[Dave W]

There's definitely a reason why it endures...

[johnm]

Satire always has reality behind it, same as a caricature... Yes Minister was written by Antony Jay who was very well connected to "the establishment"

[Dave W]

This just sent:

Good morning [Home Office Contact],

I mentioned that I have some supplementary queries and clarifications on your HMRC colleagues' response from last Friday (10 December).

I'd be grateful if you would pass on the following to the originators with a request for additional response:

(My original Q1)
Thank you for your response and link to CEMA 1979, which I was aware of. However, your response doesn't really give me the information I'm looking for, I'm afraid.

My query wasn't limited to terminology; the reason for the question was really to clarify what aircraft Captains must actually do, and hence what "clearance" actually now means in practice (and whether it is different than before).

After 1 January 2022, do aircraft captains:

(A) Submit information within a prescribed timescale and depart from a suitable airfield, engaging further with HMRC only if contacted or visited by officers following the giving of necessary notice (as previously), or;
(B) Must they now expect (and hence wait for) an explicit response from HMRC as part of the outbound clearance - that is, must they await explicit permission to depart as a "clearance".

In the pre-Brexit past, it was generally the case that outward clearance (to Channel Islands or non-EU destinations, as not required to EU) was achieved by completing an outbound General Aviation Report (GAR) form and submitting it within the appropriate (depending on destination) notification period before departure. They must also have departed from either a Designated or Certificate of Agreement Airfield. The GAR Guidance Material that you linked to references CEMA 1979 in terms of both the required information to be notified and the limitations of the airfield of departure.

What the GAR Guidance material does not contain, and neither does the link to CEMA 2019, is an unambiguous description of what "clearance" actually means - which is why I asked the question, which can be rephrased as "Has anything changed in practice in terms of aircraft Captain's responsibilities?"

Given that CEMA 2019, as you say, has not changed and applies both before and after 1 January 2022, logically it would seem that (in terms of requirement for receipt of active permission or not) nothing will be different from before and that General Aviation pilots presumably do not need to await a 'positive permission' to depart, as opposed to depart once the time period is up unless notified otherwise?

I'd be grateful if you would confirm that, so far as awaiting a positive clearance is concerned (i.e. one is not required), the situation remains the same after 1 January 2022 as it is today.


(My original Q2)
Thank you also for your response to this question. However, you did not explain why the return notification period now starts based on the foreign departure time rather than it being based on the UK arrival time as has been the case for many years.

In fact, your own link to the existing Commissioners' Directives provided to me on Friday would appear to suggest that basing the notification on departure time from the foreign location may be an error - since at paragraph 3(1)(c)(ii) the notification period quoted for return from the EU is clearly identified as being relative to the arrival time in the UK.

The interpretation I describe is, I suggest, also circumstantially (at least) supported by the "Inward Reporting" Table on page 1 of the document referred to in my original mail. In that document, HMRC state that in each case Reporting from 'EU to GB', 'Rest of the World to GB' and 'Channel Islands to GB' is "Unchanged".

Clearly that would not be the case - each would be changed if notification based on departure time from the foreign destination is now required.

This changed requirement is quite an imposition in practice, and consequently I think it is reasonable to ask for a justification for the change (if indeed the change is not an inadvertent error).

You say that: "In terms of the changes, the revised time limits bring clarity and consistency over what was in place previously. There is no longer ambiguity relating to the duration of the flight and it will enable efficient processing and risk assessment of the reports submitted."

I would challenge some of these assertions:

• Whilst the change to 2 hours is to be welcomed, the change to the basis of the limits certainly does not "bring clarity and consistency to what was in place previously". What we now have is a significant inconsistency between the basis of notification periods from the Channel Islands and 'Rest of the World' (based on arrival time) to those from EU countries (based on departure time), and it is certainly not clear why that is the case.
• There is still inherent ambiguity relating to the duration of the flight - indeed, this change positively introduces such an ambiguity since previously the length of the flight was irrelevant to HMRC/Border Force/Police - the unchanging thing was the Arrival time in the UK (on which, of course, the Notification period was based - and still is for CI/ROTW).
• I cannot comment on the efficiency at the HMRC end, but it seems from the GA perspective to be a major reduction in efficiency at the user end of the relationship and - as I go on to explain below - a fair increase in physical risk.

Background to my asking the original question: I think that it is also worth pointing out that this is not just a theoretical issue; it also has potential (and very real) flight safety implications that may not be obvious to non-aviators.

General aviation pilots are already often pressed for time when returning to the UK, especially from further in Europe, due to weather and timezones (ie beating nightfall). The necessity to submit notification significantly earlier than is currently the case, potentially many hours earlier when considering en-route flight time, will inevitably add to pilot workload and tend to foster "press-on-itis" rather than a sometimes wiser course of changing plans. This is driven by the challenges of having to then re-start the "2 hour pre-departure notification clock" if they, for example, land to wait out weather.

"Press-on-itis" is very much a real thing and has been cited in many accident reports over the years. Aviation safety human factors analysis has recognised this and much of aviation activity has tried to simplify and reduce workload and operational pressure for precisely this reason.

I'd be grateful if you would review your response again in the light of this, and (if necessary) request that the relevant policymakers restore the basis of the notification periods to be UK arrival time.

I do note that there is some time pressure involved, given that the potentially erroneous revised requirements are due to be implemented in a little over 2 weeks time, which includes the Christmas break.

I would be very happy to discuss any of the points above further if any recipient of this email wishes. My phone number is below.

Best regards,

[Dave W]

Sorry for the delay posting this.

The following is the response to the above, received just before the Livestream on Thursday evening and so Ian was able to update viewers on the positive response to Q1. (Confirmed no explicit "permission" required to depart)

I'm much less happy with the response to Q2, and I do think they are likely making a rod for their own back with their current position - which is changing since they first announced it (as well as causing inevitable issues for us).

Note that they are NOW saying that the 2 hours pre-departure period for notification will be for EVERY route, including the Common Travel Area. So, despite their original claim, this is NOT a reduction in Notification for many (most?) GD destinations.

I do plan to take another swing at that one, and am considering how best to do that. Whatever I write, I suspect it will make use of specific examples!

With apologies for the slight delay in coming back to you, I have been speaking with teams in HMRC and Border Force to provide you with a response.

Regarding your first question below (your original question 1) – what aircraft captains must do and what clearance means in practice.

I can confirm that ‘clearance outwards’ is satisfied by the submission of a GAR. Upon submitting a GAR if there is no subsequent contact from BF prior to departure the flight is free to depart.

Regarding your second question below (your original question 2) – notification time periods.

You asked why the return notification period now starts based on the foreign departure time rather than it being based on the UK arrival time as has been the case for many years.

HMRC have confirmed that a number of pilots complained about the time taken to ‘report’ an aircraft in particular from the Channel Islands and they were circumventing these time limits by flying to EU countries. The new two hour time limit before departure from the previous destination before arrival into the UK and ‘clearance outwards’ before departure from the UK will be the same for all journeys providing consistency across customs reporting requirements. This provides a shorter time frame for the reporting of most flights.

New Commissioners’ Directions will come into force from the 1st January 2022 which will set out the reporting time requirement of 2 hours prior to departure on all routes.

Regarding the "Inward Reporting" Table on page 1 of the document referred to in your original mail. In that document, HMRC state that in each case Reporting from 'EU to GB', 'Rest of the World to GB' and 'Channel Islands to GB' is "Unchanged".

HMRC have confirmed that ‘Reporting Inwards’ was required from EU countries prior to the UK leaving the EU and was required into the UK from the rest of the world and the Channel Islands. The main change is that ‘clearance outwards is required from Great Britain to the EU from 1st January 2022. When HMRC advised ‘unchanged’ in the table, they were referring to the need to seek ‘Outward Clearance’ and ‘Report Inwards’; not the change in the time limits.

With regard to the concerns you have raised over the safety implications as a result of the requirement to report 2 hours prior to departure.

If, once the GAR has been submitted there is a delay due to bad weather, provided there are no changes to the arrival airfield or individuals on board, there is no requirement to complete another GAR and wait a further 2 hours. BF are experienced in dealing with delayed flights and will use Flight Radar when meeting a flight to check for any changes. If there are changes to the arrival airfield or individuals on board then a new GAR should be submitted.

If timescales cannot be met due to exceptional circumstances or an emergency occurs whilst airborne, please follow the instructions detailed in the GAR guidance.

I hope the above answers your questions.

[Iceman]

What is the reason for the change to ‘2 hours notification prior to departure’, which is a variable time, as opposed to the fixed time ‘4 hours notification prior to arrival’ ? If I’m inbound from Le Touquet to Blackbushe, say, that’s now a reduced prior notification of 2 hours 50 minutes to them, rather than the current 4 hours ?

Iceman

[Dave W]

What is the reason...

Well, quite.

I've asked that very question twice now. I plan to ask it again.

[patowalker]

Will use Flight Radar when meeting a flight?
Do they know flights arrive without showing up on Flight Radar?

[Iceman]

@patowalker, they quite often determine actual arrival time by enquiring with ATS as to what your FP departure time was and adding your specified FP en route time. I doubt that they look at any flight tracking apps at all.

Iceman

[patowalker]

BF are experienced in dealing with delayed flights and will use Flight Radar when meeting a flight to check for any changes

What do they mean by Flight Radar, if not FR24?

[Iceman]

Oogh, they are coming into the 21st century, aren’t they ?

Iceman

[Dave W]

What do they mean by Flight Radar, if not FR24?

I must say I'd assumed official access to an ATS feed of some sort.

The capitalisation may be a red herring.

[patowalker]

The point I was trying to make was that some aircraft cannot be identified on radar, as it is possible to fly to France without a transponder. BF could be looking at a screen expecting to see an aircraft take-off from Calais, for example, and it could already be landing in the UK.
FPL monitoring is more accurate, in my view.

[Dave W]

Well, yes.

But (under the heading of "careful what we wish for") raising that is something for AFTER the wider issue is resolved (or not?), I think.

[patowalker]

I wasn't suggesting raising it. If delayed I would call +44 300 123 2012, as they recommend. Only used it once, when they thanked me for the call, but obviously couldn't care less.

[ikcarusflyer]

I’m not sure if many people set off for Europe without knowing about it two hours beforehand. But having a bit more flexibility on the return trip might be useful, e.g. if wanting to come home earlier than planned due to unexpected deteriorating weather.

Unless you're based in Northern Ireland - some of the airfields there, the circuit crosses into Europe on downwind leg!