LeSving wrote:
nothing about EASA makes much sense unless you also agree to the “4 freedoms” (free movement of people, capital etc).
That’s complete nonsense. EASA has nothing to do with that. Several EASA members are not EU members, several are not Schengen members, some are neither. EASA provides a complex regulatory framework which developed aviation countries need.
Creating a separate UK framework from scratch in the UK would cost tremendous amounts of money (probably more than 500 staff) and come with significant downsides as the UK has an aviation industry which is fully embedded into the EU aviation industry, think Airbus. The UK are too small to be relevant, nobody would develop/certify an aircraft according to Her Majesty’s Part 23/25 and then later seek EASA/FAA. It would happen in EASA/FAA directly.
I have not spoken to a single UK CAA employee who has told me there is even a chance the UK will leave EASA.
Timothy wrote:
cannot imagine that the current farrago of grandstanding and posturing will last much longer. It is not in either side’s interest.
I couldn’t believe Brexit would happen or I would ever utter the words President Donald Trump, but these things came to pass. I’m not quite as optimistic. The current debacle reflects very badly on both sides.
We are even leaving EURATOM even though it’s not part of the EU as part of Brexit. Leaving EASA would not be off the cards, especially if some politician got a bee in their bonnet about it like they did about EURATOM.
We are even leaving EURATOM
Isn’t that tied up with EU research funding, however?
EU funded collaborative research started to dry up the day after the Brexit vote, hitting UK academia very hard. Most of it was collaborative because the EU has preferentially funded collaborative projects – a cynical observer would say it was for political correctness because synergy was rarely a factor; you just had to find a “mate” to get the money. Due to the length of the grant money pipeline, about 2 years, it was obvious to the mainland based “mate” that by the time the money arrives the project won’t exist (as an EU project) so they pulled out.
EASA isn’t really anything to do with EU research funding. It is a pilot and hardware certification agency, and some kind of body like that will continue to be needed for the same reason that EASA was originally created.
achimha wrote:
Creating a separate UK framework from scratch in the UK would cost tremendous amounts of money (probably more than 500 staff) and come with significant downsides as the UK has an aviation industry which is fully embedded into the EU aviation industry, think Airbus. The UK are too small to be relevant, nobody would develop/certify an aircraft according to Her Majesty’s Part 23/25 and then later seek EASA/FAA. It would happen in EASA/FAA directly.
Well, this is what the “4 freedoms” is all about, and what the UK voted against. They want to do things “their way” and have everything “their way”, the UK way. The “EASA problem” shows how utterly silly Brexit really is from a practical and common sense point of view, but nevertheless, the people have spoken and voted against it. I agree with Timothy, Brexit is all emotions, but sometimes emotions take the upper hand, no matter how silly or elaborate the end result seems to be.
I don’t think the Daily Mail will start a campaign against EASA membership. Not the type of political question to get the public excited about. Only experts will be involved in it. UK leaving EASA is in my view both not feasible and fully against the UK’s interest.
But — if it happens, it would be of very limited relevance for the EU because it is so much bigger than the UK and the remaining powerhouses of Europe (now thankfully more and more including a recovering France) would very well able to absorb the UK’s contribution to aviation.
It’s quite amazing how much EASA’s reputation has improved over the last few years. They have had a very bad start with incompetent bureaucrats in charge, tasked to create heaps of paper. Now it has become a very competent regulator with surprisingly innovative initiatives. Still a lot of friction with the CAAs but steady improvement.
Peter wrote:
EU funded collaborative research started to dry up the day after the Brexit vote, hitting UK academia very hard. Most of it was collaborative because the EU has preferentially funded collaborative projects – a cynical observer would say it was for political correctness
If it was not collaborative, there would be little reason for the EU to be in charge of funding. Better for the UK to fund directly instead of paying into the EU. That’s just how the game works and the whole idea of the EU is based on uniting the continent (see Schiller’s lyrics from which Beethoven created the EU anthem).
If it was not collaborative, there would be little reason for the EU to be in charge of funding. Better for the UK to fund directly instead of paying into the EU
Well, yes, but we had what we had… and collaborative research was much easier to get funding for, which drove everybody who lives substantially off research (most researchers, probably 
) towards EU funded projects.
EASA is EU funded so if the UK remains in EASA (which I am sure it will) it will need to pay something towards it. It would be absolutely hilarious if the UK CAA (rather than the UK taxpayer) had to come up with the money, having lost much of its functionality to EASA. I would be a great debate whether the EASA replacements of those functions are more cost effective. My experience with the “old CAA hands”, from about 2000 onwards, was very variable. On the one hand there was a lot of accumulated expertise, on the other the CAA was a “civil service pension continuation scheme” for all kinds of pompous people who naturally went to the CAA from previous civil service / military posts and were not doing their job. I see a fair few of those types in there today; I am sure they had a great career in the RAF (flying an ATC desk, usually) but have no concept of service delivery. Another utterly clueless chap has a FB page on which he says he works in the CAA and which would get him fired instantly.
It’s going to be an interesting climate in the future (“going forward” is a daft but popular expression these days) because the UK won’t be automatically bound to obey EU/EASA directives. It’s going to require some delicate politics on both sides. IMHO the EU will have to give the UK a bit more slack on e.g. NPPL rights retention in UK airspace, the ban on which, let’s face it, is a purely ideological thing which matters to nobody on the mainland.
Question then, potentially slightly off topic. What do we think will happen to G registered aircraft based in another EU state (in may case France) – any views?
Probably the same thing which happens to Norway or Switzerland reg certified aircraft right now i.e. nothing. France has no long term parking limits on foreign certifieds; not even on N-reg (the French anti N reg proposal in 2004 got killed very fast). Norway (N-reg long term parking ban) and Denmark might be different.
Homebuilts might be a different thing however, but they tend to have long term parking limits anyway when based in a “foreign” country. 6 months in France, IIRC, and loads of previous threads. I have no idea where a post-Brexit UK will end up on the “ECAC” homebuilt landscape.
Peter wrote:
EASA is EU funded so if the UK remains in EASA (which I am sure it will) it will need to pay something towards it.
Switzerland and Norway seem to believe they’re getting their money’s worth. They both have limited influence in the decision making process. The secret to gaining influence on EASA is to send competent people. This is why e.g. Germany has very little influence, the ministry can’t be bothered so the important stuff is worked out by the Latvian, Maltese and UK member.
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
What do we think will happen to G registered aircraft based in another EU state (in may case France) – any views?
I don’t think we’d end up being less close with the UK than with the USA and N-regs are ubiquitous. However, the airplanes will no longer be registered in the Union and there will be implications. One implication I know if is that I (as owner of a G-reg aircraft) will no longer be allowed to depart from a non-customs airport in Germany to an airport outside the EU (e.g. Switzerland). Things like this and a general feeling that I am a citizen of the Union and prefer my stuff to be organized within the Union will make me (and others) change the aircraft’s registration to a EU country.
Post Brexit, the UK will become again a strange country where people drive on the wrong side of the road and wear wigs so what separates us will become more pronounced over time which directly translates into declining confidence and ease of doing business.
