Light aircraft "could be bombs"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those who down this thread.
Something has been achieved through this thread. The fact that the thread has a thumbs down puzzles me a lot for an aviation forum where we are supposed to defend our love especially against unfair, unequal and damaging attack.
Just to tell you what has been achieved through this thread. Lembit Opik has agreed after a talk with me today to find out what Lord Carlisle is trying to achieve and to put his full efforts into defending GA from further unfounded interferance.
That is all I can say for now but will report back through these forums when things become clearer.
In any lengthy thread where passions are involved and where a sense of injustice comes through people will get personal. I am sure we are all big enough to see through that.
Pace
Just to tell you what has been achieved through this thread. Lembit Opik has agreed after a talk with me today to find out what Lord Carlisle is trying to achieve and to put his full efforts into defending GA from further unfounded interferance.
That is all I can say for now but will report back through these forums when things become clearer.
In any lengthy thread where passions are involved and where a sense of injustice comes through people will get personal. I am sure we are all big enough to see through that.
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad someone has bothered to comment that it's the usual suspects who are incapable of sensible debate, it's put me off posting in here before now and I see nothing to change that opinion.
And what the frak is wrong with Judy Garland then? I'm off to listen to some Bronski Beat.
And what the frak is wrong with Judy Garland then? I'm off to listen to some Bronski Beat.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qwertyplop
I can see you are a gentleman and hold your own views which are commenadable. Do you fly ? are you a pilot? do you love aviation?
Part of the love of aviation is the freedom of flight and for those of us who post here freedom is important.
I will use the Green issue to describe a concern and a lack of trust in the motives of the legislators.
We mostly know that 38 % of global warming is created by people living in homes and working in factories. Heat coming out of homes! I could respect a government who started piling millions into making houses more efficient. A government who invested millions into encouraging people to conserve energy.
What happened? The first thing Gordon Brown did was to slap a £5 Green tax on aviation. Why simply so he could claw back more revenue under the pretence that he was saving the planet and most of the moves made under the banner of Green involved taxes for extra revenue under the pretence of "its not our fault we are increasing taxes we are saving the planet."
I could even respect a Government that used those taxes to plough billions into making jet engines clean but I do not respect a government who cheat to fill their coffers.
In the same way I can respect a Government who identify a serious Terrorist threat and deal with it.
But I do not respect a government who have one rule for one and ignore the rest and who use the blanket of terrorism to achieve some other aim which has nothing to do with terrorism?
The London tubes are a major Terrorist threat but the Government ignores that as to difficult to deal with and unfairly persists in targeting Aviation.
One rule for one, one rule for all and a sense of fairness is all I expect.
And unlike you I do not trust the motives behind some of these ideas. Call me cynical ? ok.
Probably some police chief wants 3000 new officers in a new department and the funding to create them so has to show a need? So a bit of scaremongering and targeting and the funds become available? but then I am a cynic.
But anyway I am sure your motives are good and wish you all the best in New Zealand.
Pace
I can see you are a gentleman and hold your own views which are commenadable. Do you fly ? are you a pilot? do you love aviation?
Part of the love of aviation is the freedom of flight and for those of us who post here freedom is important.
I will use the Green issue to describe a concern and a lack of trust in the motives of the legislators.
We mostly know that 38 % of global warming is created by people living in homes and working in factories. Heat coming out of homes! I could respect a government who started piling millions into making houses more efficient. A government who invested millions into encouraging people to conserve energy.
What happened? The first thing Gordon Brown did was to slap a £5 Green tax on aviation. Why simply so he could claw back more revenue under the pretence that he was saving the planet and most of the moves made under the banner of Green involved taxes for extra revenue under the pretence of "its not our fault we are increasing taxes we are saving the planet."
I could even respect a Government that used those taxes to plough billions into making jet engines clean but I do not respect a government who cheat to fill their coffers.
In the same way I can respect a Government who identify a serious Terrorist threat and deal with it.
But I do not respect a government who have one rule for one and ignore the rest and who use the blanket of terrorism to achieve some other aim which has nothing to do with terrorism?
The London tubes are a major Terrorist threat but the Government ignores that as to difficult to deal with and unfairly persists in targeting Aviation.
One rule for one, one rule for all and a sense of fairness is all I expect.
And unlike you I do not trust the motives behind some of these ideas. Call me cynical ? ok.
Probably some police chief wants 3000 new officers in a new department and the funding to create them so has to show a need? So a bit of scaremongering and targeting and the funds become available? but then I am a cynic.
But anyway I am sure your motives are good and wish you all the best in New Zealand.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 30th Jun 2008 at 22:24.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily Telegraph 1st July - Lord Stevens on: "Border Protection Service for the UK"
Quote from Lord Stevens:
Sadly Lord Stevens seems to be clambering on to the Carlisle bandwagon - very depressing if you think about what manner of restriction regimes they are currently dreaming up. He also appears to have carried out absolutely zero research into the facts so this is becoming a cross party political torch which could have disastrous consequences for us pilots !
Below is a letter I sent back to the Telegraph which hopefully will be published. I will also be emailing AOPA to see if they can tackle Stevens direct !
Drambuster
Sir,
Lord Steven’s recommendations for a “Border Protection Service for the UK: Policy Proposals” is highly misleading with regard to the risk of entry into the UK by light aircraft. As a light aircraft pilot I can advise that the comments in your report that “there is no formal vetting from security authorities about who is landing and taking off” is completely inaccurate and raises the question as to how much research Lord Stevens actually carried out.
The facts are that any light aircraft crossing an international boundary within Europe has to file a Flight Plan that states your point of departure and arrival. Coming into the UK, where you are being tracked by numerous radar services, you have to arrive at a “Designated” airfield which have a regime in place to cover Immigration and Customs requirements. A pilot colleague of mine who failed to stop at the stipulated destination and in fact continued to a small strip was met by a black Police helicopter and had a lot of explaining to do.
In addition to the Flight Plan, the pilot in command has to file, in advance, a “General Aviation Report” which provides full details of all those on board including name, address, passport numbers, date/time/place of departure and arrival back into the UK. This report is faxed to Customs and Immigration and I would say that on around 80% of flights back to the UK we are met by an Immigration officer.
There is also full cooperation between the flying clubs, the members and the authorities to the extent that any suspicious movements would be reported within minutes. These airfields are also covered with ‘plane spotters’ carrying long lens cameras and their members association has a ‘reporting agreement’ in place with Immigration and the Police. A few years ago it might have been possible to sneak into the country, but not now.
So, Lord Stevens, get your facts right or these sensationalist headline grabbing proposals will end up with General Aviation being over controlled for no good reason. Presumably you will then move on to restrict the sailing fraternity to wreak havoc with another pleasurable pastime. You need to bear in mind that your over reaction is exactly what our terrorist foes are hoping to achieve.
Yours sincerely,
There are an estimated 8,500 private aircraft and up to 500 "landing sites" in Britain. However, there is no formal vetting from security authorities about who is landing and taking off
Sadly Lord Stevens seems to be clambering on to the Carlisle bandwagon - very depressing if you think about what manner of restriction regimes they are currently dreaming up. He also appears to have carried out absolutely zero research into the facts so this is becoming a cross party political torch which could have disastrous consequences for us pilots !
Below is a letter I sent back to the Telegraph which hopefully will be published. I will also be emailing AOPA to see if they can tackle Stevens direct !
Drambuster
Sir,
Lord Steven’s recommendations for a “Border Protection Service for the UK: Policy Proposals” is highly misleading with regard to the risk of entry into the UK by light aircraft. As a light aircraft pilot I can advise that the comments in your report that “there is no formal vetting from security authorities about who is landing and taking off” is completely inaccurate and raises the question as to how much research Lord Stevens actually carried out.
The facts are that any light aircraft crossing an international boundary within Europe has to file a Flight Plan that states your point of departure and arrival. Coming into the UK, where you are being tracked by numerous radar services, you have to arrive at a “Designated” airfield which have a regime in place to cover Immigration and Customs requirements. A pilot colleague of mine who failed to stop at the stipulated destination and in fact continued to a small strip was met by a black Police helicopter and had a lot of explaining to do.
In addition to the Flight Plan, the pilot in command has to file, in advance, a “General Aviation Report” which provides full details of all those on board including name, address, passport numbers, date/time/place of departure and arrival back into the UK. This report is faxed to Customs and Immigration and I would say that on around 80% of flights back to the UK we are met by an Immigration officer.
There is also full cooperation between the flying clubs, the members and the authorities to the extent that any suspicious movements would be reported within minutes. These airfields are also covered with ‘plane spotters’ carrying long lens cameras and their members association has a ‘reporting agreement’ in place with Immigration and the Police. A few years ago it might have been possible to sneak into the country, but not now.
So, Lord Stevens, get your facts right or these sensationalist headline grabbing proposals will end up with General Aviation being over controlled for no good reason. Presumably you will then move on to restrict the sailing fraternity to wreak havoc with another pleasurable pastime. You need to bear in mind that your over reaction is exactly what our terrorist foes are hoping to achieve.
Yours sincerely,
Last edited by drambuster; 1st Jul 2008 at 10:47. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever your views, in taking Lord Stevens to task it perhaps would have been wise to bear in mind that, aside from having been a Commissioner of Police, he is a highly experienced GA pilot with more than 2,000 hours in sailplanes, SEPs, MEPs and jets.
Last edited by Islander2; 1st Jul 2008 at 11:19. Reason: add reminder that Lord Stevens was also once Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander 2 - I have to say that your reply looks a little 'defeatist' to me. If Lord Stevens is a pilot he should know better ! He has advised the general public that there is no control whatsoever on GA aircraft entering the UK which is complete tosh and the record should be corrected.
However, I don't think my voice stands for much and so I'm pleased to say that Martin Robinson of AOPA has gone into bat (see their letter below to the Home Secretary. Something similar will be on its way to Stevens pointing out the existing controls on GA movements):
Dear . . . [Drambuster]
Thank you for your email.
Martin has asked me to send you a copy of a letter he wrote to Jacqui Smith on this subject (which I attach) . Martin will be writing to Lord Stevens today.
Hope this helps!!
Pam Stevenson
AOPA letter to Jacqui Smith:
24th June 2008
The Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Globe House
6th Floor
89 Ecclestone Square
London SW1V 1PN
Dear Home Secretary
In the UK the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association represents the interests of people who engage in flying general aviation aircraft – a role that we have fulfilled since 1965.
Whilst we agree with the Government on the need for all citizens to remain vigilant, I am very concerned about some of the views currently being expressed by Lord Carlisle, and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Lord Carlisle has never taken the time to interview me or any other officer of the Association with a view to taking evidence – maybe this is because we were informed that light aircraft (less than 5700kgs) do not pose any significant threat.
Since 9/11 AOPA has worked with and continues to work with Security and Customs agencies. Through the “GA excellence” group we are engaged in eBorder discussions and believe this is the right way forward.
AOPA has always stated that our members need to be the eyes and ears of security, reporting anything out of the ordinary. It was poor intelligence that led to 9/11 and therefore the wider you can spread the intelligence gathering net, the better. Make the GA community part of the solution and not part of the problem.
However, our concern relates to the poor coordination that exists between police forces, customs and security agencies. Whilst there has been some improvements made it is, in my view, not robust enough and further improvements are still needed. Hopefully the ACPO is addressing this issue.
GA is worth £1.4billion to the UK economy annually and whilst we remain vigilant on security matters light aircraft are unlikely to be used as “vehicle bombs” any more than a Ford Transit.
If the terrorists involved in 9/11, who had been learning to fly in light aircraft, believed that they could have made a big impact using such aeroplanes they would never have bothered hijacking airliners. The simple fact is that light aircraft do not have the kinetic energy.
To date there has never been any specific advice from Government to our organisation. The freedom of individuals and security of the nation is important to all of us but we need to get the balance right. AOPA is committed to working with all relevant agencies to ensure we achieve the correct level of security oversight. An industry code of practice might be a good starting point
I am available for discussion at your convenience.
Yours sincerely
Martin Robinson
Chief Executive AOPA UK
Deputy Regional Vice President Europe
However, I don't think my voice stands for much and so I'm pleased to say that Martin Robinson of AOPA has gone into bat (see their letter below to the Home Secretary. Something similar will be on its way to Stevens pointing out the existing controls on GA movements):
Dear . . . [Drambuster]
Thank you for your email.
Martin has asked me to send you a copy of a letter he wrote to Jacqui Smith on this subject (which I attach) . Martin will be writing to Lord Stevens today.
Hope this helps!!
Pam Stevenson
AOPA letter to Jacqui Smith:
24th June 2008
The Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Globe House
6th Floor
89 Ecclestone Square
London SW1V 1PN
Dear Home Secretary
In the UK the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association represents the interests of people who engage in flying general aviation aircraft – a role that we have fulfilled since 1965.
Whilst we agree with the Government on the need for all citizens to remain vigilant, I am very concerned about some of the views currently being expressed by Lord Carlisle, and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Lord Carlisle has never taken the time to interview me or any other officer of the Association with a view to taking evidence – maybe this is because we were informed that light aircraft (less than 5700kgs) do not pose any significant threat.
Since 9/11 AOPA has worked with and continues to work with Security and Customs agencies. Through the “GA excellence” group we are engaged in eBorder discussions and believe this is the right way forward.
AOPA has always stated that our members need to be the eyes and ears of security, reporting anything out of the ordinary. It was poor intelligence that led to 9/11 and therefore the wider you can spread the intelligence gathering net, the better. Make the GA community part of the solution and not part of the problem.
However, our concern relates to the poor coordination that exists between police forces, customs and security agencies. Whilst there has been some improvements made it is, in my view, not robust enough and further improvements are still needed. Hopefully the ACPO is addressing this issue.
GA is worth £1.4billion to the UK economy annually and whilst we remain vigilant on security matters light aircraft are unlikely to be used as “vehicle bombs” any more than a Ford Transit.
If the terrorists involved in 9/11, who had been learning to fly in light aircraft, believed that they could have made a big impact using such aeroplanes they would never have bothered hijacking airliners. The simple fact is that light aircraft do not have the kinetic energy.
To date there has never been any specific advice from Government to our organisation. The freedom of individuals and security of the nation is important to all of us but we need to get the balance right. AOPA is committed to working with all relevant agencies to ensure we achieve the correct level of security oversight. An industry code of practice might be a good starting point
I am available for discussion at your convenience.
Yours sincerely
Martin Robinson
Chief Executive AOPA UK
Deputy Regional Vice President Europe
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. . . and a further email on the matter from Martin Robinson. I suggest that anyone not already a member of AOPA should sign up !
From: Martin Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 01 July 2008 12:43
To: . . . . . .
Subject: RE: Lord Stevens report on terrorist threat to UK via GA
Dear [Drambuster],
Thank you . I have today written to Lord Steven offering him a chance to read my letter to the Home Secretary following the Telegraph article and a chance to meet . What you say in your letter is 100% correct and we must fight any over reaction by Government. Interestingly the Government has said that there is no evidence to support any significant threat coming from GA a point that we endorse. However we must make sure that the Public image of what we do in GA is not affected by outrageous comments from people who should know better.
Regards
Martin
From: Martin Robinson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 01 July 2008 12:43
To: . . . . . .
Subject: RE: Lord Stevens report on terrorist threat to UK via GA
Dear [Drambuster],
Thank you . I have today written to Lord Steven offering him a chance to read my letter to the Home Secretary following the Telegraph article and a chance to meet . What you say in your letter is 100% correct and we must fight any over reaction by Government. Interestingly the Government has said that there is no evidence to support any significant threat coming from GA a point that we endorse. However we must make sure that the Public image of what we do in GA is not affected by outrageous comments from people who should know better.
Regards
Martin
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is well known I am not a fan of AOPA, or rather that is what some have concluded! I am not picking yet another "fight" with AOPA, but since the letter has been set out here it deserves comment.
Firstly I am pleased to see that AOPA are involved in this issue and Marin has taken the trouble to write.
However, and as ever, I think it is vital letters such as this should be factually correct.
It is not true to say that AOPA represents the interests of people involved in GA flying. AOPA is one of a number of representative bodies and at that in terms of the number of members by far and away not the largest. On an issue such as this I would have thought a joint response from the major representative bodies would have been useful and more importantly would have carried far greater weight.
Why is it that our representative bodies appear to strive to bat on their own wicket on matters that are of vital interest to everyone involved with private aviation? I cannot imagine why a "select committee" drawn from all the major players could not be established that would be briefed with dealing with issues such as this where I imagine their would be a single common goal.
The letter implies there is a lack of co-ordination between the Customs, police force and security agencies. Whilst I have no idea whether or not that statement is true, it seems a dangerous allegation to lay at the Governments door unless you are able to give some examples, in which case the letter should do so.
I wonder why the letter ends with "I am available for discussions etc". This in itself is defeatists. I would far rather something more positive and pro-active.
I could comment further.
Never the less well done for writing in the first place.
Firstly I am pleased to see that AOPA are involved in this issue and Marin has taken the trouble to write.
However, and as ever, I think it is vital letters such as this should be factually correct.
It is not true to say that AOPA represents the interests of people involved in GA flying. AOPA is one of a number of representative bodies and at that in terms of the number of members by far and away not the largest. On an issue such as this I would have thought a joint response from the major representative bodies would have been useful and more importantly would have carried far greater weight.
Why is it that our representative bodies appear to strive to bat on their own wicket on matters that are of vital interest to everyone involved with private aviation? I cannot imagine why a "select committee" drawn from all the major players could not be established that would be briefed with dealing with issues such as this where I imagine their would be a single common goal.
The letter implies there is a lack of co-ordination between the Customs, police force and security agencies. Whilst I have no idea whether or not that statement is true, it seems a dangerous allegation to lay at the Governments door unless you are able to give some examples, in which case the letter should do so.
I wonder why the letter ends with "I am available for discussions etc". This in itself is defeatists. I would far rather something more positive and pro-active.
I could comment further.
Never the less well done for writing in the first place.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>It is well known I am not a fan of AOPA, or rather that is what some have concluded! I am not picking yet another "fight" with AOPA, but since the letter has been set out here it deserves comment.<
Who are the other organisations who have defended aviation issues with the success of AOPA ?
Pace
Who are the other organisations who have defended aviation issues with the success of AOPA ?
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
While AOPA may not be perfect, I think they do a pretty good job for the resources available. They were quick to respond to Lord Stevens article in the Telegraph today and, for all we know, Martin Robinson may well be in contact with the private jet brigade (whoever their body is) to cover a joint approach.
However, the target that I think Stevens and Carlisle are lining up are the Headcorns, Pophams, White Walthams etc. Not Farnborough, Biggin Hill and the like as they are already well covered with security.
Whatever your differences may have been with them in the past, I believe now is the time for the GA fraternity to throw their weight behind AOPA as this can only strengthen our position (more revenue will deliver more resource as the high pressure workload on MR's shoulders never ceases to amaze me - another couple of aviation activists on their payroll means a bigger voice!)
One of the reasons I am becoming increasingly concerned is that I have just returned from a GA trip to Denmark and Sweden (I can highly recommend Gotland, by the way!) and have become convinced of a long term anti-GA trend. While at Bromma airport (the second main Stockholm airport) I was advised that ALL airfields around their capital are to be shut in the next few months with the exception of Bromma (their Biggin Hill) and Arlanda (their Heathrow). All the lovely grass GA strips are to be the casualty of political pressure and the locals can't wait to see them gone ! Quite simply GA in Sweden just lost its voice and they have now reached a tipping point. (all GA is going to be based at Bromma which is far from ideal as this will have to mix in with business jets which will take priority).
We therefore must pull together and tackle the 'security' and 'green' brigades with a strong GA voice - and I believe AOPA are the best people to carry this torch !
While AOPA may not be perfect, I think they do a pretty good job for the resources available. They were quick to respond to Lord Stevens article in the Telegraph today and, for all we know, Martin Robinson may well be in contact with the private jet brigade (whoever their body is) to cover a joint approach.
However, the target that I think Stevens and Carlisle are lining up are the Headcorns, Pophams, White Walthams etc. Not Farnborough, Biggin Hill and the like as they are already well covered with security.
Whatever your differences may have been with them in the past, I believe now is the time for the GA fraternity to throw their weight behind AOPA as this can only strengthen our position (more revenue will deliver more resource as the high pressure workload on MR's shoulders never ceases to amaze me - another couple of aviation activists on their payroll means a bigger voice!)
One of the reasons I am becoming increasingly concerned is that I have just returned from a GA trip to Denmark and Sweden (I can highly recommend Gotland, by the way!) and have become convinced of a long term anti-GA trend. While at Bromma airport (the second main Stockholm airport) I was advised that ALL airfields around their capital are to be shut in the next few months with the exception of Bromma (their Biggin Hill) and Arlanda (their Heathrow). All the lovely grass GA strips are to be the casualty of political pressure and the locals can't wait to see them gone ! Quite simply GA in Sweden just lost its voice and they have now reached a tipping point. (all GA is going to be based at Bromma which is far from ideal as this will have to mix in with business jets which will take priority).
We therefore must pull together and tackle the 'security' and 'green' brigades with a strong GA voice - and I believe AOPA are the best people to carry this torch !
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Can someone wake me up when this is over, please.... <
Drambuster the above snippet was from someone bored with the discussions here. Maybe he should have added "when I do wake up there will be no GA"?
I agree with your sentiments and feel that we have reached a point where enough is enough. If we do not stand up but lie on our backs and say "do what you will", then aviation or rather GA will be driven out of existance.
AOPA and certain aviation friendly politicians are our best bet at stopping this madness
Pace
Drambuster the above snippet was from someone bored with the discussions here. Maybe he should have added "when I do wake up there will be no GA"?
I agree with your sentiments and feel that we have reached a point where enough is enough. If we do not stand up but lie on our backs and say "do what you will", then aviation or rather GA will be driven out of existance.
AOPA and certain aviation friendly politicians are our best bet at stopping this madness
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drambuster
I am sorry to learn of your experiences in Denmark and Sweden.
The LAA (formerly the PFA) represents a great many pilots. I suspect their representation will grow as the aircraft owners that they in particular represent grow in numbers.
The General Aviation Alliance are very active in this arena.
The PPL/IR org are most certainly concerned with GAs right to roam in Europe.
There are others.
There are some powerful alliances to be forged here. I cannot help think such alliances are even more important than AOPA bating their own wicket - a wicket on which they cannot claim to even represent a majority of UK pilots.
It is all to easy to appear to be be "doing something" and yet to completely miss the wider picture. Politicians are very good at side stepping anyone who is not representative or where the representation is fragmented. I therefore agree that on issues of this type it is vital that the GA fraternity is united - I guess that is my point - asking pilots to unite behind AOPA will just increase the divisions that already exist between an already fragmented representation which historically is clearly unable to work together. Moreover AOPA has proven singularly unable to increase its membership so (sadly) one has to doubt that unless they adopt a new (and better initiative) they are unlikely to make the progress that we would all wish for.
I am sorry to learn of your experiences in Denmark and Sweden.
The LAA (formerly the PFA) represents a great many pilots. I suspect their representation will grow as the aircraft owners that they in particular represent grow in numbers.
The General Aviation Alliance are very active in this arena.
The PPL/IR org are most certainly concerned with GAs right to roam in Europe.
There are others.
There are some powerful alliances to be forged here. I cannot help think such alliances are even more important than AOPA bating their own wicket - a wicket on which they cannot claim to even represent a majority of UK pilots.
It is all to easy to appear to be be "doing something" and yet to completely miss the wider picture. Politicians are very good at side stepping anyone who is not representative or where the representation is fragmented. I therefore agree that on issues of this type it is vital that the GA fraternity is united - I guess that is my point - asking pilots to unite behind AOPA will just increase the divisions that already exist between an already fragmented representation which historically is clearly unable to work together. Moreover AOPA has proven singularly unable to increase its membership so (sadly) one has to doubt that unless they adopt a new (and better initiative) they are unlikely to make the progress that we would all wish for.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
Out of interest, I actually had very positive experiences in Sweden - it is a great place for GA touring. I was just commenting on the mounting anti-GA political pressures they have out there and the complete failure to mount a GA counter-attack !
I would have thought that the LAA and PPL/IR org are really technical rather than political organisations and therefore might not be best placed to argue our case with politicians and security services on airfield restrictions. I'm just about to join the LAA so will soon find out if that is a misguided comment, or not !
I have vaguely heard of the General Aviation Alliance but they don't seem to come up on radar very often so I can't imagine them having much impact. When we had the issue over the Planning status of airfields being re-desigated into 'brown field' sites the real noise came from AOPA and Loop (plus the GA mags) - not the PPL/IR, LAA or GAA !
I still believe AOPA are the best way ahead for us - but if they team up with the others then all the better.
I agree !!!
Drambuster
Out of interest, I actually had very positive experiences in Sweden - it is a great place for GA touring. I was just commenting on the mounting anti-GA political pressures they have out there and the complete failure to mount a GA counter-attack !
I would have thought that the LAA and PPL/IR org are really technical rather than political organisations and therefore might not be best placed to argue our case with politicians and security services on airfield restrictions. I'm just about to join the LAA so will soon find out if that is a misguided comment, or not !
I have vaguely heard of the General Aviation Alliance but they don't seem to come up on radar very often so I can't imagine them having much impact. When we had the issue over the Planning status of airfields being re-desigated into 'brown field' sites the real noise came from AOPA and Loop (plus the GA mags) - not the PPL/IR, LAA or GAA !
I still believe AOPA are the best way ahead for us - but if they team up with the others then all the better.
Pace: AOPA and certain aviation friendly politicians are our best bet at stopping this madness
Drambuster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember a government minister remarking a few years ago that it would be great if GA spoke with "fewer voices", and reading some of the above goes to reaffirm the truth in her remark.
I attach this by way of an analogy....
YouTube - The People's Front
Personally, I think that AOPA UK do a pretty good job given how small they are compared to AOPA in the US of A. Perhaps once the PFA/LAA have decided whether they want to join forces with the BMAA they will look like a united front to be reckoned with. As an IMC holder, I share many of the aims of PPL IR, and if sure that they are a terrific organisation but, in the wider political world, an organisation with 328 members in the UK will appear at best to be a "niche" pressure group, rather than a credible body.
Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another???
I attach this by way of an analogy....
YouTube - The People's Front
Personally, I think that AOPA UK do a pretty good job given how small they are compared to AOPA in the US of A. Perhaps once the PFA/LAA have decided whether they want to join forces with the BMAA they will look like a united front to be reckoned with. As an IMC holder, I share many of the aims of PPL IR, and if sure that they are a terrific organisation but, in the wider political world, an organisation with 328 members in the UK will appear at best to be a "niche" pressure group, rather than a credible body.
Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another???
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps time for all these organisations to talk to one another???
The point I was seeking to make is some issues one can understand may be specific to individual organiations, however there are an increasing number of issues were it would seem there should be a great deal of common ground.
A "select committee" brings together the considerable expertise from all these organsiations (for example whilst the PPL/IR may be small group, they have some technically very able individuals) and perhaps more importantly I bet that committee could rightly claim to represent more than a majoirty of UK pilots.
As it is AOPA has around 4,500 members out of a UK pilot populaton reported to be 54,000 - less than 10%.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander 2 - I have to say that your reply looks a little 'defeatist' to me.
My only point is that, combining (as he does) truly substantial experience in policing and in GA flying, Lord Stevens is a highly credible protagonist for the anti-libertarian cause. Seeking to combat his proposals by arguing that he doesn't know what he is talking about is rather naive and doomed to failure.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander2:
Islander 2 - if we are to follow your line of thought then the only option is to top ourselves. You have no alternative to offer yourself but to criticise me for being 'naive'. Your heart rending praise (read nauseating) for Stevens 'truly substantial experience', makes you sound like his kid brother sticking up for him in the playground
The fact of the matter is he is now taking the King's shilling from Cameron and will deliver up whatever his master tells him to. His credibility is shot to pieces by ignoring procedures of which he is fully aware (GAR reports, Flight Plans etc) just to come up with a sensationalist report to match Labour's Carlisle.
By penning this rubbish Stevens has lost his credibility so please don't waste further time on lecturing me on what a wonderfully talented and experienced bloke he is . . . . . .
Seeking to combat his proposals by arguing that he doesn't know what he is talking about is rather naive and doomed to failure.
The fact of the matter is he is now taking the King's shilling from Cameron and will deliver up whatever his master tells him to. His credibility is shot to pieces by ignoring procedures of which he is fully aware (GAR reports, Flight Plans etc) just to come up with a sensationalist report to match Labour's Carlisle.
By penning this rubbish Stevens has lost his credibility so please don't waste further time on lecturing me on what a wonderfully talented and experienced bloke he is . . . . . .
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by drambuster
Coming into the UK, where you are being tracked by numerous radar services, you have to arrive at a “Designated” airfield which have a regime in place to cover Immigration and Customs requirements.
A return to a private strip in the UK from an EU country can be legally made with 4 hours notice - Note 3 on page 3 of the GAR form refers.
I've done this many times - and long may it continue.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. . . .. . DaveW - that is a quote from my letter to the Telegraph, addressed to the general public (i.e not pilots), which was meant to counteract the rubbish being put about by Lord Stevens (that there is no control or involvement by the authorities on GA flights into and out of the UK). I therefore admit to a bit of positive 'spin' of my own in that I didn't cover every option under the GAR procedure such as the one you outline.
My main purpose was to make the point that there IS a procedure and that Joe Public doesn't have to lie awake at night worrying about GA as a threat. In your case there is a possibility that the 'boys in the black van' will be waiting at your strip for a friendly inspection on a return flight sometime.
If Stevens gets his way (on instructions from his paymasters) then your private strip concession will be the first to go - that is why we should back AOPA wholeheartedly to fight this on our behalf.
Drambuster
My main purpose was to make the point that there IS a procedure and that Joe Public doesn't have to lie awake at night worrying about GA as a threat. In your case there is a possibility that the 'boys in the black van' will be waiting at your strip for a friendly inspection on a return flight sometime.
If Stevens gets his way (on instructions from his paymasters) then your private strip concession will be the first to go - that is why we should back AOPA wholeheartedly to fight this on our behalf.
Drambuster