KidTempo⭐ Profile picture
Oct 8, 2018 32 tweets 6 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Jet engines are not my area of expertise, but I am an auditor (and not the accounting kind) so let's do this thing.

(Bear in mind that I'm making some generalisations here and I haven't had time to actually do any research so don't take any specifics as gospel)
"Important" industries tend to have one or more international agencies or regulators. For aviation, the ICAO sits at the top with the FAA, the EASA, and probably a whole load of national agencies as the actual regulators.
At the highest level, all regulators generally align their regulations (on procedures, parts, testing, etc.) up to a certain point, at least in so far as to accept each others certification. This allows a EASA-certified plane to fly within the FAA jurisdiction, and vice-versa.
EASA-certified plane parts must also comply with EASA regulations, be inspected and certified by the EASA. To fit a non-certified part would cause the plane to lose its certification.
I don't know if the EASA tests/audits are all conducted using EASA inspectors/auditors, or if they accredit regulators at a national level. Lets pretend that they do and the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been accredited by the EASA.
(Just making it absolutely clear that the CAA is something I made up - I think it used to, it may still do - it may or may not actually exist)
As a national regulator, the CAA may be accredited to certify some or all of the EASA's regulations. It may be limited to part of the scope - for example it can certify the maintenance, but not manufacturing procedures, etc - or it could have full accreditation and do it all.
The CAA would be regularly audited by the EASA to ensure that it is enforcing the regulations and following the test guidance etc. The inspectors/auditors themselves may be separately accredited by the CAA, the EASA, or both.
Now, if, as a result of #Brexit, no provision has been made to continue the relationship between the CAA and the EASA, then whatever the CAA is responsible for is no longer certifiable.
CAA-certified aeroplane parts cannot be used.
CAA-certified maintenance is no longer valid.
Without certification planes won't fly - not because they can't, but because they will be uninsured - and no company will risk flying without insurance (if it's even legal to do so).
Can the CAA get re-accredited by the EASA? Yes (in fact, it may not even lose its accreditation in the first place). The simplest option is that the CAA continues functioning as before as an EASA-accredited regulatory body...

... but, there are caveats.
The CAA would have zero input into the decisions made by the EASA. It would have to follow EASA direction in all things and essentially be a subsidiary agency. Parts manufacturers may have to either get EASA certification, or CAA and EASA certification.
The CAA may be stuck between a rock and a hard place since any changes to national laws could invalidate their certification. If, for example, environmental laws were changed, the CAA would still have to enforce the EASA standard - or worse, if they were changed then...?
The fact that ministers would be able to change rules and regulations with their Henry VIII powers means they could, without warning, ground the entire industry - possibly inadvertently (but also as a bellicose gesture to the EU, the twats).
The alternative would be for the CAA to try to be accepted as a top-tier accredited regulator - that would probably mean getting the approval of all the other regulators. This wouldn't be so hard, since presumably the CAA would effectively be starting with EASA regulations.
Of course, at this higher level there would probably have to be nation-state agreements about ring-fencing parts of the regulation so they can't be changed by mischievous ministers - that takes time (think months rather than days).
Both of the above options assume that the CAA is accredited to the full scope of the EASA regulations (and that it exists). If it is only accredited to provide certification for a partial scope, then it needs to put in place regulations, processes and procedures for the gaps.
The CAA may need to get hold of qualified inspectors, auditors and administrators to cover the functions currently covered by the EASA. For highly specialised roles, this may be no easy task.
Once it has done all that, it has to persuade the other aviation regulators that it is competent to certify the full scope.
This is not just certifying the UKs planes to fly in other's airspace and use their airports, it's servicing other nation's planes when at UK airports.
In addition to the above, it *still* doesn't mean that UK aero parts will be accepted for use in the EASA, FAA, etc. Regulators are very protective of their jurisdiction - manufacturers will need to get EASA certification to sell parts for EU-built planes (in addition to CAA)
The CAA becoming a top-tier regulator will take much longer than just becoming an extension of the EASA - maybe a year or two at least.
And if the CAA doesn't exist... well it's possible to build up a regulator from scratch, but it won't be easy and it will take a lot of time and money. I'm not sure how the UK will get by without air travel for 2+ years.
It can short-cut and just copy and paste regulations from someone (like the EASA) but it will struggle to find enough competent people to fill the roles. It could also pay the EASA large sums of money to be the UK's regulator while it builds it's own, thats an (expensive) option.
The point I'm trying to make here is that while it's not impossible for the UK to divorce itself from the EU's agencies, it is time consuming, expensive, and fraught with difficulties. If anyone tells you it's simple, they're either idiots or liars, or both.
This is just one example, at a *very* simplified level (and I'll just reiterate that it's mostly made up to try to illustrate the concept of accredited regulators - it is not factually based).
There are literally dozens of industries that have the same question marks hanging over them - some of them very important ones like Pharma & Medical, Agriculture, Chemicals, and many more.
Some will be fine - they're already following a global standard and their regulator is either global, or they are under the jurisdiction of a national regulator accredited at the global level. Many- and that tends to include the "important" industries - are not.
In a NoDeal #Brexit - huge sections of the UK economy will be in turmoil - not (just) because of the government having no tbi-lateral trade agreements and having fucked up the customs arrangements...
... but also because they will suddenly be without certification and cannot legally be sold in the countries they export to. Negotiating bi-lateral trade agreements will be, in many cases, only half of the battle.
The UK shall also need to establish an accredited regulator and have its certifications recognised, which could take as long, if not longer.
#Brexit - bad.
Yeah, I'm an auditor. Nobody likes auditors turning up, especially when they least expect it.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with KidTempo⭐

KidTempo⭐ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KidTempo

Oct 7, 2018
You're not understanding that this isn't about trade between companies, it's about trade agreements between states. If SK has a default tariff of 30% on aero, but has negotiated a 10% tariff rate for the first £10Bn/yr with the EU - that puts the UK companies at a disadvantage.
An SK company buying the aero parts is going to be choosing between EU parts at a 10% tariff or UK parts at 30%. Which are they going to choose?
Of course, the UK would want to rack up an say they want a trade agreement too. They want, let's say 5% tariffs on aero parts. SK may say they want a reciprocal 5% tariff on mobile phones (it's 10% with the EU, but they have the leverage so they can argue for a better agreement)
Read 22 tweets
Oct 3, 2018
French and Dutch voted ignored? Hardly. Their no votes caused the proposed Constitution to be shelved. Over the next 3 years it was amended to become the Lisbon treaty.
When Ireland voted no on the Lisbon treaty, over 40% of voters stated that not knowing enough about the treaty as the primary reason for their vote, followed by a lack of clarity on certain issues.
The EU gave clarity and legal reassurances on the issues identified (turning some of the more open-ended clauses into more tightly defined ones - kind of like making mini-amendments) to address these concerns and asked them to vote again.
Read 26 tweets
Apr 25, 2018
Well, that's Wales sold down the river.

This BBC article shows the contradictions in the Welsh Assembly's argument (as unclearly as possible, which I can only presume is intentional)…
It says at the same time that devolved powers will be preserved except the role of Brussels being transferred to Westminster (which sounds reasonable), but at the same time that Westminster wants to apply a common UK-wide policies.
"Common UK-wide policies" basically means Westminster will dictate the policies, which contradicts that the devolved powers will be able to control their implementation - unlike now where the EU defines the policy and the devolved assemblies implement them as appropriate.
Read 6 tweets
Apr 22, 2018
#ABTVtoStopBrexit isn't about affecting the balance of power or forcing a General Election. #ABTV is about sending a message to the Tories, and *especially* to Labour that people don't support *any* #Brexit. Not a #HardBrexit, #SoftBrexit, #NoDealBrexit, #Lexit, or *any* Brexit.
The Tory's control more than half of councils, nearly double Labour. Losing control of even half of them is unrealistic, and even if it happened under fixed term government I can all but guarantee it won't result in a General Election.
A Prime Minister calls a GE under two circumstances:
1) They are miles ahead in the polls and think they can increase their majority (as in 2017)
2) They have suffered a humiliating defeat or scandal.
Read 24 tweets
Apr 16, 2018
I'd rather be on the losing side than the wrong side.
I'd rather be on the side of facts and reason, than impotent feelings of no control and paranoid fantasy.
I'd rather be on the side of cooperation with our neighbors, than competition with a made-up enemy.
I'd rather be on the side of compassion and humanity, than xenophobia and racism.
I'd rather be on the side of unity and solidarity, than nativism, nationalism, and even fucking fascism.
Look at the people who you share your side with, and look at mine.

We may have lost a referendum, but we were not wrong. We are not wrong now, not today, not tomorrow, not in the weeks, months, and years to come. We will not give up and we will be proved right!
Read 6 tweets
Apr 5, 2018
#Remain voted for:

A say in whether the EU enlarges or not.
A say in if the EU federalises or remains a union of independent states.
A say in if there is an EU army.
Being the financial capital through which the majority of € is traded while still keeping the £.


The UK has taken the lead in efforts for EU enlargement. It pushed for the inclusion of Eastern European states. It pushed for Turkey to get its shit together so that it could join (which it made very slow progress with, and has largely been undone by Erdogan)
After #Brexit, the UK will have no influence on EU enlargement. In fact, as setting the EU as a rival, every country that joins the EU will a) strengthen the EU, and b) unravels any trade deals that the UK will have made with that country, isolating it further.
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!