I'm well past the age for flying ANYTHING but a SIM these days :O, but I'm still a British citizen (until Scotland separates from the UK and the "lunatics who have taken over the asylum" :ugh:) but has our goverment gone totally insane when they time an announcement like ths just after the two aviation companies have gone bust in the last month and the whole industry is threatened by a world-wide virus threat?

On top of that, it's going to cost around TEN TIMES as much to support our own regulatory system as it previously cost us to share the cost with the rest of Europe -- just so that Johnson and Cummings etc can boast "We are the Wonderful UK, and we have nothing to do with that rabble off our shores" :confused:

Well it's coming on 1-Jan-2021 (unless some special agreement is made that we stay in EASA for an extra transition period).

If not now then when, in your opinion, should the government make this clear, and start preparing?

How will these be renewed, if for instance a UK maintenance organisation is no longer allowed to sign out work on non-UK EASA aircraft?

KeyPilot
No - because those who are put in charge will be those who want to 'Put our own stamp on it." and "We aren't going to just rubber stamp the Euro-boys."

They will be TOLD to do their own thing so that No.10 can show how clever they are. ALL departments are going to face this and the true costs will be hidden.

Variety of possible solutions:
- agree a comprehensive airworthiness bilateral with EU
- transition period of continued, temporary EASA membership or association
- agree stand-still arrangements with EASA
- etc.

Anyway I don't see how this is a problem:
- Non-UK reg'd a/c can be maintained in remaining EASA states
- UK reg's aircraft could have new UK Cs of A issued on back on EASA ones & UK AMOs can thus do work

That's interesting; I wonder where they all are? Most if not all the regional offices have been closed, staff at Gatwick have been cut back, or so the remainder claim.

I don't know about the Economic Regulation element of the CAA; have they expanded hugely?

I'm not denying your statement, just looking for an explanation.

On a related subject, I wonder what the facts are behind Shapps assertion that EASA was run mainly by Brits who will all come back to the UK and sign up with the CAA to make the dream come true. Like, for example, how many Brits were employed in EASA at senior executive level in July 2019, how many of those would be forced to or wish to leave, and how many of those would actually join the CAA in an equally senior position as soon as they leave EASA. I wonder what the comparative remuneration would look like. (The only 2 Brits I can recall seeing presenting at workshops were, in one case, woefully ignorant of his chosen speciality (the room reacted with incredulous laughter to his answer to one question) and, in the other case, quietly encouraged to relocate his toxic personality from Gatwick to Cologne.)

In short, it sounds to me like another Brexiteer pipe dream. Am I wrong?

Well, having just spent a ton of time writing new maintenance programmes to appease EASA one wonders if it was all in vain.

One also wonders what will happen licence wise, I hold both, but going from section L to EASA I gained some types under grandfather rights, will I lose these that I have been certifying or will one get grandfather rights as everything shifts the other way. I suppose the ideal would be leave EASA but align with it.

The CAA will be screwed, not enough staff and no skill set anymore to deal with these things, didn't mods etc get farmed out across Europe with different countries responsible for different types etc? That will all need to come back in house for one.
ohhhhh dear.....

Not when they go Tech on UK soil.
All I can see is current UK EASA MRO's losing work to EU EASA MROs.
Alternatively all UK MROs will need dual licenced engineers or we come to bilateral agreement in the same way we do now with US and other non EASA NAAs.
Great, more CBT coming our way.
I think I spend more time watching safety and training videos than I do actually fixing aircraft these days.

So if a UK maintenance organisation continued to work to EASA standards and got another organisation (possibly even EASA itself) to certify that it was working to those standards, would that not solve the problem.

If IRC in my industry we worked to ISO9002 and there were a number of independent organisations that could certify us for that.

Surely it's the regulations you are working to and proving that that is what you are doing, that is the issue, not where you are doing it? Correct me if I am wrong on this.

Rant Alert!
JAR Ops, JAR 145 - developed by UK and Dutch - adopted by more than 120 authorities from 1992 onwards. Result, Safety improves and standardisation is fully understood.

French and Germans get all EU macho and develop Part 145, Part M, Part 66 and Part 21 by instigating all of it as EU Law - Result? Baffling amount of bureaucracy, rules and regulation changes introduced via NPA's, Guidance leaflets, AMOCs and God knows what else - oh and the infamous Comment Response Tool whereby everyone who is approved can whinge to Cologne but you still get what Cologne has pre-proposed. Yes those airworthiness 'experts' that have huge expense accounts, free car and tax advantages because they can speak two or more languages. Ask for a decision its like the Airbus 24 hour desk......we'll get back to you.

The whole idea was to have level playing field. When the Eastern European countries were added, they embraced the rules and regulations and carried on with what they were doing....much like the French.

So QM - CAMO Postholder wanting to renew his Part 66 Licence with 5 types (most of which are commercially irrelevant) £382 for 5 years from the UK CAA.
Co-worker, Post-Holder Airworthiness Review. Part 66 with 17 types (I kid you not) £15 for 5 years including Recorded delivery from Budapest

Recently I asked for the Approval Certificate from a Bulgarian Part M. It reads........Boeing All Types. Airbus All Types Embraer All Types. We however have to go through a rigmarole of Risk Assessment, Qualifications, Baseline AMP etc etc.......

Don't get me started on the 'Greying Out' of types not worked on in the last 6 months from your Approval Certificate. There is not one authority outside the UK that pursues this regime.

We have never been part of EASA. We have never had the 'Level Playing Field' - The CAA is nothing more than a Business. Profit and Loss.


:ugh:

Chip on your shoulder? ;-)
eading your post, it seems you have something factual to say but it's buried under so much jingoistic nation-bashing that it's hard to figure out. Would be better to stick to the facts, IMO.

At my time of life....just tell it as it is. Facts. Unpalatable Jingoistic Nationalistic whatever. I'm sure the Liberalists will have a name for it. They're not happy unless they box me and label me before dismissing me. How I got through 46 years of aviation nonsense God only knows.

All of what I said is Fact.....In Quality Assurance Terms - Documentary Evidence, Beyond Reasonable Doubt but thank you for your feedback. Well intended as I'm sure it is. :)

Considering the CAA initially issued their guide booklet about converting a section L over to a part 66 licence and in it they gave examples of two aircraft to give you a group rating, under twin engine piston pressurised... they quoted two examples a Cessna 500 ( Citation Jet ) and a Cessna 441 if I remember correctly.. ( A TurboProp )

And considering the farce over the implementation of radio frequency changes and ELT fits with dates changing and slipping at the drop of a hat... Leaving EASA by the end of the year......hahahahaha, gold plate licence alright, probably due to them being as rare as rocking horse sh#t... They can't even turn around a current licence without a drama lasting weeks....


I think we are Doomed... Doomed I tell you... Doomed.

If the UK CAA were smart they would just adopt the entire FAA flight crew licensing system. US pilots have a lower overall incident accident rate as compared to EASA licensed pilots so the safety case is all ready made.

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. And if you wanted to give a hearty "F8ck You" to Europe that would be a pretty good way to do it.

That would never do, the Engineering licences are for life, where would the CAA be able to extract their pound of flesh from?

Years ago I needed to convert my FAA ATP to a CAA-style ATPL to operate some widebody aircraft registered in another country. Turns out the simplest way to do that was to convert the FAA ATP to the license of a third country which in turn was recognized by the CAA-style country.

The first conversion was a rubber stamp open book test with air law questions about unlit balloons after civil twilight below 18,000 feet and expired parachute inspection protocols. The second conversion written test had a bunch of wacko technical stuff about the mixer stage of the superheterodyne receiver and the purpose of the supercharger on a Merlin engine. I had to do some sim session with an emphasis on useful things like non-standard NDB holding. The examiner listed my many failure points on the sim ride but then magnanimously signed off my new CAA-style license. The license looked like a passport with a picture, a little string hanging out, numerous stamps, signatures and expiration dates.

As I've often observed here, some cultures seem to thrive on endless complexity but we Americans usually try to keep it simple when it comes to aviation.

Yep, the wheel has already been invented. Several times I suppose. ;)

This could get very embarrassing later this year at the Shoreham Inquest where, all things being equal, the CAA will get a good kicking.

A lot of criticism for the CAA here. To redress the balance, I've held an aircraft maintenance engineer's licence since 1986 (Section L and subsequent) and I've never had a problem with them. Quite the reverse, they've always been helpful and one very senior head of department was instrumental in pointing me towards a job when I was unemployed.
I miss my original licence number though. :-(

[QUOTE=stevef;10706937]A lot of criticism for the CAA here. To redress the balance, I've held an aircraft maintenance engineer's licence since 1986 (Section L and subsequent) and I've never had a problem with them. Quite the reverse, they've always been helpful and one very senior head of department was instrumental in pointing me towards a job when I was unemployed.
I miss my original licence number though. :-([/QUOTE ]

You know you could have retained your Section L, I did, and it is free with a Part 66. Even your 66 experience is acceptable these days, luckily previously I had a Spit I could list. The stupid thing was it was renewable every two years originally but then went to five, so is no longer aligned with the 66 renewal.

Nutloose:
But would that Section L licence retain the *old-fashioned* number (mine was in the 22000s) or would it be tied to the Pt 66 six-digit, one-letter reference? I've got a classic airframe validation that may come in useful sometime, as you do. :-)

i posted this on another forum. But this was the opinion of the CAA itself in 2018

• 22 March, 2018

In response to the FT's article on 19 March ('MPs warn of Brexit damage to UK aerospace'), Andrew Haines said:

“Both the Government and the CAA have been clear that our collective preference is to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) once the UK formerly withdraws from the European Union. The international nature of aviation regulation has improved safety outcomes for passengers, and it is important we retain as much influence as possible in this global system.

In a speech I gave in September 2017, I was clear that I believe the UK should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system. If continued membership of EASA is unachievable, we should adopt the existing EASA regulatory system, rather than developing a new framework from scratch. This option is available to any third-party country, and is one that, I believe, would provide clarity and certainty for the aviation industry.”


So Brexiteers may be pragmatists, but the aviation industry and its regulators would undoubtedly be happier if it wasn’t happening.

Yes you can align with EASA, we do not doubt that, the problem is a lot of the services the UK CAA used to do in house were along with other European countries divided up with individual countries taking on certain tasks, after all there is no point every country doing the same task. When we leave and are no longer part of EASA we will have to take on those tasks again that had previously been "outsourced" to Europe. Something we probably no longer have the staffing for, or staff not necessarily sufficiently knowledgeable in those fields. That and traditionally the CAA has been looked upon as financially self supporting through fees etc, one has to wonder who is going to pay for all of this...... And I think we all know the answer to that one!

It seems to me that the easiest route for at least Roll-Royce and the UK bits of Airbus would be to just completely ignore the "new, improved English CAA"
If these organisations maintain EASA registration - if necessary through their German subsidiary and/or French owners - they can still produce EASA-recognised airframes, engines and parts, which will be able to be fitted & maintained by EASA-registered MROs & airlines.

If the English CAA was then directed to get all jingoistic and not recognise EASA approvals, that would put the UK based industry in a pretty pickle, but the rest of the EU would probably shrug & walk away

Totally agree Nutty,very little experience of production or design at Gatwick,pretty much all overseen by Cologne. Most current EASA UK based Pt.145’s will overnight become 3rd country EASA approved organisations, all this crap about sovereignty, is just that, crap! To work on EU registered or EASA associated nations Iceland et al, we will be governed by Cologne with no say.

Our CAA issued approvals will certainly initially be relatively worthless,that said we have a bi-lateral with the US ready to go,hurrah!

Anything we design or build,the majority of which currently seemlessly crosses internal EU borders carrying with it EASA certification, this will cease.

We’ll have to pay for both the CAA & EASA to certify,won’t that be nice!
An EASA bi-lateral won’t necessarily be automatically forthcoming,for CAA innovation read additional expense,time and all the lovely bureaucracies which will accompany it. This government are idiots, disrupting a 36 billion pound industry for the sake of political dogma!

And now FAA, EASA and CAA issued AD's to comply with ETC... how nice.

WOTBP, it's already started...looking for design engineers lol.

https://careers.caa.co.uk/search/?cr..._customfield1=

Of course Haines is going to say that. Why would he want lots more work and stress? But it is his job to implement the policy of a democratically elected government - not to seek to resist it.

Yes but ADs are usually substantially the same across major regulators

Nobody has mentioned ICAO.
Isn't that where agreed standards are set?
My licence to fly in UK/EU skies is issued
by an ICAO member state, not CAA or EASA
(only that ICAO member rego. of course)

ICAO only set the toplevel rules and their main focus is on Air Navigation...

I keep hearing this song of Supertramp when I hear Grant Schnapps... "Dreamer, you are nothing but a dreamer" :rolleyes:

He is no longer the boss of the CAA but holding another poisoned chalice as boss of Network Rail. Still working under Shapps though!

Indeed they should be implementing policy. Two years ago, when the quote was made, it was not policy. I can’t think of any organisations in our industry that will be welcoming the extra legwork and paperwork that this is going to involve. Fine, we have to ‘deal with it’. But it will come at a cost, and Mr Haines was pointing that out at the time.

I think they're dreaming if they're going to find anyone (good) to work for those salaries !
I'm sure in the long term they will come up with a solution, but I see a future of more paperwork and regulatory hoops to jump though, as if we don't have enough already !

They mixed up the janitor salary with the one for a design engineer :8

They're only paying 40K for a SAFA inspector. I know that's different from an airworthiness surveyor but really?

The proposal to take back responsibilities from EASA and return them to the UK CAA is another example of the recklessness and risk taking associated with BREXIT.
CAA was a staffed by many skilled people with world-wide recognition and that situation cannot be recreated in the near term. Many original CAA experts joined EASA but a good number of them have already retired or are approaching retirement. If they are to be invited to rejoin CAA, then it might be necessary to employ nurses, medical aids and defibrillators to keep them going! The likelihood is that the technical capability that will be needed by CAA will take many years to restore and that a semi-technical bureaucratic administration will be the intermediate outcome.
Our aviation industry does not need this major disturbance. The assumed benefits might help a few individuals but, overall, won't prove to be better for our industry than that already provided by EASA.

Time to chill . Remember , esteemed Transport Minister did say the process would be " gradual " .; that's political speak for " maybe never " . A lot of stuff coming out from current government seems to be chest thumping sound bites aimed at our beloved media , all forgotten by Joe Public a few days/weeks later , that's if it was ever noticed in the first place . Just like Galileo ; off the radar , but when the consequential penny drops in the corridors of power , then things might change .

However , in the meantime , all a good excuse to wind folks up on PP .

Ah yes - Galileo. The UK loses the high precision access. So we were promised our own GNSS. Now the government has realised how much it will cost so they have dropped it.

You don´t need your own GNSS. You will have GPS in the package agreement with U.S. when you are taken over by Uncle Sam. And bilateral agreement with FAA will put you firmly on the other side of the Pond.
Restoring British Empire is just a dream that will be paid dearly.
I traveled thru New Zealand recently - a few decades ago, their foreign exchange with UK was close to 50%. Today is around 10% and declining. They are only talking about relations with Asian countries, not UK. Check on which issue their young PM came to office.
The Concorde was the first right move, albeit a money loser. Airbus - a sort of offspring, became a huge success, that drove then dominant U.S. industry to run and consolidate, but was eventually overtaken-to their fury. A small CS airplane from Canada drove Airbus to reengine its 320, pushing Boeing into another facelift to its venerable workhorse - a one too many. Europe/Airbus became a leader-with considerable input/share from U.K. And this might change with this insane idea of leaving EASA. Is this the agenda behind? Why did Secretary for Transport announce this in Washington?? Also, bear in mind that the only big engine manufacturer on this half of the planet is in U.K.
I just feel sorry for you and sorry for a lost opportunity for all of us in Europe. There is no real future for such (little) empires anymore. It is all about finding the answer to rising superpower in the East. Any grinding between U.S. and Europe is only giving them a boost. Aviation industry is an important tell-tale of what is coming.

Actually New Zealand's trade with UK cratered a few decades ago because the UK joined the EU and it's external trade barriers. Our EU membership caused New Zealand 7% or so GDP loss and lead to recession there. It has taken a long time for them to find footholds in new markets in Asia. Will NZ forgive and forget the pain we caused them by joining the EU - we'll have to wait and see.