Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860659
I see a positive in this. In the past, people would refer to the CAA and the CAA would send you a nasty letter asking you to justify yourself, whether you'd actually broken any rules or caused any nuisance or not. You then got yourself a black mark on the CAA file regardless.

This way, the CAA aren't involved, so no black mark.
#1860663
The CAA has now edited the blog to remove the reference to GA and G-INFO. It now reads…

In general, if you have a complaint about aircraft noise, you should direct it to the airport where you think the aircraft was operating to or from. They have a duty to investigate your complaint and respond to you.


It shouldn't have been written in the first place, but well done for fixing it quickly.

Ian
Dave W, GrahamB, Ibra and 18 others liked this
#1860665
In my opinion, it’s positive to take CAA off equation (just look at the size of noise procedures in every AIP entry and the number of complaints they get, including those by deaf people who can hear gliders flying using their eyes* :lol: ), just like buzzing with my scooter or CBR600, I won’t lose my CBT or DVLA papers but one can get flat tires or clamps on his Extra300 !

Better to contact visited airport or homebase though rather than coming to G-INFO address to knock my door

* I had a low flying & noise complaint once while soaring a ridge with TMG engine-off, while everything was legit according to CAA & CFI, the message was “be invisible” next time (it’s a Yellow Motor Glider with feathered propeller in the front, it did not fit “white silent glider doing low flying” description and spooked lot of attention)
#1860674
In my role as an A/G operator, I had a complaint yesterday from a grizzling resident some miles away, just moved into the village.

"An aeroplane has just flown over my house at treetop height"....

Well madam, its a local private airstrip and nothing really to do with us... Were you aware there is an airstrip just near your new house?

"But he's flown over my house"....

Nothing more to say from me, phone goes down..

Apparently she was told by the CAA to call us, and I didn't believe her.. Now I know the CAA have bigger sloping shoulders than I thought they had.

Knowing the whining idiots who enjoy complaining about aircraft noise, why do airfields (according to the CAA) have a duty to investigate, if nothing illegal or nothing to do with us?

This will set GA back ever further..
By Hooligan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860676
Oi G-BLEW! I bloody heard you going into Biggin the other day! Noisy so and so... :lol:

(I did too, walking home from breakfast in t'pub, sounded a bit different from the Cirrii, PA-28s, 152s etc that normally whiz over my place).

Anyone who complains about aircraft noise doesn't have their hearing regularly assailed by little boys with cherry bomb exhausts and therefore doesn't know what horrid noise really is...
T6Harvard liked this
By MikeE
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860683
Dave W wrote:
...

As keeps being said, it's not obvious why aircraft should be treated any differently.


Absolutely. In the case of the DVLA they have the details of the person who has requested the vehicle details so if someone comes charging round you can find out who they are. In the case of GINFO you have no way of knowing. It seems to me that, as you say, it would be much better for the CAA to keep GINFO details securely and provide them to people who have 'reasonable cause' a la DVLA.

Regards

Mike
Colonel Panic, Dave W, James Chan and 3 others liked this
#1860723
Paul_Sengupta wrote:I see a positive in this. In the past, people would refer to the CAA and the CAA would send you a nasty letter asking you to justify yourself, whether you'd actually broken any rules or caused any nuisance or not. You then got yourself a black mark on the CAA file regardless.

This way, the CAA aren't involved, so no black mark.


Had it been, I also think the **** stirrers hell bent on nothing other than causing trouble would wind their necks in. I'm convinced the motive is largely to cause the owner grief and nothing more. Little point in complaining to the owner to this end.

However silver linings from idiotic authority behaviour is not the way forward.
TopCat liked this
#1860742
MikeE wrote:
Dave W wrote:
...

As keeps being said, it's not obvious why aircraft should be treated any differently.


Absolutely. In the case of the DVLA they have the details of the person who has requested the vehicle details so if someone comes charging round you can find out who they are. In the case of GINFO you have no way of knowing. It seems to me that, as you say, it would be much better for the CAA to keep GINFO details securely and provide them to people who have 'reasonable cause' a la DVLA.

Regards

Mike


This point has been made to the CAA already and it received a reply along the lines of they publish names and addresses because they have to.

I don't think anyone will convince the CAA to change. That has to come from Government. Unfortunately, writing to my MP extracted a letter from the DfT saying they had asked the CAA and the CAA said they had to publish the names and addresses.

So maybe G-BLEW can find out who is really responsible for this rule and then we can find out how to change it.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860768
Do airports have a duty to do anything about noise complaints?

"Thanks for letting me know.
I'm allowed to do this, they are allowed to do this and they have been doing this at that location for years so they will keep doing this.
Just to let you know, to reduce admin burden and to protect the environment, we don't respond to repeat or duplicate complaints.
Regards
Local pilot and airport owner"
T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1860771
TheFarmer wrote:With this announcement, there will soon be a lot more Mode S TXPDR’s going tech….

My latest build isn’t going to have one, for obvious reasons.


The obvious reason that you have a casual disregard for the safety benefit derived from EC deployed by yourself and for fellow aviators? :roll:
#1860773
TheFarmer wrote:With this announcement, there will soon be a lot more Mode S TXPDR’s going tech….

My latest build isn’t going to have one, for obvious reasons.


Mine for some reason broke the other day, so rather than have it fixed at great expense it was ripped out and chucked in the bin, problem solved.

@Cub
My privacy is far more important than those who cannot use the mark one eyeball and look out of the window, blame the CAA and G-INFO.
TheFarmer, Sooty25, Cessna571 and 1 others liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7