wbardorf wrote:
Brexit deal text (the 1246 pages) has finally been published here:https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/draft_eu-uk_trade_and_cooperation_agreement.pdf
linked from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2531
As far as I can tell so far, there are 25 pages related to aviation.
Not sure what this means:
Does this mean that EU27 licences (the ones that are ICAO-compliant as “Convention” refers to the ICAO convention, i.e. ATPL/CPL/PPL but not LAPL) will continue to be valid in the UK and vice versa?
What is not clear to me is whether they would also be valid as French licence on G-reg aircraft. However, given that a French licence on F-reg aircraft should be valid anyway as per ICAO conventions and therefore would not have required this special mention, I hope this refers to French licence on G-reg aircraft and vice versa.
I think the key bit is this
and that is in line with the previously posted “Brussels backup position” which was to allow airline pilots to carry on, and airliner component certification to be recognised.
On the latter one, AFAIK Rolls Royce set up an EU based office with a big laser printer there, and the required staff positions, for printing off the EASA-1 forms for its engines 
But they may not have needed to do so.
I was looking for a definition of “air services” but unfortunately there is none, however there is
which is what you have in mind above which is defined as a subset of “air services”, suggesting that “air services” are broader.
And an unrelated title in the agreement defines “air services” is a footnote as:
Air services or related services in support of air services include, but are not limited to, the following services: air transportation; services provided by using an aircraft whose primary purpose is not the transportation of goods or passengers, such as aerial fire-fighting, flight training, sightseeing, spraying, surveying, mapping, photography, parachute jumping, glider towing, helicopter-lift for logging and construction, and other airborne agricultural, industrial and inspection services; the rental of aircraft with crew; and airport operation services.
Page 74 and 75 seem to include, not quite a definition, but a “include, but are not limited to, the following” list, which includes
the following services provided using a manned aircraft, subject to compliance with the Parties respective laws and regulations governing the admission of aircrafts to, departure from and operation within, their territory: aerial fire-fighting; flight training; spraying; surveying; mapping; photography; and other airborne agricultural, industrial and inspection services;
It does look like a flying school can do what a private pilot can’t
And the agreement contains a reference to Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, which defines:
‘air service’ means a flight or a series of flights carrying passengers, cargo and/or mail for remuneration and/or hire;
OK, that seems to be clear then…
Rob wrote:
I was just wondering what you do if no one turns up as in the past, will this be more of a issue after Brexit?
Post-Brexit, I would make sure to physically meet them or at least fly to an airport where they are guaranteed to be around when I land (e.g. LFAT)
Them not turning up for immigration makes no difference (especially if crew/pax are not subject to immigration controls or visas) but for customs procedures someone has to be physically around, no? if it’s not for checking goods at least for aircraft VAT free circulation under temporary admission?
If you are leaving your aircraft at Poitiers for the whole trip, you are sure to be off the hook even if they don’t turn up when you land/depart but if you are transiting to fly elsewhere, you may want to physically meet them at least once during landing or takeoff, so an airport with permanent customs would be more ideal for the quick transit task…
arj1 wrote:
Aircraft must be equipped with sufficient navigation equipment to ensure that, in the event of the failure of one item of equipment at any stage of the flight, the remaining equipment allows safe navigation in accordance with the flight plan.
That’s considerably more restrictive than the EASA requirements which expressly does not require safe navigation in accordance with the flight plan – the ability to carry out a safe contingency action is sufficient.
Post-Brexit, I would make sure to physically meet them or at least fly to an airport where they are guaranteed to be around when I land
Disagree. You haven’t needed to going between Switzerland and the EU before, and in the UK you only had to submit a GAR when the UK was a member of the EU. So long as your paperwork is correct, I don’t see the issue.
