Peter wrote:
Homebuilts might be a different thing however, but they tend to have long term parking limits anyway when based in a “foreign” country. 6 months in France, IIRC, and loads of previous threads. I have no idea where a post-Brexit UK will end up on the “ECAC” homebuilt landscape.
Dealing with the LAA was not funny anyway for aircraft/owners based abroad, so that I’ve decided very early (imediately before the Permit lapsed) to change to a dutch registration, which I didn’t regret for one second. I think it’s pretty the same in other countries like France. Why would one want to remain G-reg with all the LAA-hassle when it’s a lot easier F-reg? If you are a citizen of that country that mostely isn’t a problem. In Germany long term parking is not a problem anyway for ECAC-reg Homebuilts (like e. g. PH-reg).
I’d rather change to N-reg than going back to G-reg.
One implication I know if is that I (as owner of a G-reg aircraft) will no longer be allowed to depart from a non-customs airport in Germany to an airport outside the EU (e.g. Switzerland).
First time I have heard that the aircraft reg affects customs and/or immigration requirements. Which scenarios is that the case in? Worth a new thread…
Dealing with the LAA was not funny anyway for aircraft/owners based abroad
They can’t block it overtly so they used threatening tactics. One of their FUD letters was posted here; later removed on the poster’s request 
However PH-reg requires a Dutch “mailbox service” and people tend to have problems with those.
I’d rather change to N-reg than going back to G-reg.
Most people would but the long term parking restrictions on N-reg homebuilts in Europe are really difficult.
Peter wrote:
However PH-reg requires a Dutch “mailbox service” and people tend to have problems with those.
In that case they can simply change their representative
Peter wrote:
long term parking restrictions on N-reg homebuilts in Europe are really difficult
I know at least one N-reg. owner telling the opposite
Peter wrote:
First time I have heard that the aircraft reg affects customs and/or immigration requirements. Which scenarios is that the case in? Worth a new thread…
We’ve had it a number times. German law requires aircraft departing to a destination outside the Community (i.e. customs union) to use a customs airport in Germany unless
- the flight is non commercial
- there is no cargo that requires declaration
- the aircraft is registered within the Community
All of the above have to be true. The latter would be false for a G-reg post Brexit. So no more flying from a grass strip in Germany to Switzerland. The concession is only for outbound flights. I like it because it means that my airport (immigration: yes, customs: no) can be used for any kind of outbound flight.
what separates us will become more pronounced over time which directly translates into declining confidence and ease of doing business.
That’s precisely the Stammlager Europa mentality which makes many British entrepreneurs happy to escape. Our parents’ contribution to European history and our shared European culture have nothing to do with our business. We buy and sell products all over the world. We find it every bit as easy to do business with South Africa, Pakistan and China as with France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Scandinavia or even Britain, although the only thing we have in common with the sub-continent is a fondness for curry. With China, we have practically nothing in common except our desire to receive goods on time and with “no bad parts”. With the possible exception of Poland, no European or US firm has ever come near our Chinese suppliers in that respect. We inspect every part we receive from China, but we might as well give that job to someone with a white stick and a collie dog. That builds confidence.
Jacko wrote:
That’s precisely the Stammlager Europa mentality which makes many British entrepreneurs happy to escape.
Strange then that almost all of the British economy wants the softest brexit possible. The CBI has actively spoken out against leaving the customs union.
achimha wrote:
One implication I know if is that I (as owner of a G-reg aircraft) will no longer be allowed to depart from a non-customs airport in Germany to an airport outside the EU (e.g. Switzerland).
I was not aware that this is allowed even now, even though of course for Swiss airplanes it is not allowed as it won’t be for UK reg ones post Brexit. Certainly reciprocity is not valid even now, for any and all landings from outside Swiss borders into Switzerland at least a customs airport is required or a full Airport of Entry in case that the departure is outside of Schengen.
There is of course one factor where I can’t really see the UK being part of EASA as a non-voting member. Equally, I do not quite understand how that is possible at all. Either be a member with full voting rights regardless of EU membership or not be a member. Being just a member who has to eat everything that comes out of there without having a say in it is quite pointless, even though in some cases it may well have been a positive factor for GA.
It has to be said however that recent developments within the EASA GA Roadmap have revealed that many CAA’s pet hatred against certain aspects of GA’s were not EASA influenced at all or were simply that CAA’s way of interpreting EASA ruling in the most restrictive. Many CAA’s have been misusing the clout of EASA to implement stuff they could not have gotten away with locally and before Ky took over, EASA seemed to ignore this fact. Only after EASA’s ruling became more pro-GA did many realize that the anti GA lobby was not to the extent they thought in Cologne but in their own CAA’s.
(Mind, there is quite an analogy to the Brexit claims that many of unpopular government decisions in the past were “forced by the EU” while politicians in the UK only USED the EU in order to get unpopular decisions grudgingly accepted (or not) by the population without damage to themselfs. My feeling is Brits will find out in due course and post Brexit governments will have a devil to pay once people will reckognize how they have been lied to.)
I am not so sure whether EASA wants to retain the Brits at all if any cost. There always have been powers in EASA who did not like the British input particularly in GA and who have rather different ideas about the future of aviation regulation, particularly Germany, which has been reprimanded several times in the recent past over non-compliance or obstructionism. GA will loose one supporter with the Brits loosing voting status within EASA, even though there still are others, but the big counterweight to those countries who wish to restrict GA to the maximum and get their own pet rules implemented or saved will definitly be on the up again if Britan can no longer influence things.
All in all, it may well be an option for Britain to leave EASA and become a larger version of the non-easa save havens like the Isle of Man or San Marino. Stay in EASA and not having any influence over what happens looks rather weird to me for one of the most influential players in that agency and often enough also a voice of reason. But that will have serious implications such as British licenses no longer be valid for flying in Europe, Airbus most probably would pull out of Britan for good and new British built airplanes no longer being EASA certified.
But one thing is also quite clear: G-Reg Airplanes will in the future need to get certificates of free circulation if they operate in the EU. They will no longer be automatically have customs paid and might end up paying VAT if they want to fly in the EU, like N-reg also need to. That might be something worth considering if buying a G-reg airplane post Brexit.
There are so many things about the common market that people don’t see which are important to doing business, especially for smaller businesses that can’t afford the cost to deal with different legal and economical systems to export to China etc.
One example: you operate a software company in the UK selling licenses to consumers throughout Europe via online payment. For every EU country your customers live in, you have to charge a different VAT rate. The EU system allows you to pay all that collection of VAT to your home government. Imagine you have to transfer every month 12 € to Malta, 5 € to Estonia and 20 € to Cyprus etc. which is the system pre-EU and post-EU membership.
If my vegetable shop orders cucumbers trade grade A, both my supplier and I know what I can expect and what I would not have to accept because the EU clearly defines that. I can compare supplier offers because everybody knows what exactly we’re talking about. That makes the transaction a lot easier and efficient. People laugh about that cucumber stuff but that’s because they are clueless.
Of course you can do business with every country in the world but it’s the ease of doing business that really allows the GDP to grow. If you believe it’s as easy to do business with Pakistan as it currently is with Germany, then I wish you good luck.
EASA is a similar case. Concise rules for a very complex subject that all players know and can deal with.
Strange then that almost all of the British economy wants the softest brexit possible. The CBI has actively spoken out against leaving the customs union.
The CBI is a trade association of big businessmen (big in terms of both big companies and lots of big lunches). These people would rent their grandmother to a whorehouse if it increased their bonuses or their share price by 1%. The CBI gets massive media coverage; way out of proportion to its relevance, and 99% of it is predictable self interest and screw everybody else.
GA could certainly make very good use of their lobby power, especially given the Guardian’s very cleverly organised domination of social media
We inspect every part we receive from China, but we might as well give that job to someone with a white stick and a collie dog. That builds confidence.
Spot on.
Of course you can do business with every country in the world but it’s the ease of doing business that really allows the GDP to grow.
I’ve been in business (electronic design and manufacture) since a few weeks before I left univ in 1978. What the EU has basically done is reduced documentation with a parcel from 3 invoices to none. But we still need to do invoices for non EU shipments so the machinery (the laser printer ) is already in place.
The barriers to trade are cultural and always have been. These barriers have hardly changed. Within Europe you have massive cultural differences which result in certain countries importing almost nothing unless it can be bought from a local (fully local, including wholly native-language) distributor and that is where the big barrier is – a small company can’t set that up. So, in the 4 or so big countries it is stuck with having to use some usually useless agency. From the UK exporting POV it correlates heavily with the extent to which English is spoken freely as a 2nd language, so e.g. a Swedish firm just phones you up and buys the stuff…
If my vegetable shop orders cucumbers trade grade A, both my supplier and I know what I can expect and what I would not have to accept because the EU clearly defines that
One of the reasons for the Brexit vote was that the EU tried to ban that veg shop selling produce which came straight from the farm….
EASA is a similar case. Concise rules for a very complex subject that all players know and can deal with.
Back to the topic and yes this is why EASA will carry on with the UK in it. It makes no sense for the UK to leave EASA.
There is an interesting paragraph here [ local copy ]
Taking just the highlighted sentence, this sounds very positive!
