John Vincent

Brexit and Aviation 45

Ah the persistent and unpredictable ups and downs of Brexit. One political lesson to be learned from this dreadful mess is that a powerful slogan pitched at an opportune moment on fertile ground can have a big impact. “Take back control” means a hundred and one things to millions of people nevertheless those three words resonated on 23^rd June 2016. In Europe, we have spent 40 years taking down barriers. This move has dramatically increased opportunity and prosperity for the majority but created an insecurity amongst some groups. Control to them ment putting barriers back up.

In aviation, we recently celebrated 25 years of European liberalisation. It’s only because of open markets that we now have one billion passengers flying. We have high growth in a mature market which is globally unusual. If we return to nationalism dominating ownership and control of organisations it’s inevitable prices will rise, and growth will be impaired. Protectionism is a false God.

There’s no doubt that Europe has major infrastructure challenges. The capacity and quality of our transport systems is inadequate. In European aviation there’s strong common interests. Lines on the map may work on the ground but in the air the current arrangements make little sense. To solve these problems closer ties are needed not looser ones. Closer ties are needed if we are to continue to prosper from international tourism. In 2017, Europe remained the top visited region with more than 671 million tourist arrivals.

Close cooperation in safety and security essential. Facing these critical challenges alone is not viable. The only way to take control and have a real influence on the future is to cooperate. One of the elements of European cooperation that is assumed to continue regardless of Brexit is the European Union’s Single European Sky (SES) programme. Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs)[1] are a key tool of the EU’s SES programme, aiming to help reduce the fragmentation of air navigation services. The UK/Ireland FAB aims to contribute to meeting key performance targets on safety, cost efficiency, capacity/delay and the environment. Surely that stays?

The noisy voices that say the UK Government should sever all ties with the EU maybe don’t realise how that suggestion is extremely foolish. Let’s hope the instability caused but the Brexit will be viewed in 25 years’ time as a temporary phenomenon.

[1] https://www.ukirelandfab.eu/about/

Brexit and Aviation 44

One of the great flaws of the UK’s Brexit is that it doesn’t seem to have a direction, if you put aside relentless uncertainty, that is. What I mean is that there’s no high-level strategy that has been articulated by anyone with the power to implement it. The results of #Brexit might just as likely be Labour’s socialist utopia as it might be a version of Conservatives for Trump. Or even, more liklely a messy mish mash of lurching from political left to right in a purely reactive manner.

Often the UK has struggled with need to have a long-term vision. One aspect of membership of the European Union (EU) has been that it has provided stability and a general sense of direction. That has been a good compensation for the volatility of the day-to-day that keeps the media full of political stories in the UK.

That stability has been particularly true for Aviation and Aeronautics in Europe. These are businesses that need a long-term strategy because of the commitment and time it takes to go from research innovation to in-service maturity of a product. To succeed, civil aviation needs rules and regulations that are consistent, internationally compatible and that work.

On 5^th December, there’s an #EU Aeronautics Conference[1] taking place at the European Parliament @Europarl_EN. One of the speakers will be Tom Enders, the outgoing Chief Executive Officer (CEO)[2] of @Airbus. It certainly will be fascinating to hear of his reflections from his time in office. This annual conference has been initiated by the European Parliament’s Sky and Space Intergroup (SSI)[3]. It attracts high-level decision-makers from the EU Institutions including the Parliament, the Commission and the Council and the EU Agencies. This year is fine, but I’m left wondering what the UK will do in future years if Brexit goes ahead.

There’s no doubt that innovation and investment are key part of any aviation strategy. Being at the table when such subjects are being discussed is surely a matter of some importance. I can’t think for one moment that the UK will not be interested in competitiveness, a level playing field, and sustainable and greener aviation. Not only that but the unstoppable drive of digitization will impact everyone in the air transport system. There’s also the issue of the need to maintain a skilled workforce and the shortages that limit development. None of these big issues are for one Country alone. In fact, no one Country alone can address them effectively and be confident of success.

It would be better if Brexit didn’t happen but if it goes ahead then the imperative must be to keep these important relationships working for the benefit of all Europeans. We will not have to wait much longer to know what deal maybe proposed but whatever it is it will not be as good as what we have now.

[1] https://euaeronauticsconference.eu/

[2] https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/10/airbus-board-of-directors-selects-guillaume-faury-future-chief-e.html

[3] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/intergroupes/VIII_LEG_19_Sky_and_Space_20160608.pdf

Brexit and Aviation 43

There’s a sense of exhaustion with the Brexit process. So much as been on and off over such a long time that it’s difficult to know what’s real and what’s pure speculation. The “No-Deal” Brexit outcome has gone from “inconceivable” to “unlikely”. Those who want to see such an outcome are in a tiny minority, but they do make a lot of noise. All sorts of means are being used to try to influence the position taken by the UK Government. When it comes to the Government’s published technical notices, I remined of this quote: “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” – George Bernard Shaw. There’s a lot of discussion about many issues but few solid reliable facts on which to base future actions. That said, Minister’s statements continue to repeat that one of the Government’s priorities to secure an agreement on aviation and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

In preparing the aviation and aerospace communities the UK industry body ADS has launched an on-line site as a “Brexit Hub”[1]. This is a useful development as the UK and EU 27 continue to negotiate our long-term relationship.

Volatile noises left and right, up and down tend to dominate the British news. This weekend there’s some moderation and talk of “mutual recognition” being a possible outcome of the on-going UK-EU negotiations. One theory is that the “No-Deal” outcome is so unpalatable to both sides of the table that compromises are now sought.

Inside the EU, the internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of goods is ensured. That includes aeronautical products that meet the appropriate standards. A form of mutual recognition maybe a way of providing market access for products that are going and comming from a “third country”.

Naturally, this is not as simple as it sounds. It does mean two separate regulatory systems need to be kept in lock-step. Each notifying the other of any major changes that are planned. However, the start point for both UK and EU is a good one in that technical harmonisation already exists. Also, now in aviation, there doesn’t seem to be any great wish to diverge from current harmonised rules.

Another positive is that many aviation technical standards are international and are arrived at by consensus processes, engaging several competent authorities. Therefore, a form of mutual recognition doesn’t need to involve absorbing large technical differences and different ways of doing business. All of this would need to be written into a detailed agreement or working arrangement and that’s a big job for someone.

Problematic at this moment is the willingness of polticians to add a new barrier every day the negotiations continue. This brinkmanship has to come to an end. The consequences of a “No-Deal” Brexit, if it were to take place on 29^th March 2019 are so horrendous that no one would want be responsibility for it. Let’s hope that both the UK and EU work to secure a deal that delivers during and beyond Brexit, if it happens.

[1] https://www.adsgroup.org.uk/industry-issues/brexit-hub/

Brexit and Aviation 42

The roller-coaster that is Brexit continues to roll. One day positive news and the next negative. This week, British MPs were told that a Brexit deal would be done by the end of November. A few hours later the Minister’s department was forced to correct the record and say there was no set end date for UK-EU negotiations. With less than 150 days to go to the Article 50 end date, it’s like an aircraft on approach without any idea if there’s a runway ahead. Government would do well to remember the rule about flying – Every take-off is optional. Every landing is mandatory.

There are several rules of the air that could apply to the current situation:

Flying isn’t dangerous. Crashing is what’s dangerous.

Never let an aircraft take you somewhere your brain didn’t get to five minutes earlier.

Remember, gravity is not just a good idea. It’s the law. And it’s not subject to repeal.

I’ve written often this year. Now, 42 there’s a number to get to grips with as we reach November. If you are not familiar with THHGTTG then you have missed out big-time. Author Douglas Adams made that number the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Nothing I write here can ever match that answer.

Of note in the recent news is the European Parliament vote confirming relocation of European Medicines Agency and European Banking Authority after Brexit. UK loses out on influence as these two Agencies move to ensure minimal disruption to the EU’s Single Market beyond March 2019.

Views of the foreign Press don’t make nice reading. The German media have had quite a bit to say about how Brexit will affect everyone[1]. In Canada, they see the UK as being gripped by a self-destructive madness[2]. In the US, CNN says; Brexit is like a screaming child[3]. It’s clear that Brexit news won’t be slowing down any time soon.

The Treaty of European Union, known as The Maastricht Treaty, came into effect on 1 November 1993. Today is the 25th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty. It was signed by Ministers from the then 12 Member States. This Treaty is the one that avid Brexit supporters dislike so much. I remember the political climate that year as being one of change and turmoil. Change to the extent that I was elected as a County Councillor in Surrey along with 28 colleagues.

One innovation the Treaty brought to flying was that airport queues, solely for UK travellers were abolished in 1997. The Treaty introduced free movement for EU citizens. Now, the intention seems to be to dismantle that innovation, at least for British subjects. Maybe that’s one reason the Chancellor put and extra £500 million in the budget for preparations for leaving the EU.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-45564684/brexit-what-does-germany-s-media-think

[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-a-self-destructive-madness-grips-the-uk-as-a-no-deal-brexit-looms/

[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/14/opinions/brexit-is-a-screaming-child-opinion-intl/index.html

Flying pig award

I tried but I failed. When asked is there, for aviation, an upside to Brexit? I didn’t come up with anything that would justify the action. That’s me. Someone who is used to the ideas of cost-benefit analysis and the rational thinking that usually backs it up. Regulatory impact assessments used to be insisted upon by politicians wary of difficult rule changes. Let’s face it, over decades we have chosen to do things, or not do things based on consultation, rational discourse and detailed analysis. Those evaluations where always scrutinised to the nth degree.

Now, here we are doing something big that has no, or extremely little benefit and a huge almost unfathomable cost. If Brexit were documented in a notice of proposed amendment,[1][2] then it would get a horrible slating. It would end up in the waste-bin within a short space of time.

These are my views. If I’m true to the labels that I just put on myself then I’ll ask if others have a different interpretation. This is where the flying pig comes in. The expression “pigs might fly” goes way back in time. For hundreds of years it has been used as a response to overly optimistic prediction made by naïve people. It’s to say: that’s impossible in a jokey way but ever mindful that in a parallel universe such antics maybe commonplace.

That said, history is on my side. Back in 1909, the pioneer aviator Baron Brabazon of Tara, known to his friends as John Theodore Cuthbert Moore Brabazon, took a piglet aloft in his private biplane strapped into a wastepaper basket in a move to prove that pigs can take flight.

Perhaps somewhere pigs do fly now. In a sense they do, as livestock in cargo aircraft designed to move them from A to B. Generally, however intelligent they maybe as beasts, they haven’t figured out aeronautics just yet.

The question is: please describe a significant benefit that Brexit provides to civil aviation for the passenger or for the industry or the environment?

To win the Flying Pig Award the answer must be practical, realistic and based in fact.

Minor changes that benefit just a few privileged people will not cut it. It’s the hundreds of millions of typical passengers that I have in mind. It’s the industry that employs hundreds of thousands and it’s the local, regional and global environment.

I think my shiny silver pig money box is quite safe.

Sorry for passing over the two most notable upsides, namely: Blue passports and a Brexit 50p coin.

[1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment

[2] https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-process

Brexit and Aviation 41

There’s a distinct possibility that I will repeat myself in these articles. This should not be a problem.

Most of what happens in life is a matter of probability. There’s a high probability that I’ll have dinner this evening but there’s a low probability my local MP will dine with me. When dealing with risks the best anyone can do is to make both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the likelihood of the occurrence of an event. How good these turn out to be rather depends on the quality of the information upon which these assessments are made.

At this moment, there is a growing likelihood of a “No Deal” outcome to the Brexit negotiations.

Reasons being the continuing lack of a Parliamentary majority for the possible offer, stubborn pride of those involved and delayed planning. It’s utterly pointless to even think about the blame game – yet. Whatever happens, big changes will have to be made to cope with the new situation.

Early in the year, prudently the EU published a series of notices concerning the “No Deal” outcome. These were stark and based upon the UK becoming a “Third Country” with a blank sheet of paper in front of it. That’s a Country with no special arrangements with the EU. The basic reality of that case is that companies, organisations and individuals wishing to continue business with the EU post-Brexit may need to establish a presence in the EU 27. They may need to seek new approvals or new recognition of their qualifications and/or licences in an EU Member State[1].

UK technical notices offer the intention to unilaterally recognise EU certificates, licences and standards in the wish to minimise disruption, at least for a short time.

Recently in the UK Parliament, the Director General at the UK Department for Transport DfT[2], told the Public Accounts Committee that agreements on air services between Britain and the EU comprise “an area of growing concern to us”. Naturally, it would be sensible and mutually beneficial for both sides of the EU-UK negotiations to provide certainty and stability to people and businesses as soon as possible. Whilst significant efforts are being made to ensure the conclusion of an agreement on an orderly withdrawal, there’s a lot of remaining ground to cover. With around 5 months before the planned leaving date of 29 March 2019, detailed negotiations over air services have yet to get going.

As an aside, it’s strange how the truth of this precarious situation is often not evident from any viewing of the questions and debates in the House of Commons. I don’t say, UK Parliament because the House of Lords often seems to be more up to speed with EU matters than the Commons.

Last evening, I had the opportunity to stroll around both the Lords and the Commons[3]. I can see how its quite possible to become detached from everyday reality in a place so steeped in history. It looks more suited to page boys running around with handwritten notes than the high-speed interconnected world outside the building. 100 years ago, great reforms changed the shape of our society. To me, there’s need for another dramatic round of reforms to at least try to be in the 21^st Century.

[1] https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-confirms-no-deal-brexit-would-limit-caa-certifica-452144/

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport

[3] https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/visiting-parliament-news/museums-at-night-october-2018/

Brexit: where now?

The text of an 8-minute speech made at “Negotiating Brexit: where now?” an event organised by The UK in a Changing Europe in London.

—

I’ve just noted that there are a couple of similarities between the aviation industry and the finance industry: Fragmentation is bad, industry owns the risks, and there will be some unexpected outcomes

My name is John Vincent, I formerly worked for the UK Civil Aviation Authority

Then went to Europe in 2004

To help set up EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency which is based in Cologne.

I had 11 happy years helping to build that Agency.

So, it saddens me greatly that we find ourselves in the situation that we do today

Aviation is a global and Aviation is multifaceted

It is one of the more highly regulated, just as finance, industries and there’s good reason for that

Regulation comes in the form of – social, economic, safety and with growing importance environmental regulation

It (Aviation) achieves incredible performance. If you think we are flying a billion passengers (not flights) around Europe every year

And they (flights) are done with a level of safety that they are

It proves that the regulatory system is working very effectively indeed

It’s a multifaceted industry so all these aspects of regulation will require a different or new approach as we move away from the European system

Whether it’s Design, Manufacturing, Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul

There is the Continuing Airworthiness of those aircraft that are flying

Whether it’s the Air Navigation Service Providers

I sorry about the list but it’s how many aspects there are to the industry

The Airlines who hold the Air Operators Certificates

The Airports

Approved Training Organisations

Whether that’s training pilots, engineers or air traffic controllers. There’s cabin crew training

Commercial pilots licencing

The new world of drones and vertical take-off aircraft – Uber flying taxies

Flight training examiners

Licensed engineers

Even private pilots

We have spent several decades harmonising European rules

At great effort on the part of the UK

And contrary to what many Eurosceptics will tell you

The UK has been exceedingly influential in the way in which these regulations have been established

When I started in this business we had BCARs – British Civil Airworthiness Requirements

We went through a period with an organisation called the JAA – Joint Aviation Authorities

Which was like a club

And then back in 2003, we had the formation of EASA

A tremendous amount of effort and work put in by UK specialists (and many others), UK regulators

We have led in Europe

There are many other areas, apart from the ones I’ve mentioned that are also affected by the changes that are coming

Research and Innovation for example

Whether we will be able to participate in Horizon 2020 or whatever comes next

Aviation is not a static business – it’s very dynamic

Even in the area of accident and incident investigation there are now European harmonised rules

Consumer protection – another example

There are rules that give you compensation if you are delayed at the airport too long

I’ve mentioned the environment – noise and emissions

The EU has played a very important role within ICAO – International Civil Aviation Organisation

In moving forward rulemaking on the environment

It’s been pivotal in implementing change

Now, the assumption is (general) a cut and paste of the whole of the regulations affecting aviation to incorporate them in UK law

So, you will expect to see, if there is a Withdraw Agreement, a huge Statutory Instrument that takes lock, stock and barrel all the rules that are applied and embeds them in UK law

Now if that works that should facilitate a relative smooth transition

You might ask what the point in the first place is for the change

Then comes the question of – what about the future?

Will there be regulatory divergence?

Or will we continue to be members of EASA?

And will we continue, as Norway and Switzerland are, non-EU Member States but participating in the EU system.

These two Countries are relevant (to our situation). Norway has a large operator

Switzerland has a manufacturing industry

So, will we continue to be an influential force in Europe?

And thereby and influential force in the world? And I say and influential force in the world

Because you cannot believe the rate at which China is training young engineers

If we are to sustain our position as a success in aerospace

Then we have to be as innovative as our colleagues (competitors) are

The world is not stopping because we are doing Brexit

We have to (in some way) ensure that we can compete

And I have doubts that an independent UK that is moving away from this infrastructure that we have built (together)

A fellow over there asked me, before I came up to speak, is there something positive you can say?

Maybe there is

A smaller regulatory entity can be more innovative

Not so much with the Hard Law but in the Soft Law and the standards that are applied

So, if we are trying to enhance urban mobility, for example, or facilitate the use of electric aircraft and the environmental improvements the maybe a smaller more dynamic regulator can do it faster

But even then, this can’t be done in isolation

They would have to work closely with others across the globe.

END

References:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8306203/7-11102017-BP-EN.pdf/88f3089c-20d7-4bbe-8012-68addd95cee9

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/flying-cars-set-certified-european-regulators/

Brexit and Aviation 40

There are some documents that are essential for the smooth operation of aviation. When it comes to moving products, parts or components of aircraft around the world the Authorised Release Certificate is key. This certificate must be trusted and accepted by those who receive it. Even with an international framework that describes how this is done this acceptance is not automatic.

In Europe, the format of Authorised Release Certificates has been harmonised after decades of work. In addition, work has been undertaken harmonise the instructions for completing these standard release forms.

The EASA Form 1[1] is the Authorised Release Certificate provided by a manufacturing organisation (Part-21 POA holder) for stating that a product, a part, or a component was manufactured in accordance with approved design data.

What that means is that the form accompanies an aircraft product, like say an engine, and if it’s not valid that product cannot be used. Organisations doing maintenance, repair and overhaul must keep detailed records when working on an aircraft.

As an example, in Europe we may have a British manufactured aircraft engine being fitted to a Spanish registered aircraft in a German hanger by an engineer who holds a Dutch licence. For this to happen in an approved manner the paperwork must be accurate, complete and valid. If the EASA Form 1 coming with the British manufactured aircraft engine is not recognised, then the work described above cannot take place.

I’ve described this situation because there’s the possibility that in a full “No Deal” Brexit there will be no automatic recognition of a British issued EASA Form 1.

This is not the first time I’ve mentioned the EASA Form 1[2]. The reason for mentioning it again is that I became more acutely aware of this problem when visiting a major conference and exhibition in Amsterdam. On Wednesday last, I chaired a one-hour panel discussion on: “Regulatory Changes and Challenges”. This included a Policy Specialist (Brexit) from the UK CAA. He described the preparatory work that’s being done and some of the differences in positions between UK published papers and EU published papers. To date, the UK CAA and EASA are not in formal talks. Both are ready to initiate technical discssions but this is being held up by the lack of clarity in relation to the withdrawl agreement (See exchange of letters from June/July).

I conclude that rash headlines that suggest a “No Deal” option is doable are way off the mark. The regulatory maxim – trust but verify – must be satisfied one way or another.

[1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/faq/19466

[2] https://johnwvincent.wordpress.com/category/form-1/

Brexit and Aviation 39

Reading reports of air accidents is not everybody’s cup of tea. Nevertheless, the insights they contain are a constant reminder that no matter how safe civil aviation maybe, it can always be better. There’s always something to learn.

This week, US accident investigators issued a report on what could have been an immense catastrophe. Planes full of passengers came within 60 feet of each other as an Air Canada flight[1] was about to land on a taxiway by mistake. This happened just before midnight on 7 July 2017 in San Francisco. The US National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) said that: “Over 1,000 people were at imminent risk of serious injury or death.”

As people have commented this is a stark reminder of the worst civil aviation accident that ever occurred. In 1977, 593 people died when two Boeing 747 planes collided on a runway in Tenerife on the Canary Islands.

Because of the San Francisco incident, the NTSB is considering recommending that accident cockpit voice recorders record the last 25 hours of flying time. The current US rule is for 2 hours and then the recording overwrites.

So, what has this got to do with Brexit?

After a series of accidents in the last decade, including the Malaysian Boeing 777 mysteriously lost over the ocean (flight MH370), Europe acted. A detailed rulemaking process resulted in a EU Regulation[2] that includes key changes to mandatory accident flight recorder rules. These required changes to planes that must be made in a practical manner to meet a deadline specified in the EU Regulation[3]. The rule applies to large planes manufactured after 1 January 2021. Clearly, that date is after Brexit’s infamous 29 March 2019. I cannot imagine that, whether the UK is in the EU or not, it would make any changes to this planned implementation date. However, a mandatory action, like this one must be incorporated in the applicable national legislation. That is how it would be applied to British registered planes.

That’s the interesting point. Will all those European actions with implementation dates after 29 March 2019 be copied into UK law? It would be good to see the answer “yes” written down.

POST POST NOTE: I hear the answer is “no”. Although all the applicable European law will be copied into UK law a mandatory date that is in the future will be edited out.

[1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/air-canada-close-call-came-a-few-feet-from-possibly-being-worst-aviation-accident-in-history-1.4131146

[2] COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/2338 of 11 December 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 as regards requirements for flight recorders, underwater locating devices and aircraft tracking systems.

[3] ….with respect to the carriage of CVRs with extended recording duration for large aeroplanes, provision should be made for the introduction of CVR with a recording duration of 25 hours on board aircraft, manufactured after 1 January 2021, with a maximum certificated take-off mass of over 27 000 kg.

Brexit and Aviation 38

Today’s batch of posted Government notices have a weakness that is too obvious to mention. Piecemeal publications addressing what seem like random subjects on decidedly technical issues are great for the administrators and lawyers of service providers. However, there’s no easy to understand information for the general public. It’s good to know what the implications of “No Deal” are for package holidays[1] but little of what is provided will help the average British shopper. If someone buys a holiday packages from an EU based travel company, they may or may not be protected depending upon whether that company has a UK business. Try explaining that to someone scanning the INTERNET and comparing travel deals. Yes, the fine print always matters but if you think you’re dealing with a reputable travel company and the price is right, a Government technical notice may not be high on your mind even if you know it exists. The national media are making their own reading of the notices and that paints a gloomy picture for spring next year in the UK. Here’s the view from ITV.

So, my advice is; have a good winter break and don’t book anything for April 2019. It would be as well to look at the individual airline and travel company too. Some will be better prepared than others. Some will have special terms and conditions to cope with potential problems. Some will still be pretending the change is minor or will go away.

Another of the big Brexit issues that isn’t given much attention is the coincidence of risks. What I mean by this is that; normal emergency planning is focused on one major event. A hurricane, a banking crisis, a plane crash are all examples of catastrophes where a Government should have an emergency plan.

The problem with Brexit at 00:00 on 29 March 2019 is that everything will happen at once. I’m not saying the weather will change, although who knows? but each sector will go through a significant transition at the same time. Even within each sector, like Aviation, every part of it will have to transition in one moment. Some parts will be impacted, and others will not.

Trying to anticipate all the combinations and permutations of interdependencies and interconnections that will be impacted is a daunting task. Because of the limited time and the sheer complexity of the task even a good analysis will miss important connections.

On the political front all we hear is – it’ll be alright on the night. It may be comforting to think that a smooth and orderly Brexit is possible in ALL scenarios. However, you would be foolish to be taken in by such an assurance. Unprecedented disruption is likely in a real “No Deal”.

I’ve got a couple of events in the calendar where Brexit will be a topic. One is a conference in London called: Negotiating Brexit: Where Now? Conference[2].

The other is a “Regulatory Changes and Challenges” panel session at MRO Europe[3], taking place in Amsterdam between 16-18 October.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consumer-rights-if-theres-no-brexit-deal–2/consumer-rights-if-theres-no-brexit-deal

[2] https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/negotiating-brexit-where-now-tickets-50182431002

[3] https://mroeurope.aviationweek.com/eu18/Public/Enter.aspx