Then you misread the post because I used the F word there.
It probably means one can do it only in UK airspace
Do what? Art 137 [ 148 ] of the ANO applies only in the UK. An EASA licence which has been rendered valid by the UK CAA, if you mean that, is valid on a UK-registered aircraft in all contracting states iaw the Chicago Convention (emphasis added):
Article 33
Recognition of certificates and licenses
Certificates of airworthiness and certificates of competency
and licenses issued or rendered valid by the contracting State
in which the aircraft is registered, shall be recognized as valid
by the other contracting States, provided that the requirements
under which such certificates or licences were issued or
rendered valid are equal to or above the minimum standards
which may be established from time to time pursuant to this
Convention.
Peter wrote:
It’s been suggested by many – and I agree – that this is all part of Brussels playing hardball, to make sure other countries don’t get the idea that leaving the club might work for them.
More like: The UK wanted it that way.
Rather than Brussels playing hardball, it is London playing incompetence – it didn’t even bother including financial services in the trade agreement, in spite of them being 7% of GDP and 10% of fiscal revenue. I bet aviation didn’t even register.
The British do like blaming Brussels for the incompetence of their leaders though.
T28 wrote:
it didn’t even bother including financial services in the trade agreement, in spite of them being 7% of GDP and 10% of fiscal revenue
Yes, I’m sure the UK government completely forgot about financial services :-/ How likely does that seem?
I believe the truth of the matter is that Brussels was never for one moment going to allow its inclusion, knowing that it is the UK’s strongest sector (or one of them).
mh wrote:
More like: The UK wanted it that way.
Most of us with half a brain didn’t vote for this shambles, although contrary to some remainer sentiment it is a legitimate political choice. But please don’t for one moment kid yourselves that Brussels isn’t absolutely desperate to see the UK suffer (and suffer visibly) as a result of leaving so as to prevent anyone else getting ideas. Make no mistake, Brussels is angry – not only because the project may (or may not, depending on electoral trends in various countries in coming years) be under threat, but because the bill for the likes of Greece, Spain and Italy now has one less major net contributor country to be spread across.
T28 wrote:
it didn’t even bother including financial services in the trade agreement, in spite of them being 7% of GDP and 10% of fiscal revenue
What do you mean? Did they forget? I don’t think you mean that.
All in all, this was “accept common (read: mostly EU) rules in return for access”, which is perfectly legitimate since the EU is a somewhat protectionist trade bloc. And before people jump on me for using the word ‘protectionist’ – protection can very well be legitimate; for example the EU financial regulation has as its aim the protection of consumers and the financial system (and so does the UK financial regulation).
So in all areas, the UK had to decide whether to play by the EU rules and have unfettered (and tariff-free) access, or not, or something in between.
Given what is in the regulatory pipeline for financial services in the EU, the UK decided they would rather not be subject to that.
That was probably a more calculated decision than leaving EASA.
.bq What do you mean? Did they forget? I don’t think you mean that
Oh they didn’t forget. They consciously made a choice to go for a trade-oriented deal (that favors the EU) versus a services-oriented deal (that would have favored the UK), leaving services to be addressed “later” via the market equivalence mechanism. Theresa’s own words, paraphrased.
As a result, financial firms have voted with a certain part of their anatomy and have moved or are in the process of moving their balance sheets to the continent (or Ireland).
The UK has maybe “chosen not to be a part of that” but there will be nothing compensating for the lost business that has moved onshore regulatory pipeline notwithstanding…
Peter wrote:
I just would not (if I was the EU) have done the instant cancellation of licenses which after all were issued under “my” oversight, by a member country which is no longer a member. It is like me issuing you with a permission to fly from my strip, and when you no longer attend the masonic lodge I am a member of, I throw you out. Personally, I would never do such a thing, because I do not regard it as civilised.
I am with Peter on this one, and I am quite a lot more pro-EU than most people. I don’t understand while they didn’t keep mutual recognition of EASA/UK licences for X years, nobody on either side of the Channel has any reason to believe that licences from the other side are less safe, an until very recently they were all “EASA”.
I caution against seeing this as punishment though, it is quite conceivable that the EU simply did not yet have the time to push an adequate regulation through its bureaucratic apparatus, with a lot of issues being vastly more important in the negotiations.
MedEwok wrote:
I am with Peter on this one, and I am quite a lot more pro-EU than most people. I don’t understand while they didn’t keep mutual recognition of EASA/UK licences for X years, nobody on either side of the Channel has any reason to believe that licences from the other side are less safe, an until very recently they were all “EASA”.
The reason is that the oversight over UK-issued license holders now rests with the UK which is no longer in EASA and doesn’t have to follow EASA rules. So to me this makes perfect sense. Compare the validity of ARCs which have been discussed earlier. UK-issued ARCs for EASA aircraft do remain valid, which also makes sense as the oversight of an aircraft does not rest with the Competent Authority issuing the ARC.
I can sort of see it from both sides, but there must have been a better way to actually go about it.
I can see why in 5 years time, anyone who has a UK PART FCL licence will be completely removed from EASA oversight, and I can see why unless a specific recognition agreement is reached that EASA would just treat the UK as a third country as per FAA etc.
However, the reality is that on the 31st of December (in theory) UK EASA licence holders had EASA licences, granted under EASA, overseen by EASA (via NAA) and met all EASA requirements. 24 hours later from EASA’s point of view these licences can not be trusted and therefore it’s immediate application of third country rules.
As I have said, I can not be completely neutral in this as it affects me personally, but given that it is impossible to hold an EASA licence in more than one state which prevented lots of people from converting licences, I can’t see why a ~12 month grace period couldn’t have been utilised to allow conversions to take place (for licences issued prior to Jan 1st if necessary) whilst all those licences would in practical terms still be largely overseen by EASA anyway.
Pirho wrote:
I can sort of see it from both sides, but there must have been a better way to actually go about it.
Well, the easiest would have been for the UK to stay in EASA. That said I agree that a phased approach would have been much better, but then again, wasn’t the transition period a ‘phased approach’?
I feel for you, @Pirho, but could you not turn this whole issue on its head? As you correctly say, you cannot have an EASA license in more than one EASA member state. Now, the UK is not an EASA member anymore – does that not mean that you could now get, say, an Irish (or Austrian, or whatever) license in addition to your British one? I understand that that may mean jumping through some burning hoops, but it should be possible.
