It is certainly true that if the UK wanted to be “in EASA” they would have to agree to abide by EASA regulations. Otherwise, eventually, they would get kicked out. In reality, there are countless deviations which are tolerated on the same principle as Spanish bullfighting.
I don’t quite follow why the ECJ is a requirement. I am sure there were EASA member states which at the time were not in the EU and not subject to the ECJ.
Look at JAA, which delivered mutually accepted certification, and that is arguably the biggest benefit of EASA (e.g. a UK issued JAR-1 form or a German issued JAR-1 form are both acceptable in all of JAA-land). JAA did not deliver a uniform FCL policy (because, as one JAA director once told me, different countries wanted different things and JAA didn’t have the political power) but IMHO this is a much smaller aspect. It worked fine for airline pilots, who could get their CPL/IRs and ATPLs mutually validated.
Peter wrote:
Look at JAA, which delivered mutually accepted certification, and that is arguably the biggest benefit of EASA (e.g. a UK issued JAR-1 form or a German issued JAR-1 form are both acceptable in all of JAA-land).
While in practice that has always been the case, technically it has not been correct (if I remember right): The JAA only set standards that have been implemented into national law by each member state separately. There was no law that actually guaranteed that an administrative decision taken by one member state had to be accepted by another state (i.e. it could exactly happen that the German CAA ruled that a design complies with JAA and another CAA doesn’t and therefore does not allow this deign in their territory).
It was exactly that lack of obligation, that lead to the foundation of EASA.
An EASA membership of the UK w/o subduing to ECJ rulings on interpretation of EASA rules would exactly mean to downgrade EASA (for all members) to JAA again. This is what EASA-members don’t want to do
Off_Field wrote:
however requirements for PPL training often need such items…
In this particular case, it is actually the UK CAA and not EASA that insists on needlessly strict maintenance, so I don’t see that improving after Brexit.
It’s not a particular detail I’m concerned about, it’s the broader approach. as has been pointed out with things such as the aerobatic rating or glider tug. I’d far rather learn from someone skilled and interested even if they didn’t have a piece of paper to tick that box, I think it would be much more valuable.
What we will get is up in the air. I don’t have a lot of faith in the CAA however, I’d much rather that they our decisions or mistakes to make rather than being forced on high from a group which doesn’t appear to have been that receptive to sensible policy. It also seperates us from being the square peg in a round hole if the rest of europe are in lock step.
Aerobatics in France , at the basic level, has always been taught by aerobatic instructors, usually ex competition aerobatic pilots.As one progresses to a higher level of aerobatics you tend to receive instruction or mentoring from pilots who have competed at a higher level.
At the highest level you can receive training from past and current European or world champions, either in your own aircraft or one that is made available from a club or business. It works for us, France has a very good record in producing top class competition aerobatic pilots The fact that the person giving the training writes in your log book what aircraft you have flown and what figures you have successfully completed is the same as its always been, with the added bonus for those who are into it that the person signing might also be a current world or european champion. As far as I know these instructors or mentors are not part of ATO’s or DTO’s but I admit that whilst I have often refuelled the aircraft and chatted aerobatics with them I have never asked about their regulatory ststus or how much they charge.
As for the glider towing rating/training this is usually carried out and entered in your log book by one of the glider club instructors who usually takes his or her turn at glider towing. Asmfar as I know there is no cost other than your subscrption to the glider club.So I really don’t see the problem in this case either.EASA seems to have changed very little as far as I can see.
Jacko wrote:
But when each of 30-odd CAAs proudly contributes its own pet rules to EASA’s stinking snake-pit of regulation, pretty soon the result is toxic.
That “sum of all fears” approach was what got EASA it’s horrible reputation and it was like this in the beginning. Come to think of that, a lot of observers at the time saw two guilty parties most and foremost: The UK and, even without voting membership, Switzerland. Germany came in third…
But it has to be said that this has changed now and is still changing for the better. Who would have thought of part NCO or ELA at the time? And, if I believe the same observers, who do you think was most outspoken against both of those?
It is quite interesting that the minister appears to be flying N-reg. He can obviously state he did so as he distrusted EASA. Once the UK is out of there, I wonder whether he will then transfer his plane to G-Reg and trusting his own liberated CAA?
I’d never have thought I’d say this but where I come from, GA is often enough looking at EASA to keep our very own CAA in check. Clearly, it is always a question of perspective: Those who had CAA’s before EASA who platin-plated everything and those whose CAA’s were very much pro-EASA but today I have to say that for GA I would shudder at the thought of leaving. Mind, this could happen however if a certain referendum this spring gets accepted….
It is quite interesting that the minister appears to be flying N-reg
I would not read a whole lot into this, either way.
In the UK, and lots of other places, most “serious” pilots with an IR went N-reg, particularly during a long period up to about 10 years ago. After that it became a hassle, with dodgy checkride options, the FAA writtens needing a trip to the US, etc.
At one point I vaguely recall, c. 2001/2002, the only option for the JAA IR writtens was all 14 “ATPL” exams. I went through the A4 ring binders which took about 1m of shelf space.
Only a masochist would have done the JAA /EASA IR in those days.
If you assembled a group of G-reg owners with a “UK/Euro IR” in a room, you would have found that most of them followed an ancient “700hr route” which gave you some great concessions but AFAIK was killed by JAA. Of course they would never class going N-reg (which aroused a lot of grumpy comments from among them) as anything comparable to the way they gamed the system many years previously 
Of course I am describing a well known UK GA group, as it was back then.
Overall one great advantage of the N-reg route is that it could be much more easily fitted around a busy life, so even less surprising in this case.
one great advantage of the N-reg route is that it could be much more easily fitted around a busy life
Plus the sensibility and practicalities of the 6/6 currency rule.
Peter,
all perfectly understood. But now the Minister will have a chance to form a CAA to his liking, so he should be able to correct all those things. In one way, that is a once in a lifetime chance that a GA savvy politician has the chance to redo an independent CAA, so let’s see. IF he can prove that the new independent CAA would be the perfect environment, then the need to go N-reg should expire with that too.
Yeah – if we all dream, the new national g-reg could become the next n-reg for European pilots: Simple administration, practical rules, low fees and all of this much closer to Continental Europe than the US.
It only takes the UK gouvernment to live up to its promises…
