I share
FNG’s doubts that resources will be allocated to this in the short term; frankly, I doubt if we’ll see much improvement in the long term - regardless of the resources made available.
I also agree that the ingrained habits of parliamentary draftsmen, and their apparent reluctance to use plain English, don’t help. (Speaking of the desirability of using plain English, I wonder what proportion of the population – or of lawyers - now uses, or even knows the meaning of, ‘palimpsest’ ?
)
However, in the specific area of aviation law, the source of the problem is to be found at an earlier stage: The ethos of our CAA which is to regulate, or attempt to regulate, every conceivable aspect of aviation.
Parliamentary draftsmen can only do their best with the raw material they are given, and even the most committed believer in plain English amongst them would have great difficulty drafting easily understandable legislation from the raft of rules and exceptions which they are required to include.
American aviation legislation is a model of simplicity in comparison. Why? Because the FAA adopts a very different, and IMHO far superior, approach to aviation and aviators. It doesn’t seek to regulate every conceivable aspect of aviation. It emphasises safety, and requires pilots to operate safely within a less detailed, but nonetheless clear, legal framework. However, to the horror of many of those in the CAA, in many instances the FAA not only allows pilots greater discretion within that framework but assumes that properly trained and qualified pilots are capable of using their discretion sensibly. If pilots fail to do so, and cause danger, the FAA prosecutes them.
The recent consultation paper in relation to a new Rule 5 provides a useful example. The Rule 5 which we know and love (
) is notoriously complicated - so bad that even the CAA was eventually driven to concede it was virtually incomprehensible. The ‘new’ version is a significant improvement, but it still falls far short of the simplicity of the American equivalent.
A Ppruner who suggested it would be far better to adopt the American version than try to improve our existing rule (palimpsest
) received this response from the CAA.
”FAR 91.119 is very simple. Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe.”
Hard to believe, but that is not a spoof. It is a genuine response from the CAA, posted by the recipient in a discussion in the Rotorheads forum. It prompted the following response from an American Ppruner.
” Obviously, this person has never been to America. Not surprising that he is using a stereotype of the country - everyone else seems to do so. There are certainly areas of wide open spaces, but there are also large areas that are at least as heavily populated as Europe.
The difference is the attitude of the people toward government, & vice versa. Here, the government doesn't give us rights, they are all ours until we surrender one. But no matter the country, once a bureaucracy is in place, it will spend most of its time justifying its existence & expanding its scope. Once a government passes an ordinance, it's rarely rescinded. Good luck on getting relief."
Is the CAA's ethos justified by a better safety record?
No. There is no difference between our safety record and that of America.