Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
#1749375
Er - the BASA is a second-best scenario, by general agreement. Remaining in EASA is what most of industry wants, but the Govt would have to roll over on some of it's red lines to get that.

So by saying our aim is second-best, why would they offer an upgrade?

Personally, I think aviation, esp GA, is so far off the Govt's radar as to be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, even though Mr Shapps is Transport Secretary
#1749401
peter272 wrote:Er - the BASA is a second-best scenario, by general agreement. Remaining in EASA is what most of industry wants, but the Govt would have to roll over on some of it's red lines to get that.

So by saying our aim is second-best, why would they offer an upgrade?


It is precisely because of the red lines that the UK has to claim at this stage that the objective is a BASA. The red lines can be rolled back later in the negotiations, when the time is right to sell EASA membership to parliament and EU negotiators.

European Court of Justice jurisdiction

34.The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ultimate jurisdiction over EASA rulings. In the case of third country member states, ECJ jurisdiction operates indirectly through arbitration committees. If the ECJ decided that a EASA ruling was inapplicable or had to be modified, EASA would abide by the ECJ’s decision, and a third country member state would have to accept EASA’s modified rules.

35.However, in practice the ECJ has played no role in the work of EASA. The Government has identified only one infringement case involving aerospace that has been brought against the UK in 38 years, and the ECJ has never issued a ruling on an EASA decision.


https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /38006.htm
#1749407
Diplomatic negotiations are a different kettle of fish because they are usually conducted by grown ups following policy.


In my experience all negotiations follow the same basic pathologies, regardless of the scale or context.

I can just about believe that the Government might still try and go for a few limited institutional relationships, particularly when the negotiations are towards the end and softening in some areas might be politically possible. At the moment the Government has to stick on message.

The main problem I would see is how do you pick and choose those relationships? I imagine there are a lot of industries that might try to claim special status and maintain alignment - if the Government allows too many their Brexit eventually becomes much softer then they intended. I don't know enough about the other areas that might fall into that category to know how significant that issue would be. EASA is highly integrated, I'm not sure how many equivalents in other industries there are?
JAFO, Paul_Sengupta liked this
#1749412
patowalker wrote:
peter272 wrote:Er - the BASA is a second-best scenario, by general agreement. Remaining in EASA is what most of industry wants, but the Govt would have to roll over on some of it's red lines to get that.

So by saying our aim is second-best, why would they offer an upgrade?


It is precisely because of the red lines that the UK has to claim at this stage that the objective is a BASA. The red lines can be rolled back later in the negotiations, when the time is right to sell EASA membership to parliament and EU negotiators.

European Court of Justice jurisdiction

34.The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ultimate jurisdiction over EASA rulings. In the case of third country member states, ECJ jurisdiction operates indirectly through arbitration committees. If the ECJ decided that a EASA ruling was inapplicable or had to be modified, EASA would abide by the ECJ’s decision, and a third country member state would have to accept EASA’s modified rules.

35.However, in practice the ECJ has played no role in the work of EASA. The Government has identified only one infringement case involving aerospace that has been brought against the UK in 38 years, and the ECJ has never issued a ruling on an EASA decision.


https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /38006.htm


I take your point and will look forward with great interest seeing this Govt try to sell to it's supporters a climb down of such a level.

I do think a level of common sense has to arise at the end, but the rhetoric from the leaders is such that I can't see them doing it and not get lynched
#1750625
Having flown on a PMD for the last two years I had to go and renew my old LAPL medical yesterday in order to be able to continue flying my EASA aircraft. The AME was aware of the changes but said he had had very few customers doing the same despite the imminent deadline. Which makes me think that most pilots affected by this are probably completely unaware of it. I also note there has been no mention of it yet on the dark side.
flybymike liked this
#1750675
I am one of nature's optimists and still hope that a solution will be found either before April 8th or not too long afterwards.

I have now applied for an LAPL on the back of my NPPL and, if nothing happens, I will look into the possibility of obtaining an LAPL medical but - given my history - if it proves that every medical is going to eat up a couple of months flying budget I'm not sure I'll continue down that path.

Anyway, on @muffin 's point - perhaps the flying world is just full of optimists like me. Perhaps optimist is another word for idiot or, maybe, as you say, loads of people are flying around in total ignorance and still will be in five weeks time.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11