Reportedly EASA asked ICAO for a seat, and was told they could get one only if all ICAO Contracting States who are EU members would have to first resign their seats.
You can guess what happened 
This was about 10 years ago.
The 28 EU members of EASA are required by EU law to not use their ICAO votes as dictated by EASA…. The other four are likewise obligated by their own laws…..so, again it is academic whether EASA has its own seat at ICAO…..
Amazing the things the European Aviation Safety Agency has involved itself in. Recrafting international law, no less. What an irresponsible mess they’ve apparently created for themselves, and in particular for those who have to sit across the table from them.
Obviously, if EASA were to dictate or fix all of the many votes of European nations at ICAO, that would be a corrupt practice. So instead the EASA mess contributes to the ICAO mess, and they all swim in a sea of international ambiguity in which EASA has dominance over regulation within Europe, but is not at the table to negotiate with its peers outside of Europe.
I am tremendously glad that FAA smiles at the nonsense and goes forward more rationally, in general, ignoring both EASA and ICAO when it might actually matter. The U.K. should do the same, ideally in collaboration with FAA and other organizations that have authority over themselves and can do what they say.
Peter wrote:
The CAA does try to keep people flying where EASA would stop them – e.g. getting an IR without the two-ear audiogram (a “secret” concession which very few AMEs know about), a day-only IR for CVD pilots (another “secret” option, always possible in the UK but banned under JAA).
Far from being a “secret option”, EASA explicitly allows day-only IR’s — see FCL.601(a)(1)(i).
It was very “secret” prior to this last change. I know one guy who got it about 10 years ago.
I heard that the UK audiogram work-around involves a phrase in Part MED saying something like “each case must be considered on its merits”. AIUI they do it only for private pilots, and possibly for instructors. I got it from a UK AME c. 3 years ago but he would not say any more.
Silvaire wrote:
Obviously, if EASA were to dictate or fix all of the many votes of European nations at ICAO, that would be a corrupt practice
I don’t know if EASA is involved with such things at all. ECAC on the other hand has as one of it’s prime missions to coordinate it’s member states, not only towards ICAO, but also towards EASA and any other organisation for that matter. ECAC has 44 member states.
Just been reading some stuff on this in one of UK’s aviation trade rags…
Once the UK leaves the EU, to remain involved in EASA, the UK will become a signatory to the agency, rather than a full member. This already exists for Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway an Switzerland. This gives you influence but but voting rights.
In practice the UK CAA is likely to remain very involved, having been one of the leaders in the ongoing process.
EU students withing to train at UK FTOs may need a Tier 4 Visa which is £328. This may reduce business, although the UK training industry has a very good reputation and this is likely to stay. The UK is the only European country which speaks English (the universal aviation language) natively.
Peter wrote:
The UK is the only European country which speaks English (the universal aviation language) natively.
Whoops
I guess that comment was in the context of where ATPL schools are.
The current consensus in the wider aviation market for the third country registered aircraft / licensing treachery by EASA, is that their latest regulations are going to be impossible to implement due to Brexit, and the lack of any guarantee that the UK will actually keep EASA regulations post Brexit anyway. Any UK court would likely agree especially during the transitional Brexit phase.
Best advice fly within the law on your current third country registry and licence.
