[Marchettiman]

Contained in the Rules of the Air Regulations 2015 legislation is the following requirement:

3.—(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time—
(a)
carry out a review of the Rules in Schedule 1 to these Regulations;
(b)
set out the conclusions of the review in a report; and
(c)
publish the report.
(2) The report must in particular—
(a)
set out the objectives to be achieved by the Rules;
(b)
assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved; and
(c)
assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved by a system of lesser regulation.
(3) The first report under this regulation must be published before 30th April 2020.
(4) Reports under this regulation are to be published at intervals not exceeding five years

Many topics and posts on this and other GA forums show that there is much confusion and possible misinterpretation by pilots, the Regulator and Air traffic services providers of Rule 11 in particular.

It would be interesting, and possibly useful to the Secretary of State to hear from the community their constructive views as to how well the objective of the Regulations has been achieved and what system of "lesser regulation" there could be.

Incidentally, a similar provision for review is contained in the Air Navigation Order.

Knowledge of these provisions for review should, I suggest, be tested in the aviation law exams for all classes of Pilots licences.

[PaulB]

I mentioned this a number of times in the aforementioned threads, but no-one seemed to pick up on it.

[David Wood]

It would be interesting, and possibly useful to the Secretary of State to hear from the community their constructive views as to how well the objective of the Regulations has been achieved and what system of "lesser regulation" there could be.

It would indeed. I wonder who would/will lead on that.

[flybymike]

We could start with abolishing class G ATZs and AFISOs, stick to A/G only in class G, and a complete rewrite of rule 11 relating to class G ATZs

[TC_LTN]

How about we got rid of all ATZs and replace with an RMZ at busy GA airfields in Class G, licensed or unlicensed. This would simply require monitoring and annunciation via UNICOM and AWOS if considered necessary.

[Stu B]

“AWOS” = ??

[Chris Martyr]

This would simply require monitoring and annunciation via UNICOM and AWOS if considered necessary.

Far too sensible !
For this country at least....

[Gertie]

stick to A/G only in class G

So ATC airfields in class G would have to either acquire controlled airspace or lose their instrument approaches?

[Paul_Sengupta]

“AWOS” = ??

Automated Weather Observation System.

[flybymike]

stick to A/G only in class G

So ATC airfields in class G would have to either acquire controlled airspace or lose their instrument approaches?

Sorry If I didn’t make it clear I was talking about AFISO & A/G ATZs only.
Personally I’m quite happy for busy public transport ATC instrument approach fields to retain ATZs or indeed CAS. Controller’s instructions already apply in an ATZ with ATC, so it doesn’t really matter if you call it an ATZ or some other form of CAS,
The whole subject of ATC with IAPs outside CAS is a never ending discussion, especially if and when widespread non ATC IAPs are introduced. We only have to look at the furore at Farnborough. Perhaps something along TCLTN’s excellent suggestion or similar self announcement procedures used in the U.S