Repeat infringements can also be avoided by stopping flying in the UK 
I do not believe they can be avoided totally – unless one sticks to trivial flights, or flies IFR in CAS (and deals with the various UK gotchas with that).
I will no longer do VFR in the UK unless either trivial (along the coast from Shoreham to Lydd, etc) or can be fully programmed and autopilot-flown at a single altitude.
The vast majority of busts are random distractions and such. Often passenger distractions. Virtually all pilots can correctly plan a flight OCAS, in their armchair. To err is human, ATC’s job includes dealing with that and they do it fine in the rest of Europe, but in the UK somebody decided to crush the issue with a hammer. Of course it isn’t going to work.
Peter wrote:
The Minister is Grant Shapps who has already been attacked by the trash press (and the anti-wealth Guardian, of course) for owning a Saratoga, and N-reg too
I think the real question to Mr Shapps about his N-reg Saratoga is:
The term “dogfooding” is, I believe, from Microsoft – and their insistence on using internally their own software religiously, under the principle that “if we don’t eat our own dogfood (products), aren’t our (potential) customers going to be put off by us not eating our own dogfood?”
I thought it was standard government practice to not do what they preach. Much like their outrage about having to itemise their expenses.
I strongly disagree in this case.
Grant Shapps prob99 went N-reg many years ago, just like most of us N-regs, and prob99 did it for the FAA IR, just like most of us N-regs, at a time when Brussels comprehensively screwed up the IR route, and later tied the UK into going along with more of the same (via EU and EASA) with just a very slight relaxation in the form of the CBIR.
According to wiki he became an MP in 2005 which is probably about when (or earlier) most of today’s active N-reg pilots did their FAA stuff. Lots of MPs have been N-reg pilots; the famous Winston Churchill Jr flew an N-reg and had an FAA ATP.
He’s not likely to be in his job for long enough to be able to change the GA IR landscape, and only mostly 3rd World countries block foreign reg certified planes.
Also N-reg is 100% legitimate in the UK.
Yes, I agree his N-reg plane is 100% legitimate.
I had heard he had got a new (to him) aircraft on N-reg.
Even if he’s had it a while, it’s kind of unfortunate that a member of the UK government can’t feel motivated to be subject to their own legislation and “eat their own dogfood”. The Tories have been in government for quite a long time at this point, so it’s not like he’s not had time to transition to G-reg.
I also don’t buy the “well, I can’t really do anything about GA, because I’m a member of the community”. Do we exclusively have non-drivers forming motoring legislation?
I also don’t buy the “well, I can’t really do anything about GA, because I’m a member of the community”. Do we exclusively have non-drivers forming motoring legislation?
It’s an excellent point, but you would be amazed at how “society” works.
If a judge (or even a magistrate, which is the lowest-level UK “judge”) drives a car, he can still judge “criminals” who did motoring offences.
If a judge (or a magistrate) flies a GA plane, and finds himself on a trial of a “criminal” who did GA flying offences, he is required to stand down, because if the press finds out he’s a pilot they will crucify him. This is despite him being much better placed to make the judgement than somebody who knows nothing about flying. And this has happened; I have read about it, but I am not sure I can find the reference. The one person who might know right away (he is a magistrate) has been banned from EuroGA (for stuff which was way outside our forum guidelines) and in any case he had for a long time been less than keen to contribute usefully to our forum and he is very close to the CAA (sits on the CAS busts sentencing committee).
Actually I am not sure whether the above is good or bad, because a judge who flies GA is more than likely to be in bed with the CAA, and we already have a CAA which is judge, jury and executioner, and this way we would have a judge, jury and executioner, followed by a judge, and an executioner
Peter – to be fair I thnk alioth does have a point. While we all know N reg are totally legal, and should most certainly not be discouraged, it never the less is a statement that the minister in charge of aviation (amoung other things) doesnt operate an aircraft on the G reg., if only because a minister should champion everything British. It would be the equivalent of driving a car on French plates, which whilst maybe not as legal at least for more than six months or whatever it is, equally sends the wrong message given his status.
I would imagine if the press decided to, this could certainly be turned into a story which would cause him some embarassment. I know and understand that it is also helpful to those that do operate on the N reg however.
Yep, a Transport minister flying N reg sounds like a joke
But we had a tax minister not paying taxes, so it is small stuff 
I am sure when Grant Shapps became an MP he consulted the MP code of conduct which said nothing about N-reg (obviously, since a good number of MPs either fly N-reg or fly in them) and when he became a Minister he consulted the ministerial code of conduct which also didn’t say that you have to sell your plane or move it to N-reg (or liquidate your ISAs or other tax avoidance schemes, etc).
I would do the same, in the same position. I would however perhaps lend the plane to somebody else to fly so I didn’t get photographed with it by the Daily Trash
This video about the CAA and their “procedures” is going to get noticed big-time. I heard somebody was thinking about making it but didn’t know they actually had
Above video has its own thread
Peter wrote:
I am sure when Grant Shapps became an MP he consulted the MP code of conduct …
I’m sure too, it’s another one of those things that’s perfectly within the rules, but doesn’t quite sit right.
If Shapps wasn’t an MP or in government, then it’s not important what reg of plane he has. However, when he refuses to eat the dogfood his government forces on the rest of us, it’s not really very good and it raises the question: “what are you going to do to make your dog food palatable enough for yourself (and the rest of us)?”
One thing I fundamentally disagree with in the reporting of this though is the usual phrase “…to avoid the more [stringent|higher standard] [British|EASA] rules”. It only takes five minutes looking around the sheds of aircraft that most flight schools operate on G-reg to know the press are mistaking “burdensome” for “high standards”. It seems to be a very common mistake to make, confusing rules that are merely burdensome for rules that are good quality or stringent. Maybe if Shapps owned a G-reg plane he’d be motivated to advocate for something to be done about useless but burdensome rules.
