Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1617687
UpThere wrote:Surely that depends whether or not we leave with a transition agreement that keeps us in EASA?


Yes it does in the long run, but it is inconceivable that nothing is sorted in relation to aviation and licensing - either by staying as we are or arranging a transition into national licenses again which would be ICAO compliant.
Colonel Panic liked this
#1617761
Yes you would think that it is inconceivable that something has not been sorted out. But as of April that was the case (public statement from Andrew Haynes CEO CAA. Inspite of the statement in January from EASA that our licenses, approvals etc etc would no longer be valid post Brexit date.

So of course our £260k per annum CEO and posse of the 'great and good' is focussed on sorting this out - NOT.

I'm exploring an EASA French licence which looks 'doable' having a French address!
#1618541
I think the answer is 'Yes':

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -t5zkgv75v


Brexit: Brussels bars aviation chiefs from preparing for no-deal

Brussels has banned aviation regulators from holding backstop talks with Britain to keep Europe’s planes flying in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

In a move to raise pressure on No 10, the European Commission has said it will not discuss a no-deal aviation contingency plan before March next year.

Airlines, manufacturers and regulators across Europe have said that they would need about nine months to draw up plans to minimise disruption if Brexit talks collapse. They have told the commission that unless a deal is in place between the UK and the EU by March then tens of thousands of aircraft could be automatically grounded.

Production at Europe’s largest aircraft manufacturer, Airbus, could also be halted as parts made in Britain would no longer legally be allowed to be used in planes licensed by the EU.

“We are the most heavily regulated industry in the world after nuclear,” said a senior industry figure. “It is not feasible to cobble together a last-minute deal even if there is a political need.”

The industry has also said that even if there were a transition deal America could refuse during that time to recognise European planes that include parts made in Britain. Amid a deepening trade war with President Trump, who has linked tariffs to America’s commitment to Nato, there is concern that the US could withdraw safety certificates.

British and industry officials are understood to have raised the issues with the EU’s Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier. But the European Commission has explicitly banned the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) from holding talks with its UK counterpart, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

Last night another industry source said the commission was putting politics above the interests of the people it is supposed to represent. “This is purely about a negotiating strategy,” they said.

The EASA has legal responsibility for ensuring the safety of parts in planes manufactured in the EU. Much of this work, with companies such as Rolls-Royce and Airbus in the UK, is carried out under EASA authority by the CAA. After Brexit, without a bilateral recognition deal, parts currently certified by the CAA on behalf of the EASA would cease to have any legal basis. As a result, airlines would not be able to fly planes in the EU with parts made in Britain.

In a letter to Mr Barnier the international General Aviation Manufacturers Association and the UK aerospace group ADS said the current approach risked harming not just Britain but the £190 billion EU-wide industry.

The organisations pointed out that when the EASA took over responsibility from national regulators in 2003, after years of planning, planes were still grounded because “companies and regulators struggled to catch up with new arrangements”. Their letter read: “Our risk analysis concludes that EASA and the CAA need to urgently begin technical and contingency planning discussions by the June European Council, separate to the political negotiations.

“Without an agreed solution then supply chain disruption across Europe will occur, parts will be unable to be delivered, pilots and maintenance technicians will be unable to work, aerospace companies in the UK will lose foreign validations for their business, and aircraft will be grounded globally.”

The letter warned that even if transition took place, Brexit could reveal unexpected issues. Brussels has mutual recognition deals with countries such as Canada and the US that allow planes and parts certified in the EU to fly in America. If there were a transition deal then the US administration would have to approve any new legal arrangement between Britain and the EU. However, it would be under no obligation to do so.

The commission declined to comment on the letter “until we have replied”. But in a “notice to stakeholders on the withdrawal of the UK and European aviation safety rules”, it said: “Certificates issued before the withdrawal date by the competent authorities of the UK . . . will no longer be valid as of the withdrawal date in the EU.”

Some European diplomats are also frustrated at the hardline approach. One said: “If aircraft are grounded and there’s chaos then people won’t say, ‘Oh, thanks for sticking to the letter of law’. They’ll blame us for allowing things to break down. They’d be right.”
#1618877
EASA is their toy box. If they want to say you've left our club, our certificates are no longer valid - they can and given the hopeless political dogma on our side they probably will.

Scare mongering? - obviously physically nothing has changed - but aircraft fly legally due to international conventions and agreements - and our politicians have essentially said 'We've off' and 'once we're off you can stick ECJ - the deciding legal authority.

What does your company do with 'bad leavers' - offer them every assistance and glowing references?
#1618878
I think they're just stating the facts consequent on the way EASA legislation is framed. It's understandable that they don't want to get into discussions with the CAA until our government has stated what it means by Brexit, because they'll just be wasting their time until that becomes clear. After all, EASA is policed by the ECJ, and submission to that is apparently a red line which our PM will not cross, so how can we continue to be a part of it? Michael O'Leary has been warning about this for a long time, but it seems to have become par for the course for Brexiters to blame anyone but themselves for the negotiating shambles as the deadline approaches.
Stu B liked this