• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

UK aviation and BREXIT

Best analogy for that would be NATO. It's a bit like sending MOD main building out clear a village.

EASA is a regulatory body. They don't physically do anything. They generate paperwork and policy.

Here's an a cracking example.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Consolidated unofficial AMC-GM_Annex II Part-ARO_2016-Oct.pdf

Read some like an international standard. ISO don't inspect my company. They merely provide the framework that says why my company should do.

You really should do some of your own research on this.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ov.uk/pgr/aviation/domestic/pillingreview.PDF


How's many people are employed in the uk by easa?
Oh dear. Look, the CAA is a fraction of the size it used to be as - along with all other EU states - it palmed off the regulatory bits to EASA. So instead of 28 national bodies all doing the same thing we now have one at EU level, namely EASA.

If the UK wishes to leave EASA then it needs to take back that regulatory function at a national level. That means time to set it up and more people to do things currently done by EASA. Estimates vary, but not quick and not cheap. Certainly not quick enough to do it before we are currently planning to leave.

Most of industry - personified by, say the head of BA, Willie Walsh, isn't fussed as government has promised them that nothing that matters will change. So this means staying in EASA. The eternal outsider, O'Leary, kicks off as he doesn't believe what the government says.

Your points about ISO standards show that you fundamentally don't understand how international aviation regulation works. Following standards is not enough, you need to be continually audited to show that you do. And to have anyone outside your nation accept the results of said audit then the regulatory body doing the work needs mutual agreements in place.

Put it another way, when a UK pilot currently flies to the US the US accepts his EASA ATPL as proof he's safe to fly as EASA and the FAA have decided to accept each others regulatory regimes as equivalent. We leave EASA, we lose all of that. And need to replace it.

Only what will actually happen is that everyone and their dog will register themselves and their businesses in the EU, continue to fly and we'll watch as jobs and tax revenue leave the UK. So no cliff edge in terms of air services, just a permanent loss of jobs and the social services those jobs used to pay for. Plus the certainty that no new jobs can appear until the UK pays to replicate what EASA now does for us.
 
Oh dear. Look, the CAA is a fraction of the size it used to be as - along with all other EU states - it palmed off the regulatory bits to EASA. So instead of 28 national bodies all doing the same thing we now have one at EU level, namely EASA.
Its not even "at EU level" as EASA is 34 countries... it is more than just the EU and 34 out of 34 countires are happy with EASA and the the ECJ. The UK particulary as the UK wrote most of the rules.

The other thing people for get is some of the requirements for singing things off is X years appropriate regulated and signed off experience and training.

We don't have the people to do our own Civil Air Regulator and many/most of the Brits at EASA and CAA are not coming back to the UK or retiring it will take a minimum of X years to train new people. THIS CAN NOT BE SHORTENED otherwise no one else will accept the UK's Regulatory body.

However it does not really matter if it will take 3, 5, 7 or 10 years to do. If the UK looses it's Civil Air Regulator for more than a month it will be catastrphoic for UK PLC. This is why there is no plan B

The UK will stay inthe ECJ and EASA.
 
Well, life moves on. The current EU position may be found at:
Brexit Negotiations | EASA

With the latest aviation paper being:
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/site...it-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf

In summary, leaving without a deal which includes staying in EASA means all current licences, certs and so on currently backed by EASA become invalid. Which is exactly what you'd expect if you leave.

And the CAA response may be found at:
Hot topics | UK Civil Aviation Authority

Which consists of:

"The Government, the UK Civil Aviation Authority and the entire aviation industry have been clear that our collective preference is to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) once the UK withdraws from the European Union (EU). The EU paper describes what the situation will be if this is both not achieved and no other agreements are in place, including an implementation period. While this a matter for government, we believe this to be a highly unlikely scenario. However, we continue to make the necessary contingency plans. "

The contingency plans being referred to, so far, haven't involved any extra funding or people so one can only assume that the estimates of 5 to 10 years and several hundred people to re-establish the CAA as an alternative are still valid.

So it's clear that everyone involves is banking on a deal being done which must involve continuing to take relevant EU legislation and use the ECJ as a dispute resolution mechanism - that being the way non-EU countries become part of EASA.

Now the obvious reaction from any risk averse aerospace organisation or individual is to apply for the equivalent cert/licence/whatever from another EU state (for EASA) or another foreign regulator, like the FAA. And funny old thing, that's what Rolls-Royce is reported as doing in the news today.

Airline ownership and airspace access, routes, slots and so on are of course also up for grabs without a deal.
 
So the UK is willing to except EASA regulation and everything that goes with it?

Common sense- long may it spread.
It's all about the inexorable roll back policy being masterfully enacted by the remainer PMTM.

Of course things are coming to a head and a leadership challenge could scupper things if the swivel eyed nutters kick off over us remaining in the customs union
 
So the UK is willing to except EASA regulation and everything that goes with it?
Common sense- long may it spread.
It is not "common sense" so much as the ONLY option available as any Brexit person would have told you because they knew this before the referendum. (they all knew what they were voting for)

Next up for debate is the Customs Union and that will get interesting at around 11:30 on Thursday.
 
It is not "common sense" so much as the ONLY option available as any Brexit person would have told you because they knew this before the referendum. (they all knew what they were voting for)

Next up for debate is the Customs Union and that will get interesting at around 11:30 on Thursday.
It's all linked of course. The EU won't sign up to anything that breaches the GFA, there's no credible way to stick to the kind of border that requires without some form of customs union, which requires regulatory alignment, which inexorably leads to Brexit in name only.

If of course the government had set up UK alternatives to all of these many things we still need from the EU then we would have genuine options (and a massive bill, mind). Cockup or conspiracy ?
 
It's all linked of course. The EU won't sign up to anything that breaches the GFA, there's no credible way to stick to the kind of border that requires without some form of customs union, which requires regulatory alignment, which inexorably leads to Brexit in name only.

If of course the government had set up UK alternatives to all of these many things we still need from the EU then we would have genuine options (and a massive bill, mind). Cockup or conspiracy ?
The BIG problem is the GFA (which never had the EU in mind when it was drafted) as it gives the north a vote/referendum on all this. NI was in favour of staying in the EU by a marge majority (add in the republicans who want union and subtract the unionists who don't :) ) and you will get a vote to stay inthe UE/merge with the south. (which will horrify the politicians inthe south)

Then the Scots who aslo had a large majority to stay in the EU will also demand a vote (not that they are legaly entitled to one) So either Westminster gives them a vote (and rishk that the Scots say: we separate from England and stay in the EU) or the Scotts scream blue murder than the bastard English are screwing Scotland again and we are on to another Independance referendum.... loose-loose.

So it is not just NI and the GFA Scotland will get pulled into it.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
It's all linked of course. The EU won't sign up to anything that breaches the GFA, there's no credible way to stick to the kind of border that requires without some form of customs union, which requires regulatory alignment, which inexorably leads to Brexit in name only.

If of course the government had set up UK alternatives to all of these many things we still need from the EU then we would have genuine options (and a massive bill, mind). Cockup or conspiracy ?
The BIG problem is the GFA (which never had the EU in mind when it was drafted) as it gives the north a vote/referendum on all this. NI was in favour of staying in the EU by a marge majority (add in the republicans who want union and subtract the unionists who don't :) ) and you will get a vote to stay inthe UE/merge with the south. (which will horrify the politicians inthe south)

Then the Scots who aslo had a large majority to stay in the EU will also demand a vote (not that they are legaly entitled to one) So either Westminster gives them a vote (and rishk that the Scots say: we separate from England and stay in the EU) or the Scotts scream blue murder than the bastard English are screwing Scotland again and we are on to another Independance referendum.... loose-loose.

So it is not just NI and the GFA Scotland will get pulled into it.
Er, Scotland would be leaving with the rest of the UK and would have to apply to join the EU unless they manage to get an In/Out of the UK referendum sorted before hand. I think the EU have enough basket case countries on their books without getting another one. Scotland would lose a lot of funding from Westminster if it decided to go it's own way which would mean that they'd be a recipient (taker) rather than a contributor (giver). Not something that the EU is entirely looking for at the moment.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
The BIG problem is the GFA (which never had the EU in mind when it was drafted) as it gives the north a vote/referendum on all this. NI was in favour of staying in the EU by a marge majority (add in the republicans who want union and subtract the unionists who don't :) ) and you will get a vote to stay inthe UE/merge with the south. (which will horrify the politicians inthe south)
.
suggest you read the GFA it’s specifically mentions the EU at least 8 times

Could be just me but I haven’t heard SF (NI) calling for a border poll
 
Er, Scotland would be leaving with the rest of the UK and would have to apply to join the EU unless they manage to get an In/Out of the UK referendum sorted before hand.
You don't think the EU would bend the rules?

I think the EU have enough basket case countries on their books without getting another one.
IF they can get NI and Scotland to stay in it applies a lot of pressure.

Scotland would lose a lot of funding from Westminster if it decided to go it's own way
And a lot from the EU and business of they don't swings and roundabouts but a lot of it is unreal and intangable stuff like "sovereignty" and FREEEEEDOM!!! (said in a Mell Gibson Scottish accent.)

which would mean that they'd be a recipient (taker) rather than a contributor (giver). Not something that the EU is entirely looking for at the moment.
True but if the EU can break up the UK by taking NI and Scotland it makes sense as a lot of UK business would re-register in Scotland and Ireland
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
1) You don't think the EU would bend the rules?
2) IF they can get NI and Scotland to stay in it applies a lot of pressure.
3) And a lot from the EU and business of they don't swings and roundabouts but a lot of it is unreal and intangable stuff like "sovereignty" and FREEEEEDOM!!! (said in a Mell Gibson Scottish accent.)
4) True but if the EU can break up the UK by taking NI and Scotland it makes sense as a lot of UK business would re-register in Scotland and Ireland
1) If they can bend "rules", they don't seem to be doing a lot of it at the moment, especially as they would rather like the UK to stay within the EU.
2) They'd have to await the results from Independence referendums from both countries, which at the moment, don't seem to be on anyone's minds.
3) Yet again, referendums will be needed.
4) If, by any slim chance that the EU manages to break up the UK, it would have 2 basket case countries to take on, one that would need and internal border with England, which would cost the EU or Scotland a few bob (remember, we aren't after losing Scotland ;-) ), we'd be setting the rules about what/who/when comes across the border as a sovereign nation (no Schengen) and also where the border would be set. I think a lot of Jocks would be pretty pissed off about all of this because their way of life would change pretty dramatically once the Barnett Formula hits the whirly thing and they have to start paying for stuff, Uni education, prescriptions, all the freebies that they take for granted at the moment.
 
4) If, by any slim chance that the EU manages to break up the UK, it would have 2 basket case countries to take on, one that would need and internal border with England, which would cost the EU or Scotland a few bob (remember, we aren't after losing Scotland ;-) ),
I think you will find that that a lot of industries will move north from England to Scotland to stay inthe EU. So Scotland will be stronger and England weaker.

Whilst every Irishaman on the planet (about from a few thousand hard line Protestants) will be cheering for a united Ireland I think the prospect fills the Irish government with horror. It is not a present they want!

As for the England-Scotland border... apparently there is a low cost frictionless high-tech option available as per Ireland/NI according to Westminster. No I don't believe that one either.

BTW there is a wall between England and Scotland already and the Italians paid for it :) The English-Scottish border would be a lot easier to set up than one between the Norrth and South in Ireland so that is an easier problem.

However most of the arguments for brexit have been emotive and not based on any real facts so why the sudden change of heart.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
I've not had a change of heart, I'm still a Leaver.
 
So it's clear that everyone involves is banking on a deal being done which must involve continuing to take relevant EU legislation and use the ECJ as a dispute resolution mechanism - that being the way non-EU countries become part of EASA.
.

There is no reason we have to accept ECJ oversight while remaining wirhin EASA. The ECJ is just a convienience, other options are available and could be used.
 
There is no reason we have to accept ECJ oversight while remaining wirhin EASA. The ECJ is just a convienience, other options are available and could be used.
Oh and what EASA countries currently use them?

And remember it will be a case of the UK asking to stay in EASA. You don’t like the conditions? Don’t join
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top