Overflight restrictions

[steveneale]

Our NC Rep says a breakthrough has been made re overflight of built up area restrictions. Does anyone have any more information?

[mikehallam]

Once again the left hand and the right hand of the overlapping LAA & BMAA are confused.

"Geoff Weighell of the BMAA issued this 1st June :-
"Dear All, Just to keep you up to date. The PFA, as it was then, developed a request to remove the prohibition of overflight from the Permit to Fly. The initial request was really for PFA Permit aircraft. BMAA did see the request. The CAA negotiated the proposal into applying to all Permits, which was a good move because it included all microlights, not just PFA aircraft. I got involved with the final drafts of the proposal, which I felt needed some BMAA microlight input, and then it went to CAA again. My understanding is that last week the CAA agreed the removal of the restriction for most Permit aircraft excluding some types, mainly ex-military. If my understanding is correct there will be a legal change required following which each individual Permit will need to be changed. That was the way the last changes to conditions was handled so I expect it to be the same. So, if I am correct in understanding the process each aircraft will have to wait until its Permit has been changed following the official legal changes before the overflight restriction is removed - so don't overfly just yet."

[steveneale]

Ta guys and thanks to everyone that worked on CAA to make this happen.

[Brian Hope]

Strange how the memory plays tricks isn’t it. PFA opened negotiation with CAA about the lifting of the overflight limitation four or five years ago, and it was for Permit to Fly aircraft, note not specifically for Permit aeroplanes. At the time PFA asked BMAA if they would like to help with a submission as they had data for microlight accidents that would be helpful. The response was that they did not wish to be involved because they felt that any relaxation in the rules would probably bring more regulation elsewhere.
PFA prepared and lodged a submission and following a couple of years with little or no movement from CAA, PFA started to push the issue. CAA then suggested that they would like more information about microlights, so PFA again asked BMAA to support the submission. This time GW came up with a response and suggested that the submission should be proposed jointly by PFA and BMAA. This was politely declined as PFA had made all the running up to that point. At about the same time, Rob Metcalfe, representing warbird owners, suggested that warbirds should be included. PFA were not overly keen on this suggestion as they could see potential problems, but CAA agreed and he submitted their viewpoint into the submission.
As the proposal started to work its way up to the higher echelons of the CAA, the PFA’s concerns over the warbirds proved correct, they were holding up the resolution of the proposal. The warbirds were removed from the equation and the CAA were happy to approve the removal of the overflight limitation.
The limitation removal is for aircraft up to a max weight of 1500kg of civil design and “not dependant upon engine power for the continued functioning of flying controls.” Unfortunately this inadvertently excludes a small number of LAA aircraft, principally a few Auster models and Brussards (they were specifically military and not civil designs). LAA will be making representation on their behalf.

[John Brady]

Thanks to Mike for the BMAA statement and to Brian for his clarification. As the author of this paper some 4 years ago and the protagonist with the CAA since, I was disappointed that another organisation should be so economical with the truth about their position.

It is fair to say we started out working on the aeroplane group because the paper was based on risk and we were able to show that in circumstances relevant to overflight of third parties, permit light aircraft actually crashed less often than CofA aircraft. The bottom line was that if you stood in your garden for long enough, you were more likely to be hit by a CofA aeroplane than a permit aeroplane. We used the CAA accident database over 30 years to prove this. However, the flexwing microlight group appeared to have a much higher accident rate which would destroy our case if included.

When Geoff joined the discussions with the CAA he said he wanted to tear up the paper and start again and he produced a draft focussing on microlights. However, we had 2 years of work with the CAA in the bank and had an agreed methodology for comparing accident rates which Geoff wanted to do quite differently. I like to think I have some expertise in these matters and it was my view that the methodology set out in his paper would never succeed. But he did set out the microlight accident statistics in such a way that we could cordon off the early years by showing that the high death rate occurred when microlights were unregulated.

I then analysed the microlight statistics, clearing the results through Geoff, to demonstrate that since regulation was applied the microlight risk was converging towards the aeroplane risk and had been nearly level with it for the last few years. Thus we could take the plan forward together on the basis of our earlier work with the CAA but we would not go joint with the BMAA on their proposal as it would be doomed. This matter had to be raised by us at BMAA chairman level after which the PFA took it forward for the community as a whole.

Of note whilst the CAA wanted us to include the former military aircraft supervised by them, the operators (through John Romain) were not really interested. We suspected the CAA position had something to do with the Vulcan but in the end their board took it out.

So the BMAA, through their considerable understanding of microlights were able to show us a way to arrange the statistics to support a broader case. However, their initial position was to denigrate the PFA work with the CAA and run a paper focussed on microlights that would have failed.

We appear to have achieved a result with some minor fettling still required. This is but one step in our plan to remove unnecessary regulation, the next 2 stages being already in draft. We will endevour to work with the BMAA on these as well and gratefully acknowledge the expertise they are able to bring to the table.

John

ps I will get on with this again when I get back from holiday!

[steveneale]

Great news (cross posted from the RV squadron). Overflight allowed with immediate effect:

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... il&id=3194

[gasax]

Congratulations to everyone involved.

I am all too well aware of how the frustrations and diffulties of getting agreement, a common approach - all those things which are necessary for success are often more difficult than the primary argument. Unfortunately that is life.

So to the PFA/LAA types - very well done. To the BMAA very well done. At the end of the day working in concord is never easy but events like this show how necessary this is.

(Wonder if AOPA will ever learn this?)

[Mike Lodge]

The CAA announcement on removal of overflight restrictions says it applies to homebuilts and factory built a/c that formerly had a C.of A. How does this affect vintage factory-built types that have always been on a permit since importation (eg my 1939 Stinson)?

[Brian Hope]

lodems, virually all LAA types are covered, including your Stinson.

[John Brady]

The removal of the overflight restriction has been misreported by some media. The CAA approved its removal for "aircraft of civil design with a maximum mass not exceeding 1500kg and not dependent on engine power for flying controls" By "civil design" they said meant that an aircraft type must have been eligible for the issue of a CofA, not that it must have had one.

The CAA airworthiness department were very helpful in interpreting a daatbase produced by Barry Plumb which showed the liniage of all LAA permit types. The bottom line was that all but 2 LAA permit types are relieved of the restriction and they are the Broussard (2700kg mass) and the Soka Kraguj (a former military aircraft with no equivalent CofA sibling).

So unless you own one of these types you are ok. I have to say I have found navigating much easier and enjoyable now I don't have to fly around small towns and villages. I can even use the Farnborough "British Rail Crossing" and the M25 south route to Kent.

John