An Interview with Steven Bentley, FRAeS CEO of Sofema

Interviewer: Steve, it’s February 2026. We’ve moved past the initial shock of Brexit, but your recent analysis suggests we’ve entered a much more complex phase of “institutional decoupling.” You’ve described the UK CAA as being “unleashed like a teen with a sports car.” Why is that analogy so fitting for the current state of UK aviation?

Steve Bentley: Well, it’s a bit of a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. For years, the UK CAA was the pragmatic, “grown-up” voice within EASA – often the only people in the room with actual hangar floor experience. Now, they have the sovereignty they wanted, and they’re using it to rewrite inherited EU laws under the 2023 Revocation and Reform Act. But in their rush to be a “regulatory laboratory” for new tech like hydrogen and eVTOLs, they are ignoring the practical consequences for the industry. They’re driving fast, but they might be driving right off a cliff in terms of international recognition.

Interviewer: You’ve mentioned that the primary engine of this divergence is the independent legislative cycle. How is the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026 changing the game this May?

Steve Bentley: It’s a fundamental shift. The UK is amending Article 71 of the UK Basic Regulation. Historically, exemptions were for “urgent operational needs.” Now, the CAA can grant them for trials of new technology and autonomous flight. While the UK sees this as a “regulatory sandbox” for innovation, EASA is sticking to its prescriptive “Single Rulebook.” The UK is trading market alignment for speed. You might get a hydrogen drone certified in the UK quickly, but good luck getting that certification recognized across the Channel.

Interviewer: Let’s talk about the “Maintenance Declaration” vs. the Form 1. You’ve called this a “nuanced point of divergence.” What does it mean for the average UK domestic operator?

Steve Bentley: This is where the “shadow organization” reality really bites. The UK’s 2025 regulations allow certain low-risk components to be fitted with just a “declaration of maintenance” from a Design Organization, rather than a full Form 1. It saves money for domestic flights, sure. But EASA doesn’t recognize those declarations. Those parts are effectively “illegal” in the EU.

Interviewer: So, are we looking at a split in the global supply chain?

Steve Bentley: Exactly. UK firms now have to segregate their stock: “UK-only” parts vs. “EASA-compliant” parts. It’s a bifurcated system that adds massive administrative overhead. You’re managing two different sets of paperwork for the same piece of hardware.

Interviewer: You’ve described a “Regulatory Tax” on SMEs. Can you elaborate on the “shadow organization” model that firms are being forced to adopt in 2026?

Steve Bentley: If you’re a UK firm with European ambitions, you effectively have to run two companies in one. For Part 145 (Maintenance), you must hold Third Country EASA approval. That means you’re paying for EASA audits on top of your CAA oversight. You’re doubling your compliance costs. For Part 21 (Design), even with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), EASA is increasingly doing “technical re-reviews” of UK designs. It’s a redundant, expensive cycle.

Interviewer: We are at the five-year mark of the TCA Review. Many hoped this would be a “reset” to restore mutual recognition for licensing and training. What is the reality on the ground?

Steve Bentley: The reality is a cold shower. The 2026 Review is a technical exercise, not a treaty reopening. EU officials are very clear: Article 776 is for auditing what exists, not adding new perks. EASA won’t give the UK a better deal than they give the US or Canada because it would break their global strategy. Unless the UK accepts “dynamic alignment” – including the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice – EASA isn’t interested. And we know that’s a political red line for London.

Interviewer: Speaking of training, you recently agreed that current trends are adding to the “Training Burden” without appreciable benefit. How is Sofema adapting to this?

Steve Bentley: It’s become a nightmare for training providers. Initially, we could merge UK and EASA materials. No longer. We’ve had to create standalone courses because the rules are diverging so fast. A Part 145 holder now faces redundant training – like doing Part 66 modules twice just to satisfy two different masters. We use bridging courses to mitigate the pain, but the administrative “box-ticking” is becoming a full-time job for engineers who should be focusing on safety.

Interviewer: It has been mentioned that the goal should be a “level playing field.” Do you think the current divergence is actually compromising safety by focusing too much on paperwork?

Steve Bentley: The comment is spot on. When compliance becomes a frantic exercise in cross-referencing two slightly different rulebooks, you aren’t improving safety – you’re increasing fatigue and overhead. If an engineer is more worried about whether a part has a “Declaration” or a “Form 1” than they are about the technical fit, that’s a problem. Safety is being traded for “sovereignty.”

Interviewer: You’ve hinted that EASA might have a bit of an “ego” issue regarding the UK’s departure. How is that affecting negotiations?

Steve Bentley: Let’s be blunt: The UK CAA used to dominate those EASA meetings (my personal opinion based on empirical evidence.) Now that the UK is out, EASA has zero incentive to prioritize bilaterals with a former member that used to tell them how to run things. There’s a certain “you wanted to go your own way, so go” attitude in Cologne.

Interviewer: Looking ahead at the rest of 2026, do you see “Calm or Choppy Waters”?

Steve Bentley: Stormy waters, definitely. The UK is developing a unique product that isn’t recognized by the “Big 4” regulatory bodies – EASA, FAA, TCAA, and ANAC. We are becoming a regulatory island in every sense of the word. For the UK to thrive, the CAA needs to stop playing with their new “sports car” and start looking at the map of international reciprocity.

Interviewer: Steve, thank you for your candor. It’s clear that while the hardware flies the same, the paperwork is moving in very different directions.

Steve Bentley: My pleasure. At Sofema, we’ll keep building those bridges, but the gap is getting wider every day.