UK to leave EASA at end of 2020

[zocalo]

Looks like the UK is planning on leaving the European Aviation Safety Agency, the body responsible for the pan-EU standardisation of drone regulations, at the end of 2020. The UK has already committed to adopting this regulation (it becomes UK law from July 2020), but there are potential implications for the next stages of drone regulation - especially for commercial operations requiring things like BVLOS - so might be of interest to some here.

That's a small part of EASA's duties of course - it's mainly concerned with manned aircraft and certifying their flight status - e.g. they would need to sign off on the 737 Max's return to service - so I'd expect this to have a far greated impact on the civilian airline operators. Neither ADS, the UK industry body for this, and Airlines UK, representing the UK's airlines, don't exactly sound enthused by the move, but I guess it's just another thing the Brexit negotiators are going to have to tackle.

 

[Manty]

Lets hope they do not study the system in the USA for drones!!!!!!!

 

[bumper]

As a former "Limey", I'd say it certainly will be a challenge to come up with something worse than EASA - I'm sure they are up to it.

 

[StuartM]

As a former "Limey", I'd say it certainly will be a challenge to come up with something worse than EASA - I'm sure they are up to it.

What's the main problem with it?

 

[bumper]

What's the main problem with it?

It's a bureaucracy. Similar to our FAA. Unhappy stories are legion. Motto, "We're not happy, 'til you're not happy!" or, "We've upped our standards, now up yours!"

 

[StuartM]

So you want lower standards?

 

[zocalo]

It's a bureaucracy. Similar to our FAA. Unhappy stories are legion. Motto, "We're not happy, 'til you're not happy!" or, "We've upped our standards, now up yours!"

Kinda, but you do realise what the consequence of this is? Spoiler: it's *more* bureaucracy!

EASA is actually a bit more "meta" in that it sets the standardised policies that span the EU and does much of the certification work that the FAA does, but each nation has its own version of the FAA - the CAA in the UK's case - that are more direct equivalents to general aviation oversight and control of the airspace within each jurisdiction. Structurally, that seems pretty sensible to me - letting EASA handle all the EU-wide stuff while regional bodies handle the mostly national stuff and compliance with EASA standards should provide some pretty decent cost savings compared to (say) 28 countries individually having to certify a given aircraft as airworthy.

What is being proposed is to have the CAA take on all the responsiblities that we previously let the EASA handle, which the EASA will still be doing anyway - so instead of paying £4m/year we're going to be paying £40m/year (according to the figures in the article - add salt to taste). So yeah, we've basically just created another FAA, and opened the door to all sorts of hilarity if ever the CAA and EASA should ever make different rulings like, say, whether the 737Max is fit to return to service. Assuming the CAA doesn't just rubber stamp whatever filings the FAA/EASA make that is, because there's no way you are going to spin up an airframe certification body in the 9 months left of the transition period, no matter how many UK resources you pull back from EASA.

For some EU-bodies, sure, it makes sense for the UK to withdraw and go its own way to fullfil the spirit of Brexit and "taking control", but for things that are inherently international like this it's just dumb given that we'd have to align with international partners like EASA anyway. It's not like the CAA could certify an airframe the EASA has declined to do and thus enable airlines to operate flights using that airframe between the UK and the EU, so there's actually no "taking control" here at all; just more of the expense and wasted effort typical of additional bureaucracy.

 

[FoxhallGH]

By being able to have an EU-wide standardisation, and an EU-wide standards agency, it meant that the economies of scale kept the costs down. The big problem I see for the whole Aviation industry in general in the UK is that the CAA is going to have to duplicate EASA, and the cost of that is going to fall on the UK aviation business, and users of CAA airspace! We may soon be looking back nostalgically on the days when it was just £9 p.a. to hold a drone Operator Registration.

 

[Lastrexking]

I think the DoT and the CAA need to clear on what the path forward is for all operators. They decided to release this information without any information on how they will regulate the industry post EASA.

So, even for the little fish like drone operators and training providers there is now a degree of uncertainty - which will have an economic impact.

I know the training provider I use aren't happy about the news, as people are now holding off on booking courses for the A2 CofC and the GVC until a clear statement is made about future regulation.

 

[FoxhallGH]

It seems to be the hallmark of the current Government, to promote uncertainty in all sectors. I just don't know what they are trying to prove!

 

[Lastrexking]

It seems to be the hallmark of the current Government, to promote uncertainty in all sectors. I just don't know what they are trying to prove!

As a Civil Servant for over twenty five years I can say with confidence that this is the worst Government I've ever worked under. The goal posts are constantly moving. We deliver a piece of work that's taken months or years only to find that they've changed their minds. The money wasted is scandalous. Mean while, I haven't had anything greater than 1% pay rise since 2012.

/rant

 

[zocalo]

It seems to be the hallmark of the current Government, to promote uncertainty in all sectors. I just don't know what they are trying to prove!

The government "strategy" seems to be anything that is based or headquartered in the EU has to be chucked out and done-over because "taking control of our own borders/laws" regardless of how much practical sense that makes, e.g. for things like EASA membership. Minor matters like providing those impacted with clarity over the future direction doesn't seem to matter, and besides, that's the kind of details we have civil servants to address, right?

Extrapolate that to everything which it might apply to (it's a *very* long list) and those anxious over the prospect of defaulting to WTO are probably going to have an apoplexy. I get the impression Boris was actually quite serious when he came out with that "F*** Business!" comment - he really doesn't care about the repercussions of his vision for Brexit, only "getting it done." Easy to say with hindsight (and water under the bridge) but if you'd been able to predict this chaos and present it as the likely outcome of a Leave vote during the Remain campaign I suspect that would have given a lot more people pause than some of the quite ridiculous assertions they were making as part of "Project Fear". C'est la vie.

Totally empathise with @Lastrexking on this - I work with civil servants a lot, and it's definitely been a complete shambles due to all the uncertainty since the referendum announcement, let alone the result, and the wasted money in government alone makes our EU contributions (let alone the benefits we get back) look like a pittance. It's even worse when you consider what industry has wasted getting ready for the moving goalposts of the actual date of leaving and the likely terms under which we'll be doing so (if any - WTO is still very much a possibility). The damage suffered in in my consultancy/engineering sector is now bordering on catastrophic, and we still don't have anywhere near the level of clarity we need to chart a course for the business through it that isn't a mess of unqualifiable risks and assumptions. Worse yet, I suspect they're only just getting started and we'll get a lot more of these as negotiations progress.

 

[gnirtS]

EASA was a non-starter after Brexit. It had the ECJ as the dispute settlement system so was never going to be possible. The UK voted brexit - theres no way a system that has EU judges overriding national systems could stay.

There is a lot wrong with EASA too (manned aviation wise). It'll take a while and investment for the CAA to return to the level it was prior to integration but in the long run, worth it.

Drone related - i cant see any changes over the current EU wide rules though.

Hopefully WTO can happen sooner rather than later so the UK can start looking after itself and its own interests.

 

[zocalo]

EASA was a non-starter after Brexit. It had the ECJ as the dispute settlement system so was never going to be possible. The UK voted brexit - theres no way a system that has EU judges overriding national systems could stay.

Sure, but there's a big difference between the "all out" approach being taken and the "align with EASA standards, but free to set our own rules and resolve disputes" approach that the industry was pushing for. If we're going to be doing that with everything the ECJ ultimately presides over (most of that LONG list I mentioned), then we're going to be taking our small piece of a LOT of toys home with us (think more "corner flag, than ball or goal posts) and trying to cobble something functional together from it. It's going to cost us a lot more to do that than it is the EU to patch up the missing piece, and the ultimate benefits are basically non-existant - we're either going to have to comply with international standards set by larger bodies with more weight anyway (US/EU/etc.) or be prepared for issues in things like which aircraft airlines can operate between the UK and elsewhere.

The real problem is the interim. It's all very well saying "this is what we're going to do", but what really matters is "HOW we're going to do it", and "What happens in the interim?" I have no doubt the CAA (and the rest) can get there in the end, but how many years is that going to take - TFA says maybe 10 years, which I can well believe knowing how things work when it comes government procedure and policy. And then there's what happens in the interim, or even once we're up and running without our equivalent. It's not like there's a WTO-style default for things like this, so it's still just going to be rubber stamping whatever the equivalent EU/US/whatever body issues, isn't it? If this is "taking control", I'm not really seeing it.

 

[gnirtS]

Yes interim is the problem (blame Theresa May for all that) but it is what it is.
ECJ is a complete non starter with Brexit and this it EASAs sole dispute mechanism. They look as if they're refusing to budge on any alternate or neutral arbitration bodies (ECJ is never, ever neutral) so theres no choice but to leave.
EASA is far from perfect - its had some utterly utterly moronic decisions and rulings of late.
Yes there'll be interim problems but thats what happens when you've had 40+ years of most of your organisational bodies being castrated. It'll take time to adapt, find the expertise that has been lost and replace.
In the long run, being IN EASA will cost us more than being out, but not on a 3-5 year timescale.

Most of the mess is May and her government not wanting to leave then not admitting people voted to leave, then doing everything in their power to prevent leaving anything at all. Its wasted years and years of preparation time. That's negligence to a level thats almost criminal.

 

[FoxhallGH]

Yes interim is the problem (blame Theresa May for all that) but it is what it is.
ECJ is a complete non starter with Brexit and this it EASAs sole dispute mechanism. They look as if they're refusing to budge on any alternate or neutral arbitration bodies (ECJ is never, ever neutral) so theres no choice but to leave.
EASA is far from perfect - its had some utterly utterly moronic decisions and rulings of late.
Yes there'll be interim problems but thats what happens when you've had 40+ years of most of your organisational bodies being castrated. It'll take time to adapt, find the expertise that has been lost and replace.
In the long run, being IN EASA will cost us more than being out, but not on a 3-5 year timescale.

Most of the mess is May and her government not wanting to leave then not admitting people voted to leave, then doing everything in their power to prevent leaving anything at all. Its wasted years and years of preparation time. That's negligence to a level thats almost criminal.

At a guess, I'd say you voted 'leave' in the referendum @gnirtS ???

 

[gnirtS]

At a guess, I'd say you voted 'leave' in the referendum @gnirtS ???

...As did the majority of the country. By a decent margin if you exclude London which isn't really the standard UK demographic.

Ultimately the result was leave so has to be implemented. A few years were wasted by attempts to overturn it and largely responsible for the disorganised mess because so much time has been wasted.

EASA would mean ECJ supremacy and quite simply, that isn't compatible with brexit (it was the key reason for leave with some).

So certainly mutual recognition and other things can be made with EASA for licences, certifications of airframes and so on but it cant be *in charge*.

 

[bushie]

Can no see the problem. Oz is much smaller population wise than the UK yet we manage to be a completely sovereign nation and make our own rules, have an independent CASA etc.. I worked in the UK for a few years and could not believe how much sovereignty the UK gave away.

 

[JaredReabow]

this will be very interesting, especially because right ow they have banned things like sprayer drones in the UK for seemingly no reason

 

[Lastrexking]

The CAA tweeted yesterday that the new regs will still come into force in July.

Also, they are integrated into CAP 1789, so effectively part of UK Air Regulation.

Based on that, I can't see it changing anytime soon.