Or maybe
1) there isn’t much follow up so people don’t know about it?
2) most non UK stopped reading the thread
3) they don’t know about it (I only extremely vaguely knew about MORs before mine)
@Peter, I am not sure of your point. I have called it a difference in culture in the past, and this is probably another example of the system in France to own up to your indiscretions. However, it is not always without penalty as can be seen in this week’s REX report of a pilot who inadvertently wandered into a prohibited zone for a minute or two. There are penalties laid down in law and there are the penalties that are actually applied depending on how the transgressor reacts to their transgression.
Most French pilots belong to the FFA and most belong to clubs, airspace restrictions are often discussed in both.
Peter wrote:
I guess people are worried about being identified by the DGAC or the LBA?
Given that the report etc are so clear, why would people want to not publish an official document?
Occam’s Razor tells us a simple reason, such as the ones I put above, are much more likely than a <I’m not sure it is actually what you suggest, but it is what it sounds like> conspiracy of the DGAC / LBA to avoid people using the route that doesn’t lead to punishments?
The fact that there have been reports of infringements, and no evidence of punishment, also would mean that either they keep a very tight ship on punishments, or these don’t really exist. Again, I think that one the situations is much likely..
gallois wrote:
Most French pilots belong to the FFA and most belong to clubs, airspace restrictions are often discussed in both.
I recall, lot of things (including CAS busts) got sorted at club level even for pilot owners (talking about 2010 here), that does not mean the system was fair or punishments were light…
Timothy wrote (post # 1272 on “20-Aug-19 13:34”)
Can anyone think of another provision under which entry into a DA might be prosecutable?
UK CAA Investigation Officer Training & Procedures Manual, p 32 (pdf link):
Danger Areas
There are numerous danger areas and they are listed in ENR 5-1-3-1 to 5-1-3-24, e.g.,
Pirbright, live firing. There is no legal status to the Danger Area designation although some
have byelaws prohibiting entry. How these might be invoked to deal with overflight is by no
means clear, but they can be used to deal with balloon landings. It is generally not an
offence to fly through a danger area as such, but as this is notified as an area in which
dangerous activities are taking place, it is often possible to bring a charge of endangering
against a pilot who flies through such an area. It is necessary to establish the published
hours of activity from the UK AIP ENR pages and to obtain a statement from the operating
authority to say that dangerous activity was taking place at the time
It’s worth noting that the aeronautical chart depiction of a DA might not properly correspond to the volume established in a byelaw. Examples include DAs established over the sea at Cape Wrath and over the Wash.
I wonder whether a pilot who had not taken the trouble to establish whether a danger area was active in advance of entering it, could still be said to be endangering, even if there was no actual activity at the time of entry to the area.
Presumably the potential for endangerment because of failure to check, could still be argued to amount to endangerment even with no activity present.
Qalupalik wrote:
Danger Areas
There are numerous danger areas and they are listed in ENR 5-1-3-1 to 5-1-3-24, e.g.,
Pirbright, live firing. There is no legal status to the Danger Area designation although some
have byelaws prohibiting entry. How these might be invoked to deal with overflight is by no
means clear, but they can be used to deal with balloon landings. It is generally not an
offence to fly through a danger area as such, but as this is notified as an area in which
dangerous activities are taking place, it is often possible to bring a charge of endangering
against a pilot who flies through such an area. It is necessary to establish the published
hours of activity from the UK AIP ENR pages and to obtain a statement from the operating
authority to say that dangerous activity was taking place at the time
If we should take this to be literal truth, then indeed Danger Areas work the same in the UK as everywhere else and assertions that you need permission to enter are really FUD?
(That is not to say that it is safe or good airmanship to enter a Danger Area without permission.)
Qalupalik wrote:
It is generally not an
offence to fly through a danger area as such, but as this is notified as an area in which
dangerous activities are taking place, it is often possible to bring a charge of endangering
against a pilot who flies through such an area
Still shaking my head at this. We are talking possible dangers TO the aircraft, not dangers deriving FROM the aircraft. How could a pilot be charged of endangering here? Endangering himself??
The Air Navigation Order 2016, Part 10, chapter 1 has 2 articles about endangering, 240 and 241:
Endangering safety of an aircraft
240. A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft,
or any person in an aircraft.
Endangering safety of any person or property
241. A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any
person or property.
IANAL, but I presume the CAA view is that they could prosecute a pilot under article 240 for endangering his own aircraft by flying in a DA. Whether this interpretation of the law is proper or whether it has been tested in court I don’t know.
It’s all fairly bonkers because the mentality one is getting into (with that manual) is “what can we screw the guy for?” rather than trying to establish the right thing to do.
