For all you lovers of red tape
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing which would have made the biggest difference by far would have been if a load of rich and influential people, and politicians, flew in GA planes.
They do in the USA, and look at the representation which GA has out there.
Rich and powerful people fly in bizjets, which is why bizjets can't be touched - anywhere in the world.
They do in the USA, and look at the representation which GA has out there.
Rich and powerful people fly in bizjets, which is why bizjets can't be touched - anywhere in the world.
It would help if the politicians realised the difference between a spamcan and a bizjet....
Regards, SD..
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously though, they do know the difference.
Spamcan: flown by ordinary voter who as such can be usefully and easily ignored
BizJet: Flown by "important people" who we have to pander to even though they don't live here or pay taxes
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not get side tracked - to be fair bizjets are required to do as much as the rest of GA.
Why do we have to do some of these things when yachts and pleasure craft don’t?
Flight plan - If I sail I am not REQUIRED to file a sail plan.
Terrorism - If I sail to the CIs as far as I am aware no notification is required under the terrorism act.
Customs - place of entry - If I sail so far as I am aware there is no requirement to dock at a customs port. The same applies when I come back.
Booking out - simply no requirement to do so. It may be prudent, but if I don’t that is my concern.
Are we as pilots less responsible that yachtsmen, who need no qualification to be in charge of their yacht? Are we more likely to transport terrorists, contraband and whatever the authorities are concerned about?
There are many airports with air traffic. Presumably every flight is logged. Presumably a record is kept of where every flights goes to and comes from. Are we to weak as a group to make it clear that if we operate from such fields the records are there to monitor the flow of traffic without adding to the administrative burden?
Just thinking outside the box and wondering why we get burdened with these things - I just cant see what it achieves
.
Why do we have to do some of these things when yachts and pleasure craft don’t?
Flight plan - If I sail I am not REQUIRED to file a sail plan.
Terrorism - If I sail to the CIs as far as I am aware no notification is required under the terrorism act.
Customs - place of entry - If I sail so far as I am aware there is no requirement to dock at a customs port. The same applies when I come back.
Booking out - simply no requirement to do so. It may be prudent, but if I don’t that is my concern.
Are we as pilots less responsible that yachtsmen, who need no qualification to be in charge of their yacht? Are we more likely to transport terrorists, contraband and whatever the authorities are concerned about?
There are many airports with air traffic. Presumably every flight is logged. Presumably a record is kept of where every flights goes to and comes from. Are we to weak as a group to make it clear that if we operate from such fields the records are there to monitor the flow of traffic without adding to the administrative burden?
Just thinking outside the box and wondering why we get burdened with these things - I just cant see what it achieves
.
Customs/terrorism:
One essential difference between GA and small boats is the speed of movement from one area to another. Both customs and counter terrorism rely heavily on intelligence and this needs time to respond.
If suspicious activity is seen around an aeroplane which can be in another country in less than an hour, the security forces have to move quickly. If they know where it is going, finding and following it is much easier.
Even a good power boat would give them several hours to react. An average yacht could take over 12 hours for the same trip.
One essential difference between GA and small boats is the speed of movement from one area to another. Both customs and counter terrorism rely heavily on intelligence and this needs time to respond.
If suspicious activity is seen around an aeroplane which can be in another country in less than an hour, the security forces have to move quickly. If they know where it is going, finding and following it is much easier.
Even a good power boat would give them several hours to react. An average yacht could take over 12 hours for the same trip.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 81
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been reading this and have a few thoughts on it.
My wife and I both obtained Yachtmastere Offshore and Marine radio licences in the early 1980's and have sailed a lot around northern Europe.
The regs are a lot simpler for boats than aircraft,maybe for the some of following publicly misconceived reasons.
Boats don't fall out of the air.
Boats don't make a lot of noise over inhabited areas.
Boats are not polluters of the Earth.
Private aircraft must belong to very rich bods.
Airfirelds would make good brown field development sites
Private boating and yacht racing has long been a sport of royalty worldwide and engenders support from the authorities.
As mentioned there is the RYA to represent all private boat enthusiasts in the UK,from sailboarders to large private sailing carft and luxurious motorboats.
We don't seem to have the same public support or image as sailing,maybe it is seen as part of our national heritage?
These are just my thoughts ,not provocation!
Lister
My wife and I both obtained Yachtmastere Offshore and Marine radio licences in the early 1980's and have sailed a lot around northern Europe.
The regs are a lot simpler for boats than aircraft,maybe for the some of following publicly misconceived reasons.
Boats don't fall out of the air.
Boats don't make a lot of noise over inhabited areas.
Boats are not polluters of the Earth.
Private aircraft must belong to very rich bods.
Airfirelds would make good brown field development sites
Private boating and yacht racing has long been a sport of royalty worldwide and engenders support from the authorities.
As mentioned there is the RYA to represent all private boat enthusiasts in the UK,from sailboarders to large private sailing carft and luxurious motorboats.
We don't seem to have the same public support or image as sailing,maybe it is seen as part of our national heritage?
These are just my thoughts ,not provocation!
Lister
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would help if the politicians realised the difference between a spamcan and a bizjet....
Although formally passed by Parliament, the rules and regulations under which we have to fly in the UK are thought up and drafted by the CAA. The ANO, Rules of the Air Regulations etc are 'secondary legislation'.
Secondary legislation goes through parliament 'on the nod'. Unless Parliamentary rules have changed in recent years, MPs have only two choices: accept the entire proposal or reject the entire proposal. They are not entitled to reject selected parts so, as a result, secondary legislation from various government departments is often passed in batches with only the title being mentioned.
In theory, MPs could be criticised for not reading every word of every piece of secondary legislation. In practice, that would be impossible.
Why do we allow it to happen?
Partly because the British have a love/hate relationship with rules. We claim to dislike having laws about everything, but my theory is that we (as a nation) like it that way.
Often, when someone asks on PPRuNe if they can legally do something, a lot of effort is put into arguing that's illegal. Sometimes, the arguments put forward as to why it's 'technically' illegal show great ingenuity and imagination. Only rarely is the same effort put into thinking of reasons why it's legal - or how it can be made legal with just some minor change(s) to the idea.
There's a marked difference between the British 'Can't do, unless ........' and (for example) the American 'Can do, unless ........' approach to aviation and life.
The difference between the CAA and FAA approach to legislation can be seen (for example) by comparing our 'new improved' Rule 5 with the American equivalent.
One is short, to the point and easy to understand for both aeroplane and helicopter flying.
Guess which one?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a marked difference between the British 'Can't do, unless ........' and (for example) the American 'Can do, unless ........' approach to aviation and life.
Regards, SD..
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL is right about the Brit can't-do attitude to everything. But the worse side of it is the desire to bring the other person down to your own level - that's why GA is looked at jealously in the UK, despite most pilots in fact being skint.
I suppose the most basic answer to "why all the red tape in GA" is that that is the way aviation has been set up many years ago, and once you create a job creation scheme, it is like a ratchet; you cannot go back.
It's the same with law, all sorts of regulations, consumer protection, you name it.
What is needed is an executive power, somebody like Hitler (but not him), who has the power to make a list of all the pointless regs and just delete them. Then he will have to terminate the millions of otherwise useless little men who made a living out of the stuff.
Of course there is no point in VFR flight plans for example. Nobody ever looks at them. You could file one with an intersection which is in Mongolia and nobody would notice. If you plan to crash, it's better to leave the route and the ETA with a friend - just like one does when sailing, etc.
I suppose the most basic answer to "why all the red tape in GA" is that that is the way aviation has been set up many years ago, and once you create a job creation scheme, it is like a ratchet; you cannot go back.
It's the same with law, all sorts of regulations, consumer protection, you name it.
What is needed is an executive power, somebody like Hitler (but not him), who has the power to make a list of all the pointless regs and just delete them. Then he will have to terminate the millions of otherwise useless little men who made a living out of the stuff.
Of course there is no point in VFR flight plans for example. Nobody ever looks at them. You could file one with an intersection which is in Mongolia and nobody would notice. If you plan to crash, it's better to leave the route and the ETA with a friend - just like one does when sailing, etc.
