MedEwok wrote:
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.
Between 09 and ‘16 the CBI received more than £1million from the European Commission, nearly half of it came following Cameron’s announcement that there would be a referendum. EU funds accounted for 21% of the CBI’s income after tax. Hardly surprising which way they argue….
Listen to someone successful in business like Dyson, he makes a lot of good points.
It might be a really funny observation that the CAA is perhaps the only thing which the EU didn’t “buy” (in fact they pretty well did a Slater Walker on it) yet the CAA is one UK Govt agency which really wants to remain in EASA 
I don’t think the UK will want to leave EASA.
British Aerospace would be hit very hard indeed, and so would other aerospace businesses.
My thinking is that the current appetite to punish the UK for leaving might extend to hitting the UKs aerospace manufacturing industry. So the EU might not allow the UK to stay in.
Maybe this situation with the UK, who has been a valuable contributor to EASA, should really bring a reform of the agency in the sense that all members of EASA should have equal rights, their membership with the EU nonwithstanding. EASA regulates an area which is larger than the EU and therefore all states in the regulated area should have the same rights.
The blindingly obvious route for the UK, should the EU decide to shaft it on crew and hardware certification capability, is to align itself with the USA (the FAA).
Years ago, pre-JAA, the UK CAA would fairly routinely certify (via the AAN route) FAA STCd and otherwise certified parts. Accepting FAA certification unconditionally (as only Australia currently does, with STCs) would take about 5 minutes to draft into some Information Notice (probably even less time than it took to knock up the bizzare DfT-driven N-reg attack some months ago 
) and, hey, no new CAA certification staff required.
Same with crew licensing. The CAA does issue its own pilot papers, currently EASA compliant, but it could accept FAA ones – just like it used to do a few decades ago.
The USA de facto runs the majority of world aviation. Europe is just a tiny spot on the globe…
achimha wrote:
UK leaving EASA is in my view both not feasible and fully against the UK’s interest.
You could say the same thing about leaving the EU but that didn’t prevent Brexit.
You could say the same thing about leaving the EU but that didn’t prevent Brexit.
But ill-informed idiots fed false news by self interested and corrupt politicians took that decision, the EASA one will be by wise people based on facts and reason.
British Aerospace would be hit very hard indeed, and so would other aerospace businesses.
Can someone explain precisely how? For example, would it become as “difficult” for British firms to work with European defence and aerospace partners as it is now with Americans and Canadians?
the current appetite to punish the UK for leaving might extend to hitting the UKs aerospace manufacturing industry. So the EU might not allow the UK to stay in.
Precisely. So si vis pacem…
The blindingly obvious route for the UK, should the EU decide to shaft it on crew and hardware certification capability, is to align itself with the USA (the FAA).
While the unilateral removal of euro-protectionist barriers on imports from the Far East has the potential to turbocharge our aerospace and defence industries.
Peter wrote:
Taking just the highlighted sentence, this sounds very positive!
It’s already in the ANO (in the 2016 revision). If I get a G-reg Annex II aircraft that’s IFR capable, I can now fly with the full privileges in that aircraft with my FAA instrument rating. The 2016 ANO is more permissive than the old validation (which was restricted to day VFR or IFR ony outside of controlled airspace).
ill-informed idiots fed false news by self interested and corrupt politicians took that decision
I’m inclined to agree, and it was shameful. Did we really believe the British Prime Minister’s veiled threat of starvation in the event of a bad harvest, or his promise of cheap sugar and “more European Community money spent inside Britain”? Did we believe that “no important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament”?
Or were we just carried on a wave of youthful enthusiasm? Either way, we were indeed duped, but that was 42 years ago, and it seems that just enough of us are now “once fooled, twice shy”.
As for EASA – in or out? I’m not about to bet that that decision will be taken otherwise than in the perceived long-term interests of the industrialists on whose support the CDU depends.
