Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1745425
G-BLEW wrote:- I don't think it is a 'fob off' - it's a 'corporate' reply that is probably aligned with CAA/DfT policy. Given the situation we're in (transition period) and how politically charged the bigger picture is, I expected nothing different.


I guess that's what I meant by fob off. A corporate or politician's reply that neither confirms nor denies anything. It is however markedly different from the rhetoric coming from the top of government (non-alignment etc.)
#1745447
PaulB wrote:
Shoestring Flyer wrote:Just wondering...
Are we still offically at this moment a member of EASA ?


Yes. Why wouldn't we be? We have lost our seat at the top table though, so have to accept rules that we have no say in creating.


Officially we are no longer a member of EASA, as the withdrawal agreement had the UK withdraw from all EU bodies on the 1st February, so we are now a "Third Country". However, the agreement also says that until the 31st December we are treated as if we are a member.

The EASA website reflects this, see https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you ... ed-kingdom - "currently Third Country treated as EU Member State"
#1745483
G-BLEW wrote:- If it is not renewed UK pilots with PMDs will still be significantly better off than pilots without LAPL or Class II medicals in any other EASA state.
- Please don't take that as me not having any sympathy for those affected.


Ian, I am one of those affected but I agree entirely - if it doesn't get renewed I will find a share in an Annex 1 aircraft or hang up my headset - but, even if that happened, I would be grateful for the years I've had on a PMD rather than upset that I couldn't carry on.
FrankS, GrahamB liked this
#1745540
I guess that's what I meant by fob off. A corporate or politician's reply that neither confirms nor denies anything. It is however markedly different from the rhetoric coming from the top of government (non-alignment etc.)


I think that illustrates the difference between rhetoric and the reality - in the more specialist areas like aviation there are some delicate paths to be trodden and politicians are often reluctant to interfere much because (Grant excepted) they don’t really understand it.

I don’t know what the considerations are with the continuation of exemptions to some EASA rules while we are in this phase of Brexit but I doubt it’s straightforward otherwise we’d have clearer news on it. These exemptions are never at the sole discretion of the CAA, DfT always have to be involved.

I’ll make a prediction though - I think this will get sorted out. I suspect the lack of news is just machinations over the best strategy over how to do so.
G-BLEW, patowalker, flybymike and 2 others liked this
#1745701
Less than positive spin here

https://www.flyer.co.uk/thousands-of-uk ... pmd-issue/

If we’re not actually in EASA but just treated as though we are, why could it not be extended up to 31/12/2020? We’d know how negotiations had gone by then.
#1745702
PaulB wrote:Less than positive spin here

https://www.flyer.co.uk/thousands-of-uk ... pmd-issue/

If we’re not actually in EASA but just treated as though we are, why could it not be extended up to 31/12/2020? We’d know how negotiations had gone by then.


I am not sure under which heading this exemption from the EASA rules has been parked - I do know that Alternative Means of Compliance can only be granted for some time to an NAA and after that either need to be implemented across the whole of EASA land or stopped.
#1745706
I’m a little rusty on all this but essentially I think the legal situation is:

There has been a long standing derogation provision in the Aircrew Regulation which allows member states to continue to apply national law to the patch of EASA pilot licensing that is covered by the LAPL. So effectively within the scope of the LAPL, national licences etc can continue to be used. This is not an exemption but a specific time limited provision in the Aircrew Reg that Member States may use. It has been extended several times since EASA Aircrew came into force and currently expires in April.

It was through this mechanism that the U.K. decided it was within its gift to allow Part-FCL licence holders to fly EASA aircraft without a medical - an EASA licence is effectively rendered valid under the ANO and therefore the licence could be thought of as having taken on the legal personality of a national one even if it still says EASA on it. So the derogation could be used by EASA licence holders without the need to get a separate national licence document. There was some internal debate at the time at CAA over whether that was a legal bridge too far, but I always thought it made sense, just about.

But the ANO also requires that the pilot of an EASA aircraft holds an EASA licence and medical, hence the need for a U.K. exemption, which was quoted in the article (although actually, now that I think about it, I’m not sure it is necessary since article 136 was specifically written in 2016 to take account of this situation, although 162 was probably still necessary). But the ANO requirement is just a U.K. legal reenforcement of EU law (not legally necessary and more a legacy thing from the way the ANO is constructed) that says you have to have an EASA licence to fly an EASA aircraft, and issuing such an exemption only has the intended effect while you have the EASA derogation provision as well, which expires in April.

Now it was getting to be almost BAU for the EASA Committee around this time of year to start thinking about what derogations should be extended for another year or two. The only awkward thing now is that the UK is no longer there to push for it. How the general EASA Comm mood is on the subject I have no idea - I have somewhat lost touch with how the other Member States feel about it. If the EASA Comm extend it in the UK’s absense, then we are OK.

The other angle is what flex we have when it comes down to it to start deviating/ignoring EASA rules before the end of year - I don’t think there is any, but believe it or not there are some creative legal minds at the CAA, so who knows... :?:
Paul_Sengupta liked this
#1745726
Edward Bellamy wrote:Now it was getting to be almost BAU for the EASA Committee around this time of year to start thinking about what derogations should be extended for another year or two.

As suspected - If only they understood grass roots GA and the pilots using these derogations - they really need to know by the end of the previous year.
#1745800
So... say that there was somebody (asking for a friend, you understand) who needs to fly 12 hours but is unlikely to do that before the PMD exemption expires. If they were able to get 6 hours PIC before the April cut off date, the other 6 could be PUT (incl FI hour).

Could the SEP be revalidated without a medical if all the other criteria had been met? SRG119E doesn't mention medical status. That would give said friend time to work out what they want to do.
#1745806
Why pay for 12 hours...? Does (s)he get the aircraft for free? If a reval by prof check is out of the skill set, should they really be flying around? It really is nothing like the initial test if that is what is worrying people, it is more like a good club rental checkout with a short Nav, say 20 miles.