N Reg aircraft under official pressure in UK??

[pussyboots]

Why is it that my bosses aircraft has been ramp inspected recently at two different locations in the UK by officials from the UK CAA / DTI and a full document check made - it was not just our aircraft it was all N reg on the airfield. I have heard of people operating N Reg to skirt around the law in the UK in terms of commercial work and training - is that what all this is about?

He was quizzed lots about my involvement ( I fly him around) they also gave a hard time to another guy at the airfield who was instructing on his aircraft. I had heard that the UK authorities rarely bother about such matters and even though its against the law in the UK without permission they just don't bother. I was also told that they do not worry too much about aerial charter work and AOC's for N Reg as "there are lots of loopholes" in the way the UK polices the matter

[Katamarino]

Oh good, a troll :rolleyes:

[goldeneaglepilot]

Interesting point - troll?? Maybe, or it could be a very valid point. I had heard that a number of airfields had been visited recently by the CAA / DTI / Police and documents of aircraft inspected.

[Katamarino]

It was lines like "I was also told that they do not worry too much about aerial charter work and AOC's for N Reg as "there are lots of loopholes" in the way the UK polices the matter" that make it seem like a poorly thought out troll against the N-Reg rather than an honest question. He spends more time implying that N-Reg aircraft are just used too break the law than actually talking about the ramp checks.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Good point - but has the OP post got any element of truth in it? Any one else heard of recent ramp checks?

[englishal]

No. But anyway it doesn't matter if they ramp check you as long as you are not breaking the law and to break the law you have to do it knowingly.

I bet you that if you carried out a survey of N vs G with regards to irregularities in paperwork, that N would come off better, simply because the FAA are pretty tough on paperwork, and that it is not worth the risk of being ramp checked and as N operators we know that this risk is higher by having an N on the tail. So I don't have much sympathy with operators breaking the law.

[bookworm]

Oh good, a troll

Can't be. All foreign trolls have required an EASA Part-TRL licence to post here since 8 April. And the SAFT teams have been doing a lot of checks lately, or so my boss tells me...

[goldeneaglepilot]

I agree that the FAA are very strict on paperwork - however that seems to be confined mainly within its own shores. A good example of something slipping through the FAA net in the first instance is the Seneca V thread

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/445619-seneca-v-crash.html

I have also seen first hand, FAA annuals completed in England (on paper) where the engineer was at the time several thousand miles away!!!

[peterh337]

I think it's another anti N-reg troll.

There might be some inspections going on but anybody who knows about aviation will know that you can do illegal charters (i.e. AOC busting) in a G-reg just as well, and will attract a lot less attention :E

I have also seen first hand, FAA annuals completed in England (on paper) where the engineer was at the time several thousand miles away!!!

Shall we start a thread on how to do dodgy papework on Part M maintenance? I could kick off by talking about a certain EASA 145 company which has a long history of fake documents (usually, re-using forms, when the component doesn't carry a S/N) and the CAA have known about them for ages.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Peter,

I don't think G-Reg is any better than N-Reg, I think that both have issues, a few minutes before I saw your post I posted on the Indy Hiatt thread:

I think a good example of stretched resources is the CAA oversight of maintenance. Looking at the prosecution statistics that they publish how many cases have been brought to Court by the CAA with regards maintenance issues? Is that because the maintenance is of such an incredibly high standard that they never need to take enforcement action, or because they do not have the resources in the engineering system to actually bring an action to Court?

I do think the FAA maintenance system is more open to abuse in Europe - simply because of the lack of FSDO's in Europe to police N reg maintenance

[peterh337]

I don't agree.

The FAA people in Europe have hit FAA A&Ps and AIs pretty hard when irregularities have come to light. I know of an IA who has been banned several times, over some years, for signing off stuff which allegedly he should not have. That terminates your income, basically...

They have also busted FAA repair stations over here.

The UK CAA does virtually nothing.

Lots of people don't like the FAA regime for lots of reasons. Usually it is something to do with axe grinding. The flight training business doesn't like it. Anybody making money out of paperwork doesn't like it, because of the more streamlined route on mods. Various bitter commercial and ex commercial AOC pilots don't like the FAA route because of some rogue operators which, it is erroneously believed, can exist more easily on the N-reg. I am sure MJ will be along in a minute :E

[goldeneaglepilot]

I know of an IA who has been banned several times

That says a lot - banned several times, I do agree the FAA does take enforcement action. The problem in my experience is actually finding someone at the FAA to make an investigation / take action with a person based outside America.

The New York FSDO which covers the UK is extrememly busy and seem VERY reluctant to take on any investigative matters unless PUSHED....

[maxred]

I do think the FAA maintenance system is more open to abuse in Europe - simply because of the lack of FSDO's in Europe to police N reg maintenance

GEP-That is just not true. The FAA inspection, particularly on paperwork, is as rigerous, if not more, than the CAA regime.

If anything, the DAR/IA, are more vigilant, there are less of them, they rely heavily on repeat business, they are scrutinised by an FAA regime that focuses on diligence and accuracy in all apsects of paperwork, and frankly having utilised both sytems for over 15 years, the FAA outweighs EASA land ten fold - my experience.

This anti N reg nonsense, veiled by ''shortcuts and skirting safety, is utter bollox. I would suggest GEP, you should know that

[peterh337]

The New York FSDO which covers the UK is extrememly busy and seem VERY reluctant to take on any investigative matters unless PUSHED....

No; the FAA has offices in Europe. They are the ones that get in the car and "visit" firms when malpractice has been reported.

The NY IFU is nominally responsible for Europe but does very little nowadays.

[mad_jock]

I told you before Peter its all about regulations for all the residents of a country or group of country's if they all decide to club together.

Nothing to do with safety what so ever.

Which is why they are putting a stop to it and will use what ever devious methods possible. Including prolonged inspections/ every time inspections to make owning one and running one as much as PIA as possible for local residents.

BTW troll or otherwise if they are doing inspections I doudt very much its to do with the EASA ****e. Its proberly more to do with the sodding olympics and all that rubbish. They will be wanting to have a list of aircraft that are based within flying distance of the venues.

[maxred]

So why does the CAA not replicate on G reg????

[mad_jock]

Because they already have a list of owners and details for the G reg lot. Just now I really don't think its anything to do with being N reg, just not G at the moment.

But thats not saying the data couldn't be used at a later date to prove the aircraft was being perm operated from UK soil.

[maxred]

And sorry, does the FAA not?

MJ - I could take you for a coffee at an airfiled we both know and love, show you 3 aeroplanes flying under Part M, all of which have known issues, that the CAA know of, and choose to ignore - Fact.

I am sure I could do the same with any designated reg country, however, the point everyone appears to jump on is that the N reg is haven for all that would choose to shortcut safety/compliance/et al.

It is simply not accurate.

[mad_jock]

As I have said its cock all to do with the issues you are mentioning, its all to do with the residents of a country circumventing national law.

It goes far deeper than the NAA's which is why "they" have pushed it through by hook and crook and spent so much time and money doing it.

And the "they" are Sir Humprey types (google "Yes Prime Minster" for the none UK folk)

And I don't know if they FAA does for UK owners maybe all the UK planes have trusts listed as the owners. And would they release the data anyway? I would presume so with all the US residents likely to be at the Olympics but who knows.

And I know you are right I could do the same for a few G regs as well. BUt thats not threason why they are pushing it through.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Hi Maxred,


Please don't get me wrong, my current aircraft is N-Reg, I have previously owned G-Reg so have seen both sides of the coin. I agree about the FAA being paperwork intensive. However I have also seen that in Europe the FAA are stretched very thinly and routine inspections on maintenance standards are infrequent. That is why I feel the system is more open to abuse.


I have on my desk evidence of two annuals that have been completed by an FAA engineer when he was 2000 miles from the actual aircraft. That has taken many months to get taken up by the FAA. The matter has been passed from desk to desk at the FAA.


With regards the ramp inspections now, I do suspect that the Olympics and the UK authorities need to know about ownership and operation of various GA aircraft on the N-Register is paramount as part of the security risk assessment.


Interestingly enough I wonder how many N-Reg operators have realised the procedures in place and the need for specific permits from the DTI during the Olympic period. Speaking to the person who issues the permits two weeks ago was interesting, he commented on how very few people had applied and how without the special permit operation during the Olympic period for certain types of operation it would effectively ground aircraft.

[peterh337]

What permit?

You need DfT permit for aerial work... at any time.

Never heard of needing a DfT permit to fly in the restricted zone.

[englishal]

I am sure this is just a troll thread, but anyway interesting idea about the Olympics. Where I live, they have had ANPR cameras positioned on all roads into and out of the area to record all number plates for the past half year or more. This is so they can filter out the "locals" from visitors and hence I suppose so the police can pay more attention to visitors than locals.

Stupid idea though, if I were a terrorist I'd just buy a car from the local rag which has been used in the area for the past 6 months and then it would flag as a "local" car.

I don't know about any permit to operate an N reg privately during the Olympics. What about a LN- reg....or M- reg or come to think of it an F- reg ??

[goldeneaglepilot]

Might be worth having a chat to the DFT about the implications of this - even as a private operator of a N-Reg aircraft. I have and was surprised.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-regional-london2012-airportoptions-pdf/2012airportoptions.pdf

[mm_flynn]

GEP,

Are you sure you linked the right info? All I can see is pages of glossy info on the local airports, along with a message that slots will fill up on busy days so book early. I don't see anything that says G reg get preferential slots, or N-reg will not be allowed slots, etc.

Yes we do know that scheduled service will be prioritised if there is an ATC capacity problem, but once again, AIUI that will put an N reg United flight at a higher priority than a G-reg Air Taxi flight.

[piperarcher]

Are you sure you linked the right info? All I can see is pages of glossy info on the local airports, along with a message that slots will fill up on busy days so book early. I don't see anything that says G reg get preferential slots, or N-reg will not be allowed slots, etc.

I thought the same.

Are these 'restrictions' applicable to GA N-reg traffic in the restricted zone during the olympics, or just commercial traffic?

[goldeneaglepilot]

I first thought that it would not affect GA movements (foreign registered aircraft rather than GA) I am now led to believe that is not the case - ALL non UK registered aircraft will be subject to special measures for the Olympic period

From the link:


To deal with this challenge the Government is proposing to introduce
new measures to help control the flow of aircraft during the Games
period. This will include the need for prior booking of arrival and
departure slots at all airports and airfields in South East England:
aircraft will not be permitted to operate without these. There will also be new airspace control measures in place, both for capacity and security reasons.



All of the airports and airfields featured here are able and ready to
take additional private and non-scheduled commercial flights during
the Games period. They have been listed on the basis that they are
within an approximate 120 minute journey to the main Games site at
Stratford, either by rail or by road. The information they have supplied
here is intended to provide an initial guide to what is available and
where. Those wishing to operate non-scheduled flights during the
Games period are encouraged to make use of the contacts supplied
to confirm details and availability.
Early contact is recommended, especially for those who have
particular needs or preferences as regards location, type of aircraft,
or timings. Many operators are making their plans now. Slots at peak
times are expected to be subject to heavy demand, and are likely to
be fully subscribed well before the Games at many airports.
The airports in and around London look forward to welcoming you in
2012 – but please make your arrangements as early as possible to
ensure that your needs can be met.
UK Department for Transport
London
March 2011

[dont overfil]

There have been a couple of inspections near here recently not just on N reg. May have been more about the person rather than the reg.

D.O.

[peterh337]

This will include the need for prior booking of arrival and
departure slots at all airports and airfields in South East England:
aircraft will not be permitted to operate without these.

That is out of date bollox. Look at the date: 3/2011.

I cannot see anything in the PDF saying N-regs will require DfT permission.

I have just phoned my local (Shoreham) and apparently during the Olympic month there will be no slots for VFR but there will be slots for IFR (and with very limited availability). In effect, no IFR traffic for the month, for practical purposes.

[maxred]

Back at my desk now.

With the greatest respect GEP, I cannot see anything in that that would indicate that foreign reg flights would be grounded, and as Peter states, look at the date.

MJ - I understand your point reference residents circumnavigating national laws, but almost every post hints/alludes to N reg scallywags, flouting every FCL regulation, maintenance dodging, and some plot that we all fly under a flag of convenience. My point is to state that it is simply not true.

And I know you know that:)

[Fuji Abound]

I have just phoned my local (Shoreham) and apparently during the Olympic month
there will be no slots for VFR but there will be slots for IFR (and with very
limited availability). In effect, no IFR traffic for the month, for practical
purposes.

Not sure if this is exactly what you meant? It suggests there will be no slots for VFR or IFR traffic out of Shoreham.

[mad_jock]

I believe oxford is 6 movement slots an hour be they VFR or IFR. So 3 in and 3 out or 6 in and zero out or 6 out and zero in.

And I don't think any airport are going to giving any slots to a spam cans earning them less than 50 quid for a landing.

[peterh337]

I think you will find the said airports will be working hard to get this ludicrous slot imposition lifted or relaxed, because nobody can make money with traffic throttled down to that level.

It is bizzare to do this to airports outside the :yuk::yuk: olympic :yuk::yuk: zone, too.

Fuji you have email.

Still looking for the alleged N-reg movement ban :)

[mad_jock]

I believe they already have and to put it bluntly have been told to poke it.

[piperarcher]

I have just phoned my local (Shoreham) and apparently during the Olympic month there will be no slots for VFR but there will be slots for IFR (and with very limited availability). In effect, no IFR traffic for the month, for practical purposes.

For my understanding, do 'slots' relate to just IFR traffic on a full IFR flight plan? I know during the olympics I need to file a VFR flight plan within a certain timeframe, await acknowledgement and an authorisation code of some kind, but I assume that doesnt count as a 'slot'?

[mad_jock]

Its a movement slot.

A takeoff is a movement be it IFR or VFR, and a landing is a movement again be it VFR or IFR. So if you wanted to go on a nav ex even if it was a round robin with no land away that would use two slots. Landaway it would be 4 slots two at each airport.

[peterh337]

Oh well, DIY instrument approaches is the way to go :)

[Thomascl605]

The pprune police squad are out in force again, this time it appears to be the turn of the Private forum. What a load of old tosh being thrown in the works about 'N' reg being treated differently to any other during the Olympics. Not so, the same regs apply to all. That said if we are also moving into the realm of the Earsa regs regarding 'N' reg in Europe then my local airfield has plenty of old disused military accommodation. I think I'll buy the accommodation and turn it into a new country, Freetown Christiana part two, not part of Europe. We'll have a session of Earsa reg burning around a bonfire where we can whoop like Injuns !

[BEXIL160]

Hmmm.... I'm not so sure that these are "movement slots".

As I understand it the "slots" are for IFR traffic only. London ATC capacity has been greatly expanded for the Olympic period, but there's still a finite limit.

It's not the airport capacity that's limited, it's the capacity of London to handle the traffic.

The "Slots" were agreed between ACL, the aerodrome operators and NATS some time ago and provide a means of regulating the flow strategically.

See here Airport Coordination Limited - Olympics Airports (http://acl-uk.org/default.aspx?id=136)... where it explains the process and confirms that the slots
for all IFR traffic arriving or departing.

VFR traffic should be unaffected... apart from the requirements for flying in the airspace (see Olympic Airspace (http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/))

Regards
BEX

[sycamore]

Shoreham is outside the RZ,so where is the problem..? One of it`s own making possibly..?

[Thomascl605]

And what a thread starter by 'Pussy Boots' a complete troll, sad to the extreme, pathetic in it's execution. Probably started by some bitter twisted out of work pilot who thinks they're going to piggyback a job on the basis of the Earsa rubbish. Not so, efforts already underway to ensure that this won't be the case.

[mad_jock]

just checked and the slots are IFR joining CAS although there is some debate about VFR wanting to transit the likes of SOU because it says all aircraft entering CAS.

[peterh337]

The slot leaflet is here (http://acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/slot_leaflet230312.pdf).

It would appear that imposing slots for IAPs which are not intended to connect with CAS is an incorrect implementation.

[goldeneaglepilot]

It is an interesting point. Peter - why did you not call the number on the leaflet? I did and was shocked by what was said. Its not about N-Reg, its about ANY foreign reg aircraft.

Peter - you called elsewhere today for advice on this matter, do you go to your newsagent for advice on what to buy for your sunday joint of meat?

My feelings are that this has sneaked in and there are going to be a lot of very unhappy pilots.

[Fuji Abound]

A takeoff is a movement be it IFR or VFR, and a landing is a movement again be it VFR or IFR. So if you wanted to go on a nav ex even if it was a round robin with no land away that would use two slots. Landaway it would be 4 slots two at each airport.

I don't think so. This is clearly a reference to departures into CAS not flights OCAS be they in or outside the zone albeit we all know VFR within the zone will be subject to prior approval. At least that is my understanding but happy to be corrected.

[custardpsc]

I have heard of people operating N Reg to skirt around the law in the UK in terms of commercial work and training - is that what all this is about?

I have heard of people operating non medical to skirt around the law too recently . That may have been the cause of a ramp check. Unfortunate choice of verb in the circumstances too.

I'd refer you to your earlier posts but that thread seems to have vanished

[mm_flynn]

It is an interesting point. Peter - why did you not call the number on the leaflet? I did and was shocked by what was said. Its not about N-Reg, its about ANY foreign reg aircraft.

Peter - you called elsewhere today for advice on this matter, do you go to your newsagent for advice on what to buy for your sunday joint of meat?

My feelings are that this has sneaked in and there are going to be a lot of very unhappy pilots.

GEP,

Can you just tell us what they said, rather than have DFT get a hundred half baked phone calls. We all know that IFR (into out of CAS) slots are going to be limited, we also know there is a whole production on VFR access into the restricted area - with a capacity that is uncertain at best. Your referenced document appears to indicate that all air taxi type operations into and out of the South East are subject to DfT prior approval (which is NA to me at least - but not relevant as all my flights are private).

What I have seen no evidence for is some further restriction which does not apply to G reg aircraft but does apply to all others. (May be this DfT requirement does not apply to G reg air taxis???)

[goldeneaglepilot]

It seems to be customary on this forum if anyone makes a statement then it will be challenged and some will try to shoot it down - unless they have heard it with their own ears, hence the suggestion to make the call for themselves.

However, what I was told is that during the Olympic period ALL foreign registered aircraft movements (in an area starting across the country roughly north of Birmingham) would need DFT approval, I asked if that was just commercial operations and was told - "NO ALL OPERATIONS private or commercial". I asked if that was just IFR and again was told ALL OPERATIONS. I was also told that surprisingly few people had bothered to apply so far.

This seems to have had very little publicity, if I was sceptical I might wonder if this was intentional and in would effect leave some people grounded, and by the time pople realise it would be too late to make any plans

A number of gliding clubs in the restricted area have already discovered that for the Olympic period they will effectively be grounded.

[englishal]

Well, I also "heard" from the CAA website that "the holder of a FAA IR will have the same privileges as an IMCr holder"...This was printed in black and white on their website some time ago.

But what one "hears" and what is truth are two different things. Unless I see this in black and white and it is law, then as far as I am concerned, nothing has changes to the present. I have yet to find that information...

[goldeneaglepilot]

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa438/dh12554/Oh-****.jpg

Top tip!! Read the earlier posts Englishal and maybe phone the number for yourself.... The leaflet was published 14 months ago by the body that the CAA answer to.

Alternatively carry on with total disregard, to quote what the Sun said about the way that pilots would be treated if they failed to comply with Olympic restrictions:

Ultimately the pilot will be killed with a shot to the head over open country rather than risk an event being bombed

;)

[mm_flynn]

I have been in email contact with Dft, where I have asked the specific question of what restrictions exist/what approvals are required and specifically to identify that I was 'told by someone that all non G-reg aircraft need Dft permission'.

I then stated this was inconsistent with my understanding and then set out to fully enumerate the special Olympic rules with a reiteration that none of these rules differentially affect G and foreign reg aircraft (save the specific requirement to have a slot before the currently required Article 223 approval would be given). I have received a confirmation my understanding is correct (with one key exception) and there were no differential rules applying to foreign reg aircraft.

The exception is that the slots apply to all IFR flights including those totally OCAS and the restricted area. This is inconsistent with the words on their website pamphlet, which I have pointed out, but is consistent with the AIC



sanitised email from here down Red is their addition Silver is their strikeout of original text
-------------

Dear name removed,
*
Please find below corrections to your summary.
*
Best regards
*
Name removed
*
.....
Subject: Olympic slots for Foreign Aircraft.
*
Sirs,

A fellow pilot has told me that he was informed in a telephone conversation with your organisation that ALL foreign (i.e. non G-reg aircraft) will require a DfT issued approval for any flight near any of the coordinated airports. *This is inconsistent with my understanding from published information.

The published information I have available tells me
1. * * * *For an IFR departure or arrival into a coordinated airport controlled airspace, a slot must be booked with ACL] NATs.
2. * * * *Additionally, for the operations above, a Dft approval will be required for non-scheduled public transport operations by non-UK registered aircraft (and this will only be approved subject to proof a slot has been booked). *This, is the normal application of Article 223 with the addition of the requirement to already hold a slot.
3. * * * *No specific slot is required for VFR or IFR operations not intending to enter Controlled Airspace for the coordinated airports. All IFR flights arriving or departing from a coordinated airport must have a slot from ACL.
4. * * * *Not withstanding 3 above, if any part of the operations (VFR or IFR) will enter R112, the flight will require an approved flight plan with an approval code issued by Atlas Control.

None, of these regulations indicate any differential treatment of G-Registered vs. other aircraft with regard to the Olympic restrictions. *Can you confirm my summary of the restrictions is complete and correct.

I am asking this as I operate a non-UK registered aircraft in the South of England and am aware of a number of other locally operated aircraft registered in various European countries, Crown Dependancies, and the USA and wish to ensure I am fully cognisant of the rules and regulations to be implemented during the Olympic period

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

[englishal]

Thanks, so I don't have to worry about being shot in the head ;)

There is a difference between scaremongering and posting fact.

[421C]

Top tip!! Read the earlier posts Englishal and maybe phone
the number for yourself.... The leaflet was published 14 months ago by the body
that the CAA answer to.


GEP

Let me get this straight. You are a pilot. You are presumably familiar with the way aeronautical information is promulgated.

You are suggesting that a very major restrictrion exits which has been promulgated through ABSOLUTELY NONE of the many official publications on Olympic Airspace matters and totally conflicts with what a reasonable person may depend upon - ie. that by reading all the published material on how to comply with Olympic Airspace restrictions, the absence of a single mention of a requirement for all foreign-registered movements to obtain DfT permission should allow them to conclude that such permission is not required.

So, either

1. the above is true and this "double secret" restriction exists and, it appears, you alone amongst the GA community are aware of it

OR

2. the person who picked up the phone and took your call is a bit confused

It seems to be customary on this forum if anyone makes a statement then it will be challenged and some will try to shoot it down - unless they have heard it with their own ears, hence the suggestion to make the call for themselves.
Assessing the likelihood of 1 vs 2 above, are you surprised?

[maxred]

Has sense and clarity won then. Or are some still in danger of death:uhoh:

[peterh337]

Good work from mm_flynn :ok:

It would have been totally barmy if N-regs needed specific DfT permission to take to the air in any part of the UK because there would be no way for visiting foreigners (most of whom are ...... wait for it guys .... this is an amazing revelation which was top secret until now ..... foreign registered :E :E :E) to obtain such a permission - at the short notice potentially involved in international aviation.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

However, I am b*****d as to why slots are required for IFR even if OCAS and outside the olympic "shoot you down" area. It is idiotic because (as anybody who has the slightest clue about UK aviation knows) there is no practical difference between IFR OCAS and VFR OCAS. All this rule does is cripple flying school instrument training income, make IAPs useless for people who need them (because the based schools will just book every one of the 1hr-ly slots - just like e.g. FTOs in Bournemouth have their instructors get out of bed at 6:30am and make phone calls in their pyjamas to book procedure slots) and encourages DIY letdowns into airports with perfectly good instrument facilities which will now be mandatorily useless for 90%+ of the time at any airport which is not running Bournemouth-type or Cranfield-type training levels.

[Fuji Abound]

Bizarre.

However all this would mean is a vfr departure from say shoreham with an earlier declaration of ifr if required. Legalities taken into account i guess with a 500 foot cloudbase a vfr departure might raise an eyebrow but hey ho.

One can only assume the "rules" were made up by someone who has no understanding of ifr ocas - oh yes so thats most pilots as well.

[peterh337]

This is inconsistent with the words on their website pamphlet, which I have pointed out, but is consistent with the AIC

Where is the AIC reference?

However all this would mean is a vfr departure from say shoreham with an earlier declaration of ifr if required. Legalities taken into account i guess with a 500 foot cloudbase a vfr departure might raise an eyebrow but hey ho.

A Z flight plan would solve this for the departure, particularly at airports which have no SIDs or don't particularly care about departure routes, which is true by all airports in Class G, but it is on the arrival one may want the IAP.

[Fuji Abound]

Well if ifr was required on arrival from a vfr fp can we really see AT refusing the arrival and the pilot having to declare a pan?

[peterh337]

I have personally seen a case (locally) where an inbound pilot had not got the PPR (required for 8-9am ops) and was refused landing. He had to orbit for maybe 30 mins.

He was mostly at fault for

- not having got notams (like ~50% of pilots, evident from not knowing the new ATIS)
- thinking that his VFR flight plan was "accepted"
- thinking that a flight plan would be OK for PPR

with the last two being used on the radio to try to get in. A bit sad really (not the pilot; it's the crap PPL training yet again).

[mm_flynn]

Where is the AIC reference?



A Z flight plan would solve this for the departure, particularly at airports which have no SIDs or don't particularly care about departure routes, which is true by all airports in Class G, but it is on the arrival one may want the IAP.

S 006/2012 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=11&Itemid=18.html) is the Supplement in the AIC that describes slot procedures. The Dft, did come back to me and say their web brochure was incorrect and they would update it. That is that the slots are intended for ALL IFR traffic regardless of it being into CAS.

As a note, it is worth remembering that IAPs in VFR do not have to be under IFR, so to that extent, training organisations should be able to shoot approaches in VMC at coordinated airports without any hindrance, other than that imposed by the extra demand.

I believe the CAA has also, in an effort to avoid a bunch of biz jets stooging around low level, dictated that Z/Y flight plans will not be allowed during this time frame. I believe they may have acquiesced to Z/Y flight plans where the changeover is outside EG airspace to allow for IFR plans to and from VFR German and Italian airports.

[mad_jock]

To be honest its more than likely a cracking time to practise in VMC. They arn't going to have alot of IFR traffic to fit you around.

[mm_flynn]

Well if ifr was required on arrival from a vfr fp can we really see AT refusing the arrival and the pilot having to declare a pan?
I certainly have seen 'VFR' arrivals into 500 OVC 1500m, they always seem to be straight ins - sometimes even following a set of conveniently located navaids and waypoints!. At places like Lydd,Shoreham,Fairoaks,Denham,etc, I suspect these arrivals will increase during the period. At places like South End, Southampton, Bournemouth, Farnborough, etc. I suspect they will actually be off limits without a real slot in that they probably will be very busy.

[goldeneaglepilot]

I must admit Shoreham as an example of the restrictive nature of the slots allocation during the Olympic period is a good example, 33 IFR movements maximum in 24 hours with a peak time allocation of two movements per hour. Movements of course are a departure OR arrival IFR.

http://acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/SCC%202012%20Olympics%20Airport%20Capacity%20Declarations%20-%2023Jan12.pdf

Peter - have you booked yourself any slots yet?

[peterh337]

ACL have changed their wording

old (http://acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/slot_leaflet230312.pdf)

new (http://acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/slot_leafletmay12.pdf)