Nick Clegg's "Your Freedom" website - Aviation-related

[bern444]

This is a UK only thing - Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is asking for laws and regulations to repeal - see BBC News - Nick Clegg calls for law repeal ideas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10470071.stm)

Any thoughts? Now's the time and probably the place to get started.....

B

[peter272]

How about the Part M regs and put us all on to Permit

[Pace]

Read this too and a good opportunity to get rid of the mindless regs and anti freedom regs we have but better done in mass than individually

Pace

[jollyrog]

GAR. Completely pointless.

[Legalapproach]

Rule 5 anyone :E

[bern444]

I've been flying a small tin box in the sky for over twenty years now. It's still the same model and age of tin box as when I started. Throughout that time, the regulations have changed and changed again, but never in such a way that it was possible to significantly update the fleet of tin boxes that float through the sky. In fact it's the regulations that keep us flying the equivalent of the Rover 90 whilst the boxes we drive on our roads have changed enormously. I get out of my fuel injected air-condidtioned computer controlled road box, and into a sky box that has magnetos carbureters and primers. How sad is that?

Regulation ought to be about safety, both for those in the tin box in the sky and those it might fall upon. Given that technology keeps most of us flying at the same heights and speeds as our elders and ancestors did 50 years ago, the regulators could have popped in at the beginning for a few months, written up some stuff and retired to the country, a good job done. Why didn't that happen? Because regulation - and aviation is just the tiniest drop in the ocean - is about paying mortgages and school fees. Regulators, like everyone else, want to earn a living and in some cases boss people around and build empires. So they keep changing things, even though the environment changes very little. This - maybe - but probably not - is a chance to cut back on empires and regulatory layers, and get back to common sense. And I for one would like to fly an aeroplane that wasn't designed in the 1950s.

B

[flybymike]

The CAA have statistically demonstrated that the plethora of new reglation introduced by JAA (BFRs, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests. etc etc) have done precisely zilch for flight safety and merely dumped more uneccessary expense and hassle at the foot of GA, adding more straws to the camel's back, strangling the industry to death, deterring new entrants, and adding to the 70/75% of PPLs who pack it all in after the first 5 years . The regulators wont be satisfied until they have regulated themselves out of existence.

But then we are back to "The European problem" again...

[AdamFrisch]

The joint rules have it's problems, but let's not forget what a nightmare it was before it came along as well. BFR's were there then, too. And don't forget that you needed a bloody type rating for each type. At least this was the case in Sweden and many other countries.

At least there is freedom to move and convert and work wherever one wants these days and the rules have been homogenized. That's worth a lot.

[Captain Smithy]

I'd rather not rattle off a list of "Anti-Europe Crap", but everyone who's involved in aviation only needs to take a fleeting glance around them to see how we're absolutely mired in it.

EASA; clueless bureaucrats attempting to regulate something they have no understanding of at all. Being forced through with seemingly no consultation, with us left to pick up the (usually very expensive) pieces afterwards; a very European way.

All we seem to experience with Europe is a never-ending circle of ever-increasing bureaucracy, rules, paperwork and spiralling costs, none of which contributes at all to flight safety, which is apparently what all this is meant to be for.

I don't know what life was like pre-JAR as I was only about 12 or 13 years old when this all came about, but all I see are ever-increasing problems for the industry, most of which have a simple solution which is currently totally absent - common sense... :hmm:

Smithy

[Genghis the Engineer]

How about scrapping the rule which says "if it can have a CofA, it must have a CofA".

The result:

- Reduced workload for the CAA (so you can get rid of a few expensive public servants)
- Reduced costs for owners
- Increased revenue and membership for LAA, which supports the light aircraft community.


Next, scrap the rule which prevents joint owners from paying an instructor to teach them to fly in their own non-public-transport aeroplane (private cat or permit) :

The result:

- More aircraft ownership
- Cheaper training costs
- People will be trained in aeroplanes that represent what they'll eventually fly, thus enhancing safety.
- Make being a flying instructor more interesting.


Next, scrap the rule which says that msot microlight hours don't count towards a PPL(SEP) CPL or ATPL.

The result:

- Cheaper flying for hour builders, so we may start to get instructors who actually want to be instructors.
- Boosting the UK microlight industry (the light aircraft industry having already been killed off years ago)
- More ability for already able pilots to fly other aeroplane types.

I'm working up steam for a few more later.

G

[Captain Smithy]

- Reduced workload for the CAA (so you can get rid of a few expensive public servants)
- Reduced costs for owners

Bloody hell G. We can't be having that!!! Where would all those troughers go? And what would they be able to waste our extortionate fees on? And what does "reduced costs" mean... surely they're meant to perpetually rise? ;)

Smithy

[bookworm]

The CAA have statistically demonstrated that the plethora of new reglation introduced by JAA (BFRs, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests. etc etc) have done precisely zilch for flight safety

Simply on this point, not on the issue of whether aviation is overregulated ...

Presumably you're referring to Paper 2007/o5 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Paper200705.pdf). The CAA has done nothing of the sort. It has demonstrated that there are far too few accidents caused by pilot licensing and training issues to pick up even quite substantial improvements (or deteriorations) by counting accidents and incidents in a single year.

The paper's conclusion that "the changes to revalidation requirements for pilot licences, which JAR-FCL has implemented, have had no significant effect on the number of serious incidents and accidents involving general aviation aircraft in the UK" is a scientifically correct conclusion from the data that has been gathered, but is, IMO, a grossly irresponsible conclusion to place in the executive summary of a document that is to be read by non-scientists. It's a little like go out driving for 10 trips with a seatbelt on, 10 trips without a seatbelt on, finding that you remain uninjured in every case, and concluding that seatbelts have "no significant effect" on road safety.

[flybymike]

but let's not forget what a nightmare it was before it came along as well. BFR's were there then, too.

None of the regulations I mentioned existed before JAA, including the biennial instructor flight.

[Genghis the Engineer]

None of the regulations I mentioned existed before JAA, including the biennial instructor flight.

I think that the 90 day rule is ICAO and pre-JAA (also a pretty painless one to comply with, so personally I'd leave it alone).

G

[flybymike]

It has demonstrated that there are far too few accidents caused by pilot licensing and training issues to pick up even quite substantial improvements (or deteriorations) by counting accidents and incidents in a single year.


I take the thrust your point in principle. However the data was collected over all seven years of post JAA operations and not just a single year, and therefore the maximum amount of data available was presumably used. One could argue that if seven years is not enough then how about ten, or fifty or whatever. I accept that there are few incidents from which to enable large statistical sampling, but what has been done appears to the best possible from such low numbers, which in themselves might be argued are further evidence of unnecessary over regulation

[flybymike]

I think that the 90 day rule is ICAO and pre-JAA

May well be ICAO but definitely not a CAA requirement prior to JAA.

[jxk]

I'm debating with myself about the use of the acronym 'quango' with regard to EASA, but whether it is or isn't, the effect is the same; a complete waste of time and money. The only possible advantage is on new aircraft when the Type Certification applies to all EU countries. So, please Mr Clegg can you please release the UK from this obligation and stop all this unnecessary bureaucracy and cost..

[Jig Peter]

@ Bern444
One reason there's a dearth of "new" tin boxes was the lawyers' attitude in the States which made manufacturers FULLY responsible if, for example, someone crashed in a badly loaded light aircraft, and also expected an aircraft designed in the 1930s to comply with requirements or concepts introduced decades later.
Killed the US light aircraft business, that did, or just about ...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

PS I write from memory of events a fair number of years ago, but the "corporate responsibility" lawyers certakinly put the mockers on a lot of potential progress towards meeting your needs !
PPS Aren't there any glass fibre / comoposite light aircraft - probably Made in Europe - around for you to contemplate ?

[snapper1]

To go back to the original question, I would like Cleggers to get rid of the regulation that says I must carry the aircraft's Flight Operations Manual in my single-seat glider. Or perhaps he could tell me at what point during the flight it would be safe to take it out and read it.:rolleyes:

[bookworm]

I take the thrust your point in principle. However the data was collected over all seven years of post JAA operations and not just a single year, and therefore the maximum amount of data available was presumably used. One could argue that if seven years is not enough then how about ten, or fifty or whatever.

In the paper I cited, the comparison was between 2 years (1997/8) before JAR-FCL introduction and 2 years (2002/3) after.

The point is that what is possible from such low numbers is not very informative. One can only conclude from the data that the underlying frequency of "incidents" is somewhere between 20% higher and 20% lower. 20% safer is worth having, isn't it?

I accept that there are few incidents from which to enable large statistical sampling, but what has been done appears to the best possible from such low numbers, which in themselves might be argued are further evidence of unnecessary over regulation

I don't agree. Accidents, and in particular deaths, are sufficiently important and expensive that it's worth putting some effort into avoiding even a low number -- a safety measure designed to save one fatal accident per year is worth quite a lot of cost and effort, even if it takes 30 years for the effect to be significant in statistical terms.

But I've separated my critique of that paper from my thoughts about regulation in general. Whether JAR-FCL's extra measures get anywhere close to achieving that level of improvement at commensurate cost is another matter.

[IO540]

Most aviation regulation is now firmly wrapped in European job creation schemes. Not many people in EASA for example are under 100k euros p.a. so the Govt is powerless to do anything about most of this now.

But they could abolish that idiot agency Ofcom. It is obvious that for every radio frequency Ofcom manages to tax, they will force the loss of use of another one. The UK is going to become a laughing stock of Europe. Oftom will just manage to screw up the aviation band usage in the UK.

[Saab Dastard]

Please can we keep this thread for aviation-related wish-list items, as there is a thread in JB for everything else: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/419835-nick-clegg-calls-public-help-scrap-bad-laws.html

Thanks! :ok:

SD

[NorthSouth]

I wonder how many jobs will be created/maintained in order to trawl through all these suggestions and generate policies out of them. Hopefully lots.

I'd suggest the best regulation to chuck is the one that allows sharks and spivs to line their pockets from any change in the fuel price but in particular the inexorable upward trend, without any change in the real cost of producing the stuff.

NS

[bingoboy]

I like Genghis' points and would add:

A return to instructors for non commercial licences not needing to have a commercial rating to be paid.

Owner check flights allowed for all permit aircraft.

An acceptance of European permit type aircraft to operate in the UK without restriction.

[Captain Smithy]

Hear hear NorthSouth. :ok:

Like IO540 I also wish to see Ofcom's idiot plan to tax radio frequencies chucked where it belongs - down the dunny.

Also the abolition of Air Passenger Duty and its planned "per plane" replacement. Think though that was a Tory/Dim Dem policy to start with. We all know where they can shove that. :hmm:

Many more on the way...

Capt. S

[gg190]

Another one that has been added:

Terrorism Restrictions on flying — HMG - Your Freedom (http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/terrorism-restrictions-on-flying)

[bern444]

With the YourFreedom site now up and runinng - HMG - Your Freedom (http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/) - you can put your suggestions straight on it, instead/as well as this thread.

B

[Ryan5252]

Christ almighty;

Add Duty to Aviation Fuel — HMG - Your Freedom (http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/add-duty-to-aviation-fuel)

Some people should not be allowed freedom - do you think I could get this passed?

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Captain Smithy]

Perhaps Ryan, there again this is a democracy, so whilst we all have a say (apparently) unfortunately that also means as well as putting our thoughts and ideas forward we also have to listen to the prats and inbred nonces with their prattish views... :hmm:

People wouldn't be so quick to call for tax on AVTUR when they'd find out their holiday bills rocket by about 40% because some tw@t suggested it would be a good idea to tax aviation motion lotion :rolleyes:

Some folk are thick

Smithy

[biscuit74]

"The CAA have statistically demonstrated that the plethora of new reglation introduced by JAA (BFRs, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests. etc etc) have done precisely zilch for flight safety and merely dumped more uneccessary expense and hassle at the foot of GA, adding more straws to the camel's back, strangling the industry to death, deterring new entrants, and adding to the 70/75% of PPLs who pack it all in after the first 5 years . The regulators wont be satisfied until they have regulated themselves out of existence."

I agree with the earlier commentator, but would strengthen things slightly. The CAA have demonstrated they provide nothing for GA except hassle and cost. They have done practically nothing for safety for GA for many years, ALL they do is add confusion, bumff and continuing cock-up, demonstrating that while they may be expert at commercial and heavy metal flying, they add no value to GA. Let the LAA and the other small aircraft associations run their own affairs.
Neither EASA nor the CAA as currently operating do us any good.