not struck then the UK will steal a lot of the EASA expertise back to the UK leaving EASA short of people and not able to function efficiently.
It is political posturing, in the end everything will just stay the same as it is.
It is political posturing, in the end everything will just stay the same as it is.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious but did anyone ask for this? Not manufacturers surely and i doubt operators. I guess that a few old farts like me who fly their weekend Slingsbys may want it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration.
From the Financial Times:
UK aerospace industry warns of risk from leaving European agency
Trade body highlights threat to jobs and investment of withdrawal from aviation safety regime
Peggy Hollinger in London yesterday
Britain’s aerospace industry has warned that the government is putting jobs and investment at risk after the transport secretary revealed that the UK intends to leave Europe’s aviation safety agency at the end of this year to develop its own regulatory system.
“We have been clear that continued participation in EASA [European Union Aviation Safety regime] is the best option to maintain the competitiveness of our £36bn aerospace industry,” said Paul Everitt, chief executive of ADS, the aerospace industry trade body, in a statement late on Friday night. “UK influence in EASA . . . helps make our industry attractive to the investment it needs to be home to the development of a new generation of advanced aircraft technology.
“Government had promised it would consider harmonisation where it is in the UK interest . . . We are disappointed that it has not taken a more ambitious approach. It is essential that it works with us to deliver a regime that does not put jobs at risk.
”The industry’s warning followed comments by Grant Shapps in an interview on Friday with trade publications Aviation Daily and ATW in Washington. In the clearest statement yet of the government’s position on membership of the EU safety regulator, Mr Shapps said: “We will leave EASA. Over a period of time we’ll be wanting to develop our own [aircraft] certifications.”
Mr Shapps said the UK intended to be “particularly forward-leaning in technology and automation”. He cited urban air transport as an area where the country’s aviation regulator — the Civil Aviation Authority — could develop new types of safety certifications.“We’ll make sure our legislative framework is in a great place to enable those kinds of organisations to excel in the UK market,” he said.
The right to diverge from European regulatory regimes has become a mantra for the UK government as it negotiates the terms of its future trade relationship with the EU. The UK refuses to accept any role for the European Court of Justice, which means EASA membership is unacceptable without a compromise as the court has ultimate jurisdiction over the agency’s rulings. Companies across the UK aerospace sector will be dismayed by the transport secretary’s comments. Rolls-Royce and Airbus, two of the UK’s biggest aerospace exporters, have repeatedly emphasised the need for continued membership of EASA to help keep down costs.
The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration. EASA also has reciprocal agreements with authorities in Brazil and Canada, and soon Japan and China.
In January Tony Wood, the new president of ADS, voiced the industry’s deepening frustration at the UK government’s failure to accept the implications of divergence from EASA. He called on the government to clarify the alternative.
The industry has estimated that it would take a decade and cost between £30m and £40m a year to create a UK safety authority with all the expertise of EASA, against a current contribution to the European agency of £1m to £4m annually. While aircraft components are exempt from tariffs under World Trade Organization rules, the aerospace industry has long argued that divergence from European regulations would add cost and complexity to UK manufacturing and jeopardise export success. In 2018 the UK exported about £34bn in aerospace products.
The Department for Transport could not be reached for comment.
Trade body highlights threat to jobs and investment of withdrawal from aviation safety regime
Peggy Hollinger in London yesterday
Britain’s aerospace industry has warned that the government is putting jobs and investment at risk after the transport secretary revealed that the UK intends to leave Europe’s aviation safety agency at the end of this year to develop its own regulatory system.
“We have been clear that continued participation in EASA [European Union Aviation Safety regime] is the best option to maintain the competitiveness of our £36bn aerospace industry,” said Paul Everitt, chief executive of ADS, the aerospace industry trade body, in a statement late on Friday night. “UK influence in EASA . . . helps make our industry attractive to the investment it needs to be home to the development of a new generation of advanced aircraft technology.
“Government had promised it would consider harmonisation where it is in the UK interest . . . We are disappointed that it has not taken a more ambitious approach. It is essential that it works with us to deliver a regime that does not put jobs at risk.
”The industry’s warning followed comments by Grant Shapps in an interview on Friday with trade publications Aviation Daily and ATW in Washington. In the clearest statement yet of the government’s position on membership of the EU safety regulator, Mr Shapps said: “We will leave EASA. Over a period of time we’ll be wanting to develop our own [aircraft] certifications.”
Mr Shapps said the UK intended to be “particularly forward-leaning in technology and automation”. He cited urban air transport as an area where the country’s aviation regulator — the Civil Aviation Authority — could develop new types of safety certifications.“We’ll make sure our legislative framework is in a great place to enable those kinds of organisations to excel in the UK market,” he said.
The right to diverge from European regulatory regimes has become a mantra for the UK government as it negotiates the terms of its future trade relationship with the EU. The UK refuses to accept any role for the European Court of Justice, which means EASA membership is unacceptable without a compromise as the court has ultimate jurisdiction over the agency’s rulings. Companies across the UK aerospace sector will be dismayed by the transport secretary’s comments. Rolls-Royce and Airbus, two of the UK’s biggest aerospace exporters, have repeatedly emphasised the need for continued membership of EASA to help keep down costs.
The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration. EASA also has reciprocal agreements with authorities in Brazil and Canada, and soon Japan and China.
In January Tony Wood, the new president of ADS, voiced the industry’s deepening frustration at the UK government’s failure to accept the implications of divergence from EASA. He called on the government to clarify the alternative.
The industry has estimated that it would take a decade and cost between £30m and £40m a year to create a UK safety authority with all the expertise of EASA, against a current contribution to the European agency of £1m to £4m annually. While aircraft components are exempt from tariffs under World Trade Organization rules, the aerospace industry has long argued that divergence from European regulations would add cost and complexity to UK manufacturing and jeopardise export success. In 2018 the UK exported about £34bn in aerospace products.
The Department for Transport could not be reached for comment.
Paxing All Over The World
Shapps said:
Which indicates they no longer are and the ones who lead it are now retired!
SpamCanDriver
I doubt it, the Tories will allow the carriers whatever they want in the name of 'being better and more competitive'.
There is going to be a big cost and time lag to build up the knowledge and administrative systems to support all this. It is amusing that the Tories think that increasing the costs of multiple departments and agencies, rather than sharing the cost, is good for the nation. But this is not about money only politics.
A lot of the key leading lights were Brits.
SpamCanDriver
End of dangerous EASA FTL's and a return to scientifically backed ones
There is going to be a big cost and time lag to build up the knowledge and administrative systems to support all this. It is amusing that the Tories think that increasing the costs of multiple departments and agencies, rather than sharing the cost, is good for the nation. But this is not about money only politics.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done, UK! It's time to finally shake off the burden of the Eurasian Island off the Great Britain Continent.
The only problem is, safety is proportionate to the number of participants with common rules and common experience. Breaking off the common safety convention or (as declared in this case) taking your own expertise out of it benefits noone.
The only problem is, safety is proportionate to the number of participants with common rules and common experience. Breaking off the common safety convention or (as declared in this case) taking your own expertise out of it benefits noone.