See here local copy
Also here
A_and_C wrote:
I see a great future for U.K. GA if the CAA continues along this pragmatic and safety case road.
The UK CAA decision not to accept EASA Form 1 for repaired or overhauled parts after the 31st March is far from “pragmatic and based on safety case”.
why is the CAA proposing to heap a whole bunch of restrictions on who can be an LAA inspector
Probably because that bit of policy is owned by the wrong kind of personality 
This whole area has always been run by “larger than life” characters, along with the ex-RAF masonic lodge in the CAA which runs other bits. Just like all the UK GA forums and organisations – why do you think they mostly hate each other?
Look at the LAA policy on G-regs based abroad e.g. here.
The UK CAA decision not to accept EASA Form 1 for repaired or overhauled parts after the 31st March is far from “pragmatic and based on safety case”.
My view, fwiw, is that the UK was completely happy to accept all EU papers. Why not? It’s a gain and gain, no downside, life is easier for all, and this stuff is way below the radar horizon of any brexit politics. It was the EU which decided to butt-f**ck the UK maximally (for obvious reasons) so the CAA (actually this policy will be driven by the DfT) is retaliating.
What would be interesting is what happens with 8130-3 acceptance for used parts. In the EASA sphere this is impossible (people generally get repairs done off the books, transferring S/N stickers with a hair dryer). In the old days, an 8130-3 was acceptable on say an overhauled engine if you got an Export CofA on it (DAR charge about $300, in 2008). Globally, nearly all reputable repair shops are in the US. The European scene is a nightmare.
There are strong rumours that a reciprocal deal will be done in 2022, but until then… everybody plays hardball.
Peter wrote:
My view, fwiw, is that the UK was completely happy to accept all EU papers. Why not? It’s a gain and gain, no downside, life is easier for all, and this stuff is way below the radar horizon of any brexit politics. It was the EU which decided to butt-f**ck the UK maximally (for obvious reasons) so the CAA (actually this policy will be driven by the DfT) is retaliating.
Is it ok to get political now!?
What would be interesting is what happens with 8130-3 acceptance for used parts. In the EASA sphere this is impossible (people generally get repairs done off the books, transferring S/N stickers with a hair dryer).
We’ve talked about this before and you know that under 21.A.307 you don’t need a Form 1 for used parts on most light aircraft . I believe you when you say that some shops won’t touch that paragraph, but that’s not really EASA’s fault, is it?
Yes it is because EASA failed to get the NAA to tow the line.
My maintaince company totally agrees with what you say. However their inspector disagrees and if they don’t follow the NAA guidence then they won’t issue their approvals.
They have your cock and balls in the palm of their hands.
Is it ok to get political now!?
If you have new / insider info on this topic, feel free to post it.
We’ve talked about this before and you know that under 21.A.307 you don’t need a Form 1 for used parts on most light aircraft . I believe you when you say that some shops won’t touch that paragraph, but that’s not really EASA’s fault, is it?
Likewise e.g. if you know a shop which will accept this, and which Bathman can make use of, feel free to post their name etc.
The overwhelming feedback on this is that almost no shop will touch this with a bargepole, because it is a big revenue reducing concession. You could actually source a used part from US Ebay and just install it, under that clause (various past threads, usually containing the word “dynamite” ).
Peter wrote:
My view, fwiw, is that the UK was completely happy to accept all EU papers. Why not? It’s a gain and gain, no downside, life is easier for all, and this stuff is way below the radar horizon of any brexit politics. It was the EU which decided to butt-f**ck the UK maximally (for obvious reasons) so the CAA (actually this policy will be driven by the DfT) is retaliating.
I don’t understand your logic. The EU or EASA have no choice over what the UK accepts or doesn’t accept. The UK could easily accepts all EASA From1 (or EASA FCL for that matter) or FAA paperwork, or Uzbekistan’s paperwork and there is nothing that any of those countries can do about it. Other countries obviously don’t have to accept UK forms, but there is nothing stopping the UK accepting whatever paperwork it deems appropriate.
Peter wrote:
The overwhelming feedback on this is that almost no shop will touch this with a bargepole, because it is a big revenue reducing concession.
Once again. In what sense is that EASA’s fault?
I don’t understand your logic. The EU or EASA have no choice over what the UK accepts or doesn’t accept. The UK could easily accepts all EASA From1 (or EASA FCL for that matter) or FAA paperwork, or Uzbekistan’s paperwork and there is nothing that any of those countries can do about it. Other countries obviously don’t have to accept UK forms, but there is nothing stopping the UK accepting whatever paperwork it deems appropriate.
The point I was trying to make is that the current non-acceptance is a policy to push through a mutual acceptance treaty. It is a weird way to go about it but that is how these things are done. It is the same as EASA doing this, to “accelerate” the FAA-EASA treaty. I am not sure it did anything useful though; I once spoke to a senior FAA guy at some conference and he said the FAA is quite pissed off about that, on top of the FAA not being happy about the EU forcing individual countries, with many of whom the FAA had direct treaties, to abandon those treaties, and the end result is a negligible change at the FAA end. Whether this CAA policy will work I don’t know but I am not optimistic since the official Brussels position is that the EU does not need the UK for anything whatsoever. However, nobody I know (well, nobody posting here) has information on what is happening behind closed doors.
IMHO I think the CAA needs to get its house in proper order first, starting with a P45 for at least 75% of its workforce (I use the term “work” with much hesitation), and 100% of the ex RAF club running this crazy scheme
Once again. In what sense is that EASA’s fault?
It isn’t, and I didn’t say it was. However, these concessions are widely touted as being a fantastic achievement of EASA, which is arguably misleading since the “industry” almost entirely refuses to operate them and, arguably, EASA should have foreseen that, and maybe implemented them differently. How differently, I don’t know, since the reason they are not operated is simply because they take bread off the “industry” dinner table, and everybody knows you can’t do that.
Peter wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that the current non-acceptance is a policy to push through a mutual acceptance treaty.
Hopefully, HMG and the DfT will see sense at some points. In the meantime, aircraft owner either pay or do take liberty with the rules.
