GA The "Terrorism Act" and Big Brother!

[microlighttp]

Today I received a letter from the Ports unit of Cheshire Police, reminding me of the requirement under the Terrorism Act to seek"Authority to fly to and from the common travel area" from non designated airfields. The letter goes on to recommend that if travelling to or from a "non designated airfield "in Cheshire that I submit a "Flight notification" to the Cheshire Police Ports Unit.This I understand the need for.However attached to the letter is a proforma asking for information about my aircraft,ie. where it is kept ,including OS grid reference,any road access and strangest of all its "concealment potential".
I understand the need for the flight notification but not the information asked for in the proforma.Do other police forces in the UK ask for this kind of info?

Seems rather Big Brother to me.

[Islander2]

GA The "Terrorism Act" and Big Brother!

Today I received a letter from the Ports unit of Cheshire Police, reminding me of the requirement under the Terrorism Act to seek"Authority to fly to and from the common travel area" from non designated airfields.

You'd be entitled to think that they know and understand the legislation ... but you'd be wrong.

The Terrorism Act 2006 is silent on this matter, so the Terrorism Act 2000 is what provides the legal framework; and its Chapter 11, Clause 12(3)(b) of Schedule 7 - 'Port and Border Controls' requires you to give written notice, not seek authority (which is more than a subtle difference in that it implies your flight could be prohibited)!

[S-Works]

Islander2 beat me to it. Tell them to sling their hook.

[fauteuil volant]

I'm not sure that the language I would use would be so polite as requesting them to "sling their hook"!

[mixture]

Islander,

I think your interpretation of the legislation is not quite right

The "subtle difference" as you put it, is not in the part to which you refer, but rather whether or not the aircraft is being flown by a CPL/ATL and used for hire or reward.

As the original poster has not provided sufficient detail for you to point out the point of legislation that you did, you made it sound more straightforward than it is.

Also, even if the flight is a private flight, you should be aware under the legislation that it is technically not "authorised" unless you fulfill the notification / designated port requirement.


Microlight,

Regarding your concern over the amount of detail.

If you are concerned, I suggest you download a standard template and send that back to them instead.

Metropolitan Police Service - Specialist Operations

[S-Works]

Mixture, are you PC Plod by chance? As your interpretation is wrong. You do not need AUTHORISATION to exit the UK by any means as a free citizen of the UK.

You are required to NOTIFY nothing more. The type of notification required varies according to the designation of the port, but at no time is permission required.

Qualification makes no difference for a private flight.

Lets not make up laws, we have enough as it is.

[mixture]

are you PC Plod by chance

No. Nor do I work anywhere in the public sector.

You do not need AUTHORISATION to exit the UK by any means as a free citizen of the UK.

What I'm saying is simple.

Sure you can fly out of the UK as a GA pilot on a private license.

But you are technically not "authorised" to do so if you don't give 12 hours advance notice.

The "authorisation" may be implied, look at the deregulation of the telecommunications industry and their "General authorisations" regime. In order to take advantage of the flexible regime, you need to comply with the requirements, otherwise you are not authorised.

Just remember. In law, "authorisation" does not necessarily mean rubber stamp, passport style permission. It can be more of a donkey and carrot thing, you get the carrot as long as you do X.

I was merely picking up on islander's wording, thats all !

[mixture]

Lets not make up laws, we have enough as it is.

I'm not.

Here's the law....
Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)

and here's the wording .....

(2) Where a ship or aircraft is employed to carry passengers for reward on a journey to which this paragraph applies the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft shall not arrange for it to call at a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland for the purpose of disembarking or embarking passengers unless—

(a) the port is a designated port, or

(b) an examining officer approves the arrangement.

(3) Where an aircraft is employed on a journey to which this paragraph applies otherwise than to carry passengers for reward, the captain of the aircraft shall not permit it to call at or leave a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland unless—

(a) the port is a designated port, or

(b) he gives at least 12 hours' notice in writing to a constable for the police area in which the port is situated (or, where the port is in Northern Ireland, to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary).

It's perfectly clear. For a GA PPL your choices are either designated port or 12 hours notice, otherwise you are not authorised.

permitted = authorised = synonyms

[SpeedbirdXK8]

Mixture you're getting mixed up. Read the words "for reward" this means commercial flight i.e. you make money out of hire and reward i.e. AOC flights NOT GA PPL i.e. PA28 taking off from Farm Strip etc..

[mixture]

SpeedbirdXK8

I'm not getting mixed up at all.

(1)

Get out your thesaurus.

Authorised is a synonym of Permitted.

I will also repeat myself ....

The "authorisation" may be implied, look at the deregulation of the telecommunications industry and their "General authorisations" regime. In order to take advantage of the flexible regime, you need to comply with the requirements, otherwise you are not authorised.

(2)

Re-read what I posted

(3) Where an aircraft is employed on a journey to which this paragraph applies otherwise than to carry passengers for reward

See that word, otherwise than to carry passengers for reward.

That means your farm strip PPL.

He must either give 12 hours notice or fly from elsewhere.

Otherwise he is not permitted ... or, in other words, not authorised.

(3)

Yes, I agree, the amount of information they asked the original poster for seems excessive.

Hence my suggestion he downloads the standard template and sends that back to them instead. Then they can always get in touch and explain why they need more information, and he can then seek proper legal advice on whether that amount of information is excessive under legislation.

[Islander2]

I think your interpretation of the legislation is not quite right

The "subtle difference" as you put it, is not in the part to which you refer, but rather whether or not the aircraft is being flown by a CPL/ATL and used for hire or reward.

My interpretation of the legislation is just fine, thanks.

Let's eliminate the red herring you've introduced of carriage of passengers for reward. The original poster's monicker and the fact this is the Private Flying forum are reasonable indications his interest was not in that arena.

So we're left, as I stated, with the only requirement being notification. You may call that implied authorisation if you like, but it is beside the point because the more than subtle difference I was addressing (and that you're ignoring) is in their phrasing: a requirement to "seek authority". Seek means something well beyond automatic authorisation by the mere act of notification and, as I said, strongly implies the right to deny such authorisation.

We have heard before of other Police Force Special Branch officers taking a similarly incorrect view, in some cases eliminating any semantic ambiguity such as you've sought to introduce by actually telling pilots that they cannot depart until they have received an authorisation number.

[mixture]

Islander,

Would you mind, therefore, explaining what step 3 in the below process does, if it's not "authorisation" ?

(Content taken from the Met website linked to, but also similar wording on other authorities sites) ....

To make a notification and/or seek authorisation for a flight to/from the CTA;

* Fully complete a GAR

* Fax or email the GAR to the following contact details:

National Ports Office
Heathrow Airport

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
email: [email protected]
(if emailing please ensure the email ‘Subject’ field has “GENERAL AVIATION REPORT” entered in it)

* CTC will fax or email the ATC with authorisation

[Bahn-Jeaux]

That may be on a plod website however that is their interpretation, not a quote from legislation.

[mixture]

implies the right to deny such authorisation.

And they can and will do their utmost to stop you flying if they don't like what their database tells them about you when they input the data from your GAR.

Hence my point about implicit authorisation.

Yes, for your average Joe Bloggs, it all seems like pointless paperwork.

But if they've been provided with intelligence to suggest otherwise, you'll end up with more than paperwork on your hands, I suspect......

[SpeedbirdXK8]

Ok Mixture take your point, I got hung up on para 2 only Typical leglisation aimed to confuss rather than clarify. I'll go back to sleep

[Islander2]

Islander,

Would you mind, therefore, explaining what step 3 in the below process does, if it's not "authorisation" ?

(Content taken from the Met website linked to, but also similar wording on other authorities sites) ....

Thank you mixture, that extract is a clear example of the authorities going beyond the letter of the law.

Please tell us what you believe you are to do if, by the time of your proposed departure, ATC haven't received the faxed or e-mailed 'authorisation', and a telephone call to the number quoted produces nobody that can deal with the matter?

[Islander2]

And they can and will do their utmost to stop you flying if they don't like what their database tells them about you when they input the data from your GAR.

And there's the rub!

Clearly that doesn't bother you, but I sit squarely in the camp that's massively concerned with what is happening to civil liberties in this country ... pressure for ever increasing periods of detention without trial, pressure for trial other than by one's peers, anti-terrorism legislation used by local authorities for snooping on individuals on matters nothing to do with terrorism, rights of entry to your property by an army of snoopers to see what alterations you've made, round-the-clock surveillance of, and issue of endless 'guidance' to, the prols (invoking very real Orwellian images) ... etc, etc.

[42psi]

Might I just make a comment ... to me something appears to have been missed totally here


The OP's monniker suggests that his normal a/c type is highly unlikely to be visiting anywhere in the CTA... (anyone actually visited IOM/Nth or Sth Ireland/IOM/Channel Isles by microlight from mainland UK )



Is this perhaps just a case of Cheshire's finest (my local plod also by the way) actually sending something out as a mater of course.


Maybe they're just "scatter gun" sending to all PPL holders in their area?





As for "concealment potential" .... well you could always say if will fit in a large boot/van

[Jodelman]

(anyone actually visited IOM/Nth or Sth Ireland/IOM/Channel Isles by microlight from mainland UK )

That's a very strange view. Lots and lots of microlights get to cross the Irish Sea.

[microlight AV8R]

Microlights across the water

Indeed Jodelman is correct.
Microlights are crossing that bit of water frequently. Don't fall into the trap of seeing a microlights as a little hang glioder with a strimmer engine attached, those days are mostly gone. Take a look at the EV97 Eurostar, Pegasus CT2k, Jabiry UL, Skyranger, Rans S6 and Xair hawk to mention but a few. 90-100 mph and 400+ miles range is now commonplace. Even my Rans S6 with its 50hp 2 stroke is capable of venturing to the Emerald Isle.
But we digress, I'm with the original poster and others who have concerns over intrusive government agencies.
The wording of such 'guidance' can be in conflict with the actual law itself. This could be the product of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing or, in a more sinister circumstance perhaps a cynical attempt to gain compliance beyond the legally stated minima where the writer can always fall back on a statement indicating that there was no intention to mislead... "what we meant was...." as is often heard in Westminster.

These are the reasons why we have defended the principles of liberty enshrined in magna Carta through the centuries and hae relied upon an independent judiciary and the right to trial by our peers as fundamental.
Ask yourself if you feel those principals are still intact?

I must go as the Black Omega is puilling up outside