Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
#1652981
Genghis the Engineer wrote:It should be a complete no-brainer to take EASA out of the equation and simply set up a relationship similar to Switzerland's. That this isn't happening, and hasn't been underway since the day after the Brexit referendum, tells you a great deal about the politicians ruling both organisations.

G


Sorry?

It is the UK which is unable to stomach anything that falls under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, not the EU's fault.

Not willing to accept the ECJ is the reason why we are also leaving Euratom.

The only victims of that will be research and patients - nothing serious.
PaulB liked this
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1652990
I think that is why GtE said

tells you a great deal about the politicians ruling both organisations


we the people see the sense, but the fact neither our politicians or Mr Barnier and his chums haven't proposed it in isolation to Brexit makes us wonder why?
#1652991
Indeed - the grown ups in CAA and EASA should have been tasked with sitting down and working out a way ahead, not even from the date of the referendum, but from the day we knew there would eventually be a referendum.

They could, indeed should, have worked out multiple options, variations for in / out / shake-it-all-about, and had all of that on the table ready to go by now, so that whatever tweaks were needed to fit in with the final deal / no-deal arrangements between the EU and UK, once those were known.

G
User avatar
By SteveC
#1653004
They did work on many options as a matter of fact. Some of us in the industry were even consulted. The suggestion all along was the we stayed an associate member of EASA the same as Norway, Switzerland etc. There would be contractual changes that would not take a large amount to implement and we would lose our vote but it would deliver a seamless transition and protect all aspects of aviation. However some people's insistence on having no involvement with the ECJ makes this impossible. God knows what the issue is with that but apparently its unacceptable. Therefore we are stuck with being outside EASA and and basically an ICAO state. This will keep aviation flying but will cost UK jobs in both commercial aviation and training and mean that people holding a UK licence in the future who want to work in the EU will have to follow the same conversion process as ICAO licence holders do now. Take a look in CAP804 and Part FCL for those requirements. Those same requirements that the FAA certificate holders have complained about for years...........

That's the second time in this thread you've been asked to dial down the ad hominem. Do so, please.
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1653006
SteveC wrote:They did work on many options as a matter of fact. Some of us in the industry were even consulted. The suggestion all along was the we stayed an associate member of EASA the same as Norway, Switzerland etc. There would be contractual changes that would not take a large amount to implement and we would lose our vote but it would deliver a seamless transition and protect all aspects of aviation. However some people's insistence on having no involvement with the ECJ makes this impossible. God knows what the issue is with that but apparently its unacceptable. Therefore we are stuck with being outside EASA and and basically an ICAO state. This will keep aviation flying but will cost UK jobs in both commercial aviation and training and mean that people holding a UK licence in the future who want to work in the EU will have to follow the same conversion process as ICAO licence holders do now. Take a look in CAP804 and Part FCL for those requirements. Those same requirements that the FAA certificate holders have complained about for years...........


But until something is actually placed in black and white confirming this nobody really knows.

Those currently holding a UK EASA licence flying commercially will still hold an EASA commercial licence after Brexit and be able to continue flying exactly what they flying now keeping that EASA licence current in the normal way, those flying UK registered aircraft commercially will also be unaffected using a UK commercial licence which can also be issued alongside their EASA licence.

The people who could really be affected by the UK not being an associate member of EASA the same as Norway and Switzerland will be those wishing to train in the UK in the future unless the UK commercial licence is transferable to their NAA licence as in the past.

Or am I missing something ?

Who specifically are these some people ?

However some people's insistence on having no involvement with the ECJ makes this impossible.
By johnm
#1653008
Who specifically are these some people ?


I'm guessing this is a euphemism for those who think that the ECJ controls our laws and that it is a bad thing :roll:
Sooty25 liked this
User avatar
By Cub
#1653013
Just a couple of observations. The number of people employed by our Regulator, the CAA, has gotten progressively smaller and with the resultant decline in core skills and capability as EASA took on more and more of the regulatory burden related to aviation. While it may not always have felt like it, we were relatively protected from the true cost of this regulatory oversight by the fact that a percentage of the 'service' was simply absorbed into our overall contribution to membership of the EU as a state and perhaps the true cost was not always felt by the GA pilot as the end user. The other not insignificant factors towards good regulation and cost control are organisations like the LAA, BMAA, BGA etc. Run by the members, for the members and delivering a regulatory function at the minimum of cost to it's members. Long may they continue and perpetuate and probably will represent the only redeeming feature to save UK GA from an economic disaster, post BREXIT.

Finally, let's not forget the literal army of volunteers from UK GA organisations and groups who have contributed to making EASA and it's regulation what it is. I have often pondered what a poorer organisation EASA will be without the UK but then again many stalwarts, including contributors to this forum, respond that they will continue to represent the European Collective of Puddle-jumpers and not just the UK post BREXIT. Well as philinthropic as that may be I am struggling to understand how that will help GA in the UK, going forward and urge them to redirect their efforts toward building and contributing to an affordable regulatory regime and oversight within our state.

In summary, EASAs huge loss is going to cost UK GA dearly, I am afraid.
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1653015
Cub wrote:Just a couple of observations. The number of people employed by our Regulator, the CAA, has gotten progressively smaller and with the resultant decline in core skills and capability as EASA took on more and more of the regulatory burden related to aviation. While it may not always have felt like it, we were relatively protected from the true cost of this regulatory oversight by the fact that a percentage of the 'service' was simply absorbed into our overall contribution to membership of the EU as a state and perhaps the true cost was not always felt by the GA pilot as the end user. The other not insignificant factors towards good regulation and cost control are organisations like the LAA, BMAA, BGA etc. Run by the members, for the members and delivering a regulatory function at the minimum of cost to it's members. Long may they continue and perpetuate and probably will represent the only redeeming feature to save UK GA from an economic disaster, post BREXIT.

Finally, let's not forget the literal army of volunteers from UK GA organisations and groups who have contributed to making EASA and it's regulation what it is. I have often pondered what a poorer organisation EASA will be without the UK but then again many stalwarts, including contributors to this forum, respond that they will continue to represent the European Collective of Puddle-jumpers and not just the UK post BREXIT. Well as philinthropic as that may be I am struggling to understand how that will help GA in the UK, going forward and urge them to redirect their efforts toward building and contributing to an affordable regulatory regime and oversight within our state.

In summary, EASAs huge loss is going to cost UK GA dearly, I am afraid.


And what a prime time for the LAA, BMAA, BGA etc to remove the burden from the CAA and take over the full running of GA in the UK leaving the CAA to concentrate on commercial ops.
By johnm
#1653018
And what a prime time for the LAA, BMAA, BGA etc to remove the burden from the CAA and take over the full running of GA in the UK leaving the CAA to concentrate on commercial ops.


I'm not quite sure how that would be a help to those of us flying IFR internationally...…..
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1653019
johnm wrote:
And what a prime time for the LAA, BMAA, BGA etc to remove the burden from the CAA and take over the full running of GA in the UK leaving the CAA to concentrate on commercial ops.


I'm not quite sure how that would be a help to those of us flying IFR internationally...…..


What licence are you using now to fly IFR internationally ?
#1653022
I have just spent some time when I really should be doing something more productive tidying up some ad hominen abuse in this thread. We do not care what your opinions are, so long as they are intelligently and reasonably expressed; we do care if you abuse others with different opinions, political or otherwise.

Take this post as a yellow card to those posters to which that applies. You will know who you are.
By johnm
#1653025
If the worst happens it may be that since we have an address in the channel islands we can move the aircraft to the 2 reg, we should then be able to keep it under EASA and have it maintained by EASA shops in the UK, EASA are already providing a route for them to maintain their certification.

With luck we should also be able to retain an EASA licence signed off by existing ATO, DTO who will be able to maintain their registration too I hope in the same way that it's possible to get a FAA sign off here.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1653034
Lockhaven wrote:
And what a prime time for the LAA, BMAA, BGA etc to remove the burden from the CAA and take over the full running of GA in the UK leaving the CAA to concentrate on commercial ops.


The snag there is those three would need to work even closer together, and the history between the LAA and the BMAA might make that hard without a single governing body.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9