The list is the law. Obviously you can travel to feed a horse, because England loves animals infinitely, but then you are relying on a policeman interpreting things to let you off.
The same IQ=10 policeman who said you cannot buy easter eggs because they are not “food” 
If interpretation is allowed then flying a plane or at least running the engine which involves the same journey (engine valued at say 50k) must be equally ok.
Nowhere in the law local copy is the word “guidance” used.
You will just get dismembered on the UK GA chat sites where everybody is watching FR24 (we would never allow such vindictive stuff on EuroGA) and no doubt somebody will call the police…
The horse scenario may be doable under this highlighted condition because you will otherwise be privately prosecuted by the RSPCA for cruelty to an animal
I would argue the same clause supports compliance with airworthiness requirements.
The activities listed at 6.-(2) is NOT exclusive. They are statutory guidance as to what constitutes a “reasonable excuse”.
The police have unlimited power to interpret the law as they see fit and to issue fixed penalty notices. We can tear up said notices and disregard them, whereupon we may receive a summons to appear before a magistrates court (or a Sheriff, hereabouts) to argue that our excuse was, in fact, reasonable in the context of a supposed “threat” postulated, and perhaps exaggerated, by two UCL bean counters who are not epidemiologists.
OK, I have now spotted the word “includes” so yes this is a non exhaustive list of permitted activities
Let’s hope the lay magistrates don’t take the same view as the police on the matter.
Before a case gets anywhere near a magistrates court, the CPS must consider it. Prosecutors must only start or continue a prosecution when the case has passed both stages of the Full Code Test.
The public interest test may depend on the actual progress of the epidemic – and whether, as Grant Shapps suggested this morning, the cure for coronavirus proves to be more harmful than the pandemic itself.
Peter wrote:
If interpretation is allowed then flying a plane or at least running the engine which involves the same journey (engine valued at say 50k) must be equally ok.
An airplane, yacht, whatever is in most cases a hobby. Hobbies are not critical in the sense of what is going on therefore I would think an excuse to breach the government regulation will require that. Feeding lifestock is a totally different matter than running a private plane engine.
Matter of fact is, they need people to stay H O M E. Period. As they can’t starve people they need to allow some things, others not. But that is it. Now people again start to make the small kid approach saying, well, if that is allowed, so will this be. Each excuse causes more people to get infected and will prolong the restrictions. People are simply too selfish to realize this. Hence, we will be facing those restrictions for unlimited periods of time or until a vaccine is there, which will take at least 12 months.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
An airplane, yacht, whatever is in most cases a hobby. Hobbies are not critical in the sense of what is going on therefore I would think an excuse to breach the government regulation will require that. Feeding lifestock is a totally different matter than running a private plane engine.
I would certainly consider protecting the value of an asset, if significant, in that list. If there is a water leak in a currently unoccupied building I am responsible for or I own, I will certainly travel there to fix it or get somebody to fix it, and I cannot reasonably do that from home.
All of this has to be weighed against the interactions with other people by undertaking this activity, which in many instances will be nobody.
Well found, wigglyamp.
Not sure what it is really saying. It says there is no ban on VFR. It says maintenance can carry on.
So we are back with the “asset protection” discussion.
Feeding lifestock is a totally different matter than running a private plane engine.
Only if you don’t own a plane, or have no interest in keeping one running in a good condition.
These debates always polarise along the lines of those who have an interest, and those who don’t. When this virus started to blow up around the Alps ski scene, early February, one saw the same polarisation on ski forums; those who had booked holidays (often a year in advance, as people do) were desperate to go regardless of the (increasingly obvious) risks, right up until the very day the ski lifts closed, while those who had nothing to actually lose were suggesting that people don’t risk it. In the end, many thousands did go and took the stuff home and spread it very effectively.
In this case, where the above guidance acknowledges that the risk of passing it on is negligible, the assessment would appear to hinge on whether the journey to the aircraft can be done safely.
Peter wrote:
Only if you don’t own a plane, or have no interest in keeping one running in a good condition.
These debates always polarise along the lines of those who have an interest, and those who don’t
The reality is much more complicated than that: you will still fly a rusty engine even on rentals, so better have some engines running, some don’t see as far as their nose, so better take only opinions from those who have some life/money skin in this…
