Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

12 bore barrel

And we haven’t even started talking about the training and testing of missiles and bombs yet. :-o

I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether the amount of UK airspace of various kinds designated for military use

Yeap – So I think the military should not reserve more airspace than they need. But who gets to decide what is a fair/reasonable balance between civilian and military use?
Some of the equipment and programmes are classified, so how can one really know they’re not over (or under) claiming what they need?
And depending on the changing security situation of the world, whether the same volumes of airspace are still needed from one year to the next?

Dynamic allocation without over complexity sounds like the way forward, rather than just large fixed volumes on a chart drawn up post WW-II and never removed.

Last Edited by James_Chan at 21 Aug 12:58

Byelaws made under the Military Lands Act 1892

This act is here
Military Lands Act 1892

The only thing that I can find relating to imposition of danger areas is section 14(1)

Where any land belonging to a Secretary of State or to a volunteer corps is for the time being appropriated by or with the consent of a Secretary of State for any military purpose, a Secretary of State may make byelaws for regulating the use of the land for the purposes to which it is appropriated, and for securing the public against danger arising from that use, with power to prohibit all intrusion on the land and all obstruction of the use thereof.
Provided that no byelaws promulgated under this section shall authorise the Secretary of State to take away or prejudicially affect any right of common.

It seems to relate to land rather than airspace.

Section 17 (1) seems to require the land to be marked. Sort of hard to do with airspace!

A Secretary of State, before making any byelaws under this Act, shall cause the proposed byelaws to be made known in the locality, and give an opportunity for objections being made to the same, and shall receive and consider all objections made; and when any such byelaws are made, shall cause the boundaries of the area to which the byelaws apply to be marked, and the byelaws to be published, in such manner as appears to him [F26appropriate].

Presumably marking airspace on a chart is considered appropriate.

Section 17(2) is interesting in that it talks about a person being removed from the land whether on the “land or water”. No mention of airspace

[F27If any person commits an offence against any byelaw under this Act, he shall be liable, on conviction before a court of summary jurisdiction, to a fine not exceeding [F28level 2 on the standard scale] and may be removed by any constable or officer authorised in manner provided by the byelaw from the area, whether land or water, to which the byelaw applies, and taken into custody without warrant, and brought before a court of summary jurisdiction to be dealt with according to law, and any vehicle, animal, vessel, or thing found in the area in contravention of any byelaw, may be removed by any constable or such officer as aforesaid, and on due proof of such contravention, be declared by a court of summary jurisdiction to be forfeited to Her Majesty.]

Section 23 deals with interpretation, and might be what gets airspace.

In this Act and the enactments incorporated therewith the expression “land” includes any easement in or over lands, and for the purpose of Part One of this Act includes any right of firing over lands or other right of user.

I’m not sure what “easements” would cover in this case, and if there is an altitude limit on easements over land?

Last Edited by dublinpilot at 21 Aug 12:48
EIWT Weston, Ireland

Subsection 17(2) has been repealed in England and Wales and partly in Northern Ireland. See footnote on legislation.gov.uk site or sch 7 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The MOD byelaw review has produced a table of instruments under review (pdf link). ENR 5.1 of the UK AIP indexes 180 danger areas, or 93 sets, for which a unique originating byelaw is listed in only 41 cases. The remainder are likely to be found in the MOD byelaw review table.

local copy of above

London, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

Well, a 12 bore wouldn’t make much of an impact on an aircraft passing at 1000’, so my point is definitely and unequivocally proved, right?

I wasn’t talking about a 12 bore for the range, I was only pointing out slightly tongue in cheek that .762 inches is close to the diameter of a 12bore. I was going to suggest that the nearest rifle caliber I’d guess would be 700Nitro Express. I agree that the height limit is definitely excessive for Bisley, rifle ranges tend to be extremely safe. High density of firearms and yet no real problems.

A 12 bore loaded with a slug would probably reach out that far but that’s not really the point, and people aren’t likely to be going out firing slugs or bullets willy nilly into the sky.

Unless of course the CAA feels similar to the gun control collective. That the best way for things to be safe is to allow ownership of said unsafe devices.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I accept that my irony was entirely lost on all of you.

Never mind, it amused me, which was the important thing.

That is also ironic, before you all take that literally as well.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Peter wrote:

I have to admit that my first thought on reading it […] wonder if that £60M should be used to….

You may not be being serious, but I have often suggested that the airlines might like to invest in a variety of measures, such as paying for universal conspicuity, Flight Following or provision of iPads.

They cannot see the benefits.

EGKB Biggin Hill

I accept that my irony was entirely lost on all of you.

Irony, sarcasm, puns, idioms, and certain references to historical characters and are among the things lost in translation when talking on international forums, where people may speak English as a second language.

Last Edited by James_Chan at 21 Aug 14:06

I have often suggested that the airlines might like to invest in a variety of measures, such as paying for universal conspicuity, Flight Following or provision of iPads.

Given that airlines pay route charges but most GA doesn’t, it would perhaps be more productive to suggest that the UK CAA stops operating the 3000ft/5000ft/5nm add-on.

It’s a great idea if you want to generate lots of potential and actual losses of separation (good business for Gasco, too) but is a bad idea if an airliner gets sent around because that costs real money.

Irony and sarcasm are tricky online but idioms are quite well addressed by putting in a link. I quite like https://www.urbandictionary.com/ even though it sometimes uses a rather vulgar explanation (which usually doesn’t stop me ).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Given that airlines pay route charges but most GA doesn’t

On the flip side, GA pays huge fuel taxes and airlines pay absolutely zero tax on their fuel. We also get almost nothing at all in return for our fuel taxes, we have to burn more fuel (and pay more fuel taxes) avoiding all the airspace that’s pretty much reserved for airlines (low level class A and class D where a transit is difficult eg. Bristol)

Last Edited by alioth at 21 Aug 15:54
Andreas IOM

That’s true, but I think the general view within NATS is what I posted.

If NATS had their way, GA would be shut down. Their brief is to run CAS. It is the CAA, and ICAO, which keeps us lot going. And I think that is true in most of the world. In the vast majority of the earth’s land area, GA would be banned immediately if it wasn’t for ICAO principles.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top