[PaulB]

Perhaps I'm the last person in the UK to figure this out but after Brexit, will we be in EASA (even with a deal)?

There seems to be concern that we won't be reading the headlines this morning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50008268

The news item above says

BBC News has obtained a letter from the aerospace industry body, the ADS, to the government asking for "reassurance" that "continued membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and alignment with EU chemicals regulations" which "are vital for our sector".

It said that "we received assurances from the previous [May] government that the UK would seek to continue membership of or retain participation and influence in EU agencies such as EASA".

However, the (May era) political declaration says (para 24)

While preserving regulatory autonomy, the Parties will put in place provisions to promote regulatory approaches that are transparent, efficient, promote avoidance of unnecessary barriers to trade in goods and are compatible to the extent possible. [...] The Parties will also explore the possibility of cooperation of United Kingdom authorities with Union agencies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

and (para 61)

The Parties should make further arrangements to enable cooperation with a view to high standards of aviation safety and security, including through close cooperation between EASA and the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

That doesn't read like "continued membership of EASA to me.

[UpThere]

Apparently, we no longer see any benefit in membership of organisations for mutual benefit - apart from the WTO. British exceptionalism will see us through!

[jacekowski]

The problem with EASA membership is that it comes with European Court of Justice jurisdiction (other non EU countries that are EASA members have accepted that) and that seems to be a big no (but it is a no from the same people that want to have nothing to do with Europe in name).
The question is going to be, is the government (and the people) going to accept jurisdiction of ECJ (at least in EASA related matters), if that is a no, then EASA membership is also going to be a no.
Unfortunately, there seems to be unwillingness to negotiate from both sides (it looks like both sides have their own red lines that are incompatible and nobody is willing to make a compromise, yet nobody wants to be the bad guy and say it how it is - possibly because referendum results were so close so whatever they do half of the population is going to be unhappy with the outcome)

[CloudHound]

Internationally agreed Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) flow from the 1949 Chicago Convention which gave birth to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) which is based in that part of Canada that thinks it's a suburb of Paris, Montreal.

The Annexes to the Convention, numbering around 20 are the basis for rules governing all things aviation. In the UK we have Civil Aviation Publications (CAPs) and EASA have EU Regulation. No matter how they are drawn up, worded or presented everything is subordinate to ICAO.

In that respect a WTO for flying kinda situation.

A number of states on the periphery of Europe, such as Iceland voluntarily adopt EASA regs in spirit if not legally; this is done through European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) based in a suburb of Montreal called Paris. They have 44 members of which the UK is one.

I would suggest that from an air safety perspective exit from the European Union and disengagement from EASA will not create immediate turbulence with interim measures put in place for continued operations.

At our end of ship I think business as usual until someone says stop (or Arrêtez vous la!)

[Flyin'Dutch']

A number of states on the periphery of Europe, such as Iceland voluntarily adopt EASA regs in spirit if not legally; this is done through European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) based in a suburb of Montreal called Paris. They have 44 members of which the UK is one.

I would suggest that from an air safety perspective exit from the European Union and disengagement from EASA will not create immediate turbulence with interim measures put in place for continued operations.

At our end of ship I think business as usual until someone says stop (or Arrêtez vous la!)

I, and anyone with a stake in the regulatory game, sees that with slightly more concern than you.

The EU has already said that it will not accept anything as EASA compliant done by the UK if it is no longer in EASA (which it would not be after a no-deal Brexit.

Many pilots and organisations have moved to other EASA Regulators to head off disaster.

[johnm]

@CloudHound isn't quite right. Both WTO and ICAO provide a default minimum position on the topics they address, it is expected that trade deals and state regulations will be more detailed and address the issues in a more specific context.

EASA has provided such a context to facilitate Europe wide consistency and flexibility particularly for the airline industry which is its priority. This is why Easyjet is now Austrian and a number of airline pilots now have Irish and other licences.

[Stu B]

Meanwhile, the CAA have advised (see https://info.caa.co.uk/brexit/private-pilots/) that:

Would I continue to be able to operate an EU-registered aircraft?
The European Commission has said that it would not recognise UK-issued licences.

To continue operating EU registered aircraft, you could seek a licence validation from any EASA Competent Authority, which would valid for aircraft registered in any EASA member State. The European Commission has said you cannot seek this until after the UK has formally withdrawn from the EU.

Alternatively, you could undertake a State of Licence Issue transfer before the UK leaves the EU. This means transferring your licence and medical from the UK to another EASA member state prior to EU exit.

I presume "UK-issued licences" means our current UK-issued EASA licences as well as any previous lifetime CAA licences.
Alternatively, if you own the aeroplane, presumably the easier option is to re-register the aeroplane in the UK

[johnm]

I despair of the sloppy wording in some of this stuff.

The European Commission will not recognise UK issued licences as EASA licences if the UK is no longer either an EU state or member of EASA. That seems pretty self evident to me.

That implies that a UK licence isn't valid on aircraft registered outside the UK unless action is taken to render it valid, much like when I went to New Zealand to fly New Zealand registered aeroplanes.

[CloudHound]

I chose the phrase “At our end of the ship” deliberately as this GA Forum speaks the subject.

Also “immediate turbulence “.

Fully accept the wider Air Transport issue which I didn’t think was part of the discussion.

[johnm]

If you have a full UK or UK issued EASA PPL and fly G Reg nothing changes as a UK issued licence is ICAO recognised.

If you have an NPPL you are confined to the UK and a LAPL just becomes a NPPL .

[Lockhaven]

I have been led to believe from someone who has inside knowledge that provisions are being made to remain within EASA.

[Gertie]

I have been led to believe from someone who has inside knowledge that provisions are being made to remain within EASA.

They'd better not tell the politicians then, or they'd start screaming about the CJEU.

[tomshep]

EASA is a European organisation, not an EU organisation. Leaving the latter does not automatically mean leaving the former.
Besides we now have TWO new aircraft carriers so can return to the days of gunboat diplomacy in order to justify the expense - be afraid, foreigners!

[Spooky]

Is this because you’re worried about not getting the exhilarating ‘Sunny Swift’ cartoon?

[Steve J]

EASA is a European organisation, not an EU organisation.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/brexit

"EASA’s mandate and role as an agency of the EU with regulatory and executive tasks in the field of civil aviation safety..."