Rotorhead C to the CAA:
Sir
I wish to register my opposition to the proposed changes. I know large numbers of more detailed submissions have been made by both the fixed wing and rotary wing groups / individuals. I will not be adding anything new to the arguments other than to say that I am a helicopter pilot and can see so many difficulties arising. Private / Unlicenced landing sites. Mountain flying and training. Etc, etc etc. The very nature and attributes of a helicopter appear to be totally at odds with this proposal.
Regulation and legislation should be used as a line of last resort. If there are COMPELLING SAFETY ISSUES here, then you have not put them across to the industry as a whole. Opinions might be changed in the aviation world if you could produce facts and figures. In this day and age and the extraordinary levels of spin, we have all become very cynical of bureaucrats, so in some respects I have sympathy for you in the SRG, but that does not let you off the hook. This Country is beset by jobs-worths producing regulations which appear to be for regulation
sake, (not just in Aviation) and if you are to overcome our cynicism, you need to be out plugging your proposals in the same way that Mr Cockburn goes out to spread the message of GA safety. (He does it well)
If proposals can stand that acid test then you ARE doing something for aviation. Otherwise, I believe that you are merely perpetuating the 'them & us' scenario that David works so hard to dispel.
I therefore respectfully urge you to consign this nonsense to the
bin........where it should have gone in the first place!
Reply from the CAA
Thank you for your comments on the discussion paper. I take it that you wish the UK low flying rule to remain unchanged. At this time the consultation concerns a discussion paper which lays out the options for change, one of which is to do nothing.
At the present time the CAA was mainly seeking opinions from the aviation community with regard to the major parameters
which might be changed. Annex A contains a revision of the text of the rule which attempted to reduce the length, repetition and extensive cross referencing necessary in the existing rule, but the basic provisions remain largely unchanged.
What exactly do you want to be allowed to do with your helicopter that would not pose a hazard to other members of society, which is not prohibited by the current rule 5 , but would be prohibited by the revised form at Annex A?
P.S. David Cockburn sends his regards
Response by Rotorhead C
Thank you for your most prompt (and not really expected reply).
I have just learned that you are a pilot (H) which is perhaps an
assistance when I expand to say that while there may be merit in
ensuring the clarity of the rule 5 message, I certainly do not wish to see any change to the concept of 500ft from....as opposed to 500ft above....
I agree that a 'plain English' version of all aspects of the rules (and not just Aviation) should and I think would be welcomed by all. But my inbuilt cynicism of intentions comes to the forefront when there appears to be no good reason for change of the rules themselves.
Thank you again for taking the trouble to respond.