JAA set to ban PPL group flying
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAA set to ban PPL group flying
The JAA-OPS working group are looking at a proposal that aircraft owned by a limited company should only be flown by a CPL qualified pilot.
As most flying groups are limited companys for the protection of the members this proposal would stop PPL members of such a group from flying the aircraft in which they have a share.
As most flying groups are limited companys for the protection of the members this proposal would stop PPL members of such a group from flying the aircraft in which they have a share.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (embedded in UK law since 2nd October 2000) provides as follows:-
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The proceeding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or secure the payments of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
I think that it would be difficult to identify a public interest in inhibiting the use by a limited company or its shareholders of a possession owned by the company, in the manner envisaged by this proposal (assuming it's not just a spoof or rumour). Also, restrictions on Convention rights have to be proportionate to the public interest objective sought to be achieved, and this sort of restriction appears disproportionate to any conceivable public benefit which might result.
End of lawyer blah.
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The proceeding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or secure the payments of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
I think that it would be difficult to identify a public interest in inhibiting the use by a limited company or its shareholders of a possession owned by the company, in the manner envisaged by this proposal (assuming it's not just a spoof or rumour). Also, restrictions on Convention rights have to be proportionate to the public interest objective sought to be achieved, and this sort of restriction appears disproportionate to any conceivable public benefit which might result.
End of lawyer blah.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Agree with Genghis...
I have not yet found the advantage of setting up a Group as a Limited Company.
The "limited liabilty" refers to creditors but the directors still have responsibilities to ensure that the company meets it's legal obligations... "Corporate Manslaughter" is an in-word at present.
I have not yet found the advantage of setting up a Group as a Limited Company.
The "limited liabilty" refers to creditors but the directors still have responsibilities to ensure that the company meets it's legal obligations... "Corporate Manslaughter" is an in-word at present.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh yes... I also consider Flyer to be a lightweight tin pot magazine...
"How to do a cross wind landing"
"You too can fly in Class D airspace"
"How to give your man multiple orgasms"
Yawn.
PS Did see a recent copy where they did an article slagging off "Stanstead" ATC
"How to do a cross wind landing"
"You too can fly in Class D airspace"
"How to give your man multiple orgasms"
Yawn.
PS Did see a recent copy where they did an article slagging off "Stanstead" ATC
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK Beagler, I can't figure out if the smiley means that it is a wind up or a serious comment - if it is the latter, let me know and I'll see what I can do about a defense of the magazine :-)
PS When was the last time you read a copy?
[This message has been edited by IanSeager (edited 25 October 2000).]
PS When was the last time you read a copy?
[This message has been edited by IanSeager (edited 25 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beagler may be referring to a ludicrous article some months earlier by one Mr Boot whinging on that it's too hard to fly in between Luton and Stansted without busting one or other of the zones. Splendid reply in the letters column from a Stansted ATCO with a PPL.
Punter's comment for Mr Seager: in general Flyer Mag is far too full of moaning about JAR this and JAR that and seems to pitch itself at the "fly 40 minutes once every two months whether I need to or not" brigade rather than encouraging mnore ambitious standards in private flying. Whilst I am having a rant, could I add that Rufus Heald pulled his punches in writing about the "instructor" who killed himself and two others stalling out after takeoff due to his apparent inability to fly, let alone teach (the AAIB blaming the ASI for being a bit funny-looking seems strange: why didn't he look out the window and notice the dangerous attitude?). The article looked as thought it might be a swingeing attack on the system which allowed the poor bloke instructor status on the basis of passing commercial pilot exams rather than on the basis of flying ability, but if this was the intent the attack was not driven home.
End of rant. Toys back in pram.
Punter's comment for Mr Seager: in general Flyer Mag is far too full of moaning about JAR this and JAR that and seems to pitch itself at the "fly 40 minutes once every two months whether I need to or not" brigade rather than encouraging mnore ambitious standards in private flying. Whilst I am having a rant, could I add that Rufus Heald pulled his punches in writing about the "instructor" who killed himself and two others stalling out after takeoff due to his apparent inability to fly, let alone teach (the AAIB blaming the ASI for being a bit funny-looking seems strange: why didn't he look out the window and notice the dangerous attitude?). The article looked as thought it might be a swingeing attack on the system which allowed the poor bloke instructor status on the basis of passing commercial pilot exams rather than on the basis of flying ability, but if this was the intent the attack was not driven home.
End of rant. Toys back in pram.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point of starting this thread was to tell all of you of the JAA porposed action not to slag flyer.
It is clear that if the JAA take such action it will stop groups from working in a way they have for years with out eny problems.
the big question is what are we as pilots going to do to stop this stupidity ?
It is clear that if the JAA take such action it will stop groups from working in a way they have for years with out eny problems.
the big question is what are we as pilots going to do to stop this stupidity ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hang on a moment.
Aren't nearly all flying clubs and schools limited companys, so wouldn't this proposal also apply to rented aircraft.
I expect the idea is doomed to failure, but we ought to check out all the consequences first. (e.g. you can't have your first flying lesson until you've got a CPL).
Aren't nearly all flying clubs and schools limited companys, so wouldn't this proposal also apply to rented aircraft.
I expect the idea is doomed to failure, but we ought to check out all the consequences first. (e.g. you can't have your first flying lesson until you've got a CPL).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark 1,this action by the JAA is aimed at the companys with the turob props and small jets but if we do not watch it then the small group that is a limited company will catch the fallout.
I dont think for one second that flying groups are the intended target of the proposed action but they may well end up the victims of it.
The question remains "what are we doing to stop the spred of this eurotrash".
I dont think for one second that flying groups are the intended target of the proposed action but they may well end up the victims of it.
The question remains "what are we doing to stop the spred of this eurotrash".
Guest
Posts: n/a
FNG - you may think that we moan on and on about JAR this and JAR that, but some of the proposals have to be seen to be belived. In addition we talk on a daily basis to aviation businesses and pilots who are suffering as a direct result of JAR. I am not aware of one thing that the JAA have done that is of benefit to GA.
What can we all do? I would suggest that any battles would be easier if we were in some way 'united' and to that end would suggest that people join an organisation (AOPA or PFA) and lobby through that.
What can we all do? I would suggest that any battles would be easier if we were in some way 'united' and to that end would suggest that people join an organisation (AOPA or PFA) and lobby through that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last some one hits the nail on the head insted of posting objections on these pages a sujestion that if we all got the act together and joined AOPA or the PFA we would have some colective say with these eurocrats.
In the USA a place that seems to be aviation wise AOPA has a membership aproaching 80% of pilot population and has the financal clout to back up lobbying of the FAA.
In europe AOPA has a membership of 3 to 4 % of pilot population and despite AOPA,s best efforts that is why we are now putting up with this euorfarce that is called JAA.
For me the message is clear we must join and be prepaired to back financaly AOPA and the PFA if the voice of light aviation is to be heard and the excesses of the JAA stopped.
In the USA a place that seems to be aviation wise AOPA has a membership aproaching 80% of pilot population and has the financal clout to back up lobbying of the FAA.
In europe AOPA has a membership of 3 to 4 % of pilot population and despite AOPA,s best efforts that is why we are now putting up with this euorfarce that is called JAA.
For me the message is clear we must join and be prepaired to back financaly AOPA and the PFA if the voice of light aviation is to be heard and the excesses of the JAA stopped.
Guest
Posts: n/a
IMHO there are three organisations in the UK which are effectively fighting for aviators rights.
These are PFA, BMAA and BGA.
AOPA USA is a truly magnificent organisation, in the UK I've yet to see them achieve anything meaningful. Admittedly they thought of the NPPL, but much of the haggling on that now seems to have been by the PFA.
G
These are PFA, BMAA and BGA.
AOPA USA is a truly magnificent organisation, in the UK I've yet to see them achieve anything meaningful. Admittedly they thought of the NPPL, but much of the haggling on that now seems to have been by the PFA.
G
