CAA Gone Bonkers
Thread Starter
Just a few thoughts
1. I think its's a bloody national disgrace!!!!
2. Where would we be if this decision had been made in 1940.
3. Who the hell makes these decisions??
4. On what grounds are they justified?
5. I think every effort should be made to inform the general public
of this stupid decision!
2. Where would we be if this decision had been made in 1940.
3. Who the hell makes these decisions??
4. On what grounds are they justified?
5. I think every effort should be made to inform the general public
of this stupid decision!
Last edited by TOT; 30th Oct 2005 at 09:13.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: AROUND
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TERRIBLE
One again the Caa makes me bloody angry!!
I will bet if you waived a hand full of £20 notes infront of them it would be like a show of slobbering dogs and this disgrace would never have gone this far!!
I will bet if you waived a hand full of £20 notes infront of them it would be like a show of slobbering dogs and this disgrace would never have gone this far!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birchington, Kent, England
Age: 82
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is total bonkers unless there is more to the ban than we are being told, perhaps a height restriction?
Do I presume too much if I think that that the logical extension of the CAA being worried about "single-engine aircraft flying over built-up areas" is that no single engine type will be permitted to fly over a town or city?
Do I presume too much if I think that that the logical extension of the CAA being worried about "single-engine aircraft flying over built-up areas" is that no single engine type will be permitted to fly over a town or city?
Lets face it, a Spitfire flying a reasonable speed at (say) 1000ft on the edges of a built up area has quite a few "land clear" options. It is part of the campaign to destroy GA and Historic flying in the UK because it is an inconvenience for the adminisphere.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a protest methinks!
This must be the start of a new policy. Presumably, if we accept this nonsense, the only places that single engined aircraft will be allowed to perform is over runways of at least 10,000 feet that have paid their CAA subs recently.
Today Bedworth...tomorrow... the bleedin' world unless we change their minds!
This must be the start of a new policy. Presumably, if we accept this nonsense, the only places that single engined aircraft will be allowed to perform is over runways of at least 10,000 feet that have paid their CAA subs recently.
Today Bedworth...tomorrow... the bleedin' world unless we change their minds!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had years of dealing with the CAA for air display exemptions, and they could not have been more helpful. There must have been some good reason why they have refused this one, and I suspect you gullible chaps are reacting to half a story here..
Permit to Fly (Spitfire) = No flight over congested areas, at all, at any height......
The CAA are only doing what the law says, and in refusing to grant an exemption, obviously think it's not a safe option to have a single engined P to F aircraft operating over a congested area such as Bedworth. The same reason why there were no single engined aircraft operating over London for the VE day flypast. The DC3, on a Transport Cat CofA, has been given permsission I hear..
Sounds a bit like "I cant have my Spitfire flypast, so I'll go to the media and kick up a fuss, and then when I cant get my own way, I'll write to my MP"
Mr Leach sounds like a spoilt child!
Permit to Fly (Spitfire) = No flight over congested areas, at all, at any height......
The CAA are only doing what the law says, and in refusing to grant an exemption, obviously think it's not a safe option to have a single engined P to F aircraft operating over a congested area such as Bedworth. The same reason why there were no single engined aircraft operating over London for the VE day flypast. The DC3, on a Transport Cat CofA, has been given permsission I hear..
Sounds a bit like "I cant have my Spitfire flypast, so I'll go to the media and kick up a fuss, and then when I cant get my own way, I'll write to my MP"
Mr Leach sounds like a spoilt child!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you CD sound as though you are like one as well.
The fact is that the CAA can issue expemtions. Why have they allowed it these years and want to stamp their big feet this year?
And you! Why call Mr Leach a spoiled child? He is very angry, and so would I be, that the BoB cannot be properly remembered on each of it anniversaries.
The fact is that the CAA can issue expemtions. Why have they allowed it these years and want to stamp their big feet this year?
And you! Why call Mr Leach a spoiled child? He is very angry, and so would I be, that the BoB cannot be properly remembered on each of it anniversaries.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such attitude Capt....I was only trying to explain the flip side of what seems like a teddy throwing exercise... Yes the CAA can issue Exemptions, but maybe they feel that for whatever reason, they can't this year. Maybe a change in policy? Who knows?
An exemption is just that...a bit like being allowed to drive at 70 in a 30 MPH zone for a one off event. The 'no permit to fly allowed over a congested area' is the law. They don't have to issue them.
But as I say, over all the years I have been applying for exemptions for air displays, they CAA have been very helpful.
Can't be bothered to write anymore in reply to those who clearly don't know the Rules of the Air, or Permit to Fly conditions!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as I say, over all the years I have been applying for exemptions for air displays, they CAA have been very helpful.
And so have I. But when they feel they want to obstruct a show they will. You don't have to quote the R of the A either I have years of experience that I think counts.
However, just think of the times when Spitfires have flown over London in recent years, how many times they have flown over towns, cities, villages and such in each summer. It blows your argument don't you think.
The CAA are NOT being helpful in this instance it seems, and after the 40 years I have been in aviation I have never found them to be anything other than representing the famous terminoligy of what the CAA stands for in most people's minds.
Never forget this. The CAA are servants TO aviation and not the other way round, and some people within its walls are only too happy to apply rigid rules when common sense will do equally well.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How ironic ! To think what those heroes did 65 years ago so that petty bureaucrats could s**t on them. If they had their way, they'd have probably banned them from dog-fighting over London. Health & safety. What an ass !
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't say that I have ever found the CAA GAD that much of a hinderance. 
The people there seem to be more enthusiastic about aviation than most regulators. Also the article notes that the two Spits were coming from Duxford which is a most reputable warbird operator.
There must be more to this than meets the eye, does anyone know anything about the proposed flypast site or any other feature that would make the proposal a non-starter
Strange I thought the CAA were the regulators of aviation rather than our servants to do as we ask. They may have a servant role to the protect the general public and to be answerable to the public for their decisions.
The people there seem to be more enthusiastic about aviation than most regulators. Also the article notes that the two Spits were coming from Duxford which is a most reputable warbird operator.There must be more to this than meets the eye, does anyone know anything about the proposed flypast site or any other feature that would make the proposal a non-starter
Never forget this. The CAA are servants TO aviation and not the other way round, and some people within its walls are only too happy to apply rigid rules when common sense will do equally well.
That's Life!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Out of the sand pit, carving a path through our jungle.
Age: 72
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA are servants TO aviation and not the other way round
However, I still agree with the majority of posters to this thread, there must be more than meets the eye for them to ban this fly-past, (n.b it is only a fly-past and not a 'display').
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be more to this than meets the eye, does anyone know anything about the proposed flypast site or any other feature that would make the proposal a non-starter
However, just think of the times when Spitfires have flown over London in recent years
I actually think that the whole 'permit over congested area' thing is pants, but it's the law at the moment....But hey, its a good reason to slag the CAA off anyway, so why let reason and logic get in the way of an emotional slanging match about what our fathers did for us over dear ol blighty 60 years ago instead!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let them fly !
I am dismayed at the CAA not allowing these two aircraft to fly.
The newspaper report said:
What can be the factual objection under "safety reasons"?
As a few have mentioned here, there must be more to this than meets the eye - for there's never been a Spitfire that has come down in recent years in a "congested area".
I hope those at Duxford who were approached can throw some sensible light on this pathetic piece of news from nanny CAA.
Forgive me looking at these Rules, but can anybody see why a reputable couple of Duxford Spitfires fall foul within?
Section 2
Section 2 is amended by the Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 1110). These amend the low flying rule (Rule 5) as follows –
a) An aeroplane must fly at such a height as to be able to alight in the event of a power unit failure without danger to persons or property on the surface. (Rule 5(2)(c) and (e))
b) The minimum height permitted over the congested areas of cities towns and settlements or in the vicinity of gatherings of more than 1,000 persons is 1,000 ft. (Rule 5(2)(c) and (e))
c) An aircraft may not take off or land within 1,000 metres of open air assemblies of more than 1,000 persons except in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA. (Rule 5(2)(f))
d) A balloon that is becalmed may land within a congested area. (Rule 5(3)(d))
e) A helicopter is exempt from the 500 feet rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, or at other sites with the permission of the CAA. (Rule 5(3)(i))
f) There is no exemption contained in Rule 5 permitting departure from the Rule where necessary for the purpose of saving life.
g) The restrictions on flying by single engine helicopters over central London are omitted from Rule 5 and are now set out in the Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying)
(Specified Area) Regulations 2004 (see Section 5 below).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me neither!
I say the CAA are overstepping their Authority - unless proved otherwise PDQ.
Let's see the FULL Application and the FULL refusal. Unless the little FOI Act says too risky for national security!
TG
PS: Like many here, I would like to get to the root cause of the refusal - I suppose that will only come from the CAA or from the publication of their letter to the Spitfire chaps/organiser indicating the technicalities of the refusal.
It must be heartbreaking for so many veterans, and those following in their footsteps, that some non-combatant civvy in an office has decreed this year it is not safe for two Spitfires to be part of their Remembrance Day.
I for one share their anguish, and after reading their story through their website will certainly be sending my unbridled support to Alf Perry.
http://www.bedwortharmisticeday.org/story.htm
Whilst safety was mentioned, let us remember those who were thinking further than a desk bound Risk Assessment.
Damn the torpedoes... FULL SPEED AHEAD
TG
The newspaper report said:
Spitfire tribute grounded 'for safety reasons' Oct 27 2005
As a few have mentioned here, there must be more to this than meets the eye - for there's never been a Spitfire that has come down in recent years in a "congested area".
I hope those at Duxford who were approached can throw some sensible light on this pathetic piece of news from nanny CAA.
Forgive me looking at these Rules, but can anybody see why a reputable couple of Duxford Spitfires fall foul within?
Section 2
Section 2 is amended by the Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 1110). These amend the low flying rule (Rule 5) as follows –
a) An aeroplane must fly at such a height as to be able to alight in the event of a power unit failure without danger to persons or property on the surface. (Rule 5(2)(c) and (e))
b) The minimum height permitted over the congested areas of cities towns and settlements or in the vicinity of gatherings of more than 1,000 persons is 1,000 ft. (Rule 5(2)(c) and (e))
c) An aircraft may not take off or land within 1,000 metres of open air assemblies of more than 1,000 persons except in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA. (Rule 5(2)(f))
d) A balloon that is becalmed may land within a congested area. (Rule 5(3)(d))
e) A helicopter is exempt from the 500 feet rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, or at other sites with the permission of the CAA. (Rule 5(3)(i))
f) There is no exemption contained in Rule 5 permitting departure from the Rule where necessary for the purpose of saving life.
g) The restrictions on flying by single engine helicopters over central London are omitted from Rule 5 and are now set out in the Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying)
(Specified Area) Regulations 2004 (see Section 5 below).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me neither!
I say the CAA are overstepping their Authority - unless proved otherwise PDQ.
Let's see the FULL Application and the FULL refusal. Unless the little FOI Act says too risky for national security!
TG
PS: Like many here, I would like to get to the root cause of the refusal - I suppose that will only come from the CAA or from the publication of their letter to the Spitfire chaps/organiser indicating the technicalities of the refusal.
It must be heartbreaking for so many veterans, and those following in their footsteps, that some non-combatant civvy in an office has decreed this year it is not safe for two Spitfires to be part of their Remembrance Day.
I for one share their anguish, and after reading their story through their website will certainly be sending my unbridled support to Alf Perry.
http://www.bedwortharmisticeday.org/story.htm
This year is the 65th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain. We are pleased to announce that TWO SPITFIRES will accompany the Dakota on its poppy drop. This will be a rare opportunity to see these legendary aircraft in a flypast.
"Never in the field of human conflicts was so much owed by so many to so few" Winston Churchill August 20, 1940. House of Commons
For further details contact Alf Perry
"Never in the field of human conflicts was so much owed by so many to so few" Winston Churchill August 20, 1940. House of Commons
For further details contact Alf Perry
Poem: Lest We Ever Forget
Why do you still march old man,with medals on your chest?
Why do you still grieve old man,for those friends you laid to rest?
Why do your eyes gleam old man,when you hear those bugles blow?
Tell me why you cry old man, about those days so long ago.
I\'ll tell you why I march young man, with medals on my chest
I\'ll tell you why I grieve young man, for those I laid to rest,
Through misty fields of gossamer silk come visions of distant times,
When boys of tender age lost lives, and all their mothers pined;
We buried them in a blanket shroud, their young flesh scorched and blackened,
A communal grave newly gouged in blood stained gorse and bracken,
And you ask me why I march young man, I march to remind you all,
That but for those apple-blossom youths, you\'d never have known freedom at all.
author unknown
Why do you still march old man,with medals on your chest?
Why do you still grieve old man,for those friends you laid to rest?
Why do your eyes gleam old man,when you hear those bugles blow?
Tell me why you cry old man, about those days so long ago.
I\'ll tell you why I march young man, with medals on my chest
I\'ll tell you why I grieve young man, for those I laid to rest,
Through misty fields of gossamer silk come visions of distant times,
When boys of tender age lost lives, and all their mothers pined;
We buried them in a blanket shroud, their young flesh scorched and blackened,
A communal grave newly gouged in blood stained gorse and bracken,
And you ask me why I march young man, I march to remind you all,
That but for those apple-blossom youths, you\'d never have known freedom at all.
author unknown
Damn the torpedoes... FULL SPEED AHEAD
TG
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very interesting post TG.
____________________________________________________
Who's being logical? It sure ain't the CAA.
And what's wrong with emotion? At this time of the year there is plenty around. In this particular case the CAA are not being very sensible with exemptions - whatever anyone says.
Reason to the slag the CAA is a self loaded blunderbus. I agree they are hiding something.
And by the way CD. However old you are you would not be here now but for our fathers from WW11.
I actually think that the whole 'permit over congested area' thing is pants, but it's the law at the moment....But hey, its a good reason to slag the CAA off anyway, so why let reason and logic get in the way of an emotional slanging match about what our fathers did for us over dear ol blighty 60 years ago instead!
Who's being logical? It sure ain't the CAA.
And what's wrong with emotion? At this time of the year there is plenty around. In this particular case the CAA are not being very sensible with exemptions - whatever anyone says.
Reason to the slag the CAA is a self loaded blunderbus. I agree they are hiding something.
And by the way CD. However old you are you would not be here now but for our fathers from WW11.
Can anybody post a map or lat-long showing where the flypast was requested? I feel one should know exactly what was proposed before criticising the CAA and it's decisions.
G
G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was sent an email from a well respected chap in these circles which perhaps shows where the application failed; but to my mind this special circumstance Fly Past, and the "risk", should qualify for approval.
If the week-end flyer in his Cessna/Tiger Moth/etc can overfly the said area (Nuneaton) within the rules, a DUXFORD maintained Spitfire or two should be allowed the same leeway.
I do not know the exact track/heights requested but you may glean more from here:
http://www.bedwortharmisticeday.org/events.htm
Long story short, my vote is let them fly, as the debt we owe and our way of showing it, far outweighs the "risk" measured by the CAA.
If they want "safety first" then ground every single-engined aircraft.
Let them fly.
TG
All civil registered Spitfires operate on the basis of a permit to fly and not a CofA.
No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.
The previous flypasts at that site were poppy drops by a DC3 operated by Air Atlantique, an AOC company on a transport category CofA.
No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.
The previous flypasts at that site were poppy drops by a DC3 operated by Air Atlantique, an AOC company on a transport category CofA.
I do not know the exact track/heights requested but you may glean more from here:
http://www.bedwortharmisticeday.org/events.htm
Long story short, my vote is let them fly, as the debt we owe and our way of showing it, far outweighs the "risk" measured by the CAA.
If they want "safety first" then ground every single-engined aircraft.
Let them fly.
TG