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.