Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
#1835922
It does say though:
GA activities should take place in line with the wider restrictions. Travel should be minimised as far as possible.

Whether flying to another airfield for a burger is considered as "travel" who knows!
#1835926
The CAA's guidance as to the date that non-commercial instruction "can recommence" is highly misleading, to say the least.

There are no relevant changes being made to the law on 12 April. If a cockpit is considered outdoors, then dual flying is legal from 29 March no matter what - as it's the rule of 6 outdoors from that date.

If a cockpit is considered indoors, then one of the exceptions listed in the law will need to apply, if the gathering is to be legal. But the list of exceptions for indoor gatherings is not changing (in any relevant respect) on 12 April.

They are simply making it up as they go along - and I fear that this particular decision may prove injurious, if not fatal. No good telling pilots they should have been more patient when they're a crater in a field... :(
User avatar
By JAFO
#1835928
MidlandFlying wrote:The CAA's guidance as to the date that non-commercial instruction "can recommence" is highly misleading, to say the least.


Could you point me to the CAA's guidance? I thought it was DfT guidance.
#1835934
JJMurphy wrote:Is anyone else like me still struggling to get the clarity on what we can / cannot do from Monday?
...
I had hoped we'd get some clarity from the CAA on this via their webcast this week. Their response was...this is a Dept of Transport issue and one for them to clarify.
...
I predict I will default to the "I'll make a sensible decision for myself" option which sadly the government seems to have removed the option on for many aspects over the last 12 months.

:lol:
I have to say that (though not picking on you) if ever there was a post that highlights the GA community response to the C19 restrictions/guidance/rules/laws in the UK, then this is it. Everyone could have been doing what you suggest in the last sentence without fear or hindrance from day one if the first sentence had not been aired publicly, then the second sentence asked of the CAA/Dft... :roll:

Just go back to the first posts this time last year. :wink:

Regards, SD..
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1835936
MidlandFlying wrote:Perhaps the underlying guidance is by the DfT, but the CAA are certainly playing along with it, e.g. https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalappli ... l&id=10314


So, are you saying that you can't point me to the CAA guidance you referred to? That's a document attempting to mitigate any safety concerns that comes from the gap between flying and instructional flights being allowed. It doesn't make that gap CAA guidance.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1835948
@JodelDavo - it's not being pedantic and I'm definitely not after an argument.

All I'm saying is, by all means blame the CAA when they get something wrong or do something you don't like but it's not helpful if people go blaming them for things they didn't do. That is spoiling for an unnecessary argument.
#1835957
JAFO wrote:
MidlandFlying wrote:Perhaps the underlying guidance is by the DfT, but the CAA are certainly playing along with it, e.g. https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalappli ... l&id=10314


So, are you saying that you can't point me to the CAA guidance you referred to? That's a document attempting to mitigate any safety concerns that comes from the gap between flying and instructional flights being allowed. It doesn't make that gap CAA guidance.

One bit of the government (the Department for Health, and the Government Legal Service) has made a set of laws purportedly intended to save lives.

Another bit of the government (the DfT) is now making up their own interpretation of those laws, an interpretation which is putting the lives of pilots and the public at risk.

A third bit of the government (the CAA) is then endorsing and playing along with that, in blatant contradiction to their central role of ensuring aviation safety.

And your argument is "oh, well the third bit of the government isn't making the guidance, it's only endorsing it"? :roll:
By russp
#1835959
MidlandFlying wrote:
Another bit of the government (the DfT) is now making up their own interpretation of those laws, an interpretation which is putting the lives of pilots and the public at risk.

A third bit of the government (the CAA) is then endorsing and playing along with that, in blatant contradiction to their central role of ensuring aviation safety.


Aren't we supposed to be adults capable of making good decisions about our own fitness to go flying? Do we really believe that those pilots that who maybe shouldn't go up without an instructor but can would behave any differently whether the instruction flights started at the same time or as is the case two weeks later? This is really a bit of a non issue, pilots wont behave any differently whether there is a gap or not. Pilots may well be at risk but it won't be because of the DfT or the CAA it'll be because of their own poor decision making and I'd be willing to bet those pilots would make those same bad decisions regardless.
Miscellaneous, JAFO, PropPeter and 1 others liked this
#1835967
russp wrote:
MidlandFlying wrote:
Another bit of the government (the DfT) is now making up their own interpretation of those laws, an interpretation which is putting the lives of pilots and the public at risk.

A third bit of the government (the CAA) is then endorsing and playing along with that, in blatant contradiction to their central role of ensuring aviation safety.


Aren't we supposed to be adults capable of making good decisions about our own fitness to go flying? Do we really believe that those pilots that who maybe shouldn't go up without an instructor but can would behave any differently whether the instruction flights started at the same time or as is the case two weeks later? This is really a bit of a non issue, pilots wont behave any differently whether there is a gap or not. Pilots may well be at risk but it won't be because of the DfT or the CAA it'll be because of their own poor decision making and I'd be willing to bet those pilots would make those same bad decisions regardless.

Ok, so why do we have a 90 day/3 takeoffs rule? After all, only pilots with poor decision making wouldn't do that before flying with passengers. And what about maintenance intervals - why not just make those advisory, I mean any sensible pilot would comply with them anyway!

How far do you go? There has to be accountability for the CAA endorsing a situation where some will, understandably, be tempted to take the risk of flying solo after months of inactivity.
#1835968
Hi Folks,

I've been tasked with Ferrying a single back from Madrid to Ireland next week.

Has anyone had any first hand experience with such a trip at the moment given the current regulations ? Will be passing through France and over the UK on the way back.

Particularly interested in the French restrictions if anyone has any recent experience of passing through France. It will be purely a crew of 2, myself and an engineer so no passengers.
User avatar
By foxmoth
#1835973
The correct governing Aviation reference is actually https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... l-aviation
In that one from 29th March it actually says “Training for leisure or recreational purposes should not take place where rules around social distancing cannot be followed.”
and further on actually defines the social distancing rules and essentially backs up MidlandFlyings statement about “Outdoor cockpit”

The document referred to earlier is a Safety Notice and not governing.

If anyone who's SEP expires at the end of March is struggling to get their hours dual in then come and do an hour in our open cockpit biplane which we will be operating from 29th - Covid measures will be in place!
User avatar
By marioair
#1835978
MidlandFlying wrote:The CAA's guidance as to the date that non-commercial instruction "can recommence" is highly misleading, to say the least.

There are no relevant changes being made to the law on 12 April. If a cockpit is considered outdoors, then dual flying is legal from 29 March no matter what - as it's the rule of 6 outdoors from that date.

If a cockpit is considered indoors, then one of the exceptions listed in the law will need to apply, if the gathering is to be legal. But the list of exceptions for indoor gatherings is not changing (in any relevant respect) on 12 April.

They are simply making it up as they go along - and I fear that this particular decision may prove injurious, if not fatal. No good telling pilots they should have been more patient when they're a crater in a field... :(


I agree

I think the “guidance” is more than enough to permit non commercial flight instruction from the 12th. I’d argue the opposite - instruction should be possible from the 29th if you read the guidance......

———
Step 1 - from 29 March

Training for leisure or recreational purposes should not take place where rules around social distancing cannot be followed.
There’s nothing in the Social Distancing rules that say you CANNOT be in a closed cockpit. It says do 2m or 1m WHERE POSSIBLE. which it’s obviously not.

So then Step 2....

Step 2 – no earlier than 12 April
Flight training for all pilots, and flights with an instructor, can resume.

——-

So yes, the CAA is saying wait til 12th April and then you’re all good to get dual instruction. But the social distancing measures you’d put in place are the same. I don’t intend to receive, and don’t think the spirit of the guidance, is that instruction is allowed from 29th.

However it’s odd that the measures in place will not have changed in two weeks.
  • 1
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119