Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

    So - I am curious - no BHPA member has ever been prosecuted for an airspace infringement - ever. That is without a legally enforceable requirement for a Licence.

    Do the BMAA officials know their own rate of prosecutions for infringement with a legally enforceable licence ?

    Marc.
    BHPA Chairman
    Vice President RAeC
    Barrister at Law

    Comment


    • #47
      CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

      Marc I really don't understand where you are going with this as we all know BHPA members have and are infringing airspace the difference between an aircraft and a hang/paraglider is that once on the ground the latter gets packed up and vanishes the former goes back to an airfield and gets traced back so therefore can be prosecuted

      Comment


      • #48
        CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

        Paul Dewhurst wrote: Read the ANO review document the links take you to and there is explanation.

        Personally I think removing a license requirement for SSDR would be a bad thing. The basis of us proving the initial case for SSDR to CAA and Dft was made on evidence that training had the big safety impact not airworthiness regulation. There are also potential problems of insurance and access to aerodromes for SSDR if there was no license required.

        Paul
        I agree, but also think that people who go off and crash will do microlighting as a whole a disservice - both in our relationship with the CAA and to our public image.
        X-air pilot
        Previously owned flexwings, incl. Quantum 15-582 and Flylight Dragonfly.

        Comment


        • #49
          CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

          Paul Collins wrote:
          Originally posted by John Kendall
          I do however think that wing registration should be introduced for paramotors.
          I don't, as it wouldn't be that practical. I fly mine with different wings, including ordinary paraglider wings. I suspect the registration hassle and expense would mean most people simply wouldn't comply. Add to that the difficulty of reselling a wing with letters on it.
          When you get a pair of numpties flying paragliders at less than 50' high flying between parked boats in a busy harbour which is also in a bird sanctuary marked on an air map like these two (there's a clear photo)...

          http://www.wellsharbour.co.uk/news1.htm

          ...then paragliders should certainly be obliged to carry registration letters!

          I have several wings for my trike, each with a different registration number, why not paragiders too? At least with a registration number you'd have half a chance of identifying these half-wits giving the rest of us a bad name. The registration numbers could stay with the wing or be peeled off before sale and it certainly seemed easy enough to add advertising lettering to a paraglider wing for a balloon drop.

          Attached files

          Comment


          • #50
            CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

            The question I would ask is whether those numpties flying illegally would take the time and trouble to help you identify them, or whether the only outcome would be to penalise the vast majority of pilots who take their responsibilities seriously.

            I've seen motocross bikes ridden illegally on the roads. Should they all have to be registered too? Outrage legislation is seldom good legislation.

            Comment


            • #51
              CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

              Well it seems to work for all other powered aircraft, I can't imagine peeling the registration of my flexwing and going flying is going to end well. There seemed to be a common lack of understanding of basic air law on the BHPA forum too, lots of discussion about bird sanctuaries and little about Rule 5, registration numbers seems to be the current method of potentially allowing some policing of daft flying so why not use it?

              Comment


              • #52
                CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                Is it necessary? - I don't know, but registration has some benefits
                The way we know a motor crosser is being driven illegally on the road is because it has no registration - this then makes the owners very cautious about going on the road and makes it easier for the police to feel their collars if they come across them.
                In the same way if we had registration as a requirement if some folk ignored it they would be more obvious - we would see they were flying illegally at takeoff and landing as well as when they were skimming a harbour. Sites to fly from would become a little more restricted, some peer pressure may he bought to bear and if they continued they would be constantly looking over their shoulder.

                For those flying with registration being easily identified would promote a little more care about noise /nuisance and rule 5. Being human and misidentified we can all feel the temptation for a cheeky naughty swoop every now and again. But of course generally with a little care this isn't a problem of any great magnitude.

                So let's hope that this particular event is an isolated one and that if so some perspective is used and it is thus not deemed necessary to implement a registration scheme - or worse. Paramotoring is a growing sport however so some initiatives to promote basic air law and good behaviour would be desirable so that incidents like this don't increase. The proposed Skyway Code initiative might be a good platform to launch such a scheme from.

                Paul (D)

                Comment


                • #53
                  CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                  Still doesn't answer the question - why are paramotors not required to carry registration letters?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                    Kevin, in my opinion they should be. It's an anomaly because the sport has evolved quickly and the tightening up of regulations will come later, usually pre-empted by a high profile incident of some kind. This is the way of the world.

                    With identification comes accountability.

                    My opinion is if it is powered it should be registered and identifiable, this is broadly what works on the road. Even a hot air balloon has to be registered. As William has pointed out the temptation to transgress if you can drop into a field, pack up and vanish is bound to be higher. Would those paramotor pilots be floating around that harbour with an easily identifiable registration? I doubt it. And if they weren't identified when they should be, that would draw attention and it wouldn't take too many outings until they were collared.

                    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

                    I don't know why Marc Asquith keeps chanting 'no BHPA member has been prosecuted for an airspace infringement' as some kind of badge of honour. The more he repeats it, the more obvious it seems to me to be backing up a specious argument that being unlicensed, results in being less likely to commit an airspace infringement. It's not that at all, it's because they are less likely to be reported in the first place.

                    Airspace infringements are not the major issue here and are not a reliable indicator of anything. There is a much bigger question of accountability and responsibility. As you move up the spectrum from single seat unpowered craft to multiple seat, powered aircraft you inevitably present more risk to yourself, your passengers and third parties. The question is how that spectrum is divided into groups, how it is regulated (or not) and whether responsibility for training and licencing (if any) is borne by the individual or the relevant organisation. I would like to see a much more clearly defined landscape with less of the politics than the current situation that history has dealt us of overlapping organisations scoring points off each other.
                    subscribe to Microlight Flying eNews here : http://dm-mailinglist.com/subscribe?f=c4198184

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                      Do keep in perspective that it is not a new sport in the UK. It's been around 20 years since it was decriminalised in the UK with the first affirmation of deregulation in the UK for footlauched powered.

                      any complaints analysis does need to bear this in mind.

                      Paul

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                        Richard Leigh wrote: Well it seems to work for all other powered aircraft, I can't imagine peeling the registration of my flexwing and going flying is going to end well. There seemed to be a common lack of understanding of basic air law on the BHPA forum too, lots of discussion about bird sanctuaries and little about Rule 5, registration numbers seems to be the current method of potentially allowing some policing of daft flying so why not use it?
                        1. For foot launched aviation, the BHPA won this battle. It's not their fault that you were burdened with the regulation they successfully avoided.

                        2. There is no BHPA forum, and there never has been. Marc Asquith can explain why if you ask him.

                        There has been a discussion in some FB groups about an incident within a bird sanctuary. As has been pointed out, the police could also be argued to be breaking the law.

                        As for a common lack of understanding, that's not the evidence of the huge database of flights avoiding airspace despite having no engine, and having to avoid airspace and work lift at the same time. Having flown both types I can tell you that avoiding airspace when you have an engine is incredibly easy, compared to flying without. As a hang glider and paraglider pilot, I look at the Southend RMZ infringements mentioned below and could say "There seemed to be a common lack of understanding of basic air law in GA".

                        I've addressed the registration issue below.

                        Paul Dewhurst wrote: For those flying with registration being easily identified would promote a little more care about noise /nuisance and rule 5. Being human and misidentified we can all feel the temptation for a cheeky naughty swoop every now and again. But of course generally with a little care this isn't a problem of any great magnitude.

                        So let's hope that this particular event is an isolated one and that if so some perspective is used and it is thus not deemed necessary to implement a registration scheme - or worse.
                        Registration would be cumbersome, costly, and of little or no benefit unless evidence exists that there is a problem. Whilst I accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I'm going to argue that innocent until proven guilty, and if there is a problem, it should be demonstrable. If anyone is saying there's a problem let them produce the evidence.

                        A 62 fee to transfer ownership of a paraglider I'm selling second hand for 300? Seriously? Something that no other European Country now does? Even the Germans who used to register HGs with D-XXXX marks gave up, costly and no benefits to show for it. As for selling the wing and the registration changing, it would be a PITA. The angle of view for a registration on a highly arc wing like a paraglider would be minimal.

                        Most paramotor pilots are very careful about noise, it can lose them fields to fly from.

                        It's also important to realise that when low flying does occur, the registration may help you catch the person who did it, but it would not prevent the accident. My own anecdotal experience with low flying (microlights/GA barrelling through NOTAM'ed tow strips) is that the registration has not made a jot of difference. In one case it allowed me to talk to the pilot, he blamed the instructor, the instructor denied knowing about the tow restriction despite the airfield manager producing an acknowledged e-mail to prove him wrong.

                        Paul Dewhurst wrote: Paramotoring is a growing sport however so some initiatives to promote basic air law and good behaviour would be desirable so that incidents like this don't increase. .
                        Reading through various publications connected with air law shows that licensed pilots are not a shining beacon of virtue, just reading the Southend RMZ infringements last year shows just how many apparently don't read NOTAMs or know their air law. I've been studying air law for the last 25 years, but only had a licence for the last 4. Anyone who thinks that the licence guarantees any competence in air law more than 6 weeks after the exam has been passed may be kidding themselves. It's a good route to go down, but the knowledge came from the training and learning not the exam. The exam was just a bit of QC.

                        Do we think paramotoring is a growing sport? Sales of wings don't seem to support this. We can't use association membership as a barometer. I'd say it has plateaued.

                        Kevin Woods wrote: Still doesn't answer the question - why are paramotors not required to carry registration letters?
                        Because it's totally deregulated, and the time that the deregulation was given there it was decided that there would be no mandatory licensing, airworthiness or any other requirements except that of being able to foot launch. It would be cumbersome as a lot of wings can be flown as paramotors or unpowered as paragliders. Possibly because those who negotiated the deregulation did a good job. How often do you see paramotors? The weather wind is very small, their mass is tiny and kinetic energy even smaller, in reality they are like electric cycles and don't require all the pointless regulation the BMAA is burdened with.

                        I accept Dominic's point that letters would increase accountability, but by how much? When I look at Fly on Track or the AAIB monthly reports, I conclude there are far more serious problems in sport flying than paramotor pilot conduct.

                        Paul Dewhurst wrote: Do keep in perspective that it is not a new sport in the UK. It's been around 20 years since it was decriminalised in the UK with the first affirmation of deregulation in the UK for footlauched powered.

                        any complaints analysis does need to bear this in mind.
                        There was a lot of discussion, and some of the pioneers like Michel Carnet from the BHPA side were involved in representation.

                        It's to the BHPA's credit that they managed to get the sport completely deregulated, rather than ending up with the huge burden of paperwork that microlighting has ended up with.

                        They did that partly by producing a pilot rating scheme, and a scheme for accreditation of instructors and schools. The BMAA entered into the same area but by 2008? their pilot rating and instructor scheme has been abandoned.

                        Now I'm a little surprised to find that an association would now like to see regulation imposed when a sister association has successfully fought against it especially when their own track record in the same area could have been a lot better, and is a long way behind.

                        How would BMAA members feel if BHPA members waded in on a consultation, say, for medical requirements insisting that any NPPL holder had to have an EASA level medical to fly? You'd be furious.

                        The BMAA needs to concentrate on member benefits, and reducing the burden of regulation, rather than suggesting that classes of aircraft they have served poorly in the past that are better served elsewhere be subject to additional regulation.

                        In the end it may be that the BMAA suggestion of keeping licences in place loses out to a simpler system proposed by a different association. It may be that said association has nearly ten more years experience of fighting regulation, it may be that said association has managed to avoid legislation whilst still running credible in house airworthiness, rating, instructor and coaching schemes.

                        I have an NPPL, with differences training for 3 axis. 1 licence, two environments. Within HG/PG I have two separate aircraft ratings, with two environments on one rating and three on the other. I have acquired the highest of three rating levels in both aircraft types. I also have passed through two levels of coaching and am now at the second level.

                        So the BHPA is used to running a rating scheme.

                        Dominic Connolly wrote: The question is how that spectrum is divided into groups, how it is regulated (or not) and whether responsibility for training and licencing (if any) is borne by the individual or the relevant organisation. I would like to see a much more clearly defined landscape with less of the politics than the current situation that history has dealt us of overlapping organisations scoring points off each other.
                        If the points scoring were to stop it would be a good idea.

                        As I understand it, the BHPA is responsible for running the only training schemes in the UK that exist for PG, HG, paramotoring and powered hang gliding. Whilst the BMAA is involved in the NPPL, it does not, as I understand it, run it. The BMAA has no scheme for paramotoring and powered hang gliding. It provides no insurance for the same.

                        It would be jaundiced to say it but I will, it looks like the only thing the BMAA is suggesting for foot launched powered flying is more regulation. How can that attract members into the association in what is a fully deregulated sport? How can that be argued to be in the interests of those already in that sport?

                        Given the BHPA's experience, maybe we should wait and see what kind of scheme they produce? However, it makes sense to be mindful of the things that the likes of Kev and Gwyn have said, as they are no lovers or advocates of regulation. The only justification they and Paul D have raised, which I cautiously support, is for the protection of the current freedoms that sport aviation enjoys.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                          Excellent post, Steve.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                            Wowee! What triggered that thread resurrection?

                            As far as I understood, the BMAA as an association - not necessarily individual members or employees - has consistently tried to reduce regulation against CAA generally tending to responde to pressure increase it. Now we have a CAA that's been mandated to reduce regulation (thank you Mr Shapps) and a BMAA that's not certain what to do having been let out of the cage.

                            I hope there's collaboration behind the scenes where there is apparently bitter rivalry on here.

                            Joan

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                              Steve - what's with the anti BMAA rhetoric - I haven't heard anything that the BMAA has any views on increasing regulation of ANY sort for paramotors. Indeed quite the reverse - the BMAA ANO consultation response makes the case that BMAA supports the current situation and suggests that it be extended to footlauched machines with wheel attachments.

                              BMAA also strongly responded of the Southend paramotor debacle supporting the right of the pilot to be where they were and that they were being used for scaremongering purposes.

                              So please give credit where credit is due.

                              As for paramotoring plateauing that's not what our friends in the industry are reporting, and Clive Masons relatively new school near us is thriving.

                              I also fail to understand why you attacked my air law comment - if you hadn't snipped out of context you will see I referred to the Skyway code initiative - it has nothing to do with compelling anything or forcing any sort of test on anyone - it's a long overdue simplification and round up of pilots air law in one accessible document - the current situation requires cross referencing many huge impenetrable tomes and even authors of commercially produced air law books have given up trying to update the last few years! So good for all of us.
                              We also have to accept that
                              Most paramotor training goes on outside of the BHPA scheme - so some efforts to non threateningly engage with people teaching thus and their students may be a positive thing.

                              Paul

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                CAA looking at Deregulate the pilot licensing of small single occupant aircraft

                                Hi Steve,
                                Just to back up what Paul D has written. The BMAA response to the ANO consultation in respect of licensing I believe matches the BHPA one in many respects. I think I am right in saying that both organisations believe:
                                * that good pilot training makes for safer pilots
                                * that pilot training schemes should meet approved requirements for content and delivery
                                * that approved schemes could be run by approved organisations, and that doesn't mean the CAA
                                * that a CAA licence isn't the only way of confirming that a pilot has reached a an acceptable standard following completion of a training course

                                The BHPA foot launched power training scheme is an example of what might be a CAA approved scheme if such an approval was available.
                                The problem with foot launched training at the moment is that there is no requirement for training so pilots can just teach themselves or if they do take training there is no requirement for the training to be approved to a standard. There are many training schools that are not part of the BHPA system and so are of an unknown standard. That doesn't mean that they are less good than a BHPA school, just unknown.

                                The BMAA has not suggested in the response to the ANO consultation that foot launched pilots should be licensed. In fact we have proposed that the regulations for powered foot launched pilots should be applied to any single seat powered aircraft that can be demonstrated as being able to be foot launched without its fixed undercarriage fitted. This would allow the owner of a paramotor to fit wheels to his aircraft without having to then fulfil the requirements for flying a Microlight Powered Parachute. When I last asked the BHPA didn't agree with our proposed change. I don't know why.
                                The BMAA and BHPA have agreed through the General Aviation Alliance response to work with the CAA to review pilot training and certification requirements if given the opportunity.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X