Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
User avatar
By Dave W
#1796909
OXF-OPS wrote:Where a flight has submitted a GAR, Border Agency (if not present on arrival of an aircraft) asks airfields to inform them if they identify that the number of people onboard the flight is less or more than that stated in the GAR.

The deer and hares at my airfield are a bit bolshie, and claim this is not in their job description.

Seriously: That's considerable requirements creep from the published GAR process, and it is driven by airfields not UKBA.

It places an additional and unnecessary bureaucratic burden on many pilots, and I think for that reason alone should be resisted (by pilots and airfields) as the norm.
patowalker liked this
#1796936
OXF-OPS wrote:Where a flight has submitted a GAR, Border Agency (if not present on arrival of an aircraft) asks airfields to inform them if they identify that the number of people onboard the flight is less or more than that stated in the GAR. The easiest way to verify this is by having a copy of the GAR - not mandatory to use the GAR, but the simplest means of verification, just copy pre-existing, standard notification of number of crew and/or pax on board


That is simply wrong. The verification is against the number indicated in the email received from the CBP (Collaborative Business Portal). That email only indicates the number of POB and the registration of the aircraft.

Pre-arrival
When a GAR is submitted via the CBP a notification is sent by email to the operator indicating how many people are onboard the flight and the registration of the aircraft


On-arrival
Where a flight has submitted a GAR viaCBP, Border Force asks operators to inform them if they identify that the number of people onboard the flight is less or more than than stated in the CBP email notification they received.


It is not for airfield operators to require a copy of the GAR, because it is the 'easiest way' to carry out the required verification.
Dusty_B liked this
By OXF-OPS
#1796940
Don't know what other UK Certificate of Agreement Aerodromes have in their C of As, but ours clearly states:

Conditions

1. All International Air Movements

'The signatory (i.e. the airport) will endeavour to ensure that the General Aviation Report Form (GAR) is completed and forwarded for all inward and outward flights to HM Revenue and Customs (NCU)'

So, an obligation on the part of the airport to ensure the GARs have been filed correctly. We can either remind the operator to file alone, or get a copy and make sure we file too. Accordingly, we ask for copies and ensure they are, as mandated above. The NCU might well therefore get one from the pilot/operator and another from us too, so be it. Very often the only one they've seen is the one we send, so that tells a story. The fact that this is contradictory to the advice in the 'Border force Expectations of Airfield Operators' document is for UKBA to address, but it's not in anyone's best interests for the GARs to not have been filed correctly, so we do what the C of A tells us to do, as per above. Box ticked.

It still remains the operator's/PICs primary responsibility to have filed the GAR, not the airport
User avatar
By defcribed
#1796948
OXF-OPS wrote:'The signatory (i.e. the airport) will endeavour to ensure that the General Aviation Report Form (GAR) is completed and forwarded for all inward and outward flights to HM Revenue and Customs (NCU)'


As ever, that shows that there are basically two methodologies for deciding what a piece of text means.

The first methodology is to decide straight away what you think it means, or would like it to mean, or what someone tells you it means, and stick to that. :roll:

The second is to actually read the sentence carefully and use powers of comprehension and knowledge of the meanings of words to deduce the actual, literal meaning.

Endeavour means that you'll try to ensure it happens. It is not the same as placing responsibility on you for ensuring it happens. The sentence also says nothing about the signatory gaining possession of the GAR, merely that they will endeavour to ensure that it is completed and forwarded. I imagine many airfields (and it would appear, their liaison channels) believe that the requirements of the sentence are met by putting up a poster somewhere reminding pilots to file a GAR, or otherwise communicating the requirement.

Certainly the fact that dozens of other CofA airfields who never see or touch a single GAR don't have Border Force and the Police breathing down their necks suggests that your interpretation is somewhat unique.

Alongside the Barton Interpretation we now have the Oxford Interpretation!
johnm, flybymike, Dusty_B and 3 others liked this
By johnm
#1796957
A reasonable interpretation of the sentence quoted above would be to inform operators, via poster and/ or other information route that they are required by Border Force to submit a GAR for international travel and that they may ask the airport for help in case of difficulty.
By OXF-OPS
#1796958
Maybe @defcribed a rod for our own back, but if something's coming in (from overseas) and UKBA haven't seen any GAR, it's us, the airport, they call first, every time. We get it in the neck first, so we do our bit to ensure we don't get the call. Regardless of any interpretation, we have the aggro by default. Every airfield no doubt has different approaches and philosophy and different volume of international GA traffic - the likes of say Farnborough and Biggin have full-time BA presence so don't have this issue, we don't, albeit they come in several times a week. Accordingly we have a specific role to play that differs from some peers and with say 10-20 international flights a day, it's flagged up pretty much every hour of every day.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1796960
OXF-OPS wrote:... We get it in the neck first...
... the aggro by default.

You might consider a complaint.

The responsibility is not yours; you should not therefore get any grief - formal or informal.

From your wording, they appear to be over-stepping their bounds.
By johnm
#1796962
We don't call 'em Border Farce for no reason :twisted: :roll: Though it has to be said that tabloid pressure on politicians probably filters through.......
#1796964
I'm sure the Certificates of Agreement long predate the ability to do this stuff on t'internet - hence they expected bits of paper to be passed around.

If we are supposed to send a copy of the GAR to the airport(s), how does the system cope with this? I have been unable (so far) to get a decent printed copy of the submission. Never mind reconcile it to the "receipt number" that one gets by email after submission.
By WingsOff
#1796965
patowalker wrote:The point is that the airport has no right to have the detailed information in a GAR. It doesn't matter what UKBF says. They themselves have no right to ask the airport to obtain that information.


It's not sensitive information, it's passenger name, DOB, passport No., nationality - every airport in the world gets passenger manifests from the airlines, same information. 90% of the time the handling requests repeat the same information as that in the GAR. Really don't see the issue.
By WingsOff
#1796976
Dave W wrote:Doesn't matter if it sensitive or not. (@patowalker did not use that word.)

The airport has no requirement for it.


An airport's handling agent has to have the passenger manifest for every commercial flight, what's the difference?
By Overflight
#1796981
If a GA airfield/handling outfit asks for a copy of the GAR to ensure that it's filed correctly and on time and the pilot/operator refuses to share that information, that would tend to raise awareness of that flight would it not? 'What have they got to hide? ' Otherwise, if the flight plan is filed but the GAR has not been submitted (and UKBA are chasing the destination airfield), the least the GA airfield/handling outfit can do is pass on the pilot/operator the NCU e-mail address (and the correct police e-mail if common travel area flight) and they've done their bit to help.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8