View Full Version : What's with the CAA?

29th Oct 2005, 11:40
Spitfires stopped from flypast (http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=16301780&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=spitfire-tribute-grounded--for-safety-reasons--name_page.html)

Is this reasonable? Are all single-engined planes now banned from flying over built-up areas?? Makes life a bit difficult, doesn't it?

I am not a conspiracy theorist usually but is it possible that Al-Quaeda have got hold of a SAM?

Send Clowns
29th Oct 2005, 14:49
If you refer to them as "the Campaign" then everyone seems to know who you mean; the nickname "Campaign Against Aviation" seems now to be very widely used.

29th Oct 2005, 17:55
Oh for Christ's sake :rolleyes:

All you PC-12 drivers better watch out now.

south coast
29th Oct 2005, 18:00
how is one supposed to ever do flight training?

and what is the definition of a built up area?

town, village, airport?

African Tech Rep
29th Oct 2005, 18:11
I’ll bet those Spits were better maintained than your average airliner – stupid decision from people who can enforce their stupid ideas.

BTW – have maintained both “oldies and newies” – main difference is oldies are cared for newies are just fixed and got out the door asap.

30th Oct 2005, 04:56
Fortunately, the BBMF's Spitfires still have their military serial numbers and fly as military aircraft.

Perhaps we could arrange for them to strafe Gatport Airwick for a reasonable fee?

2 sheds
30th Oct 2005, 09:42
South Coast

Definition, from the UK ANO:

‘Congested area’ in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes"

I suspect that the beloved CAA would be referring to the proposed flight in these terms, rather that "built-up area" which is a colloquialism. Presumably, they are terrified of giving an exemption to Rule 5 just in case something were to go wrong and they were blamed. Of course, the flypast could always be conducted legally, i.e. in compliance with Rule 5 or has no-one thought of that?

30th Oct 2005, 13:35
Especially since Rule 5 is now a third less restrictive than it once was.

DX Wombat
30th Oct 2005, 15:04
Blacksheep it sounds like it's about time the BBMF used their Lancaster for it's proper purpose :E Anyone got any spare WW2 armaments lying around waiting to be used up? :hmm: :E