Has this lack of clarity ever caused any practical issues? Aren’t you from a country where they don’t even make an attempt to write down the rules? 
Has this lack of clarity ever caused any practical issues?
No, but why have a law which means nothing?
It’s much more silly than making it illegal to fly VFR in IMC. In Europe, AFAIK nobody has ever been busted for that.
Aren’t you from a country where they don’t even make an attempt to write down the rules?
If I were to answer that in a straight way, I would say UK lawmaking is at least robust compared with European rulemaking. Here, most regs are gone over by old geezers who have been doing it for decades and who know what kinds of stunts people get up to. This is in aviation, in how much tax you pay on a house of a given size, and everything else. Whereas EASA seem to do their drafting down the pub. The result is a lot of GB of pilot forum bandwidth gets used discussing the meaning of some stupid ambiguous reg, and in some cases (where the evidence is obvious afterwards i.e. anything non-airborne) it gives an insurer a way to get out should you do something really outrageous and expensive. It also makes it easier for the CAA to go after somebody who has p1ssed them off, possibly busting him for something else after possibly doing a plea bargain… the radar track will easily reveal “abrupt maneuvers” and they have the evidence to bust you under the letter of the law.
Peter wrote:
but that doesn’t define the aircraft attitude, which is much more usefully defined elsewhere (can’t find it right now) as anything exceeding 30deg pitch or 60deg roll.
This is (by coincidence?) the definition of what is the limits of intentional maneuvering for microlights. The SERA definition is actually rather nice. Aerobatics is intentional maneuvers you do to obtain aerobatic rating and/or are not necessary for normal flight. This gives some room for what normal flight actually is, while making it clear that loops and rolls, for instance, are aerobatics.
) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
I mean “E airspace designated for an airport” , that would have some more logic than asking VFR traffic for ATC clearance in E purely for aerobatics when the whole E is otherwise totally uncontrolled for VFR.
From the UK viewpoint I agree 7004 and I always tell ATC where and the vertical limits of the box. I think that is as considerate and as useful as it is possible to be.
vic wrote:
This really only applies to IFR traffic , controlled anyway.
No, IFR traffic is not controlled in classes F or G!! And that’s perfectly legal even if the German authority has some phobia about it.
Silvaire wrote:
Just out of interest why in either place would you be in mandatory radio contact when flying in Class E airspace? A country specific requirement for ATC control of VFR traffic?
It used to be the case that the ICAO Rules of the Air required a clearance for aerobatics in class E. Apparently this has changed to a blanket statement that aerobatics should be carried out in accordance with local regulations and that is reflected in SERA.
I think it makes a lot of sense to require a clearance for aerobatics even in class E.
I mean “E airspace designated for an airport” , that would have some more logic than asking VFR traffic for ATC clearance in E purely for aerobatics when the whole E is otherwise totally uncontrolled for VFR.
Forbidding aerobatics in E airspace designated for an airport does makes sense in the US because it means instrument approach airspace, for instance at an uncontrolled field, which wouldn’t be the best place to do aerobatics even in visual conditions. Otherwise, an acceptance of ground based control of aircraft as an almost continuous practice, with people on the ground monitoring aircraft operations being considered the norm, gives me the creeps. I wouldn’t fly if that were necessary, and doing the occasional spontaneous loop or roll in cruise is definitely part of the fun if you have a plane designed for it….
