|
UK to Leave EASA
Not sure if this has been already posted but Grant Shapps has confirmed UK is leaving EASA and will be self certifying.
Wow. Big step. ....Mods please delete if old news. |
From Aviation Daily:
UK ‘Will Leave’ EASA, Says British Transportation SecretaryBill Carey March 06, 2020https://aviationweek.com/sites/defau...?itok=0TqPrkRcUK State Secretary for Transportation Grant Shapps meets with Aviation Daily. Credit: Bill Carey WASHINGTON—The UK will withdraw as a member state of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after a transition period and shift responsibility for aircraft certification and safety regulation to its own Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), British Transportation Secretary Grant Shapps said.“We will leave EASA,” Shapps said Mar. 6 during an exclusive interview with editors from Aviation Daily and ATW. “A lot of the expertise they have is UK expertise, in fact. A lot of the key leading lights were Brits.” Shapps, in Washington for meetings with U.S. officials, said the withdrawal from Cologne, Germany-based EASA was being negotiated at EU headquarters in Brussels. The break will happen after Dec. 31, when EU law no longer applies to the UK. “So, the powers will revert to the CAA, who are probably one of the world’s leading regulators and the expertise will need to come home to do that, but we’ll do it in a gradual way,” Shapps said. Outside of EASA membership, the UK will seek mutual recognition of certifications in bilateral agreements with other countries and blocs, he said. The CAA eventually will assume responsibility for new aircraft type certificates and airworthiness approvals. Shapps suggested urban air mobility (UAM) vehicles will be among the first examples, saying he had met with UAM developer Joby Aviation during his trip. “Over a period of time we’ll be wanting to develop our own [aircraft] certifications,” Shapps said. “One of the things we’ll want to do is be particularly forward-leaning in technology and automation. We’ll make sure our legislative framework is in a great place to enable those kinds of organizations to excel in the UK market.” Since its “Brexit” withdrawal from the EU in January, the UK has been considered a “third country” within EASA, a status that will continue through the end of the year. “During this time, the UK will be treated as an EU member state but will no longer take part in any decision-making or decision-shaping activities at EASA,” the safety agency states on its website. The transition period can be extended between the parties once by up to two years, EASA says, which does not mention any UK withdrawal. A decision to extend the transition period would have to be made by July 1, the agency says. 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. A Conservative member of Parliament who serves as a cabinet secretary under British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Shapps said his party’s decisive victory in the December 2019 general election represents a mandate for independent action. Parliament ratified Brexit a month after the election, and the UK officially withdrew from the EU on Jan. 31. “We’ve just won the election in a very big way with a big majority and a proper sense of direction for five years,” Shapps said. “As you would expect from an independent nation, we can’t be subject to the rules and laws made by somebody else, so we can’t accept rules from the EU Commission and we can’t accept rulings in terms of court cases from the European Court of Justice or anybody else, any more than the U.S. would.” |
Absolutely unbelievable.
|
“So, the powers will revert to the CAA, who are probably one of the world’s leading regulators and the expertise will need to come home to do that, but we’ll do it in a gradual way,” Shapps said. |
Good! Let’s hope they can rescind the very imminent and stupid changes to the VFR rules.
|
About time. Can i get my UK license :ok:.
|
Originally Posted by 1daneman
(Post 10705369)
About time. Can i get my UK license :ok:.
Was thinking that same - hopefully a return to the gold standard. |
What possible benefit is this to anyone? Absolutely ridiculous.
|
Originally Posted by cashash
(Post 10705382)
Was thinking that same - hopefully a return to the gold standard.
|
Does this mean I don't have to remove the restrictions from my B1 licence? Are we reverting to section L and BCARS?
What a farce! |
Lunacy. Not having the ECJ as an arbitrator could invalidate every LOA, the UK Ireland FAB will be screwed, SES gone.
|
This is inevitable, for the reasons Shapps says.
And also a good thing - in my opinion! |
the UK will seek mutual recognition of certifications in bilateral agreements with other countries and blocs, he said. |
Yaah bring back CAP371 4th Edition for the FTL - then the few Airlines that are actually left (- Monarch, Thomas Cook, Flybe) won't have a level playing field but BALPA will be happy
|
Originally Posted by anson harris
(Post 10705406)
What possible benefit is this to anyone? Absolutely ridiculous.
|
Originally Posted by SpamCanDriver
(Post 10705520)
End of dangerous EASA FTL's and a return to scientifically backed ones
There was actually a great paper from the Royal Aeronautical Society about the challenges for the CAA in becoming a full fledged authority again, which basically said that it takes hundreds of extra employees in required manpower and around 5 years to be able to fulfill all roles again. Will be an interesting time ahead for the UK aerospace sector i guess. But then, seeing that new simulators for example are danish certified instead of UK, there might be a reason for stuff like that. |
Originally Posted by Denti
(Post 10705541)
Biggest proponent of the EASA FTL was actually the UK in the relevant working groups.
There was actually a great paper from the Royal Aeronautical Society about the challenges for the CAA in becoming a full fledged authority again, which basically said that it takes hundreds of extra employees in required manpower and around 5 years to be able to fulfill all roles again. Will be an interesting time ahead for the UK aerospace sector i guess. But then, seeing that new simulators for example are danish certified instead of UK, there might be a reason for stuff like that. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Denti
(Post 10705541)
There was actually a great paper from the Royal Aeronautical Society about the challenges for the CAA in becoming a full fledged authority again, which basically said that it takes hundreds of extra employees in required manpower and around 5 years to be able to fulfill all roles again.
|
This is the most idiotic move. Brexiteers can look forward to the massive front-loaded cost of trying to turn the denuded and incompetent CAA into anything vaguely fit for purpose.
We’re much more likely to end up with something third world. In the meantime the UK industry will continue to collapse, the economic downturn will finish the kill on airlines and GA, and there will be nothing left to regulate. There aren’t words to express my anger at what’s happening now. |
Originally Posted by SpamCanDriver
(Post 10705520)
End of dangerous EASA FTL's and a return to scientifically backed ones
|
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 |
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.
|
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. |
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 |
Originally Posted by TheOddOne
(Post 10705650)
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 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 |
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've just been made aware that the above article contains this quote.
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? |
Originally Posted by Landflap
(Post 10705681)
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
|
LANDFLAP - Agree with all. I am a bit more simplistic and will also write to the new UK CAA requesting my degree to read ; UK ATPL-Oxon"
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by Landflap
(Post 10705681)
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
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... |
Originally Posted by ETOPS
(Post 10705683)
I've just been made aware that the above article contains this quote.
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. |
Originally Posted by Miles Magister
(Post 10705733)
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. |
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.
|
I noticed that he was in Washington when he announced.
|
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. |
Shapps said:
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.