PDA

View Full Version : GA The "Terrorism Act" and Big Brother!


microlighttp
6th Aug 2008, 18:39
Today I received a letter from the Ports unit of Cheshire Police, reminding me of the requirement under the Terrorism Act to seek"Authority to fly to and from the common travel area" from non designated airfields. The letter goes on to recommend that if travelling to or from a "non designated airfield "in Cheshire that I submit a "Flight notification" to the Cheshire Police Ports Unit.This I understand the need for.However attached to the letter is a proforma asking for information about my aircraft,ie. where it is kept ,including OS grid reference,any road access and strangest of all its "concealment potential".
I understand the need for the flight notification but not the information asked for in the proforma.Do other police forces in the UK ask for this kind of info?

Seems rather Big Brother to me.

Islander2
6th Aug 2008, 20:34
GA The "Terrorism Act" and Big Brother!
Today I received a letter from the Ports unit of Cheshire Police, reminding me of the requirement under the Terrorism Act to seek"Authority to fly to and from the common travel area" from non designated airfields.You'd be entitled to think that they know and understand the legislation ... but you'd be wrong.

The Terrorism Act 2006 is silent on this matter, so the Terrorism Act 2000 is what provides the legal framework; and its Chapter 11, Clause 12(3)(b) of Schedule 7 - 'Port and Border Controls' requires you to give written notice, not seek authority (which is more than a subtle difference in that it implies your flight could be prohibited)!

S-Works
6th Aug 2008, 20:54
Islander2 beat me to it. Tell them to sling their hook.

fauteuil volant
6th Aug 2008, 21:16
I'm not sure that the language I would use would be so polite as requesting them to "sling their hook"!

mixture
6th Aug 2008, 21:20
Islander,

I think your interpretation of the legislation is not quite right

The "subtle difference" as you put it, is not in the part to which you refer, but rather whether or not the aircraft is being flown by a CPL/ATL and used for hire or reward.

As the original poster has not provided sufficient detail for you to point out the point of legislation that you did, you made it sound more straightforward than it is.

Also, even if the flight is a private flight, you should be aware under the legislation that it is technically not "authorised" unless you fulfill the notification / designated port requirement.


Microlight,

Regarding your concern over the amount of detail.

If you are concerned, I suggest you download a standard template and send that back to them instead.

Metropolitan Police Service - Specialist Operations (http://www.met.police.uk/so/office_hours.htm)

S-Works
6th Aug 2008, 21:28
Mixture, are you PC Plod by chance? As your interpretation is wrong. You do not need AUTHORISATION to exit the UK by any means as a free citizen of the UK.

You are required to NOTIFY nothing more. The type of notification required varies according to the designation of the port, but at no time is permission required.

Qualification makes no difference for a private flight.

Lets not make up laws, we have enough as it is.

mixture
6th Aug 2008, 21:35
are you PC Plod by chance

No. Nor do I work anywhere in the public sector.

You do not need AUTHORISATION to exit the UK by any means as a free citizen of the UK.

What I'm saying is simple.

Sure you can fly out of the UK as a GA pilot on a private license.

But you are technically not "authorised" to do so if you don't give 12 hours advance notice.

The "authorisation" may be implied, look at the deregulation of the telecommunications industry and their "General authorisations" regime. In order to take advantage of the flexible regime, you need to comply with the requirements, otherwise you are not authorised.

Just remember. In law, "authorisation" does not necessarily mean rubber stamp, passport style permission. It can be more of a donkey and carrot thing, you get the carrot as long as you do X.

I was merely picking up on islander's wording, thats all ! :cool:

mixture
6th Aug 2008, 21:39
Lets not make up laws, we have enough as it is.

I'm not.

Here's the law....
Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_19#sch7)

and here's the wording .....

(2) Where a ship or aircraft is employed to carry passengers for reward on a journey to which this paragraph applies the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft shall not arrange for it to call at a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland for the purpose of disembarking or embarking passengers unless—

(a) the port is a designated port, or

(b) an examining officer approves the arrangement.

(3) Where an aircraft is employed on a journey to which this paragraph applies otherwise than to carry passengers for reward, the captain of the aircraft shall not permit it to call at or leave a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland unless—

(a) the port is a designated port, or

(b) he gives at least 12 hours' notice in writing to a constable for the police area in which the port is situated (or, where the port is in Northern Ireland, to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary).


It's perfectly clear. For a GA PPL your choices are either designated port or 12 hours notice, otherwise you are not authorised.

permitted = authorised = synonyms :cool:

SpeedbirdXK8
6th Aug 2008, 21:58
Mixture you're getting mixed up. Read the words "for reward" this means commercial flight i.e. you make money out of hire and reward i.e. AOC flights NOT GA PPL i.e. PA28 taking off from Farm Strip etc..

mixture
6th Aug 2008, 22:06
SpeedbirdXK8

I'm not getting mixed up at all.

(1)

Get out your thesaurus.

Authorised is a synonym of Permitted.

I will also repeat myself ....

The "authorisation" may be implied, look at the deregulation of the telecommunications industry and their "General authorisations" regime. In order to take advantage of the flexible regime, you need to comply with the requirements, otherwise you are not authorised.


(2)

Re-read what I posted

(3) Where an aircraft is employed on a journey to which this paragraph applies otherwise than to carry passengers for reward

See that word, otherwise than to carry passengers for reward.

That means your farm strip PPL.

He must either give 12 hours notice or fly from elsewhere.

Otherwise he is not permitted ... or, in other words, not authorised.

(3)

Yes, I agree, the amount of information they asked the original poster for seems excessive.

Hence my suggestion he downloads the standard template and sends that back to them instead. Then they can always get in touch and explain why they need more information, and he can then seek proper legal advice on whether that amount of information is excessive under legislation.

Islander2
6th Aug 2008, 23:21
I think your interpretation of the legislation is not quite right

The "subtle difference" as you put it, is not in the part to which you refer, but rather whether or not the aircraft is being flown by a CPL/ATL and used for hire or reward.My interpretation of the legislation is just fine, thanks.

Let's eliminate the red herring you've introduced of carriage of passengers for reward. The original poster's monicker and the fact this is the Private Flying forum are reasonable indications his interest was not in that arena.

So we're left, as I stated, with the only requirement being notification. You may call that implied authorisation if you like, but it is beside the point because the more than subtle difference I was addressing (and that you're ignoring) is in their phrasing: a requirement to "seek authority". Seek means something well beyond automatic authorisation by the mere act of notification and, as I said, strongly implies the right to deny such authorisation.

We have heard before of other Police Force Special Branch officers taking a similarly incorrect view, in some cases eliminating any semantic ambiguity such as you've sought to introduce by actually telling pilots that they cannot depart until they have received an authorisation number.

mixture
7th Aug 2008, 08:05
Islander,

Would you mind, therefore, explaining what step 3 in the below process does, if it's not "authorisation" ?

(Content taken from the Met website linked to, but also similar wording on other authorities sites) ....

To make a notification and/or seek authorisation for a flight to/from the CTA;

* Fully complete a GAR

* Fax or email the GAR to the following contact details:

National Ports Office
Heathrow Airport

Tel: 020 7230 4800
Fax: 020 7203 4850
email: [email protected]
(if emailing please ensure the email ‘Subject’ field has “GENERAL AVIATION REPORT” entered in it)

* CTC will fax or email the ATC with authorisation

Bahn-Jeaux
7th Aug 2008, 08:12
That may be on a plod website however that is their interpretation, not a quote from legislation.

mixture
7th Aug 2008, 08:14
implies the right to deny such authorisation.

And they can and will do their utmost to stop you flying if they don't like what their database tells them about you when they input the data from your GAR.

Hence my point about implicit authorisation.

Yes, for your average Joe Bloggs, it all seems like pointless paperwork.

But if they've been provided with intelligence to suggest otherwise, you'll end up with more than paperwork on your hands, I suspect......

SpeedbirdXK8
7th Aug 2008, 09:03
Ok Mixture take your point, I got hung up on para 2 only:ugh: Typical leglisation aimed to confuss rather than clarify. I'll go back to sleep :zzz:

Islander2
7th Aug 2008, 09:18
Islander,

Would you mind, therefore, explaining what step 3 in the below process does, if it's not "authorisation" ?

(Content taken from the Met website linked to, but also similar wording on other authorities sites) ....Thank you mixture, that extract is a clear example of the authorities going beyond the letter of the law.

Please tell us what you believe you are to do if, by the time of your proposed departure, ATC haven't received the faxed or e-mailed 'authorisation', and a telephone call to the number quoted produces nobody that can deal with the matter?

Islander2
7th Aug 2008, 09:54
And they can and will do their utmost to stop you flying if they don't like what their database tells them about you when they input the data from your GAR.And there's the rub!

Clearly that doesn't bother you, but I sit squarely in the camp that's massively concerned with what is happening to civil liberties in this country ... pressure for ever increasing periods of detention without trial, pressure for trial other than by one's peers, anti-terrorism legislation used by local authorities for snooping on individuals on matters nothing to do with terrorism, rights of entry to your property by an army of snoopers to see what alterations you've made, round-the-clock surveillance of, and issue of endless 'guidance' to, the prols (invoking very real Orwellian images) ... etc, etc.

42psi
7th Aug 2008, 10:31
Might I just make a comment ... to me something appears to have been missed totally here :confused:


The OP's monniker suggests that his normal a/c type is highly unlikely to be visiting anywhere in the CTA... (anyone actually visited IOM/Nth or Sth Ireland/IOM/Channel Isles by microlight from mainland UK :eek:)



Is this perhaps just a case of Cheshire's finest (my local plod also by the way) actually sending something out as a mater of course.


Maybe they're just "scatter gun" sending to all PPL holders in their area?





As for "concealment potential" .... well you could always say if will fit in a large boot/van :E

Jodelman
7th Aug 2008, 12:58
(anyone actually visited IOM/Nth or Sth Ireland/IOM/Channel Isles by microlight from mainland UK )

That's a very strange view. Lots and lots of microlights get to cross the Irish Sea.

microlight AV8R
7th Aug 2008, 13:31
Indeed Jodelman is correct.
Microlights are crossing that bit of water frequently. Don't fall into the trap of seeing a microlights as a little hang glioder with a strimmer engine attached, those days are mostly gone. Take a look at the EV97 Eurostar, Pegasus CT2k, Jabiry UL, Skyranger, Rans S6 and Xair hawk to mention but a few. 90-100 mph and 400+ miles range is now commonplace. Even my Rans S6 with its 50hp 2 stroke is capable of venturing to the Emerald Isle.
But we digress, I'm with the original poster and others who have concerns over intrusive government agencies.
The wording of such 'guidance' can be in conflict with the actual law itself. This could be the product of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing or, in a more sinister circumstance perhaps a cynical attempt to gain compliance beyond the legally stated minima where the writer can always fall back on a statement indicating that there was no intention to mislead... "what we meant was...." as is often heard in Westminster.

These are the reasons why we have defended the principles of liberty enshrined in magna Carta through the centuries and hae relied upon an independent judiciary and the right to trial by our peers as fundamental.
Ask yourself if you feel those principals are still intact?

I must go as the Black Omega is puilling up outside :cool:

42psi
7th Aug 2008, 13:33
"That's a very strange view. Lots and lots of microlights get to cross the Irish Sea. "


Genuine question .. Sorry, I hadn't realised that microlights made trips across that stretch of water quite so often ... :ouch: ....



Anyway .. on a practical level I think you'll find that if an ATC clearance is req/d it's not subject to any "police approval".... it's up to you to comply with any police/home office etc requirements ..

Wasn't there some sort of CTA zone conference/meeting recently at Govt. level to discuss the current arrangements?


I believe that Islander's interpretation/understanding of the requirements is actually correct.... as are the concerns that police are too ready to overstep their authority and the erosion of civil liberties.


It does seem a bit daft to have these requirements in that travelling by road from Nth to Sth Ireland has no controls, or even any sign that you're crossing the border (other than the road gets better going south!! & the sgins are in Kms).

gfunc
7th Aug 2008, 13:45
"concealment potential" - perhaps pc plod is worried about people getting hold of second hand F-117A's?

Gareth.

microlight AV8R
7th Aug 2008, 14:30
Gareth,Who told you that?

dublinpilot
7th Aug 2008, 15:57
Sorry Mixture, but Islander is correct.

There is no authorisation for a non hire/reward flight. There is simply a requirement to give notice. Giving notice is not seeking authorisation implied or otherwise.

Failure to give notice does not mean that you have not received authorisation. It simply means that you've failed to comply with your obligations under the law, which you are answerable to the courts for. If you were prosocuted for this, you would be procecuted for failure to notify as required by Schedule 7, Section 12(3) and not for failure to get authorisation.

Stop trying to introduce words into the legislation that don't appear there.

dp

mad_jock
7th Aug 2008, 16:18
Apparently due to the local setup various not very nice people have been using that route to get drugs into the country using microlights. They go feet dry between Blackpool and Liverpool and disappear off towards the manch low level corridor to land who knows where.

I presume as usual a few have managed to muck things up for the law abiding majority.

The information about the drug runners was given to me by a local pilot when I had a close encounter with an untracable microlight.

microlight AV8R
7th Aug 2008, 18:17
Dublin Pilot: Spot on, 'nuf said :ok:

Mad Jock: Interesting, perhaps the letter should have been addressed to 'Dear potential drug smuggler'. I'm sure that polite approach would generate a cooperative response from the guilty party :rolleyes:
I'm not having a go at you, I never shoot the messenger. However, if the reason behind the communication is the situation you have described, I would have to (generously) rate it as utterly inept.

mad_jock
7th Aug 2008, 19:39
I would have to (generously) rate it as utterly inept.

Seems a fair enough desciption to me

microlighttp
7th Aug 2008, 21:09
Thank you all for the replies.I actually fly a Eurostar:ok:. Athough a microlight, it is more than capable of international flights.

I will be contacting Cheshire Police to seek some clarification on whether the wording of the letter is correct.A couple of the paragraphs seem muddled

The Terrorism Act impacts upon general aviation and the responsibilities of pilots/owners.One of the requirements to seek authority to fly to and from the common travel area(Channel Islands, Isle of Man,Northern Ireland and Eire)from non designated airfields remains.It is however worthy of note that the notification period has been reduced from 24 hrs to 12 hrs, for administration purposes.

It is an offence to fail to comply with this requirement.


It is recommended that if you are flying to or from a non designated Cheshire airfield having flown direct from or direct to any destination outside mainland UK, that you submit a flight notification to the Cheshire Constabulary Ports Unit.

I'm now a little confused:confused: is the notification a requirement, or as the last paragraph states only recommended.

What do other Police forces around the country ask for ?

Islander2
7th Aug 2008, 21:38
I'm now a little confused:confused: is the notification a requirement, or as the last paragraph states only recommended.Well, it's yet another example of the creeping 'big brother' syndrome to which you originally alluded!

The legislative requirement for notification relates only to private flights within the Common Travel Area. Yet here you have a local police force seeking to extend their snooping activities to all overseas private flights.

I am reminded of my visit to the Military/Civil Air Safety Day at RAF Wattisham in May 2007. We had to submit written details of the flight, aeroplane and people on board for MoD security checks long before the event. Most people (me included) have absolutely no problem with that, it is after all an active service station. Then local plod involved themselves, and required in addition that all airborne visitors submit to them a GAR Form, even though the flights were inland.

microlight AV8R
8th Aug 2008, 07:59
It seems that somebody is trying to build a database/record of flights abroad. The question is just what is the motive? is it somebody trying to justify their existence or do they really think it is acceptable to attempt to make people feel obliged to comply with expectations beyond any legal remit they may have? either way, I'm not impressed. I would simply comply with the known legal requirements and ignore everything else from them.
As for local plod wanting a GAR form for an internal flight !!!!! This sort of nonsense needs to be challenged. They have no power to require that. If you are refused permission to fly in to the military station as a result, you have evidence of further erosion of civil liberties that the people stationed at that location are so bravely defending.
Or, as Terry Wogan says in the mornings... "Is it me?"

IO540
8th Aug 2008, 09:09
It seems that somebody is trying to build a database/record of flights abroad

Security services are always trying to build up travelling patterns - even if they do not know what the 'suspect' is up to, or even who he really is.

On the face of it, the GAR requirement for Ireland etc does not make sense and never did, because even the IRA are not so stupid as to not realise they can travel via e.g. France and avoid the GAR declaration.

The purpose which it served, however, is that (hopefully) a number of the IRA were known to MI6 but they didn't know they were known to them. So they travelled under their real identities, pretending to be going on holiday, business, etc. In any case, travelling under your real ID is much safer because it cannot be blown.

This enabled MI6 to watch these people easily.

It also enabled other 'operators' to be identified from their travelling patterns.

And this is still the case today. Your details are automatically passed to MI6 etc by airline and ferry operators. Special Branch can see flight plans online anyway.

It's the same thing as traffic analysis of electronic communications. You do not really need to read the contents of the traffic itself.

I don't see any purpose in the 12hr notification for the CTA given that it is so trivial to avoid it by going via France. It would make more sense if it was mandatory for all foreign flights but it already is effectively so for incoming ones, via the mandatory GAR sent to Immigration.

My guess is that while MI6 obviously have access to all the declarations no matter who they are sent to, there is some sort of power battle (job preservation i.e. job creation) within Special Branch who are facing an increased centralisation in intelligence gathering and who are trying to hold on to at least some work.

ANW
8th Aug 2008, 09:26
This thread subject reminded me of an similar case discussed here by Say again Slowly. Have a read of this.


http://www.pprune.org/forums/private-flying/251258-special-branch-their-interpretation-anti-terrorism-laws.html?




Full text of Cheshire Constabulary notice as received and forwarded by a friend (apart from which I know no more at this stage):

Cheshire Constabulary, Ports Unit, Room 2009, Constabulary Headquarters, Clemonds Hey, Oakmere Road, Winsford, Cheshire, CW7 2UA

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: General Aviation

Aviation within the UK has a number of agencies involved in its security. Only with the assistance of those working within it and the travelling public, can we continue to maintain the security of the industry as well as deterring and detecting crime such as illegal immigration and smuggling.

The Terrorism Act impacts upon general aviation and the responsibilities of pilot/owners. One of the requirements is to seek authority to fly to and from the common travel area (Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, and Eire) from non designated airfields remains. It is however worthy of note that the notification period has been reduced from 24 hrs to 12 hrs, for administrative purposes.

It is an offence to fail to comply with this requirement.

It is recommended that if you are flying to or from a non-designated Cheshire airfield having flown direct from or travelling direct to any destination outside mainland UK, that you submit a flight notification to the Cheshire Constabulary Ports Unit.

Officers from the unit will make periodic visits to airfields in order to meet owners, pilots and operators. If you need advice, further information, or have any suggestion then please contact the department. We hope to establish a more effective working relationship with the general aviation fraternity of Cheshire.

In light of this we would be grateful if you could complete the following proforma and return it is the prepaid envelope or alternatively email the details to the following address [email protected]

Many thanks in anticipation of your help.

(Signed) Steve JACKSON (No rank or title noted)

Second page is the proforma with details as outlined in Post 1.

S-Works
8th Aug 2008, 11:05
On the face of it, the GAR requirement for Ireland etc does not make sense and never did, because even the IRA are not so stupid as to not realise they can travel via e.g. France and avoid the GAR declaration.

As someone who watched the work of the IRA in a professional capacity in a past life I would like to point out that the IRA were many things but never stupid and thinking they were is a stupid comment in itself.........

My guess is that while MI6 obviously have access to all the declarations no matter who they are sent to, there is some sort of power battle (job preservation i.e. job creation) within Special Branch who are facing an increased centralisation in intelligence gathering and who are trying to hold on to at least some work.

You are having a laugh, this is not the old Eastern block you know. Those GARs end up filed in a bin not in the MI6 archive.

Justiciar
8th Aug 2008, 11:56
This issues is very fully covered in the thread linked above in ANW's post.

Mixture has unfortunately confused matters. Authorisation is not the same as notice and this argument is what has allowed the police to misquote the Act. Authorisation implies something that cannot be done without consent. This is not the case with private GA flights under the 2000 Act. Notice means exactly that. The police have no power to demand positive authorisation before a flight can take place. They have power to prevent a particular flight if grounds exist under the Act, but that is different from what is being suggested here.

The Cheshire Constabulary letter is a mis-statement of the law in so far as it relates to non commercial flights.

The police have powert to request information about a flight. The information they can demand is in the Regulation which I quoted in the linked thread. It only applies to flights to or from the CTA and not to flights within Great Britain.

Pilot DAR
8th Aug 2008, 12:48
Wow, From an outside (Canadian) viewpoint, this whole thing seems REALLY big brother-ish to me. You are required to notify the police before you takeoff from certain (smaller) private runways to fly to the islands? It amazes me that this invasion on personal behavior is tolerated. Particularly when it seems to be so poorly understood! I can understand that the governments involved seek to apply customs and immigration regulation to international ARRIVALS, but departures?

Many years ago (before 911) Canada customs had a program of telephone notification of private aircraft arrivals into Canada (non-commercial departures required no customs/immigration notification, though still a flight plan). The arrival under this plan had to be to a designated aerodrome. I asked if I could have my private home runway so designated, and the answer was yes. The major condition was that I had to give written permission to the local police to come and look around whenever they wanted. With nothing to hide, I did not seek to avoid this granted intrusion. 911 put a stop to all of this, so I gave up, but the system is returning I think. I just don't travel trans-border that much any more, so it's not worth it.

Why not insist that in an environment of such notification requirements, that EVERY aerodrome in the UK be registered to the satisfaction of the police?

VFR Flights within Canada (which do not involve controlled airspace or airports) do not require any notification of any kind, unless they exceed 25NM, and then it is a minimum of notification to a responsible person - not the police.

I know that drugs are smuggled by air around here - they keep getting caught! a few years back, a Bombardier Challenger jet a few miles away! Drug runners who were forced down onto a road by the police were apparently headed for my buddy's home runway 10 miles from here as there planned drop zone. That made me take notice!

I know (because my neighbours tell me) that the police have enquired about my flying here in the distant past, and they are welcomed anytime for genuine law enforcement purposes, but in the mean time, I'll come and go as I wish, and unless I cross into the United States, only my wife will be notified of the flight!

Good luck to all of the UK private pilots in avoiding what seems to me to be a rediculous intrusion on personal transport.

Pilot DAR

bookworm
8th Aug 2008, 15:09
The police have powert to request information about a flight. The information they can demand is in the Regulation which I quoted in the linked thread. It only applies to flights to or from the CTA and not to flights within Great Britain.

Are you sure about that Justiciar? TA 2000 Schedule 7 para 17 was amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to permit the carding of passengers on any flight.

It now reads:

17. — (1) This paragraph applies to a ship or aircraft which—
(a) arrives or is expected to arrive in any place in the United Kingdom (whether from another place in the United Kingdom or from outside the United Kingdom), or
(b) leaves or is expected to leave the United Kingdom.
...

IO540
8th Aug 2008, 15:37
I think bookworm is right; the Plod has the right to turn over any plane landing in the UK and request details of anybody on it.

However, that seems a pretty obvious statement of the hugely self evident!!!

If Plod didn't have this right, he may as well give up.

I suppose it is a rather strange thing to do to a wholly international flight landing in the UK for just a refuel for example, but again it's pretty obvious that these powers must exist.

Justiciar
8th Aug 2008, 15:50
Are you sure about that Justiciar?


No :O You are quite correct - the information which can be demanded is set out in the regulations.

bookworm
8th Aug 2008, 16:38
If Plod didn't have this right, he may as well give up.

Not so sure about that. Police powers regarding motor vehicles are rather more limited, aren't they?

That's not to say that I think the power to search an aircraft and card its passengers is unreasonable, but it does reflect a considerable extension of the powers conferred even by the TA 2000.

Johnm
8th Aug 2008, 18:18
Blimey what a lot of huff and puff!

As someone who flies to and from the Channel islands with monotonous and boring regulatory and I can tell you quite categorically that as a private pilot with or without passengers your obligation is to give 12 hours notice of your flight. The GAR is a convenient way to do this.

It's up to plod to to turn up if he wants to and if he doesn't you just come and go as you please. If he does turn up he would have to show a VERY good reason to interfere with your plans as you are a citizen going about his lawful occasions and therefore not to be trifled with:cool:

chrisbl
8th Aug 2008, 20:44
Spot on Johnm

You are permitted to go if you have given the required 12 hours notice (unless the plod specifically tell you otherwise and with good reason).

Give the notice and hear nothing free to go. Dont give the notice you are not free to go and its not the plod stopping you its the Act.

Lost man standing
8th Aug 2008, 20:46
Pilot DAR

Canada has her own Big Brother (http://ezralevant.com/2008/08/punished-first-acquitted-later.html), and rather more worrisome!

In fact the ridiculousness of the legislation today is not in that it was inacted but that it has not been repealed. It was intended to deal with IRA smuggling routes when the IRA were genuinely trying to kill people. Our current government surrendered to the IRA so it's kind of irrelevant. It is also a blinding nuissance, and has caused me a lot of grief when Special Branch screwed up the paperwork.

IO540
8th Aug 2008, 21:45
Give the notice and hear nothing free to go. Dont give the notice you are not free to go and its not the plod stopping you its the Act.

It does mean that you have to keep proof of sending the fax.

It would be almost impossible to prove the sending in the case of an email, especially if you transmit emails via your own smtp server, etc.

I use interfax.net for email2fax - they keep what I am sure is adequate proof. Or I might use winfax on my home PC - that also keeps a send log.

Plod watch the flight plans and will give you hassle if they don't get the notification. I got a 2-3hr 'interview' a while ago - quite unpleasant and the fact that the official GAR form had a mistake on it was of absolutely NO interest to them.

Pilot DAR
8th Aug 2008, 23:38
Point taken Last Man,

That's why I stick to aviation the best I can. There are some idiotic rules which apply to the operation of an aircraft here, but at least their underlying reason is to some degree understandable. The fool situation you cite is beyond silly, and evidence of Canadian's policy of making all newcomers feel completely at home, while actually in ours, going completely amok.

When I fly I am above it all, without having to put anybody down!

Cheers, Pilot DAR

bookworm
9th Aug 2008, 08:14
It's up to plod to to turn up if he wants to and if he doesn't you just come and go as you please. If he does turn up he would have to show a VERY good reason to interfere with your plans as you are a citizen going about his lawful occasions and therefore not to be trifled with

Don't be too confident about that.

Power to stop, question and detain
2. — (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a [terrorist].

...
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).

(4) An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person [is a terrorist].

The detention in question can be for up to 9 hours.

jollyrog
9th Aug 2008, 10:45
Would Recorded Delivery, five days in advance, with proof of postage, to the Chief Constable of the force count?

IO540
9th Aug 2008, 11:09
I am sure it would but you may need to cancel due to weather, and I don't know what latitude the Plod has on the departure date. I always put 'may change due to weather' and have moved it by some hours, and never had a problem, but I have never tried to submit a notice covering say two possible dates. I cannot see any obvious reason why one could not submit a GAR form for more than one date (or more than one form, one for each possible date). I know for sure Plod doesn't mind if you don't fly but don't tell them (pretty obviously they can see your flight plan, or (in the case of the IOM where no FP is necessary) they can phone the tower.

flybymike
9th Aug 2008, 13:02
Hmm...I see much scope here for multiple filing of dozens of GAR forms to multiple destinations on various possible dates depending on the weatherand personal inclination... If we all do it ..we can drive them mad..... :}

jollyrog
9th Aug 2008, 13:22
The GAR form has dates/times for outbound and return trips. If you fill in both, is there need to send it twice?

Johnm
9th Aug 2008, 13:56
I take your point Bookworm:mad:

In practice I've had a few visits and a generally polite conversation. Most plods are alive to the fact that they get better co-operation and intelligence if they don't p1$$ off generally law abiding citizens.

The fundamental point still applies nonetheless. The obligation is to give notice and in most cases proof of issue to the appropriate address will discharge that obligation. I either email or fax from my computer and can show timestamped logs and no bounces.

It shouldn't be rocket science for plod to send an auto acknowledgment from a well published address. However each force operates differently so they are as well organised as local government recycling:mad:

jxk
9th Aug 2008, 14:16
Has anybody made up a flowchart (checklist) of all the hoops you have to go through to make a trip to say France from the UK and back? I used to have one and it included things like the Gen Dec, fuel draw-back, duty free, customs, special branch, flight-plan, met, survival equipment etc etc.. I think the quickest we could complete the process was just over the hour (just in time for the fp to be activated) and that was with a well disciplined crew of 2 or three.

S-Works
9th Aug 2008, 14:37
Has anybody made up a flowchart (checklist) of all the hoops you have to go through to make a trip to say France from the UK and back? I used to have one and it included things like the Gen Dec, fuel draw-back, duty free, customs, special branch, flight-plan, met, survival equipment etc etc.. I think the quickest we could complete the process was just over the hour (just in time for the fp to be activated) and that was with a well disciplined crew of 2 or three.

Erm, well I manage it in about 5 minutes. There is no SB requirement for France. One GenDec for customs and Immigration for the inbound flight takes a minute to fill in and fax and I keep mine as word document with my details and efax it. Flight plan I produce on flitestar and efax it. Met takes a minute or so and accessible from my mac or iPhone. Survival kit lives in the aircraft along with the PLB. I do my drawback claims 6 monthly.

For a VFR flight to LFAT for example I can be airborne within the hour from suddenly deciding to go.

I really do think that some people make a mountain out of a molehill for this stuff.

IO540
9th Aug 2008, 14:45
Has anybody made up a flowchartYou can knock up a checklist.

This is worth doing because you don't want to forget the passport and the toothbrush for example. Or the laptop for flight planning when away from home.

However, the "things to do" are really in two parts:

1) Obvious essentials (GAR, carrying the passport, etc)

2) Country- and culture-specifics (checking whether avgas is really available, carrying a wad of 1000 euros or US$ for bribing officials)

France is pretty easy and almost as straightforward as the UK for which say the Pooleys guide is pretty accurate.

Otherwise, in general it really pays to contact the destination airport(s) in advance, checking for stuff like avgas, PPR, etc. This is because much of the info in the published guides (say Jepp Bottlang or its electronic versions) is crap - it comes, without checking, from the national AIPs and many airports don't bother to feed the right info into these, often changing phone numbers, etc. Take Italy for example; it may show "avgas available" but actually it can be sold only to the aeroclub - unless you can find somebody who will take a wad of cash and sort you out. If you can speak Italian you can probably arrange something in advance ;)

My top tip is to NEVER leave the plane (after landing) until you have had avgas delivered. The one thing which even the most disorganised airport is very good at is collecting you and passengers and carting you off the airside. If you refuse to leave until you have had avgas, the bowser turns up far quicker than it would do otherwise.

The quickest way to carry out the routine admin stuff is to do it electronically and do as much as poss before leaving home (or the hotel):

Route planning - depends on where and how, but Navbox Pro is a great VFR tool, though it does need to be used together with the printed charts (because it contains very bare maps). For IFR/airways you need Jepp Flitestar.

GAR - fax this using either a fax program (Winfax) or using an email2fax system such as Interfax - easy to send the GAR to all three services for every flight and then you don't need to bother about the GAR matrix

Flight plan filing - use homebriefing.com and forget all about airport briefing / filing facilities

Weather & notams - get a laptop with mobile internet (wifi and GPRS/3G) and again forget all about airport briefing services

Then you leave home (or the hotel) all ready to roll.

A simple VFR trip from say Biggin to Le Touquet will take you maybe half an hour to plan and sort out. A more complex IFR trip to say Greece, with one fuel stop, might take a couple of hours but you will need to start a few days beforehand to hopefully contact the airport(s) re the stuff already mentioned.

Jesus this is my 7000th post :O

bookworm
9th Aug 2008, 17:04
In practice I've had a few visits and a generally polite conversation. Most plods are alive to the fact that they get better co-operation and intelligence if they don't p1$$ off generally law abiding citizens.

I couldn't agree more and I'd emphasise that we're all on the same side. The interactions I've had with Special Branch have all been very good natured, and I'd like to do whatever I can to help them do their jobs. FWIW, they don't always seem to have a full grasp of the legislation they're enforcing, but then again we don't send lawyers out to catch terrorists, do we? ;)

sycamore
9th Aug 2008, 18:15
Is there a full list of UK `designated` airfields anywhere ?

IO540
9th Aug 2008, 22:48
It's on page 2 or 3 of the normal GAR form, but it contains a mistake, where Shoreham should be shown as having the same status as Farnborough i.e. Designated for Customs but not for Terrorism.

I would always be polite to Plod (not least because they can make your life a misery very easily) but when they grab you and your passenger the moment you step out of the plane, and give you a 2hr "talking to" (which was so obviously a pure jobsworth exercise and they knew it) and totally disregard this kind of official form mistake, they are not making their own job any easier.

My experience of those who phone through with the 'permission number' is about 75/25 split between really nice, and quite arrogant. Mind you, I do live in Sussex where people are generally more aggressive than "up North" :)

The simple solution is to fax the GAR to all three bodies for every foreign flight and be done with it. Unfortunately, much of the time, at least one of the numbers (usually the Plod one) is duff, so one has to re-send it elsewhere, and then expect a phone call asking why you sent it to the wrong place. In my very small business I have TWO fax machines on the same # and I can't see why the police cannot do the same, especially for a function which is so obviously important.

qwertyplop
10th Aug 2008, 06:42
It's an interesting contradiction though all this.

(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).

It is an offence under TACT not to answer a question from plod when plod encounters you in the above respect. Hang on, is it an offence though in the terms being discussed here? Don't plod have to designate where they exercise these powers in terms of usage at a port of entry? Did they not get into trouble recently at Gatwick Airport because the period of designation for powers under the TACT lapsed yet they continued to examine folk? Surely, anywhere one can put an aircraft down is a port of entry?

From The Guardian in Dec07

Hundreds of passengers at Gatwick airport have been subjected to illegal police "stop and searches", the Home Office admitted in a written statement today.Sussex police made a paperwork error when they applied for special permission to stop people without "reasonable grounds" that a crime is in progress, said the security minister, Tony McNulty.
The 259 people stopped and searched by Sussex police during three weeks in September will receive apologies, McNulty said, adding that Home Office officials were reviewing the paperwork connected with stop and search tactics under the Terrorism Act 2000 to check for more mistakes.
"No arrests occurred as a result of these stop and searches," he said.
"However, Sussex police will shortly be writing to all of the individuals concerned to apologise.
"All steps have now been taken to ensure ... that such regrettable and serious omissions do not occur again."
A similar mistake was found to have happened in 2003, he said.
A Sussex police spokesman said the force accepted full responsibility for the blunder.

On the other hand, they do not have the right to tell you to notify them, by GAR for example, if you fly from foriegn. Presumably because it's still an offence not to answer a question posed to you by plod acting under TACT, you commit an offence if you respond to the question 'why did you not inform us you were flying from foriegn' with 'I'm not answering that question' should they happen across you when you are coming or going from the UK or indeed, the CTA.

A case of Buy One, Get One Free methinks. :)

Oh well, I support their efforts regardless, it can't be easy.

BEagle
10th Aug 2008, 07:17
I was once assured that it was preferable to use a standalone fax machine rather than a computer-generated fax, because the transmission log was considered legal proof that a fax had been sent to a specified number.

In other words, if information is sent to an organisation with a published fax number, it is the responsibility of that organisation to ensure that the number is correct. Including Plod.

Equally, if you faxed something which wasn't acted upon, that cannot be considered your 'fault' - especially if you have the transmission report as proof. Particularly Plod.

That's why we always used to fax information to France - it probably ended up on the floor by the fax machine during Les Grenouilles' 3 hour lunch break, but the requirements had been met.

IO540
10th Aug 2008, 07:35
I was once assured that it was preferable to use a standalone fax machine rather than a computer-generated fax, because the transmission log was considered legal proof that a fax had been sent to a specified number.I hope a lawyer comes in here soon, but my recollection from the goode olde days of telex (yes telex) was that the confirmation from the other end (which was real time) constituted legal proof of delivery, and this is one reason telex continued for so long.

Fax never delivered this legal status, and the confirmation printout does not rank any higher than any other kind of evidence.

But I could be wrong.

BT log all calls (numbers at each end, and call duration) and can confirm the call was made or attempted. Similarly with faxes sent over GSM - they also log the NMEI of the phone/modem, the SIM card details, and the geographical location of the caller at the time.

I don't know if any force accepts the GAR via email but that would rank as worth zilch, due to the extensive use of spam filters and emails going missing all over the place. They would have to have an auto-responder, for that to be worth anything.

DaveW
10th Aug 2008, 17:13
Has anybody made up a flowchart (checklist) of all the hoops you have to go through to make a trip to say France from the UK and back?

I had a go at something similar a few years back. It's not a flowchart, but see what you think (http://www.atsx91.dsl.pipex.com/Documents/Channel_Crossing_Aide_Memoire.doc).

Take a look as well at "Send Four Faxes and Fly To France" (http://www.atsx91.dsl.pipex.com/Documents/Why_Not_Fly_to_France.doc), which describes the process for a day trip.

It's much easier than you describe - for example, going to France (from any airfield, farm strip or Designated) is easy. Just file a Flight Plan and go.

The two docs are essentially just what IO540 has told you, but in a format such that you can have what you need on one side of A4.

The complexities - which actually aren't that complex - arise when informing the Agencies for your return trip, or if outbound to e.g. the Channel Islands.

There is at least one error on my Aide Memoire, though - it currently suggests that, having informed all the relevant people - you can depart to the Channel Islands / Eire / IoM / NI from any strip. Not so; the strict regulations require you to depart from an airfield Designated within the Prevention of Terrorism Act. (See this PPRuNe thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/private-flying/244466-sb-clearance-n-reg.html#post2876285), when I reported back after an email exchange with HMRC). Must update for that soon.

ProfChrisReed
10th Aug 2008, 18:59
I0540 wrote:


I hope a lawyer comes in here soon

OK, you get what you wished for. The Prof bit is Professor of Electronic Commerce Law, so here I do think I know what I'm talking about.

1. There is no such thing as "legal proof" (in the sense of certainty about complying with the law) for anything to do with sending faxes or emails. There is a small number of cases about whether the use of fax or email in the particular circumstances constituted a signed writing, but these are only guidance as to what the courts are likely to accept as evidence. Thus, like most aspects of the law, certainty is not on offer.

2. This means that you need to look at the relevant legal provision to analyse what needs to be done to comply with it. The quotations from other posters from the Terrorism Act [caveat: this is Sunday evening and I'm not prepared to waste it reading that Act, so I'm assuming they have quoted correctly] require the commander of the aircraft to give notice to the specified body. The question is therefore whether you have notified that body.

3. Notification requires you to convey the specified information to that body. Whether anyone reads it is irrelevant.

4. Until the information is received, nothing has been notified. This is equally true for hard copy letters, faxes (however sent), emails, carrier pigeons etc. If received, you have succeeded in notifying.

5. If Special Branch says you have failed to notify, the legal question is then whether you can produce evidence that you did notify. It is important to distinguish this from proof of sending - if you can prove you sent the notice a court might infer from that that your notice arrived - or it might not.

6. This means that the only methods of proof which would work are (a) a signature for e.g. a recorded delivery letter, (b) a fax machine log, which is evidence (but not conclusive proof) that the fax receiving apparatus at the number called did interact with your sending apparatus, or (c) an email received or read receipt (but most users, including me, set their email systems to refuse to send such receipts).

7. In practice, if you can prove you sent the notice then in my view you are unlikely to be prosecuted, even if your notice did not arrive, unless you have done something else to annoy law enforcement/security (calling the police rude names is never a good strategy).

8. If I were trying to prove I sent an email I would simply cc it to myself, or even better to a third party as well. I could easily produce evidence that I or my friend received the cc-ed copy (if necessary by the logs of my mail server, though this is probably over the top) and thus that the notice had been sent to the main addressee.

9. If I can prove I sent the notice, then the burden of proof would almost certainly be on the recipient to provide evidence it wasn't received (except in the case of a recorded delivery letter, where the signature on receipt will prove it either way so you should ask the Royal Mail to confirm signature). My guess would be that most law enforcement agencies do not operate a system for receipt of faxes which would allow them to produce such evidence. For emails, server logs should be able to produce such proof if retained in time.

Overall, I'd say that a fax offers a slightly higher level of evidence of receipt, but that an email cc-ed to yourself or a friend is very nearly as good.

I'd be happy to rely on an email to save me from prosecution, though as I only fly gliders this is never likely to be a pressing issue for me.

These principles also apply to business communications, except that if I've drafted the agreement under which you are giving notice the agreement will produce legal certainty (or the next best thing) as between the parties to the agreement.

Hope this helps.

dublinpilot
10th Aug 2008, 20:01
Don't forget that a fax confirmation is not your only proof of sending the fax. Your telephone company can confirm that a call was made from your line to the required fax number and the date and time of the call (which should agree with your confirmation page).

But most importantly they can confirm the duration of that call. Fax machines only talk to one another for a certain lenght of time before timing out for failed faxes. So if the call was for a minute or so, it's pretty good evidence that something was received from the call which the telephone records show took place, which is also backed up by your confirmation page.


Most fax machines produce a summary log of received/transmitted faxes every 20-50 faxes or so. If the police retained this is would prove that your fax was received. If they didn't retain it, I suggest that they would struggle to defend themselves against your confirmation page, and your independent telephone records. I can imagine the conversation now......"My client has a confirmation page from his fax, which agrees with independent BT phone records. Are you seriously trying to tell the court that you never received this fax?" ....."ermm...well.. we have no record of receiving it."........."Wel of course you have no record of receiving it!!! You don't bother retaining your fax records!!!!"

dp

IO540
10th Aug 2008, 20:11
Interesting that Recorded Delivery is regarded as so good. It is actually a really crap service. People use it because it works most of the time, and is cheap. The police use it for summonses because a proof of posting is legally sufficient for those.

In my business, we send most UK stuff RD, and each year many packages vanish without trace. Royal Mail carries RD stuff alongside (literally mixed with) normal mail so if it is lost, it is lost, no signature is obtained, and it cannot be traced. The system relies on the postman to spot the RD sticker at the point of delivery, and request a signature. A lot of postmen fail to spot the sticker and just deliver the package, never collecting the sig.

Special Delivery is better in that it is tracked, which is why I use it for final notices to cowboy builders, etc. But only the other day we had a case of 'no signature obtained', package lost, but we did get the £500 compensation.

I am also suprised you think email CCd to a mate is any good at all. If delivery is required for compliance with the law, what happens if the recipient's ISP runs (or uses) an IP blacklist and dumps the email? This is a huge problem nowadays. The other day I emailed the GAR to the police on the IOM (yes they have email addresses, and like to have a copy of the GAR too, apparently....) and it bounced back, allegedly due to an IP blacklist. Would this be considered 'delivered' I wonder?

ProfChrisReed
11th Aug 2008, 20:25
Recorded delivery is only any good if you can get the record of the signature on receipt. I don't use it, but like you have my doubts about its efficacy in actually obtaining that signature and being able to produce it.

Email cc-ed to a mate would be excellent proof of sending, as I said in my point 8. My view is that if you can prove sending, it's highly unlikely you'd be prosecuted.

Email bounced back because of an IP blacklist is an interesting one. I'd suggest that if you receive the bounce back immediately you know your notice has not been received by any person, and thus you know you have failed to notify. If the bounce arrived hours later, as can happen, or you never receive bounce notification, I can construct a very convincing argument that you did indeed notify. Whether the courts would accept that argument is something else though.

If you're really concerned about this, fun could be had by cc-ing the email to the CAA, or the Home Secretary, or an equivalent. Then you'd have the amusement of requiring the production of their records in your defence (note to the lay public, this may only be a lawyer's idea of fun, though as the Home Secretary is responsible for Special Branch it does seem appropriate to inform her about the important fact that you're off to Jersey. The Cabinet Office website offers [email protected], though I fear that Jacqui Smith may not see this personally).

IO540
11th Aug 2008, 21:20
Some quite amusing angles there :) :ok:

My guess is that at most 10% of emails rejected by spam filters result in anything at all going back to the sender. The rest is just quietly dumped.

CC'ing an email to the Home Secy would be a funny thing to do but I am sure it would be worthless because they will be running the same spam filters as anybody else might be.

IMHO, fax is still the best way.

A website form, on a server owned by Plod, would be perfect and I don't know why they don't do that - it is a week's work for somebody with more than half a brain.

flybymike
11th Aug 2008, 22:59
That would make it too difficult for them to find an excuse to pull you in for questioning....:rolleyes:

rtl_flyer
12th Aug 2008, 09:43
Going on from the notification. I have never been the recipient of a visit.

Anybody willing to say who turned up and what they asked for (paperwork), how long was the visit what did they look at (aircraft, paperwork, people)?

What were they like towards you as pilot? Was the visit inbound or outward - did they delay you departure? Were you departing larger airfield with security etc or just grass strip?

Just curious what to expect one day!

Tim

S-Works
12th Aug 2008, 10:16
Never been stopped outbound. Been met twice inbound. Did not want to see any paperwork, mark one eyeballed the aircraft and passengers as they walked up said Hi! in a very pleasant manner and had a cup of tea and talked about flying and aircraft in general. Stayed long enough for the tea and left.

It seems reading the comments on here that compared to other forces Northants Police not only understand the legislation but deal with it with a light hand.

dublinpilot
12th Aug 2008, 12:41
Been met twice inbound to UK.

Once very friendly officer in Islay, would simply asked us to fill out landing cards, which included all the info already supplied on the GAR form. She was very friendly, offered local advice on where to stay where to eat and drink etc. Lasted just long enough for us to fill out the landing cards...no more than 5 minutes.

Second time was rather less friendly, in Caernarfon. In fairness this was mainly my own fault as I had faxed the GAR form to South Wales police force instead of North Wales police force. The form was faxed 2 weeks before the flight so I'm disappointed that South Wales didn't either forward it to North Wales or alternatively inform me of my error.

Anyway we had to wait about 45 minutes for SB to turn up (was told by airport mgt that we were not to leave until they arrived). Conversation was less than friendly but never agressive. It went something along the lines of

SB: you must send a GAR 24 hours in advance and then you must ring us to get the permission number.
Me: But I did send the GAR!

This conversation took roughly an hour. I made a second mistake of not bringing the fax confirmation with me. It would have at least have shown that I had sent the fax and would have shown up my error in sending it to the wrong place. Without it I had little defence. Nor was I in a position to corrrect them that only 12 hours notice was required and that I didn't require a permission number. On return to home, I got copies of my fax confirmation page, and telephone records from my phone company. I wrote a letter to SB explaining the error (and apologising) but never received a response.

So if you do everything correctly, it seems to be little time involved. If you mess up it's a lot longer. I now always bring a copy of my GAR form, the confirmation page, and a copy of schedule 7 of the TA2000.

dp


ps. North Wales PF told me that they try met every single inbound flight that requires a GAR.

bookworm
12th Aug 2008, 12:50
We were stopped outbound on one occasion (from a designated airport without a continuous police presence). They were interested in any large quantities of cash we were carrying, and made a cursory inspection of our bags. Turned out they thought we were going to Munster. When they worked out that it wasn't the same as our destination, Münster, they lost interest. :)

Jodelman
12th Aug 2008, 13:07
At one time I made regular trips to the IOM from Kent. The first time a charming Mr Plod turned up and asked a few questions and then said whilst he still needed notifying he wouldn't bother turning up again unless he wanted to get out of the office!