Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1769225
As probably 99% of my flying in the last 20yrs+ has been with other pilots on 3 leggers, and all those hundreds of burger runs to exotic places like Fenland, Old Buck etc, unless the reason for not social distancing doesn't come soon I fear my flying days are just about numbered as I suspect many more are going to be in my particular age group. :cry:
#1769250
What a mess! Surely it would not have been unreasonable to say that members of the same household who travel by car to an airport, and can maintain SD rules to getting airborne in their own aircraft can operate leisure flights. If you can get into a yacht or drive to a golf club then flying a light aircraft is not that much different.

The problem is that whilst the new rules do offer unlimited travel within England it is specified to be used for the purpose of taking exercise. Statutory Instrument No 500 of 2020 comes into force tomorrow - it amends The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. It says you can
Quote:
visit a public open space for the purposes of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing
A “public open space” is defined as:
Quote:
(a) land laid out as a public garden or used for the purpose of recreation by members of the public; (b) land which is “open country” as defined in section 59(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949(a), as read with section 16 of the Countryside Act 1968(b);

(c) land which is “access land” for the purposes of Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000(c) (see section 1(1) of that Act(d)).”

Reading that I think you would be hard pressed to say that driving fifty miles (in my case) to an airfield fits in with the principle of taking exercise by getting into an aircraft for a jolly.

I fear this is going to turn into a farce where people will simply decide to go flying regardless. Looking at the south of England on FR24 this afternoon I suspect that's already the case. The trouble is their insurance companies might not share the same views if they wind up sitting in a GA sized hole.

Hopefully AOPA/LAA can give a bit more clarity soon.
#1769255
It's like an episode of Yes Minister ... where the govt makes an announcement no-one understands and then civil servants simply pass the ball round in circles for someone else to explain what the hell they meant while all the time knowing the govt hasn't a clue what it's doing in the first place until at the end it's all simply quietly forgotten about and everyone carries on as normal....

and meanwhile while we try to find someone that's prepared to make an actual decision we refer you back to the last lot of advice on the previously applicable regulations which are no longer applicable but the advice on the no longer applicable regulations is applicable because we cant find anyone prepared to withdraw the now no longer applicable advice...... It just gets more and more Yes Minister
skydriller, Stu B liked this
#1769257
BoeingBoy wrote:.....
A “public open space” is defined as:
Quote:
(a) land laid out as a public garden or used for the purpose of recreation by members of the public; (b) land which is “open country” as defined in section 59(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949(a), as read with section 16 of the Countryside Act 1968(b);

(c) land which is “access land” for the purposes of Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000(c) (see section 1(1) of that Act(d)).”

.

I bet Blackbushe are pleased they lost their Common Land appeal, having a public right of way across the airfield means clear prop for them.
#1769260
What concerns me more than anything is the fact this virus is still as virulent and contageous as was from the first day of lockdown. Using my own little bit of common sense tells me I don't give a F*** what the Gov tells me about being able to run around a park all day, go on a crowded train to work or fly, it seems more like they are running scared of joe publics less than informed opinion and trying to look like the good guys when in fact the bastard virus is still killing and infecting.
davef77, tomshep, dublinpilot and 2 others liked this
#1769265
BoeingBoy wrote:Reading that I think you would be hard pressed to say that driving fifty miles (in my case) to an airfield fits in with the principle of taking exercise by getting into an aircraft for a jolly.


For the umpteenth time, it isn't a requirement in the law that the purpose of your drive is to go for exercise. The list of reasonable excuses in the regulation is an exemplary list. The regulation explicitly allows for other reasonable excuses that aren't specifically listed. So it's only necessary for your reasonable excuse to fit into the spirit of what is intended. It is not necessary to exactly match one of the reasonable excuses listed. That's why it says "a reasonable excuse includes" and not "a reasonable excuse means".

BoeingBoy wrote:I fear this is going to turn into a farce where people will simply decide to go flying regardless.


Regardless of what? The law now permits it.
defcribed liked this
#1769274
From the guidance

▪ .... Also, consider filing a flight plan if you plan to
request entry to a CTA/CTR to notify your intentions to an air traffic unit which may
be operating close to its capacity


Er - i thought if you file a VFR flight plan, in the UK, it goes to DEST A/D only.....so how would that help with an enroute zone crossing - that was the AUP portal which they're de-commisioning??
#1769294
marioair wrote:From the guidance

▪ .... Also, consider filing a flight plan if you plan to
request entry to a CTA/CTR to notify your intentions to an air traffic unit which may
be operating close to its capacity


Er - i thought if you file a VFR flight plan, in the UK, it goes to DEST A/D only.....so how would that help with an enroute zone crossing - that was the AUP portal which they're de-commisioning??


I believe you can address VFR UK domestic flightplans to extra relevant ATC units using Skydemon if you wish to save a few seconds.
#1769338
▪ .... Also, consider filing a flight plan if you plan to
request entry to a CTA/CTR to notify your intentions to an air traffic unit which may
be operating close to its capacity


Really ? Pretty much no CAT around last time I looked at FR24...
#1769345
skydriller wrote:
▪ .... Also, consider filing a flight plan if you plan to
request entry to a CTA/CTR to notify your intentions to an air traffic unit which may
be operating close to its capacity


Really ? Pretty much no CAT around last time I looked at FR24...


There's also huge numbers of controllers furloughed, part of the reason the advice from the DfT came in the first place. Farnborough for example for a lot of today was completely bandboxed, Ground/Tower/LARS W/Zone/Approach ,other units are similar.

Sure ANSPs will need to find staff to cope when we fly in the coming initial weeks, but there is little incentive unfortunately with their own low traffic numbers to have usual levels of controllers with no airport revenue, therefore you may find delays trying to get across a CTR if you plan to cross at the time their 3 movements of the day happen.
#1769357
rdfb wrote:
BoeingBoy wrote:Reading that I think you would be hard pressed to say that driving fifty miles (in my case) to an airfield fits in with the principle of taking exercise by getting into an aircraft for a jolly.


For the umpteenth time, it isn't a requirement in the law that the purpose of your drive is to go for exercise. The list of reasonable excuses in the regulation is an exemplary list. The regulation explicitly allows for other reasonable excuses that aren't specifically listed. So it's only necessary for your reasonable excuse to fit into the spirit of what is intended. It is not necessary to exactly match one of the reasonable excuses listed. That's why it says "a reasonable excuse includes" and not "a reasonable excuse means".

BoeingBoy wrote:I fear this is going to turn into a farce where people will simply decide to go flying regardless.


Regardless of what? The law now permits it.


Ah but you have to have a reasonable excuse for a journey. Flying an aeroplane constitutes a journey. A leisure flight to visit, say, another airfield cannot possibly be a reasonable excuse.
So you can drive to the airfield to get exercise pulling the aeroplane out of the hangar. But you can't fly it because that's not a necessary journey.
That's what Sir Humphrey told me, anyway...
BoeingBoy liked this