UK aviation and BREXIT

We don’t have much of a voice now and never have had. Bluntly I couldn’t give a toss whose Authority (and therefore which Regulations) we work under as long as they do the job of Regulating. The FTL issue is probably just about workable if it wasn’t so deliberately unprescriptive to satisfy the need for light touch regulation which itself is necessitated by the Trans National nature of EU centralised control. It’s far too open to abuse by those who just can’t help themselves in the relentless pursuit of the next bonus. It’s ignored by Regulators because to fix it would be to acknowledge gross failings on their part.

The sadness is it extends to all areas of human endeavour, abuse of contract law, working time directives, safety in just about every safety critical field, you name it. There’s a constant barrage of white noise on what the bottom line impact on business of Brexit will be. The human dimension is ignored because the EU has manifestly failed all bar a very narrow section of special interests groups.

LIGHT TOUCH REGULATION SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK.
I have to confess that I am outsider when it comes to the aviation industry, even though I am reasonably well versed in EU regulatory compliance in the context of industrial and consumer electronics, and radio equipment.
This means that I have to take much of what is written here ( where it makes sense) at face value, and now I am confused.

Over the course of the last 80 pages we have constantly been told how the EASA regulations were basically written by the CAA, and how CAA personnel form the technical backbone of EASA, but now you, who are clearly deeply involved in aviation, tell us that the U.K. does not now, and never has had much of a voice in EASA regulation.

There is a clear contradiction here, and it would be interesting to see how this contradiction could be rationalised.
 
Yes to all of your post @lastwalt

Most of EASA Regulations as written were a straight cut and paste of various NAAs existing Regulations. The CAA did indeed have a fair input as they were one of the better NAAs (hence my favouring the old CAA FTLs over the EASA crap for example).

What then happened in some areas of regulation was that the EU, through EASA decided it knew better, threw out many years hard won experience (see my repeated references to Tombstone Legislation) and replaced it with bollocks that better fits the Trsns National Pipe Dream that of itself can only survive in the Light Touch Regulation environment (as previously outlined).

In this modified set of Regulations we’ve had very little say and in fact submissions from the CAA, U.K. Ministers, various technical SMEs and scientific fact were all not only roundly ignored but actively mocked in the FTL case thus ignoring the EUs own law in that scientific evidence must take precedence and their laughable nod at democracy in that the first vote having failed to adopt EASA FTLs was returned for vote with a double negative in the proposal to ensure the Hard Of Thinking did the right thing and got it right second time round (by right, I mean what the Politibuto wanted, ie deNationslising it and Euroising it.) We had a say here but were ignored, as was science / evidence.

The real failing however is that although we may have had a say in the original written EASA Regulations the application or policing of those Regulations has been farmed out to a CAA that is wholly neutered by the EASA machine.
 
The CAA huffed, and it puffed, claimed it wasn’t leaving EASA, and then it did as it was told


‘......As part of its “non-negotiated” withdrawal plans, the CAA could need to hire 30 to 50 new members of staff, a source told Reuters, adding n such jobs were advertised currently.

The CAA also said it would need to cover some regulatory processes itself if there is no deal.

“Our preparatory work includes adjusting existing systems so that they could continue to work in exactly the same way as now – but with the UK Government and the CAA fulfilling regulatory functions independently of the EU,” the CAA said on its website.

“As an example, the CAA is creating the capability required for the UK to fulfil State of Design responsibilities independently of EASA should that be needed once the UK leaves the EU.”



British aviation regulator steps up planning for disorderly Brexit
 
The CAA huffed, and it puffed, claimed it wasn’t leaving EASA, and then it did as it was told


‘......As part of its “non-negotiated” withdrawal plans, the CAA could need to hire 30 to 50 new members of staff, a source told Reuters, adding n such jobs were advertised currently.

The CAA also said it would need to cover some regulatory processes itself if there is no deal.

“Our preparatory work includes adjusting existing systems so that they could continue to work in exactly the same way as now – but with the UK Government and the CAA fulfilling regulatory functions independently of the EU,” the CAA said on its website.

“As an example, the CAA is creating the capability required for the UK to fulfil State of Design responsibilities independently of EASA should that be needed once the UK leaves the EU.”



British aviation regulator steps up planning for disorderly Brexit
This thread is about to implode
 
The CAA huffed, and it puffed, claimed it wasn’t leaving EASA, and then it did as it was told


‘......As part of its “non-negotiated” withdrawal plans, the CAA could need to hire 30 to 50 new members of staff, a source told Reuters, adding n such jobs were advertised currently.

The CAA also said it would need to cover some regulatory processes itself if there is no deal.

“Our preparatory work includes adjusting existing systems so that they could continue to work in exactly the same way as now – but with the UK Government and the CAA fulfilling regulatory functions independently of the EU,” the CAA said on its website.

“As an example, the CAA is creating the capability required for the UK to fulfil State of Design responsibilities independently of EASA should that be needed once the UK leaves the EU.”



British aviation regulator steps up planning for disorderly Brexit

Well, will you look at that, do you mean the CAA does what its told by government and that what it does is transparent to the public? So maybe now you'll stop banging on about stuff going on in private, poker hands and the rest of the guff you usually spout. The government has issued new instructions, the CAA complies.

I'd also point out that this looks like no more than a scoping exercise, as the number of staff falls far short of the numbers needed to replace what the CAA transferred to EASA. It will still take 5 years to establish the CAA as a national regulator of course, that's the real critical path.

The other key element is to get other countries to recognise any revamped CAA - the US, for instance, won't start to accept any new licences until there is a bilateral agreement in place between the US and UK for mutual recognition. Seeing those talks start is the real indicator that things will be resolved.
 
The CAA huffed, and it puffed, claimed it wasn’t leaving EASA, and then it did as it was told


‘......As part of its “non-negotiated” withdrawal plans, the CAA could need to hire 30 to 50 new members of staff, a source told Reuters, adding n such jobs were advertised currently.

The CAA also said it would need to cover some regulatory processes itself if there is no deal.

“Our preparatory work includes adjusting existing systems so that they could continue to work in exactly the same way as now – but with the UK Government and the CAA fulfilling regulatory functions independently of the EU,” the CAA said on its website.

“As an example, the CAA is creating the capability required for the UK to fulfil State of Design responsibilities independently of EASA should that be needed once the UK leaves the EU.”



British aviation regulator steps up planning for disorderly Brexit
Well, will you look at that, do you mean the CAA does what its told by government and that what it does is transparent to the public? So maybe now you'll stop banging on about stuff going on in private, poker hands and the rest of the guff you usually spout. The government has issued new instructions, the CAA complies.

I'd also point out that this looks like no more than a scoping exercise, as the number of staff falls far short of the numbers needed to replace what the CAA transferred to EASA. It will still take 5 years to establish the CAA as a national regulator of course, that's the real critical path.

The other key element is to get other countries to recognise any revamped CAA - the US, for instance, won't start to accept any new licences until there is a bilateral agreement in place between the US and UK for mutual recognition. Seeing those talks start is the real indicator that things will be resolved.
Go beyond the headline, and there are some interesting quotes in the article.
British aviation regulator steps up planning for disorderly Brexit

The Civil Aviation Authority had said in January it was purposely not planning for a scenario where it was excluded from Europe’s safety body, “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option”.

UK aerospace industry body ADS has said it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over from EASA.

The CAA said the assumptions it was making to plan for a “no deal” Brexit did not represent its view of the most likely, or desirable, outcome of negotiations and do not reflect government policy.

Meerkatz and his photocopier knows better, of course.
 
Don’t worry about that. The CAA do and they appear to be coping

This is amusing...

You have dissmissed *everything* the CAA has said so far. Whey the sudden change of heart now?
IF you are agreeing with the CAA I assume youa re also agreeing with their comment in the item linked to and you are referring to which says:

""it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over from EASA."

Also (as noted above) "The Civil Aviation Authority had said in January it was purposely not planning for a scenario where it was excluded from Europe’s safety body, “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option”. "
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Also (as noted above) "The Civil Aviation Authority had said in January it was purposely not planning for a scenario where it was excluded from Europe’s safety body, “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option”. "
Seems the same as the Govt not preparing for Brexit then, yet it became a viable, nay, a definite choice and we know what happened there! Surely, the 7Ps should always be the choice of Govt depts, you know, just in case.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
Seems the same as the Govt not preparing for Brexit then, yet it became a viable, nay, a definite choice and we know what happened there! Surely, the 7Ps should always be the choice of Govt depts, you know, just in case.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Couldn't agree more with the bit in bold. So, you have to ask why they've only started now instead of 18 months ago.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Couldn't agree more with the bit in bold. So, you have to ask why they've only started now instead of 18 months ago.
Probably because like the Govt ref the Referendum result, they didn't think it would actually happen, they weren't told to by Govt. If they had, this thread would be around 3 pages long.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
This is amusing...

You have dissmissed *everything* the CAA has said so far. Whey the sudden change of heart now?
IF you are agreeing with the CAA I assume youa re also agreeing with their comment in the item linked to and you are referring to which says:

""it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over from EASA."

Also (as noted above) "The Civil Aviation Authority had said in January it was purposely not planning for a scenario where it was excluded from Europe’s safety body, “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option”. "

The CAA has been telling porkies… thousands of staff and 5-10 years has magically morphed into 6 months and 35 extra staff to stop the sky falling on your Henny Pennys next March.
 
The CAA has been telling porkies… thousands of staff and 5-10 years has magically morphed into 6 months and 35 extra staff to stop the sky falling on your Henny Pennys next March.
You are claiming that the CAA has said that they require 35 extra staff and 6 months to replace the regulatory function of EASA?
Can you pick that quote out?
Or did you make it up?
 
You are claiming that the CAA has said that they require 35 extra staff and 6 months to replace the regulatory function of EASA?
Can you pick that quote out?
Or did you make it up?

The CAA up until recently was refusing to plan for change claiming it was impossible, an mountain to climb… a decade and many thousands of new staff
Oh look, HMG says get on with it, and Mt Everest just turned into an ant hill.

You mind now, too many people on that reversocycle and you'll need the CAA to investigate the crash
 
Last edited:
The CAA up until recently was refusing to plan for change claiming it was impossible, an mountain to climb…
Oh look, HMG says get on with it, and Mt Everest just turned into an ant hill.

You mind now, too many people on that reversocycle and you'll need the CAA to investigate the crash
So, you made it up. Thought so.

Here's the webpage that the Reuters report was based on.
EU exit | UK Civil Aviation Authority

Nothing about "6 months" to implement all the regulatory mechanisms required, and curiously, nothing about it requiring only 35 additional staff for this implementation.

Here is a quote that the Reuters report left out, which should be ringing alarm bells. Who's doing this work?

Air Transport Agreements
The CAA has no direct role in the negotiation of air transport agreements, which govern the rights to fly between two countries. These are formal treaties and are negotiated directly between governments.
 
So, you made it up. Thought so.

Here's the webpage that the Reuters report was based on.
EU exit | UK Civil Aviation Authority

Nothing about "6 months" to implement all the regulatory mechanisms required, and curiously, nothing about it requiring only 35 additional staff for this implementation.

Here is a quote that the Reuters report left out, which should be ringing alarm bells. Who's doing this work?

Air Transport Agreements
The CAA has no direct role in the negotiation of air transport agreements, which govern the rights to fly between two countries. These are formal treaties and are negotiated directly between governments.

See… that wasn't hard, was it.
Mind that anthill!

Developing new functions and capabilities
Within this scenario, translating EU aviation law into UK law will require the CAA to take on new functions, some of which are currently delivered by EASA. The CAA has started to implement plans to fulfil these functions should they be needed following the UK’s departure from the EU. As an example, the CAA is creating the capability required for the UK to fulfil State of Design responsibilities independently of EASA should that be needed once the UK leaves the EU.
 
See… that wasn't hard, was it.
Mind that anthill!

Developing new functions and capabilities
Within this scenario, translating EU aviation law into UK law will require the CAA to take on new functions, some of which are currently delivered by EASA. The CAA has started to implement plans to fulfil these functions should they be needed following the UK’s departure from the EU. As an example, the CAA is creating the capability required for the UK to fulfil State of Design responsibilities independently of EASA should that be needed once the UK leaves the EU.
You are beyond stupid.

9805D47C-D725-482E-83AE-97BE0352BB5C.jpeg
 
This is amusing...

You have dissmissed *everything* the CAA has said so far. Whey the sudden change of heart now?
IF you are agreeing with the CAA I assume youa re also agreeing with their comment in the item linked to and you are referring to which says:

""it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over from EASA."

Also (as noted above) "The Civil Aviation Authority had said in January it was purposely not planning for a scenario where it was excluded from Europe’s safety body, “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option”. "
The above quote is not from the CAA it is from ADS:-

UK aerospace industry body ADS has said it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over from EASA.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top