Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
#1860774
Much like policing, government, etc it is best done by consent. The more the CAA alienates GA and seems rather disconnected.
When you have the CAA saying look up pilots names and addresses and go contact them directly and you contrast that with the CAA airspace regulator whose name is public but likes to threaten legal action against those who mention it on forums.

I get the feeling that more and more people will try to just steer clear of the CAA and effectively separate from the system. Without some sort of sensible steps I feel this is the direction we are headed, which is a shame as I've found now that the skies are getting busier pilotaware has been pretty good when I've been out and about. However i've also seen many machines that weren't popping up and I can't really blame them if they're worried about a heavy handed government regulator which makes some pretty baffling decisions and interpretations.
JodelDavo, Rob P, bogopper and 1 others liked this
#1860775
@Cub

I fear we are seeing what is known as "unintended consequences"

Maybe the instigators of the guilty until proven innocent, take action over every airspace transgression however small, policy should be introduced to the concept of Threat and Error Management?

Rob P
TheFarmer, Dave W, bogopper and 3 others liked this
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860777
Rob P wrote:@Cub

I fear we are seeing what is known as "unintended consequences"

Maybe the instigators of the guilty until proven innocent, take action over every airspace transgression however small, policy should be introduced to the concept of Threat and Error Management?

Rob P


I must of misunderstood. I thought The Farmer's decision not to fit a transponder was related to his concerns about curtain twitchers associating his flight identity to G-INFO not any paranoia about airspace transgressions?
#1860785
Cub wrote: I must of misunderstood. I thought The Farmer's decision not to fit a transponder was related to his concerns about curtain twitchers associating his flight identity to G-INFO not any paranoia about airspace transgressions?


Straw, camel, back.

Rob P
#1860797
The general public would object to all their movements being personally identifiable and publicly accessible from road traffic cameras or mobile phone masts.

I suppose the authorities dont care about annoying 10,000 GA pilots compared to millions of voters.

It needs joined up data protection laws. On the one hand we are encouraged to install the latest security software and operating systems to protect devices from data breaches and hacking of personally identifiable data and prevent fraud and identity theft. We expect large utility companies and banks etc to protect our data and they get big fines for breaches. It is much easier to dish out fines to small fry without the infrastructure or the legal dept.
On the other hand law enforcement dont want people to encrypt everything as harder to do their job.

The classic privacy vs what have you got to hide argument.

A lot of fuss is made about equality and non-discrimination. Publicly accessible GA flight tracking as personally identifiable data seems to be discriminatory and have equality issues?
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860798
Discrimination is only legally against certain categories of people. So no.

As has been discussed many times, ICAO requirement is for a public register.

Can someone point to any harm caused by this? It's a rant that comes round every time. A few letters in the post won't harm you.

On noise, legally, the most they could maybe do is try to get you reported as a statutory nuisance to the council
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/statutory-n ... complaints
However I can't see that ever sticking.
If they kicked up enough fuss about an airport and got some politicians on side it could cause issues, but again, not immediately or quickly.
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860799
If you rewind time to when many of us were flying around with Mode A TXPDRS, and someone told us that ‘progress’ for GA, in 30 years time, would be a device that we were encouraged to use*, that allowed Joe Bloggs to follow our very move on their phones, know where our aircraft was based, and exactly where we lived, where we had been, and that they were then to be encouraged to liaise direct with us about any questions they might have about our activities, would we honestly have let this happen so welcomingly?

* For now…

A cynic might be forgiven for seeing it as a clever way to sell us ‘flight safety’, whilst also allowing them to now sit back and watch us dig our own graves. Whether it’s as individuals, or as airfields (as has been amended to), it’s not a healthy situation, and we have been slowly herded like sheep into this ludicrously situation where we are going to get “Clipboard Colins” contacting us to interview us about where we were last Saturday.
Last edited by TheFarmer on Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kittyhawk, PeteSpencer, Rob P and 5 others liked this
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860802
riverrock wrote:As has been discussed many times, ICAO requirement is for a public register.


Not quite.

Article 21 Report of registrations
Each contracting State undertakes to supply to any other contracting State or to the International Civil Aviation Organization, on demand, information concerning the registration and ownership of any particular aircraft registered in that State. In addition, each contracting State shall furnish reports to the International Civil Aviation Organization, under such regulations as the latter may prescribe, giving such pertinent data as can be made available concerning the ownership and control of aircraft registered in that State and habitually engaged in international air navigation. The data thus obtained by the International Civil Aviation Organization shall be made available by it on request to the other contracting States.
flybymike liked this
#1860803
I’ve had people turn up in the airfield car park to remonstrate with me about flying too near their house while in the circuit with students. Not specific noise complaints, just objecting to the presence of aircraft generally, in a forceful way. On one occasion armed with the reg of the aircraft and waiting to pounce as soon as we came through the airside gate. I’m not sure I’d like that happening at my front door.
The landscape around airfields is rapidly filling in with new developments, this issue is only going to become more prevalent.
T6Harvard liked this
#1860888
That's one way of dealing with these things but frankly I'd prefer- and I think we are all entitled to prefer - a Regulator and lawmaking community to wonder why people vote with their feet and then do something positive about it.

We can choose to go N reg if we wish, and many have for understandable reasons, but as seen recently with licensing and IR qualifications, a bureaucratic mindset will tend to stop the opportunity to move rather than do anything much about the reasons why people move. :(

@patowalker's Article 21 quote is enlightening: There is no mention whatsoever there about making the information publicly available - or, indeed to anybody except ICAO and other contracting States.

An interpretation of that wording that the fully detailed register must be published for anyone at all to see at any time would appear to be either a very lazy or a fundamentally misunderstood one.

A blanket refusal to then review the policy after many concerns, complaints and referrals to the Information Commissioner (regardless of its success) doesn't say much about any deep-seated desire to truly be a customer-considerate organisation.
Rob P, townleyc, T6Harvard and 5 others liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7