Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
By AlanC
#1653296
G-BLEW wrote:I imagine most approved organisations will have already started the process of maintaining EASA approvals in the event of a no-deal exit, but there's more info on how to do it and how much it costs from EASA here

Ian


"Most" is a tricky word. On the flight training side, I would be surprised if many small modular ATOs are planning to have parallel/TCO approvals, largely because the costs are simply prohibitive when balanced against the likely business - it's a really fine line in an industry where 5-10% profit margins are the norm. We're also hearing some "interesting" comments about TCO audits that appear to be anything but consistent, with the content and findings often based very much on what would be expected in a home country rather than on the letter of the regulation. Perhaps time will tell?
#1653318
AlanC wrote:
G-BLEW wrote:I imagine most approved organisations will have already started the process of maintaining EASA approvals in the event of a no-deal exit, but there's more info on how to do it and how much it costs from EASA here

Ian


"Most" is a tricky word. On the flight training side, I would be surprised if many small modular ATOs are planning to have parallel/TCO approvals, largely because the costs are simply prohibitive when balanced against the likely business - it's a really fine line in an industry where 5-10% profit margins are the norm. We're also hearing some "interesting" comments about TCO audits that appear to be anything but consistent, with the content and findings often based very much on what would be expected in a home country rather than on the letter of the regulation. Perhaps time will tell?


The issue here is perhaps that if you're a large acronymic corporation like BA, BAES, EZY, RR, etc. you have the capacity to put people onto this contingency planning, have plans lined up, set up dummy corporations in other countries, and so-on. It's a mild nuisance for you, but up there with a bunch of other contingency planning you already have going on, about major suppliers going bust, crashes, civil wars in major destinations, and so-on.

If you are a relatively small company - a small charter operation, a flying school, a parts supplier - or to an even greater extent an individual, whether that's a pilot, engineer, technician, whatever - you are both too busy earning your living, and really don't have the spare capacity to indulge in multiple scenario planning, and the research behind that. The smaller you are, the more you need government bodies to provide you with a few steers.

G
Bathman, Sooty25, AlanC and 2 others liked this
By AlanC
#1653349
Genghis the Engineer wrote:The issue here is perhaps that ...removed for brevity rather than disagreement... The smaller you are, the more you need government bodies to provide you with a few steers.
G


GtE summarised it in a nutshell :thumleft:.
By Freeflight
#1653571
Just release on CAA Brexit site:

Update to EU exit information – licensed engineers

We have updated the information on our microsite concerning licensed engineers in the event of a non-negotiated EU exit. To enable the CAA time to complete its part in the licence transfer process, the CAA advises that application forms for licence transfers to another EU Member State need to be submitted to the CAA by January 1, 2019.
#1653573
That would be transfers from other EASA states to the UK CAA, I presume.

For transfers from the UK to other states of licence issue you need to make an application to the another authority not to the UK CAA (at least for the flying licences)
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1653587
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:That would be transfers from other EASA states to the UK CAA, I presume.

For transfers from the UK to other states of licence issue you need to make an application to the another authority not to the UK CAA (at least for the flying licences)


No, I think it is for licensed engineers who want to retain an EASA licence. The UK CAA has a role in that process.

Ian
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By W Smith
#1655323
The way it works, for pilots as well as engineers, is that you apply to the authority of the country you want to issue and administer your licence in future. That authority then asks your current licensing authority (the UK CAA in this context) to send your records to them, and you have to give your permission to your existing authority (UK CAA) to allow them to do that.
johnm liked this
#1655327
This sort of Internationally recognised qualification should be above mere Politics. It is shameful that the present Government is not acting in the best interests of it's citizens. This politicking will be their downfall.
Driving licences, Aircrew, Engineering, What next? Medics who don't have an EE "ticket"
ICAO should take over it's overarching jurisdiction and administer International matters and put EASA back in it's box.
Strangely, the obdurate May appears to be following in the footsteps of Thatcher who squandered the North Sea Oil bounty, keeping thousands on benefits in order to crush the unions.....most of which were in their death-throes anyway.
Plus ca change ,I think the French say. :roll:
By daysleeper
#1655334
cockney steve wrote:This sort of Internationally recognised qualification should be above mere Politics. It is shameful that the present Government is not acting in the best interests of it's citizens. Medics who don't have an EE "ticket"


Lots of qualifications are unacceptable in other countries without passing the local exams. Before you allow someone to do certain things you want to be sure their qualification is appropriate so you need a mechanism for it. The EU provided that mechanism.

You seem to be arguing that by leaving the EU the UK government is not acting in the best interests of its citizens by cutting them off from 27 other countries where their qualifications are recognised and they can live and work with relative ease.
User avatar
By kanga
#1655346
daysleeper wrote:..
Lots of qualifications are unacceptable in other countries without passing the local exams. Before you allow someone to do certain things you want to be sure their qualification is appropriate so you need a mechanism for it. The EU provided that mechanism.

...


Each State/Territory/District in US and each Province/Territory in Canada is probably (in Maryland and Ontario definitely) requiring local licenses (for a fee, after local exams) for electricians, plumbers, realtors, schoolteachers,.. , and (of course) motor vehicle drivers*. An electrician we used in Ottawa (Ontario resident, anglophone) complained to me that he lost business to rivals who lived across the river in Hull (Quebec), who had taken and passed the Ontario qualification (set in English). For him to get the Quebec qualification he would have to take the Quebec tests in French, which he could not speak well.

Both US and Canada do, of course, have nationwide, Federally-administered, aeronautical licences (tests available in either language in Canada, of course) for pilots, ATCOs, engineers etc; but neither nation instantly and without further tests recognises those of the other.

[*every 2 years after Congressional elections, Maryland media enjoyed publishing pictures of distinguished in home State but new-to-Congress politicians and their family members taking a number and waiting in (long) public line at the Motor Vehicle Administration to take their Driver Permit exams and getting Maryland 'tags' for their vehicles. This had to be done within 3 months of become resident in the State. And they had to pay State Sales Tax (assessed at State-administered 'book value') on the vehicles they had brought with them from their home State.]
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9