I am not questioning the requirement for booking out. My question is "is it a LEGAL requirement". That's all.

No I do not think that is. Should all boats book out? Should we book out when we get in the car to drive around the corner? Where does it all stop?

Light aircraft are subject to a very significant amount of regulatory oversight. Many of the people who work within 'the system' have no sense of proportionality and simply invent further 'rules' to serve their self importance. We can all think of exceptional circumstances where sometime made things better or indeed much worst.

Is there a legal requirement now? It seems not. Was there a legal requirement? Well dependent upon interpretation probably yes.

This forum and the others are full of these sort of threads where the regulations are subject to much argument, simply because they are not written in a simple and straight forward way. How can that possibly be acceptable?

So, to be fair to everyone, have we determined that this is no longer a legal requirement in the UK, though some people like the idea, and continue to do it/promote it out of non required personal preference or experience?

I'd like to think most of us on here are intelligent, we have proven ability to read and understand text books and pass exams. So we are not stupid, we are capable of making a rational decision based on weather, aircraft serviceability and the state of our health before going flying. Most of us will happily accept that there is logic to supplying information to others about our flight either through a formal or informal process. I see both arguments, I don't book out to go to Tescos but I do want someone to come and look for me if I end up broken somewhere. That is the risk we accept when we go flying.
Maybe 20 years ago an aircraft was not booked out from a local club and it crashed killing the occupants. No formal booking out process was complied with, at that time the club was run informally and did not insist on booking out, although you could argue that merely by booking the aircraft for an hour's slot they had booked out. The occupants would not have been helped had they done so but clearly in the helicopter accident described a couple of posts back it did help.
So we have a risk of an accident, the consequences could be very serious (I happily accept that lying seriously injured in a field is not a good thing) but into the equation is how frequently does an accident like this happen?
I would argue so infrequently that it is almost irrelevant.

Having said all that I have no objection to booking out but as others have said there seems to be no longer a legal requirement to do so.

I'm sure it used to be so. I admit to not having got fully to grips with the wording of the requirement under SERA just yet. However, about ten years ago I was reported to the CAA for allegedly not booking in or out at a minor UK airfield. It was an unjustified allegation, because I had been booked in by our company ops dept. and the airfield owner had failed to read his own written log, where I had booked out in person before departure, so no action was taken against me.

May be I have this wrong but my understanding was that an airfield movements record was a requirement of the customs authorities and nothing to do with SAR or ATC.

All of the above aside, 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) and this is usually reflected in the planning conditions for the airfield.

Chevron, I am not disputing that. If I use an airfield I accept I have to follow the rules, conditions or whatever. I know booking out is a club rule because I can see it in black and white. So far no one has referred to a CAA document stating that it is a legal requirement.

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.

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. :hmm:

This thread confirms what I realised some time ago.

EVERYTHING in British aviation is different.

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

You could say the same thing about Australia

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!).

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

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!

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.)

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!).

I would be interested to know as I'm sure others will, how does that manifest itself to a pilot using your service.?


The operative word is "IF" there is also a reference to "Booking out" which advises "Flight details will not be passed to another ATSU" unfortunately I think the CAA server must be down due to the Holborn fire? so cant give relevant CAP

The argument about the use of boats with no requirements like this are valid. Unless going to a foreign port no-one knows..

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.