Peter wrote:
For example the US is not in EASA, and neither is most of the known universe, yet things seem to work…
If this really is a good example? EASA has basically banned domestic flights with FAA licenses – a rule that is only temporarily put on hold because EASA realized that in some areas there are still so many commercial pilots with FAA licenses that enforcement of that rule would harm the industry.
Would we believe that the risk of “loosing the UK pilots” is perceived as equally big thread?
EASA has basically banned domestic flights with FAA licenses
)It was a daft and 100% politically motivated (anti US) move which AFAICS was done to force the hand of the US to sign the FAA-EASA treaty which hasn’t got very far anyway…
No; I don’t think private pilots are a big card to play. The entire European PPL/IR community (that is actually active) would fit into one big room What will determine the shape of any UK-EASA treaty might be stuff like aviation component manufacture, airline pilot training, etc. But often in these negotiations they end up playing the most diverse things off against each other e.g. zero Belgian potato tariffs might get played against a treaty on Brussels accepting UK licenses. People close to the aforementioned FAA-EASA treaty have repeatedly reported that it is being held up by unrelated and huge stuff like the EU wanting EU airlines to be allowed to do US domestic flights, which is political dynamite which no US leader will accept.
This came from IAOPA:
airways wrote:
It is definitely clear now; the UK is leaving EASA.
Told you so years ago (in this very thread)
But just take a step back and look at how things really are. How things (private GA stuff) have developed with EASA. In Norway much more than 50% of private GA aircraft are non-EASA (Annex 1). My club owns 6 aircraft. 2 microlights, an old Cub, a Saab Safir, a P2008 and a C-172. Of 6 aircraft, 4 are Annex 1. The Club is also using three private aircraft (Cherokee, C-185 and one microlight). As for private planes owned by club members, there are Lanceairs, RVs, Carbon Cubs, Onex, a couple of Yaks, a Seabee and lots of ULs. None of these airplanes are “ruled” by EASA, but by national regulations.
For private GA, EASA could simply seize to exist. For most private pilots it wouldn’t matter. It is mostly national anyway.
In the UK, in that “other” tread, 50% of GA aircraft were Annex 1. For the rest of the GA fleet, the EASA fleet, how many of those aircraft were private, and how many were commercial?
As for commercial aviation, divorcing EASA must be a disaster I would think ?
Peter wrote:
So, there are some difficult decisions ahead for many, with no clear view of the future relationship between the EU/UK. This could all change by the end of the year but for now the UK Government’s message is – To plan for the worst and to hope for the best.
Hoping and praying should never be confused with preparing and planning. Seems nobody told the UK government. What a mess. I guess AustroControl will have hire more staff.
LeSving wrote:
For private GA, EASA could simply seize to exist. For most private pilots it wouldn’t matter. It is mostly national anyway.
Perhaps the Norwegian view on that is not fully representing entire Europe (absolutely no offense meant): Given the geographic situation of Norway I simply assume, that private GA international flights are not that common as they are between Germany and France or Austria or between Italy and France, etc.
The fact that there is an airplane class and a license that is valid across Europe is actually quite valuable for many GA pilots – and if you do not need that there is in all of the countries a class below EASA (Microlight/UL/…) that one can use.
The fact that there is an airplane class and a license that is valid across Europe is actually quite valuable for many GA pilots
Yes; it is called “any ICAO license issued by the State of aircraft registry” and works worldwide, not just in Europe
What an EASA license has achieved is basically working around protectionist restrictions imposed contrary to ICAO (e.g. refusing to implement the recommended automatic validation of any license for any aircraft reg, and blocking countries which were already doing that for decades e.g. the UK, shafted c. 2012).
So it’s like saying that an EASA reg came in saying both your legs need to be cut off, and then when EASA introduces a concession saying only one leg needs to be cut off, everybody says they are heroes
Of course EASA did some good stuff too that is original, and swept away some nationalist/protectionist stuff, but a lot less than would at first appear had ICAO agreed privileges been fully implemented.
There are numerous countries whose pilots rarely leave their country. Norway may be one, but France is much bigger. Greek pilots also rarely leave Greece but that’s wholly understandable
IIRC ICAO is and has always been a set of norms and recommended practices (very little is law they are agreements, treaties if you like) which is why there is a set of annexes. Each country (if signatory to the Chicago Convention) can sign up to each part or vary from it providing they declare that, that is what they wish to do.
Easa is the result of an attempt for most of Europe to act in a concerted manner so that flying across European boundaries is seamless.
In some areas it has worked well, in others perhaps not so well.
172driver wrote:
I guess AustroControl will have hire more staff.
They can reallocate people they had working on CAT ;-)
Given the geographic situation of Norway I simply assume, that private GA international flights are not that common as they are between Germany and France or Austria or between Italy and France, etc.
We have a long border with EU, Sweden and Finland, as well as Russia. People often fly to Sweden, then Denmark, Germany. It has never been a problem no matter what aircraft, be it ICAO, EASA, experimental or UL. It has never been an issue at all. In fact, the only place I have seen this as a “thing” is here on this board. The only issue is the usual weather and the fact that it takes a long time to fly to get even to Northern Germany, and probably some linguistics issues in France, Spain, Italy, but no more than taking a car. Licenses have always been ICAO, long before EASA.
Anyway, my point was that EASA for private GA is a minority. Not a tiny minority, but a minority nonetheless. The aircraft, even lots of Annex 1 are ICAO. Licenses could go back to be national licenses according to ICAO over night. No licences are dependent on the existence of EASA to be valid, at least not Norwegian licenses. The same goes for “EASA” aircraft. They wouldn’t be EASA anymore, but still fully ICAO. As for non-ICAO, it would be business as usual. With or without EASA, no difference.
