Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Corona / Covid-19 virus - airport and flying restrictions, and licensing / medical issues

Can anybody find the UK law which says you cannot go abroad except for a specified list of reasons?

All I can find is guidance dressed up as “illegal” this and “illegal” that. And every website is quoting some other one.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Flying is not illegal here but since some stupid person(s) demanded “guidance” from the CAA, they predictably got it, and the DfT says you can’t do A to B and can do only engine health flights. It is all guidance though.

I don’t understand why clubs and ATOs are actively looking for reasons NOT to fly. They go out of their way to have someone tell them “Our guidance is don’t fly”, and then they hang onto that like crazy.

Last Edited by Alpha_Floor at 25 Feb 21:43
EDDW, Germany

Alpha_Floor wrote:

I don’t understand why clubs and ATOs are actively looking for reasons NOT to fly. They go out of their way to have someone tell them “Our guidance is don’t fly”, and then they hang onto that like crazy.

Don´t ask questions you don´t want to have answered.

Last Edited by Caba at 25 Feb 21:50
EDFE, EDFZ, KMYF, Germany

The idea that the AZ vaccine was finding all infections, why the Pfizer one was only finding symptomatic ones never really hit the media until the whole story had moved on

Exactly, but that difference is key to the differing effectiveness.

In a TV interview, the head of Pfizer said that had Pfizer run that trial they would have done it differently, but he didn’t elaborate.

There is a lot of stuff all over the news here about AZ vaccine refusals on the mainland but, yeah, not easy to see how true some of it is. Some of it does look awfully credible though, and it is catastrophic for mainland Europe, some of which has a high level of denial of the whole thing anyway. A German friend of mine, univ educated, very clever hardware/software guy, known him 25 years, says it is all bollocks, citing this gold plated information site.

But it is also clear that if Brussels decided to take the UK type risk and spent say €20BN on nonexistent vaccines, the UK would not have got what it got! This just reflects different kinds of accountability, decisionmaking pipeline lengths, political leader insecurity (fear of getting it wrong)… Both the UK alone, or indeed France alone, or Germany alone, could have risked the €20BN. But they didn’t. Well, France and Germany and the rest of the 27 were explicitly blocked anyway from doing that by Brussels, and that bit is inescapable.

Don´t ask questions you don´t want to have answered.

Indeed, but one issue is that in UK aviation insurance is that all aircraft policies state the “flight must be legal”. That, around the edges, is pretty vague especially as insurance (in the UK) does cover negligence, but it is enough for some people to hang their coat on. And generally you can’t get a ruling from the insurer. They just repeat that clause, and smile… What school business policies contain I have no idea but clearly they do have to fly planes as well.

The way to do this is to get a good lawyer (£1000/hr min) and get a ruling from him, and then make your risk decision on that. Only large companies do that.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

A German friend of mine, univ educated, very clever hardware/software guy, known him 25 years, says it is all bollocks, citing this gold plated information site.

Germans love conspiracy theories.

(For the offended Germans: I am not German but am friends with many and have had a German upbringing, so I’m quite familiar with the culture, Germans are more prone to believing let’s say “alternative” theories than most other European nationalities.)

Last Edited by Alpha_Floor at 26 Feb 01:31
EDDW, Germany

Peter wrote:

Well, France and Germany and the rest of the 27 were explicitly blocked anyway from doing that by Brussels, and that bit is inescapable.

All EU countries were free to make their own deals and some did, e.g. Hungary.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Indeed, but only after Brussels did the common-27 vaccine buy and authorised the others to do theirs, so Germany and Hungary did that. Actually Hungary was reported as breaking ranks earlier; it is all “out there” somewhere…

Anyway, I’ve just read that German pilots can fly to France, with a CV19 PCR test. Someone did a day trip and presumably the same test was used for both entries. That is rather good! Here in the UK I am still looking for the law saying travelling abroad is illegal. But we definitely have the return quarantine which would make LFAT day trips a bit daft.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I’ve just read that German pilots can fly to France, with a CV19 PCR test.

Th French government website is very clear:
Not just German pilots, but anyone can travel to France from within the EU with a negative PCR test.
It is currently “interdit” to travel to France from countries outside the EU and also to travel to those countries (including the UK). There are “exceptions” but there are not very many and most refer to having left France before Jan 31st if you wish to return, if you can prove you are resident here (carte de sejour).

Regards, SD..

Airborne_Again wrote:

All EU countries were free to make their own deals and some did, e.g. Hungary.

There’s a difference between what a country can technically do (and they will do anything if the stakes are high enough) and what they can realistically (politically) do – especially if they are right in the middle of the EU political integration project.

Neither France nor Germany had the realistic option of opting out and saying they’d procure vaccines themselves. Not once the EC decided it needed a project.

EGLM & EGTN

Alpha_Floor wrote:

I don’t understand why clubs and ATOs are actively looking for reasons NOT to fly

Nor do I.

Someone from the LAA on their forums made a long post about “how going to the airfield is not 100% safe” and “if you fly you may get the hard won concession” (to do recurrency/engine health flights) “withdrawn, and people near the airfield might feel slighted because you’re going flying while they are locked down” – to which I replied nothing is 100% safe, and if using a concession will get it withdrawn, what was the point of the concession anyway? LAA members should not be basing their decision to not carry out engine health flights/pilot recurrency flights on the basis of people possibly feeling envious, or not doing flights because someone else “abused” the concession, but on operational reasons and a personal assessment of their own health alone. I think this guy from LAA central was doing his membership a great disservice with his message.

I think it was one of the club officers of Aboyne gliding club who commented once “a glider club exists solely to get gliders in the air, if it’s not doing that it’s fundamentally failing as a glider club”, in other words, don’t erect unnecessary barriers to getting people in the air.

Andreas IOM
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top