For all you lovers of red tape

[Fuji Abound]

By yacht to the CIs

GAR - no
Advance notification of customs - no
Q flag - yes, but no one bothers
Designated port - no
Booking out - no
Yellow jackets - no
Flight plan - no
Security - no
NOTAMS - yes, but very few bother
Separation from commercial craft - no
Designated commercial routes, danger and prohibited areas - not really
License - no

(Hope I have got those right, happy to be corrected)

By aircraft

GAR - yes
Customs notification - yes
Q flag - surely yes if only aircraft had flag poles
Designated port - ideally
Booking out - yes
Yellow jackets - of course
Flight plan - definitely
Security - almost certainly
NOTAMS - of course
Separation from commercial craft -yes, unless IR
Designated commercial routes, danger and prohibited areas - naturally
License - yes and renewal

Makes you wonder,

1. Which has the greater ability to carry loads of terrorists, illegal contraband, illegal immigrants and whatever else takes your fancy,
2. Which has greater opportunity to sneak into "port".

Seems to me the yachties have got it right, but where did we go wrong :confused: .

Where did it all go wrong?

Pass me that sheet :) .

[englishal]

We used to come and go as we pleased, and were never boarded by Customs or immigration.

[WorkingHard]

Where did it all go wrong? - envy and civil servants.

[matelot]

Yachts don't plummet from the skies narrowly missing the local infants' school. And the CAA need to be kept in clover... :mad:

[IO540]

Air transport is tightly regulated because people are scared to death of crashing, so there is a strong emotional drive to doing everything possible, regardless of cost or even supporting evidence, to make flying safe.

GA operates in a completely different risk regime - more like a leisure activity - but has been caught up in the same extreme regulation because it's run by the same bunch of people as air transport.

In the end, it's all supported by job creation requirements. A "CAA" is a great gravy train, in every country.

There are great job creation schemes everywhere you look. Many start in Brussels. Many provide jobs for countless thousands of little men who would otherwise have no prospect of finding a job: ISO9000, ROHS, CE, you name it.

[Fuji Abound]

Matelot Peter

.. .. .. the trouble is the things I mentioned have little if anything to do with flight safety.

Are we as pilots becoming infected with the same disease where anything to do with aviation is coupled with aircraft crashing into infant schools?

[matelot]

I think the disease has been thrust upon us, coupled with alarmist meeja reporting. And as IO540 said, minions respond to scaremongering with ever-increasing legislation under the guise of 'public safety.'

As Ray Winstone says in the cereal ad., We're adults. Just give us the facts. We'll decide for ourselves. But that world has long gone. Power has been wrested.

[BigAl's]

Sorry to be a bore, but with my former Coastguard and RNLI employee hats on...:E

Would definately file a 'flight plan' with Her Majesty's Coastguard. That way when you sink the CG/RNLI/others know where to start looking!

Believe me, people bimbling around in boats with none of the above (skills or planning) are a MAJOR headache to the volunteers that have to turn out to render service.

I am not a fan of beauracracy by any stretch of the imagination, but good training and planning are vital!

I'll go now.... :)

[rustle]

There's also the rather compelling argument that your 12' dinghy hitting an oil tanker ain't going to hurt them wherever you hit them, but your light aircraft hitting an airborne 747 might bring it down.

[englishal]

Would definately file a 'flight plan' with Her Majesty's Coastguard
That would be a passage plan...but the point is that although it is good seamanship to call them up and give them a passage plan (on RT for example) it is voluantary.

Also, it doen't have to be a 12' dingy. It could be a 4000 ton cargo vessel...but I get your point ;)

[charliegolf]

Englishal

You'd have to have a Master's ticket for a 4000 tonner!

But I get your point too!

CG

[Gertrude the Wombat]

License - no
Unless, that is, you want to use the radio, I thought??

So, bunch of amateurs in rented sailboat with very tired sails, crossing the channel at night, discover on leaving harbour that onboard radio navaids are all U/S, nobody on board with a radio licence ...

... hey, never mind, just pass as closely as possible under the stern of one supertanker in the hope of being clear of the lane before the next one gets you ...

... maybe there's a radar reflector on the top of the mast, maybe there isn't, I guess that's up to the boat owner rather than the renter ...

... and it's certainly true that on return to the UK you can tie up at the quay, offload all the booze, phone customs, then return to the boat and wait the two hours to see whether they can be bothered to turn up or not, your illegal passengers being long gone by then.

(OK, I exaggerate slightly, there were a couple of people with Yachtmaster's aboard, it may have been just me that had never previously been in charge of anything larger than a Wayfarer.)

[BigAl's]

That would be a passage plan...but the point is that although it is good seamanship to call them up and give them a passage plan (on RT for example) it is voluantary.

And that is entirely my point. Private maritime operations are almost entirely unregulated. Given a large enough wallet you can go out and by a substantial (or not, as in many cases) vessel, put to sea and create as much havoc as you like.

Aviation is more stringent wrt procedures and practice, helping to make it statistically the safest way to travel!.. so I believe. I am sure someone will correct me! :rolleyes:

[IO540]

You've got to separate private and air-transport aviation before any meaningful discussion can take place.

The expectation of safety in the two is completely different.

There is very little evidence that the present "safety" regulation has any bearing on private flying safety, or lack of. If it did, then we would expect to see a good number of accidents which were caused by breaches of the regs, and that isn't the case. Yet we all know that technical breaches of the regs are common in the spamcan world.

Most accidents are pilot error. Yet pilot training is still right back in good ole WW2. And this is quite relevant to the one (and only) connection between GAT and CAT: the two crashing into each other. This is without doubt the biggest potential disaster, but very little is done about it apart from the establishment of CAS, but then pilots are taught outdated nav techniques so they often haven't got a clue where CAS is.

:ugh:

[Fuji Abound]

Yes but the majority of the things I mention have little or nothing to do with in flight safety.

GAR - NSR
Advance notification of customs - NSR
Q flag - Not relevant to aviation
Designated port - NSR
Booking out - SR, but the only risk to yourself and passengeres just as on a yacht
Yellow jackets - NSR, unproven ground safety
Flight plan - NSR or dubious value or as booking out
Security - Of no value to private flights
NOTAMS - SR as much for yachts as aircraft
Separation from commercial craft - SR but unproven
Designated commercial routes, danger and prohibited areas - See above
License - SR

(NSR not safety related)

I was asking if all this paranoia about aviation breeds a culture that cannot distinguish between useful purpose and regulation for regulations sake. It is interesting that a lot of the comments are about the safety related aspect whereas very few of the items I identified have anything to do with safety. Are we as pilots just as much guilty of going along with it because we can no longer identify those regulations which are for our and everyone else’s safety and those which serve some other purpose.

My point was that pleaseure craft are given a great deal of freedom in how, when and where thay can come and in particular come and go to and from Europe and the CIs whereas pilots (who in theory are more accountable) are given far less freedom. Moreover there capacity to do harm (in terms of contraband, people trafficking, etc) is less than for private vessels.

Hence my question, where did it all go so badly wrong?

[ifonly]

Perhaps we should get our facts correct. As a keen sailor I wouldn't expect to fill out a GAR (the 'A' standing for Aviation) but I follow the rules contained in Notice No. 8 - Sailing your pleasurecraft to and from the United Kingdom, which states that if sailing to a non-EU place (which the Channel Islands were when I last looked) I fill in a form (C1331 I think) and on return I have to phone number and sign and date the 2nd copy of my form. Whilst I appreciate that this is less than I have to do when flying , I have also been intercepted whilst underway by a Customs patrol boat, bit more difficult when you're flying !!

[S-Works]

Because we let it happen by moaning about things on internet forums and expecting that "somebody" else will come along and fight our corner for us. Somebody else came along, then somebody else and somebody else. But none of these somebody elses could agree on a common theme so they were just walked all over.
As long as we expect all these somebody elses to act on our behalf we will just keep on having our rights eroded. Ultimately we will be legislated out of existance.
As long as we keep burying our heads in the sand on things like Mode S and carrying a radio, bleating about cost and that we never go anywhere near CAS. The fact is that eventually everywhere will be covered in CAS and suddenly somebody elses problem becomes yours, but then we are to far down the road to do anything about it.
As long as we teach an outdated curriculum and ignore advances in technology pilots will keep on infringing airspace, just giving the doom bringers more reason to expand CAS and legistlate the little man out.
Shall I keep going?

[IO540]

The one thing which would have made the biggest difference by far would have been if a load of rich and influential people, and politicians, flew in GA planes.

They do in the USA, and look at the representation which GA has out there.

Rich and powerful people fly in bizjets, which is why bizjets can't be touched - anywhere in the world.

[Fuji Abound]

Ifonly

yes, but my point exactly. You use words "as a keen sailor" and "I think" it is form etc. Yet you probably also know that few file whereas in aviation nearly everyone seems to know they have to do a GAR, know the form is a GAR and do file the form!

Staying on this point specifically, C1331 only has to be delivered BEFORE you go (it doesnt matter when) and then only to a customs post box which many marinas have. Yet with GA it has to go within the prescribed time and how many customs boxes have you seen at most airports.

I just find myself asking why? I think Bose-X is right - we all let it happen, but why do we? Or does it not matter? Do most of us find it a hassle, or not?

Personally, I have got it down to a bit of an art form so for a spur of the moment trip to L2K it is:

1. Email L2K - you have to becasue the NOTAM says so, (who knows whether or not they get it, they never reply, and the NOTAM fortunately doesnt ask you to check),

2. GAR on the fax, but if I didnt have a fax talk to FBO nicely,

3. Phone through FP, becuase I am already in the car by then and I dont want to hang around when I get there wiating for it to be activated,

Of course I couldnt go to the CIs because I would have to think about that the day before! I aslo couldnt go direct to most airports in France because there is no Customs. There would be even more complications and delays if I went airways.

In a yacht I can go to any port I like, I can linger in a quite little moring off Jersey if I wish, all I have to do is post of 1331 at the marina and go. Jersey told me a while back to get the Q flag down quick - we dont want any of that here, just causes extra hassle. :).

Maybe IO is right, there are plenty of very wealthy yachties, even an XPM.

There is also a ROYAL association, maybe we need a Royal Flying Association!! :)

[EvilKitty]

There is also a ROYAL association, maybe we need a Royal Flying Association!! :)

GAPAN?

I think more to the point is that for mariners there is the RYA and... not much else really. They have a single voice.

We have.. actually I have no idea. The ones that spring to mind are AOPA, GAPAN, BALPA, BGA, PFA. Are there more? Do they all agree on the issues? Which ones have the governments ear and which ones can we consider actually speak for us? Are they the same ones? Which one(s) should I belong to?

[skydriller]

The one thing which would have made the biggest difference by far would have been if a load of rich and influential people, and politicians, flew in GA planes.

They do in the USA, and look at the representation which GA has out there.

Rich and powerful people fly in bizjets, which is why bizjets can't be touched - anywhere in the world.

I totally agree with the above.

It would help if the politicians realised the difference between a spamcan and a bizjet....

Regards, SD..

[EvilKitty]

It would help if the politicians realised the difference between a spamcan and a bizjet....

One has a meatslicer on the front, the other a couple of pressure cookers hanging off the back?

Seriously though, they do know the difference.

Spamcan: flown by ordinary voter who as such can be usefully and easily ignored
BizJet: Flown by "important people" who we have to pander to even though they don't live here or pay taxes

:*

[Fuji Abound]

Lets not get side tracked - to be fair bizjets are required to do as much as the rest of GA.

Why do we have to do some of these things when yachts and pleasure craft don’t?

Flight plan - If I sail I am not REQUIRED to file a sail plan.

Terrorism - If I sail to the CIs as far as I am aware no notification is required under the terrorism act.

Customs - place of entry - If I sail so far as I am aware there is no requirement to dock at a customs port. The same applies when I come back.

Booking out - simply no requirement to do so. It may be prudent, but if I don’t that is my concern.

Are we as pilots less responsible that yachtsmen, who need no qualification to be in charge of their yacht? Are we more likely to transport terrorists, contraband and whatever the authorities are concerned about?

There are many airports with air traffic. Presumably every flight is logged. Presumably a record is kept of where every flights goes to and comes from. Are we to weak as a group to make it clear that if we operate from such fields the records are there to monitor the flow of traffic without adding to the administrative burden?

Just thinking outside the box and wondering why we get burdened with these things - I just cant see what it achieves :confused: .

[pulse1]

Customs/terrorism:

One essential difference between GA and small boats is the speed of movement from one area to another. Both customs and counter terrorism rely heavily on intelligence and this needs time to respond.

If suspicious activity is seen around an aeroplane which can be in another country in less than an hour, the security forces have to move quickly. If they know where it is going, finding and following it is much easier.

Even a good power boat would give them several hours to react. An average yacht could take over 12 hours for the same trip.

[Lister Noble]

Just been reading this and have a few thoughts on it.
My wife and I both obtained Yachtmastere Offshore and Marine radio licences in the early 1980's and have sailed a lot around northern Europe.
The regs are a lot simpler for boats than aircraft,maybe for the some of following publicly misconceived reasons.
Boats don't fall out of the air.
Boats don't make a lot of noise over inhabited areas.
Boats are not polluters of the Earth.
Private aircraft must belong to very rich bods.
Airfirelds would make good brown field development sites
Private boating and yacht racing has long been a sport of royalty worldwide and engenders support from the authorities.
As mentioned there is the RYA to represent all private boat enthusiasts in the UK,from sailboarders to large private sailing carft and luxurious motorboats.
We don't seem to have the same public support or image as sailing,maybe it is seen as part of our national heritage?
These are just my thoughts ,not provocation!
Lister:)

[Flying Lawyer]

It would help if the politicians realised the difference between a spamcan and a bizjet....
This is an area where blame (or responsibility, depending upon one's point of view) can't be laid on politicians.

Although formally passed by Parliament, the rules and regulations under which we have to fly in the UK are thought up and drafted by the CAA. The ANO, Rules of the Air Regulations etc are 'secondary legislation'.
Secondary legislation goes through parliament 'on the nod'. Unless Parliamentary rules have changed in recent years, MPs have only two choices: accept the entire proposal or reject the entire proposal. They are not entitled to reject selected parts so, as a result, secondary legislation from various government departments is often passed in batches with only the title being mentioned.
In theory, MPs could be criticised for not reading every word of every piece of secondary legislation. In practice, that would be impossible.

Why do we allow it to happen?
Partly because the British have a love/hate relationship with rules. We claim to dislike having laws about everything, but my theory is that we (as a nation) like it that way.
Often, when someone asks on PPRuNe if they can legally do something, a lot of effort is put into arguing that's illegal. Sometimes, the arguments put forward as to why it's 'technically' illegal show great ingenuity and imagination. Only rarely is the same effort put into thinking of reasons why it's legal - or how it can be made legal with just some minor change(s) to the idea.

There's a marked difference between the British 'Can't do, unless ........' and (for example) the American 'Can do, unless ........' approach to aviation and life.

The difference between the CAA and FAA approach to legislation can be seen (for example) by comparing our 'new improved' Rule 5 with the American equivalent.
One is short, to the point and easy to understand for both aeroplane and helicopter flying.
Guess which one? ;)

[skydriller]

This is an area where blame (or responsibility, depending upon one's point of view) can't be laid on politicians....etc
OK, I didnt know that, I'm happy to blame the CAA....;)
There's a marked difference between the British 'Can't do, unless ........' and (for example) the American 'Can do, unless ........' approach to aviation and life.
But you are unfortunately right, I totally agree. Why cant we be a cross between the spams and the french? From my experience here the French try to find ways around the rules, even if its ignoring them officially "what law? Oh, we dont like it anyway, so....":D
Regards, SD..

[IO540]

FL is right about the Brit can't-do attitude to everything. But the worse side of it is the desire to bring the other person down to your own level - that's why GA is looked at jealously in the UK, despite most pilots in fact being skint.

I suppose the most basic answer to "why all the red tape in GA" is that that is the way aviation has been set up many years ago, and once you create a job creation scheme, it is like a ratchet; you cannot go back.

It's the same with law, all sorts of regulations, consumer protection, you name it.

What is needed is an executive power, somebody like Hitler (but not him), who has the power to make a list of all the pointless regs and just delete them. Then he will have to terminate the millions of otherwise useless little men who made a living out of the stuff.

Of course there is no point in VFR flight plans for example. Nobody ever looks at them. You could file one with an intersection which is in Mongolia and nobody would notice. If you plan to crash, it's better to leave the route and the ETA with a friend - just like one does when sailing, etc.