Originally Posted by LookingForAJob
Originally Posted by bookworm
Originally Posted by Easy Street
No matter how good the safety record in Class G IFR, the fact is that the UK's approach to it is practically unique and non-compliant with ICAO and SERA.
Not so. ICAO and SERA permits IFR in class G, and states like Germany and Switzerland that have previously prohibited it are now trying to work out how to adapt their rules appropriately.
The bit where the UK is unusual, if not unique, is that it provides ATC (call it something else if you want, but it amounts to much the same) to IFR flights outside CAS.
Thanks LookingForAJob, that was exactly what I was getting at. I know that IFR in Class G is allowed under ICAO and SERA, it's the provision of ATS that is inconsistent (with the rest of the world, if not the letter of the law).
Originally Posted by Jim59
The military are not operating under ICAO or ANO regulation
Since I am a current military pilot I know this very well. What you may not know is this, from MAA Regulatory Policy:
The authority to operate and regulate registered UK military aircraft is vested in the Secretary of State [for Defence]. Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of provisions of the ANO do not apply to military aircraft, the Crown could be liable in common law if it were to operate its aircraft negligently, and cause injury or damage to property. SofS’ instruction to Defence is that where it can rely on exemptions or derogations from either domestic or international law, it is to introduce standards and management arrangements that produce outcomes that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation.
In the majority of cases, including provision of ATSOCAS, the military regulations comply with this directive by repeating civil legislation
verbatim or by directing compliance with specific sections of the ANO and/or ICAO. Therefore the military has a direct interest in civil regulations (which is a good job, too, because we share airspace and controllers!) and I consider it entirely valid for the military to support regulatory alignment - after all we are sometimes pressed into action across borders with little time for AIP study!
Originally Posted by LookingForAJob
we (the UK, and all other EU member States) have no choice and no opt out unless it is specifically written into the legislation.
I am aware of this point and it was pretty much what prompted me to post. It seems to me that the CAA's approach to SERA has been to do the bare minimum needed to make the UK regulations compliant (probable loss of the quadrantal cruising levels being a good example), whereas an alternative approach could have been to proactively align procedures in the interests of Europe-wide consistency. As the tone of my opening post suggested, I would rather have treated SERA as an opportunity than a threat.