Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

UK GAR form discussion, and UK border police procedures

The ability to file a GAR online is excellent but the site doesn't use SSL. Personally I wouldn't submit a bunch of personal details over the Internet without using encryption.

Fairoaks, United Kingdom

Peter the new online system does not preclude arrival without notice at a designated airfield We have fought long and hard to retain this and stop a 100% pre notice system

further to posts about PPr BFwill be writing to airfields saying they shouldnt use theGAR as a form of PPR - but it is early days.

The ability to file a GAR online is excellent but the site doesn't use SSL. Personally I wouldn't submit a bunch of personal details over the Internet without using encryption.

An interesting point. It's very easy to serve a site over HTTPS, and the only extra cost is the cost of the certificate - a few hundred £ a year, IIRC. We are about to do that on something at work, and the switch to HTTPS (with a self signed cert) took only minutes.

What I have no idea about is whether Silverlight, or the development environment used to create the smartphone apps, can be used easily with HTTPS.

John - understood. However I still think the UK needs to sort out with Jeppesen (who do de facto own the world ) which airports are "Customs" and which airports are "Customs PNR".

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

UK GAR - short notice channel islands trip

I might have an excuse to go to the Channel Islands at short notice (a couple of hours) tomorrow.

I will be flying from Biggin Hill, picking up one or two passengers in Jersey, and flying back to Biggin (or Southend if Biggin is closed). Biggin is designated for Immigration and Police (although strangely not for customs - although nobody seems to care).

Reading https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/180960/GARinstructionsApril2013.pdf it is quite clear that I don't need to pre-notify the police, but it uses the phrase

but are requested to submit a GAR at least 12 hours prior to arrival to: - Border Force via an approved website or the National Co-ordination Unit (NCU)

Is this a request in the sense of a polite request (i.e. do it or else), or is it just bad wording (i.e. they actually meant to write must) - or is this genuinely optional?

I'm guessing the request is so they can organise customs. If so, why is it 12 hours and not the more usual 4 for immigration?

EGEO

It should be interpreted as a 'must'.

Stop over briefly at Cherbourg instead to reduce this 12-hour notification requirement down to 4.

It's bizzare that Biggin has the Special Branch ("Police") and Immigration but not Customs.

Just email the GAR to the ncu@ address the night before and forget it - that's what I've been doing for every single foreign flight for years. For non-CTA flights, I never read the instructions on the GAR form.

Many people flying to Jersey/Guernsey fly via Cherbourg because it avoids the GAR to the Special Branch which (for non "Police" airports) is absolutely mandatory and they do enforce it. The 12 or 24hrs required PNR (which IME they enforce to the exact hour, so if they want 12hrs PNR and you give them 11 they will phone you - at 4am if they feel so inclined - saying you cannot fly) is a PITA and prevents any same-day-planned trips.

Anyway, if they want 12hrs before "arrival" at Biggin, you will meet that easily because you will be going to Jersey and back first.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I''d do it, and see it is a 'must' rather than a reques'. Though on a few occasions when I have sent GAR forms by email to the NCU address, I have got read receipts from Outlook up to 5 days later. That doesnt mean they havent read them (they might just look at a preview and not open the email directly), and it doesnt mean they dont enforce it, but I do wonder how 'hot' they are on the topic. Me personally, I am not willing to test this, and abide fully by the 'request'.

I have got read receipts from Outlook up to 5 days later. That doesnt mean they havent read them (they might just look at a preview and not open the email directly)

Or it means they are not using Micro$oft Outl$$k to read email, which in that scenario is quite likely

Or somebody there is using Outlook or any other program which is either configured to not return receipts or it doesn't implement that feature, and maybe somebody else (a manager perhaps) is using Outlook too but with the default config.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Or it means they are not using Micro$oft Outl$$k to read email

I think a number of email systems or clients will still 'return' a read receipt. Its more that only the more feature-rich systems (like Outlook) can request a read receipt.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top