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. :-)