Peter wrote:
Many EU countries sign up to all the treaties and then implement the bits they want, and provided they judge it just right, Brussels will do nothing about it.Unfortunately the UK is full of “compliance idiots” (why, I don’t know) and is a master at not just implementing every damn regulation but also gold plating it, reading between the rules, etc, etc. Plus the UK has obviously not ever had a relationship with Brussels which is anywhere near as influential as say France has.
I think its simpler than that. I think its more to do with the roots of the legal system of most European countries and that of the UK. The EU legal system is based on “allowing something to happen” which means unless allowed it is illegal. Where as the UK legal system allows you to do anything unless it is banned or regulated. This is why the UK tends to over-regulate, where as the rest of Europe tents to look for a reason to be allowed to do something. This has been most apparent recently when looking at UK Lockdown laws and French Lockdown Laws.
Regards, SD.
@skydriller wrote:
The EU legal system is based on “allowing something to happen” which means unless allowed it is illegal.
That’s an extraordinary claim. What evidence do you have of that? Can you provide a concrete example of something which is illegal because it is not explicitely allowed?
That’s an extraordinary claim. What evidence do you have of that? Can you provide a concrete example of something which is illegal because it is not explicitely allowed?
Sure. In most EU member states the single use of a field, lake, river, beach or glacier for landing and taking off with an aeroplane seems to require some degree of officious “authorisation” or “approval”.
For example, when flying any moderately capable aeroplane over the Loire’s succession of huge deserted gravel banks, one must resist the almost intolerable temptation to wet the main wheels and roll up for a quiet swim and picnic. 
In the UK it’s not a problem, but the weather and water are typically less conducive to al fresco bathing.
Those gravel banks are public spaces, and would probably come under the department of the Pays de Loire river department. It then depends on their local bylaws whether you can just turn up and land on them. However you would be fully liable for any damage you cause to others or their property. The same is the case for landing on glaciers in the Alps.
I must admit, I thought the UK also had by laws.
Jacko wrote:
Sure. In most EU member states the single use of a field, lake, river, beach or glacier for landing and taking off with an aeroplane seems to require some degree of officious “authorisation” or “approval”.
And you say that this is without legislation? So if someone lands there anyway, under what law are they prosecuted?
It cannot be true that any country has a legal system where only what is permitted can be done. It would prevent you wearing yellow underpants, for example.
There is different enforcement, and while I doubt any country’s police has a significantly higher IQ than anybody else’s, undoubtedly enforcement of anything is easier if you carry a gun. However, if you do carry a gun then you can do the job with a lower IQ
I am sure the CAA will do some improvements but I don’t expect they will make a start until a post brexit framework with EASA is in place.
It would be impractical to have an entire legal system based on “default deny”, but for sections of law, it wouldn’t be. But you could have “default deny” as a starting point to a country’s aviation law. For instance, you could start the entire thing with “No person may operate an aircraft”, then what comes afterwards is a list of exceptions to this. (Indeed, many paragraphs in 14 CFR – the FAA regs – start with a default deny position and list the exceptions).
Airborne_Again wrote:
That’s an extraordinary claim. What evidence do you have of that?
My understanding of that is that it comes down to the difference in countries legal systems based on common law or the Napoleonic code. Common law being a bottom up system, where an individual is free to do what they want unless it is expressley forbidden. The Napoleonic code on the other hand is the top down system where the government sets out what you can do.
No, the Napoleonic code is simply that a code and covers various things. Its main use is in inheritance law and in the non adversarial judicial system.
Off_Field wrote:
My understanding of that is that it comes down to the difference in countries legal systems based on common law or the Napoleonic code. Common law being a bottom up system, where an individual is free to do what they want unless it is expressley forbidden. The Napoleonic code on the other hand is the top down system where the government sets out what you can do.
The difference between common law and statutory law is not whether the default is permission or prohibition but whether law is (primarily) made by court decisions or by some legislative body.
In a common law system, precedents are extremely important, while in a statutory law system they have a much smaller role. E.g. in the Swedish system, only the supreme court can make precedents.
