Rules and Regs

[englishal]

Just by reading recent posts on Pprune and Flyer, I realise that most UK PPLs (including me) don't fully understand the rules and regs. I also realise through correspondance with the CAA that the CAA don't even fully understand them themselves.

I think its becasue the ANO has been cobbled together over the past decades, parts changed when needed, other parts ommitted and to be honest, many parts don't make sense any more.

Maybe they should re-write it, and send a "plain english" version to every licence holder!

Cheers
EA

[Fuji Abound]

To easy!

(Seemed the instant reply to such a sensible comment and I have to type 15 characters now)

[FNG]

A good idea, but I doubt that resources will be allocated to this in the short term. Ingrained habits of parliamentary drafting die hard and, as Al points out, rules develop piecemeal through a palimpsest of amendments and additions. These problems bedevil UK legislation in many fields.

[Fuji Abound]

FNG - Ah but the Companies Acts were consolidated.

So have large parts of the Taxes Act.

[DRJAD]

As far as I know, this piecemeal approach to the amassing of safety-related legislation applies also to the railway industry in this country, since so much of the Rules and Regulations on the railway has come about through recommendations and requirements from safety enquiries after accidents.

It could, I'd have thought, be argued that that approach lends strength to the safety regime in the industry, but it does mean that the comprehensive and accurate picture relating to any particular instance is hard to divine. Thus, legal experts are needed both to interpret and to test the legislation.

Having taken this approach, and used it to form a considerable bulk of regulation, in both industries, it would be hard to replace it with a complete revision, I suspect. In any case, under our system of law, it would require a great deal of testing in court to arrive at a situation where a revision could be regarded as reasonably watertight. That, at any rate, is my layman's feeling on the matter, no doubt expert opinion will portray a more accurate view.

[FNG]

Yes, Fuji, and you see consolidation in many other fields besides, but Consolidation Acts merely patch together what has gone before (it is a general rule of statutory interpretation that consolidation Acts do not change the law). Then the consolidation acts get amended themselves (I can think of some yucky examples of this, in non aviation fields). I think that Al is suggesting a throw-it away and start with a clean sheet of paper approach, which might require too great an effort of will and commitment of resources to be achievable, even if the culture of those who draft legislation was receptive to such an approach.


PS: This approach was recently adopted in the rules for civil court procedure, but that was a classic case of trying to fix something that wasn't broken, trash-canning perfectly serviceable rules and a hundred years of accrued understanding about them, and the re-write was done in a hurry and very badly.

[Spitoon]

FNG, your PS is interesting. Maybe it's a perspective thing. Presumably the civil court procedures were thought to be broken by someone. OTOH, the people who make such decisions often don't have to put them into practice.

[FNG]

I could comment on the procedure rules fiasco, but that would take us some way from aviation, so I hope you won't mind if I don't.

[Flying Lawyer]

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 ( :rolleyes: ) 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.

[FNG]

Good points, Flying Lawyer, although I note from reading Avweb that US pilots complain that the FAA can be a bit harsh when it wants to, and some of its procedures as discussed there appear surprising, in view of the US Constitution's due procress guarantees, but I do not have the experience to judge how fair or effective a regulator the FAA is.

As for plain English, I'm all in favour of this (as my pupils find to their cost when they try any of that wretched Bar School drafting style on me), but it would be a shame if plain English impoverished our vocabulary. Anyway, here on pprune we have Evo as our resident mobile dictionary and thesaurus.

[englishal]

A very good post by FL.

On the FAA Web site they have published a "plain english" FAQ on the FARs by an FAA chap called Mr. Lynch, and it is excellent at clarifying some of the more ambiguous FARs, maybe something the CAA could publish withough having to re-write the ANO ?(maybe I'll write one and send it to the CAA for approval?).

EA:D

[DRJAD]

FNG said:

As for plain English, I'm all in favour of this (as my pupils find to their cost when they try any of that wretched Bar School drafting style on me), but it would be a shame if plain English impoverished our vocabulary.

Ah, thank you FNG. I couldn't agree more.

[FNG]

It appears that there is a plain English "translation" or commentary on the ANO on the market. I have not seen the book, but here's a link to a description of it:-

http://www.flightstore.co.uk/the_ano_and_rules_of_the_air_.pilot.books/use.id.10.item_id.392.dept.12.dept_l2.62.dept_l3.64/

Bear in mind that, as Al pointed out, the Order and Rules are amended quite often. According to the website, the book refers to the 1991 Rules of the Air, but these have been replaced by the 1996 version. It seems surprising that the book , published in 2002, takes on board the ANO 2000, but not the 1996 Rules (NB this may be an error on the website, not the book).

The CAA's own summary of the horridly drafted Article 130 (hotly debated in two threads running at the moment) is in my opinion a reasonably clear document.

[Penguina]

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’

Upon consulting colleagues within hailing distance of my desk, I learn that it is 'a parchment on which writing has been effaced in order to replace it with other writing'. So now I know. Have heard it bandied, of course.

What a delightfully antiquated word. I think I'll try and use it sensibly in conversation three times by the end of the day. :D

Yrs,

Penguina, voice of the ill-educated youth of today.

[MikeJeff]

Penguina,

If you can successfully pull that off - I'll give you a tenner!

maybe I could\'ve phrased that better - sorry!:O

[bookworm]

American aviation legislation is a model of simplicity in comparison.

I don't believe that's the case. You cite a single example, the low flying rule. But there are plenty of cases where US rules make specific demands, while UK ones leave it to the aircraft commander to make a sensible risk management decision on private flights:

Examples:
Use of oxygen
Fuel requirements
Requirement for alternates
Alcohol consumption (at least until recently)

One could argue that the airspace structure was an example too.

Unfortunately, it seems that ICAO is encouraging the CAA to go down the road of detailed legislation in even some of these areas. It is sad that in an age where general Health & Safety regulation seems to be moving away from the prescriptive towards a rather more enlightened approach of "think about it, manage it, document it", we seem to be hemming our pilots in by more detailed regulation. It may well have a detrimental effect on safety.

[Penguina]

MikeJeff

If you can successfully pull that off - I'll give you a tenner!

Well, I don't know about pulling things off :O but I'm prepared to do most things for an average landing fee. Will report back on my success.

Edited to add that I understand this word can be an adjective too, hence this is now a palimpsest post. YES! This is too easy! :p