Depository for off topic / political posts (NO brexit related posts please)

LeSving wrote:

EASA regulations are EU law in EU member states,

Where did I write anything else?

Obviously EU law pertains to EU members.

What you are referring to (Non EU but EASA member countries) is a special case.

This is just a guess but I don’t think non EU EASA members can cherry pick. You either apply EU law (= EASA regs) or you drop out of EASA. Bilateral treaties and stuff…

I don’t understand what aircraft that aren’t under EASA at all have anything to do with it (or rather, why you bring that up as an argument). Obviously those fall under national regulations. Example: An experimental homebuilt plane in Austria now falls under a more stringent maintenance regime (national regulations) than a CS23 plane (Part-ML).

Snoopy wrote:

This is just a guess but I don’t think non EU EASA members can cherry pick. You either apply EU law (= EASA regs) or you drop out of EASA. Bilateral treaties and stuff…

They promise by treaty to apply all EASA regs, and if they didn’t, they would loose EU recognition of their certificates. However, they do need, for each new “Commission Delegated Regulation” of the “EASA package”, a national act or regulation to “import” that EU regulation. Whereas EU Member States need to do that only for Directives, not Regulations.

Thanks.
So for EU members:
Regulations → valid in EU immediately (supranational)
Directives → valid once imported into national law
?

Snoopy wrote:

Regulations → valid in EU immediately (supranational)

Yes.

Directives → valid once imported into national law

Not quite. A directive is an instruction to all EU countries to make legislation with a particular aim. The actual national law can differ quite a bit between countries. In particular, an individual country can go further than the directive requires, something which is not possible with a regulation.

I expect that’s not how it works when EASA regulations are adopted by non-EU EASA members. Rather the non-EU state makes national legislation that directly refers to the regulation.

Yes, Snoopy, that’s correct.

Member States must transpose directives within a specific deadline, usually two year I think. Else, upon formal notice of the commission, the member state can get fines, I believe.

A directive can (typically does?) leave Member States some choices/leeway, in that it will have a bunch of “member states must X” dispositions, but also “member states may” dispositions, and they can be “incomplete” in other ways, so the transposition process is not only pure import, but also making the choices left open by the directive.

Compare e.g. GDPR or the aviation law (let’s call them EASA) regulations, which are detailed (as they must be, as regulations), and e.g.:

• the VAT directive, which
  • sets minimum VAT rates, but lets the member states set VAT rates higher (I believe that all member states now do, Luxembourg having raised its VAT from the 15% minimum to 17% a few years ago)
  • allows, but does not require, (some or all) member states to apply a lower rate to some goods or services (books, children clothing, …); different member states make different choices
• the customs directive which allows, but does not require, member states to deny excise tax exemption to commercial aviation use of avgas, whereas the exemption on commercial aviation use of jet fuel in mandatory. Some member states deny the exemption to avgas, others apply it.
• the anti-money laundering directive(s), which require some offences to be primary offences (that is “laundering” the proceeds of these offences is a criminal offence), but does not:
  • prescribe the punishment, neither for the primary offences, nor for money laundering
  • require, nor forbid, that offences such as leaving the restaurant or taxi without paying, destroying hedges, not paying child alimony, … be primary offences; in some member states they are, in others they are not.

This is amazing, as a technology demo

I reckon they must have adult sized lithium battery packs too

If Trump and his extremists friends had really set up a coup on twitter and parler (as the msm repeats all day as a reason to block them), they were really the worst revolutionaries ever.

Or people are just fed up with the nonsense and censorship, plus all these « irregularities » that reportedly didn’t happen during the votes

Jujupilote wrote:

they were really the worst revolutionaries ever

Given the overall (disastrous) performance of the Trump administration, why should his ilk be any better at being “revolutionaries” than being in government?

Either way, the past five years in global politics (and American politics in particular) have really been surreal…