It would help if the politicians realised the difference between a spamcan and a bizjet....
This is an area where blame (or responsibility, depending upon one's point of view) can't be laid on politicians.
Although
formally passed by Parliament, the rules and regulations under which we have to fly in the UK are thought up and drafted by the CAA. The ANO, Rules of the Air Regulations etc are 'secondary legislation'.
Secondary legislation goes through parliament 'on the nod'. Unless Parliamentary rules have changed in recent years, MPs have only two choices: accept the entire proposal or reject the entire proposal. They are not entitled to reject selected parts so, as a result, secondary legislation from various government departments is often passed in batches with only the title being mentioned.
In theory, MPs could be criticised for not reading every word of every piece of secondary legislation. In practice, that would be impossible.
Why do we allow it to happen?
Partly because the British have a love/hate relationship with rules. We claim to dislike having laws about everything, but my theory is that we (as a nation) like it that way.
Often, when someone asks on PPRuNe if they can legally do something, a lot of effort is put into arguing that's illegal. Sometimes, the arguments put forward as to why it's 'technically' illegal show great ingenuity and imagination. Only rarely is the same effort put into thinking of reasons why it's legal - or how it can be made legal with just some minor change(s) to the idea.
There's a marked difference between the British
'Can't do, unless ........' and (for example) the American
'Can do, unless ........' approach to aviation and life.
The difference between the CAA and FAA approach to legislation can be seen (for example) by comparing our 'new improved' Rule 5 with the American equivalent.
One is short, to the point and easy to understand for both aeroplane and helicopter flying.
Guess which one?
