Has anyone considered / tried getting an exemption for all this from the CAA. Exemptions exist in the commercial world, why not for private?

There was a consultation. Why would they grant exemptions after such process? See -

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_gad_LoI%20290305.pdf

Note that several correspondents, including the PFA, expressed a view at the time consistent with those voiced here & on many other forums. Despite this, the CAA went ahead.

In the report, they said
"(12), (13) and (14) [PFA, AOPA & RAC] commented that a reasoned safety case with costs and benefits was required to support one element of the proposal that would require some owners to purchase new equipment, i.e. an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). The cost of such equipment was thought to be unwarranted without such safety justification having been demonstrated. Correspondent (4) [PPL IR] expressed a reservation with regard to the proposed 10 minutes' offshore distance rule for ELT carriage, and correspondent (12) [PFA] thought this would be a significant inconvenience to many pilots."

"Correspondent (15) [the MOD] expressed support for this part of the proposal, from its perspective as a major provider of rescue services. Accordingly, the relevant appendix to the RIA (Appendix 8b) has been expanded to provide more detailed information showing that the proposal is justified."

Private pilots vs the MOD? No contest.

We know from wider world events how good an understanding the MOD has of front line service ops. This includes SAR.

You could call West Freugh on the phone before setting off to find out what's going on. IIRC correctly the phone number is in the margin of the 1:500000 chart and/or in the flight guide entries for Castle Kennedy.

Surely if you can't get an ELT a PLB would be just as efficient? I don't know much about civvy stuff but doesn't anyone manufacture a life preserver with a PLB in?

I have asked the CAA to consider an exemption to the ANO for recreational aircraft, to allow the use of any suitable lifejacket or any approved EPIRB/ELT/PLB, not one specifically approved by the CAA/EASA. It is within the CAA's authority to grant such exemptions and is something that they have done in the past.

If I get anything useful back I will pass it on.

As it happens, I know the chap at the CAA pretty well, he's a dedicated light aircraft person, an all round good bloke and almost certainly feels as badly about this "gotcha" as we all do.

As far as I can gather, none of the bodies involved in the consultation, including the CAA, fully realised the implications of the pre-existing ANO requirement for CAA/EASA approval for all mandatory fit equipment.

Let's hope that common sense prevails, knowing the CAA chap I feel sure that he will make every effort to seek a sensible solution.

VP

A list of EASA approved equipment is here.

No mention of oxygen equipment.

The CAA has messed up badly on this.

Just seen an even more disturbing note on the PFA website which seems to make the current situation even worse (see item 9 on the first post)

http://www.pfa.org.uk/cgi-bin/ultima...6;t=000090;p=2

If this is true, the ICAO are looking to have all aircraft fitted with ELTs from next July. I cannot believe that this can happen so soon after this latest imposition, and we haven't yet sorted out the situation with PLBs.

Oh, and I've just had a note from McMurdo confirming that whilst there is nothing wrong in carrying the FastFind, it does not conform with the legislation. The one useful bit of information is that :

"McMurdo understands that the CAA is currently considering the wider
issues sounding the fitment and use of ELT's by light non commercial
aircraft on the UK aviation register and in respect of Air Navigation
Orders. "

As I understand it this only applies to new aircraft registered after that date. Unfortunately I have become so boggle eyed reading legislation over the last few days that I can't find the document that refers to this.

That makes more sense. Thanks