If emailing, just make sure to use the latest version of the GAR form. It has changed twice in the last couple of months.
The good news is that emailing to the NCU only is enough – they’ll forward it to the relevant police force(s).
Thank you both.
As Fattony points out, it appears unlikely that a paid-for commercial service be the only means of compliance (although there are many exceptions e.g. the passport issue fees, though admittedly these are not 3rd party businesses). According to the latest guidance one can use email even for the CTA (Special Branch police) GAR filing, which was traditionally not possible for most police forces.
But there is a problem, highlighted today when I got the traditional phone call from the police at Gatwick with a “permission to fly” number. (The PTF is a deliberate ploy by the police to make it look like they are giving you a permission when in fact the law requires notification).
I explained that in fact I already have the receipt from the online service. He was good about it and said they are apparently duplicating the effort. I explained to him that there are now 3 ways to file a GAR, including a CTA GAR:
The last two give you the receipt / proof of notification.
The gotcha is that with the email method you have no idea if they have it. Also, the police can’t tell which way you filed it, so they have no means of realising that their phone call is not necessary for the last two methods.
And if you do email it and they say they haven’t got it, you don’t have a leg to stand on. And with CTA flights the police are 100% on the case and IME can be totally arrogant about it. I got a 2hr “interview” at Shoreham once, after a flight from Jersey, following an error on the official GAR notes which I pointed out to them but they were completely uninterested.
So i would not use email to file a CTA GAR. By the time you realise you haven’t got the “PTF” phone call, it will be too late to use the other methods because you won’t comply with the 12/24hrs notice period. I got the call at 0815L and the filed departure is about 1300L.
They should implement a receipt on the email. I guess the problem is that most people email a word doc or a pdf and it isn’t till somebody in the police had read it that they know the GAR is valid, so any receipt could arrive very late and too late to re-file.
One thing is for sure: the mess is getting bigger day by day…
There has never been a statutory requirement to submit a GAR for travel within the so-called “Common Travel Area”.
The statutory requirement in Para 12 (3) (b) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is to give “at least 12 hours notice in writing” to a constable. The form and content of such notice are not specified by primary or secondary legislation, but common sense dictates that it might contain such ICAO flight plan information as can be determined hours or days in advance of publication of relevant official Wind and SigWX forecasts. In practice, the info is likely to be A/C Reg & Type, Departure AD, Destination AD and approximate date of flight. To show willing, one might also provide contact details for any request under Paragraph 17 (see below).
There is no statutory requirement to provide passenger information before any intra-CTA flight (paragraph 17).
There is no duty to report any WX or Tech diversion, and failure to comply with Para 12 (3) is only an offence if proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been done “wilfully”.
Peter.
Open letter to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
Dear Mr Anderson,
I refer to Recommendation 11.ii of the GA Challenge Panel final report, and to the Government’s rather non-committal response thereto (copies herewith).
My own airfield (Glenswinton, in south-west Scotland) is within minutes flying time of friends in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Irish Republic, but it would be quicker for me to fly to any of their airfields if I lived in France! Time and again we are prevented from using an unexpected weather window to visit fellow Britons because of the 12-hour notification requirement – or rather, because of the way in which that requirement is interpreted by some police forces. It is no exaggeration to say that the way in which some police forces administer the Schedule 7 restrictions on recreational flying makes an Orwellian mockery of the term “Common Travel Area”.
I very strongly support the GA Challenge panel’s recommendation, but as an interim measure it would be helpful if the Home Office could give clear guidance to the police to stop them “gold-plating” the current requirements of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. In this regard, all that is required is a minor change to the current Home Office/BF/ACPO “GENERAL AVIATION REPORT GUIDANCE – September 2014” (copy attached).
In this document, GA pilots are “requested” to use a GAR Form to provide notice in writing under Paragraph 12 (3) (b) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is an extra-statutory request, since the form and content of such “notice in writing” are not specified by primary or secondary legislation, but a number of police forces have elevated the use of the GAR form from a “request” to a “requirement”. As a pilot, one really daren’t press this issue too far with officers whose powers to detain under the 2000 Act are largely unfettered.
The GAR form includes flight details (times and places) which a pilot obeying the Visual Flight Rules can not lawfully state with any certainty twelve hours before departure – although many feel obliged to do so and some have inevitably died as a consequence. The official Met Office Form 214 and 215 weather forecasts are not available more than 3-6 hours in advance and we all know that weather over the British isles can change much faster than that. Committing a VFR pilot to departure and arrival times to and from specific aerodromes is strongly conducive to what we call “get-there-itis” – arguably the most lethal of all human factors in aviation.
Pending full implementation of the GA Challenge panel’s recommendation 11.ii, I hope that you will consider asking the Home Office to delete all reference to the GAR form in relation to the “notice in writing” per paragraph 10. (3) (b) in their “GENERAL AVIATION REPORT GUIDANCE”. It would also be helpful if you or the Home Office could provide guidance to the effect that such “notice in writing” can only provide intended (rather than precise or estimated) VFR flight times perhaps spanning a week or so at times of very unsettled weather and that, like any ICAO Flight Plan, the captain may specify as many alternate/diversion destinations as are appropriate. These interim measures would certainly contribute to social cohesion within the Common Travel Area, and I am convinced that they would also save lives.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Jackson.
Well said.
The GAR form is such an unnecessary burden. As a pilot you already have to align a lot of stars, weather, aircraft availability (if sharing/hiring), flight plans, opening times of airfields, notams, etc… add to that an extra 12 hrs GAR form and it pretty much kills any possibility of enjoying a nice flight not to mention it might increase risks too.
What is the official rationale for this legislation anyway? I could possibly understand it during the time of “the Troubles”, but today it seems completely pointless.
As far as is known, the main reason today for preserving the CTA-specific GAR stuff (the 12hr etc notice to Special Branch police) is job protection in the police admin departments.
If the IRA want to enter the UK they can do so easily via any number of means.
I think it’s the same with any police power. Once granted, they are very reluctant to give it up.
As far as I have ever been able to tell, the real purpose of the GAR seems to be to control the movement of cash – e.g. to the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. The reason Ireland and Northern Ireland are included may perhaps be the supposed prevalence of tax avoidance and/or money laundering. I see absolutely no evidence that it could be useful in any way for the prevention of terrorism.
