Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Somewhere on the CAA site there is an intention for the CAA to shadow EASA for 2 years after the transition ends.

EASA may or may not take account of that, but the CAA knows that they will be in no position to take on the EASA roles for some years.

I've seen nothing in the past 4 years that convinces me that the CAA wants or is able to become the organisation it once was. On the contrary they have made it clear to Government that it makes no sense.

Sadly we have a Government where ideology is everything and facts get in the way
Flyin'Dutch', bogopper, A le Ron and 1 others liked this
JAFO wrote:
Boxkite wrote:Can't we just stop calling them EASA aircraft? and call them CAA certified aircraft like it used to be........

Because this is an EASA created and perpetuated problem, not a CAA one.

No that is not correct, but may I dont know and you do as you have been to more EASA meetings than I have?

There is no inherent aversion by EASA* to reducing medical regulations for recreational flying - not only have they adopted EASA wide the LAPL but moving towards a self declaration has been discussed as an option.

For that evidence of safety needs to be provided. Unfortunately that material is just now available when the UK has left the top table of its own volition.

Representatives of recreational aviation are also working in global organisations to move ICAO towards more liberal regulatory requirements but that is something for the long haul.

*EASA also allows the certification of insulin dependent diabetic pilots for all medical classes, something which precious few regulators allow.
Ian Melville wrote:
Edward Bellamy wrote:Nothing to do with permits etc... if it’s an EASA aircraft it’s an EASA aircraft. :?

As the Pup is an EASA aircraft through restricted CofA I guess there will be a lot of unhappy bunnies with types also clasified.

Like factory built Sportcruisers/PS28's which are on EASA Permits as are a few other similar types..
From the LAA yesterday.

National Licensing and Medical Exemptions expire on Wednesday 8 April 2020

The CAA has just issued advice, that they have been unable to secure extensions to the exemptions that currently allow pilots holding NPPLs or UK PPLs, or flying with a self-declaration of their medical fitness, to fly EASA-Certificated aircraft in the UK. The current exemptions expire on Wednesday 8 April 2020. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is therefore advising affected pilots to act now to be able to continue flying legally after that date.

Pilots flying non-EASA certificated aircraft, such as LAA Permit types, with NPPLs, UK PPLs or medical self-declaration in the UK are not affected.

Currently pilots with a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Light Aircraft Pilot’s License (LAPL) or Private Pilot’s License (PPL) can self-declare their medical fitness to fly aircraft certificated by EASA, rather than having to gain a LAPL Medical Certificate, a Class 2 medical with an Aero-Medical Examiner (AME) or a LAPL medical certificate with their NHS General Practitioner (subject to certain criteria).

The LAA has been pushing the CAA and DfT on this for some months. However the exemption that allows this in the UK can only be renewed if EASA extends its derogation that permits national pilot license holders to operate EASA certified aircraft.

EASA has not yet published a decision on extending its derogation. The CAA is therefore advising pilots who are likely to be affected to consider booking and completing a LAPL or Class 2 medical to enable them to continue flying legally. Information about obtaining a GP-issued LAPL can be found here.

The UK cannot legally issue a further exemption at this time but, given the very short notice at which an EASA decision is expected, the CAA is working with the Department for Transport (DfT) to try to find an alternative approach.

We will immediately publish any update from EASA, CAA or the DfT as it becomes available. Please monitor our website.
patowalker wrote:I think it would be a nonsense for the government to indicate at the outset of negotiations that it wanted to remain in EASA.

As that was the only sensible option, a good plan would have simply said that and at the same time highlighted all the similar items where we would seek to maintain current arrangements and thus taken them off the table. That then leaves more time and effort to deal with more difficult issues.
GrahamB liked this
Do you really believe that because the declaration says we want a BASA, that it is the government's goal? The objective could well be membership of EASA, but to declare that now would be premature. How can you claim to be prepared to leave without a deal, if you don't declare your alternative to EASA membership?

As for policy, that evolves with negotiations, otherwise there is no chance of reaching agreement. Both sides will move from their present position and undoubtedly concessions will be made in one area in exchange for concessions in another. I wouldn't be surprised to hear something fishy going on in aviation. :)
Paul_Sengupta liked this
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11