Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Is booking out a legal requirement?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Is booking out a legal requirement?

Old 6th Apr 2015, 13:09
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 602
there is still the requirement at an airfield with an 'Ordinary' Licence for an aircraft operator to obtain permission from the airfield authority to use the airfield (ie take off or land)
Obviously, it would be courtesy to request permission to use private property that you do not own, but is that "requirement" a regulatory burden upon the pilot? What is the regulation with which the pilot must comply?

I see the "requirement" to obtain permission to use a private aerodrome (which perhaps is granted one time for all, to a based aircraft), as quite different to a [regulation?] to quasi flight plan every flight from an aerodrome.

Of course, examples can be found where doing so has had a great benefit for search and rescue efforts. However, is burying a system in reports of coming and going proportionate to that? Certainly, for the capacity of Flight Services to receive and process flight plans or flight itineraries, relative to the number of flights from private aerodromes in Canada is just not there. If we were to document each flight, the system would be swamped. I would estimate that more than half of the aerodromes in Canada are not regularly attended, so there would be no means to present a "booking" in or out.

In my opinion, a pilot's obligation to them self, their passengers, and SAR is to appropriately notify someone responsible of their flight. No "local" requirement would so obligate a pilot, if a national air regulation did not. That's certainly the way it is in Canada.
9 lives is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 14:08
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Things are much more simple here in the U.S. The only entity requiring me to "book out/in" is my wife. One master at a time.
vector4fun is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 23:14
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 372
This thread confirms what I realised some time ago.

EVERYTHING in British aviation is different.
On Track is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 07:40
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 426
There are always those who wish to kick against the system and reading this thread it becomes evident that for a variety of reasons some pilots just don’t wish to be helpful and cooperative. They see all rules as a nuisance and for the benefit of someone else.

Booking out [with which filing a flight plan complies] is a simple procedure and takes a couple of minutes or so. As a consequence of making the effort, the following benefits are derived…….no not all by the pilot, but there are other people in this world!

The ATS unit [be it ATC, AFIS or A/G] will know who you are, what your likely requirements will be and which route you will be using to leave their airspace [particularly useful in regulated airspace].

If this is done by telephone [a requirement at some airfields] then the ‘tower’ will have a pre-prepared flight progress strip [or whatever they use]. This is particularly helpful at busy airfields where passing details on the RTF is both time consuming and an unnecessary distraction for the radio operator/ATCO etc. It also clogs up the frequency.

ATS will know whether or not to expect your return and approximately at what time.

Licensed/Certificated Airfields are required to maintain an aircraft movements log. Completion of the log requires information about the flight destination.

In the event of an aircraft going missing, search co-ordinators will have a clue where to start looking. If, perchance, the pilot and passengers are injured on a remote hillside, they will have a greater possibility of survival. Surely in the best interests of relatives/friends etc.

If the pilot/operator is engaged in criminal activities, the police, HMRC etc will have a better chance of discovering their activities and taking the appropriate action. That interests the law abiding citizens!

This may all appear ‘nanny state’ and maybe it isn’t done in some parts of the world. However the UK has applied a good SMS principle and learned from its mistakes. As a consequence of many accidents over the years, we have learned that the more readily available the information about a flight the better the chances of survival. It also makes for the more efficient use of search resources…….paid for by the rest of us!

On a personal note, as a former ATCO I have, over the years, spent countless hours on telephones trying to track down missing aircraft which the simple expedient of a telephone call would have prevented!

It’s no big deal, it’s not big brother, it’s common sense!

H49
Helen49 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 09:29
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,952
EVERYTHING in British aviation is different.
You could say the same thing about Australia
fireflybob is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 10:54
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,233
There is not a single instance where a life has been saved through this bureaucracy.

If people within the system want to make work for themselves fine. Making up reasons for it on the basis of 'assisting the police' and other entirely spurious reasons is symptomatic of why GA in the UK is becoming unsustainable as a transport option.

Leaning on rules which in themselves have no real value is why we need a serious simplification and evidence basis for them - not simply 'I think this might be a good idea and if the postman/police/customs/whoever needs an address I could give it to him'.

This whole thing is similar to and even less useful than the now no longer required fire cover for training during ppls,,which again was proven to have never saved a life - but cost us all a significant amount of money (oh and kept people 'within the system' in work!).
gasax is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 12:24
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 426
Booking out may not have saved a single life, I bow to your superior knowledge. However it has saved valuable time in the ATS world and avoided much heartache on the part of ATS personnel! I doubt it keeps a single person anywhere in a job but it does make life simpler and safer for those who are involved in these matters.

I know the OP was asking about the legality of booking out. The thread has drifted! In the days when finding a telephone and getting through to ATS was more difficult I can almost understand the failure to book out. In these days of mobile telephones, it is a two minute job whilst walking out to the aircraft. Get real folks, stop being so selfish. Think about helping others for a change!

My days in ATC are way back and things may have changed but I do know that back then the pilots and operators who were polite, helpful and worked within the rules [like them or not] generally got the best service and were a pleasure to work with! The awkward uncooperative non-compliant personnel would often get the same service in return and it is very easy for ATC to give as they receive!!

H49
Helen49 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 12:41
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 602
In the days when finding a telephone and getting through to ATS was more difficult I can almost understand the failure to book out. In these days of mobile telephones, it is a two minute job whilst walking out to the aircraft.
But when I do phone flight service, It'll often be a 15 to 20 minute wait to get through on the phone, so that two minute call can take 22 minutes, which is often longer than I fly for! If Nav Canada were to employ enough people to answer the phones in under two minutes, I would not want to be paying for that service, I feel that our society does not need that degree of regulated voluntary oversight.

Speaking as a volunteer firefighter of 25 years, we have spent ever bit as much time looking for difficult to find car accidents, lost persons, boats, and snowmobiliers, as crashed aircraft, and our society does not expect the surface borne to report their intended trip nor destination, why should pilots be more burdened? Because they fly farther into remote territory? Then yes, they can file a flight plan or flight notification, and I'm sure that they do.

By the way, while walking out to the aircraft, don't be on the phone, think about where you're walking! Ramps can be busy places!
9 lives is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 13:34
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,437
our society does not expect the surface borne to report their intended trip nor destination
My wife's uncle was a retired mountain rescue person in BC. He expected us to tell him exactly where we were going and when we were due back when we went off walking in the mountains.


(But then admitted lying to his kids and telling them that he was due back a day later than he was actually planning.)
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 14:03
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 602
He [uncle] expected us to tell him exactly where we were going and when we were due back
Indeed, I entirely agree. But, uncle is not "society". It's great that friends and family are there to keep tabs on each other. My wife likes me to tell here where I'm going when I fly, and I appreciate that. If I cannot, I'll have the SPOT on, and she knows to look for it. My pilot buddies have a pretty good idea where to look for me. If I have no one to tell, I can file a flight plan.

The option is always there to notify people of your trip, and to be "followed" so to speak. How nice that aviation has this system in place, and there are regulations as to it's use. For some flights, it is required.

However, in my opinion, for bimbling around, I feel no greater obligation to society on the whole, to notify them of a flight more than I would if I were to walk, ride, drive or sail to that same place. If society has put a rule in place in that respect, I accept that, and will follow it. But the expectation that every person venturing out will notify "society" is asking too much of society to track all of that.

Society cannot afford the cost to track every person who chooses to venture out - what makes people flying more an object of such oversight?

I recall years ago, taking a non aviation passenger for a hundred mile flight over remote winter territory. Of course, I filed a flight plan, airport to airport. The destination airport was a few miles beyond the lakeside town at which we were to meet the others. While flying over the others at the lake shore, I could see them, and they needed our help. I landed on the ice, and we provided the required help - and I got distracted, and forgot to close the flight plan - totally my fault.

So I had not arrived at the airport, and the calls start going out. My team of flying buddies got the call, as one of them was the "notify" person (before wife). He first called the police in the town I was visiting, and told them to look for a yellow plane on the ice at the waterfront. Sure enough, there I was, problem (that I had caused) solved.

I had a totally mea culpa talk with flight services afterword. During that talk, I learned that nothing in their way of doing things would have triggered anyone to ask if the plane had landed on the town's ice instead of the airport. They were about to spend a lot of money launching SAR aircraft, who would have found me safely on the ice. Sometimes the family/friends traking is actually better than society's system - ('cause they were getting ready to fly too!).
9 lives is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 15:00
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,130
A flight plan does not constitute booking out.

In the UK VFR flight plans generally are ignored as they do not require to be closed and do not usually contain the required info for SAR. eg POB endurance and contact phone Nos. Often the arrival or departure airfield will not have an AVPEX terminal. (and probably fewer will have in the future)

The only time a VFR flight plan is required is when intending to cross an international boundary.

The booking out procedure at my local licenced field is written in to the airfield ops manual and SMS manual. This has been in place for many years due principally to the extremely inhospitible terrain nearby.

As Helen49 says in her very sensible posts licenced airfields are required to log all movements and arrival and departure information. Several agencies may have an interest in this information.

D.O.
dont overfil is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 17:01
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,130
If the airfield does not have an ATSU?

I don't have time to look at the document at the moment but I think that it may be referring to booking in or out of an aerodrome within a control zone.

A flight plan in that instance can usually be an informal one of basic details by phone or over the radio. You will be asked your desination, endurance and POB and sometimes if you are IFR or VFR.

D.O.
dont overfil is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 19:32
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Somewhere in England.
Posts: 113
I'm fairly sure that A and C (whose comment is on the preceding page) is correct and that it is, or was, a customs requirement to sign in and out. The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 gave Customs the power to make various regulations and I'm fairly sure that a requirement to sign in and out was one of those. Whether that part of the Act survived the transfer of responsibility for customs controls at the border from HM Revenue and Customs (the successor to HMCE) to the UK Border Agency is something I don't know.
Pronto is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 21:10
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,233
It would be much more helpful if instead of quoting old wife's tales if posters could actually find the regulatory requirement which they think makes booking out a legal requirement.

To answer don't overfill. look back at the SERA extract. A FPL fulfils the requirement to book out - which only applies at an airfield with an ATSU.
gasax is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 22:26
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Somewhere in England.
Posts: 113
Not an old wives' tale at all - see CEMA 1979, s33(3):
"(3) The person in control of an aerodrome licensed under any enactment relating to air navigation and, if so required by the Commissioners, the person in control of any other aerodrome shall—
"(a) keep a record in such form and manner as the Commissioners may approve of all aircraft arriving at or departing from the aerodrome;

"(b) keep that record available and produce it on demand to any officer, together with all other documents kept on the aerodrome which relate to the movement of aircraft; and

"(c) permit any officer to make copies of and take extracts from any such record or document."
There's nothing on the Legislation website to suggest it's not still in force and now administered by UKBA.

P
Pronto is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 22:47
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 602
licenced airfields are required to log all movements and arrival and departure information.
And the foregoing post seem to oblige the aerodrome operator, not the pilot of an aircraft to report movements at the aerodrome.

I don't know about the UK, but in Canada a privilege may be associated with regulation. The privilege to fly in domestic airspace will be regulated by national regulation. International airspace, additional regulation. Privilege to cross borders will invoke customs regulations, but I don't know about customs controlling entirely domestic flying?
9 lives is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 23:50
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 372
Step Turn, I enjoy your posts. It seems that Canada, Australia and NZ all approach the business of SAR in a similar way.

If I do want or need to file a flight plan in Australia or NZ (which I might do simply for the purpose of having a SARtime in the system) then all I have to do is go online. In fact that's the way that ATS in both countries prefer it to be done.

I certainly don't have to tell the airport operator what I'm doing. Indeed there are hundreds of Class G airports where there's nobody to talk to anyway.
On Track is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2015, 00:57
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 36
Posts: 644
Current law is a bit of a mess.
Essentially, the Rules of the Air regulations 2007 has been superceeded by Part-SERA (December 2014) but Part-SERA didn't cover everything so some parts have been retained, and there have been some derogations in some areas.
See http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2884/20141204ROTA2007Retentions.pdf
and you can read about further details here: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2884&pagetype=90
This should all be cleaned up with new legislation this year.
However the booking out regulation hasn't been retained. It is no longer law for pilots. It is now only the Part-SERA regs which requires submission of some sort of flightplan (which could be an abbreviated flight plan, which the CAA helpfully refers to as "booking out") to be in controlled airspace (so likely including an ATZ).
Hope that clears the legals up!

Of course, might still be required by each organisation according to their own rules / safety management system.
riverrock83 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2015, 14:57
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,436
This should all be cleaned up with new legislation this year.
On the 30th April, in fact, when the Rules of the Air Regulations 2015 come into force.
BillieBob is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.