Aviation Law in the UK - Math Problem Example

Aviation Law Prepared by Word Count Question 1 1. Introduction According to aircraft regulations, an aircraft can fly in or over United Kingdom, if it is registered in some part of common wealth and any contracting state. A glider cannot fly unregistered in United Kingdom, unless it is for public purpose or with prior permission for safety conditions and measures. In the present case though Carl glided down as part of life saving exercise, it is not considered as a public transport and is a context of illegal flying and against the law. 1 In Carl case, the low flying prohibitions apply. The aircraft can fly low if there is a power failure and the aircraft in which Carl is flying has no such defect. Moreover, the aircraft has flown low due to a fuel shortage problem. Due to the problem of fuel Carl has no other way to come down to an ex military airfield without prior permission and information. The cause for that also is not legal and prompt as it is a fuel shortage case according to Rules of the Air amended in 2005. Carl may have a problem due to his landing if that area comes under the congested area, in which prior permission is required. The low flying prohibitions will not apply for the aircrafts flying low as it is according to normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off or landing at or practising approaches. Carl’s context will not satisfy even this condition, as his landing is not a context of common practice of landing or take off. There is another rule that allows low flying of an aircraft when it is operating according to procedures notified... Carl’s context does not apply for this also as he has flown in designated air space while he was only allowed to fly through controlled air space. This does not come under flying display also to claim exemption for low flying. There is low flying exemption for a glider in case of hill soaring. Though Carl glided down on a glider it is in emergency circumstances but not from a hill and this context will not come under the exemption for low flying conditions. 2 If we consider VFR flights, they can be authorised in an airspace reservation and Carl have none like that for the designated airspace. As the government issues permission according to the conditions of minimisation of traffic in designated airspace Carl is not allowed to fly in designated air space without prior permission. Moreover, he is flying in a non-standard flight. Operators should contact military Airspace Manager at Swanwick to coordinate access arrangements and military ATC provisions. In this case, it did not happen and Carl landed on an ex-military air base without prior permission. 3 To avoid aircraft accidents, the weight and balance issues are considered. There is chance of occurring accidents in case of wrong loading of the aircraft and the use of wrong takeoff weight for performance calculations. Carl’s incident may come under weight and balance related accidents as it occurred under shortage of fuel conditions. This disturbs balance system and may result in punishment for Carl and for the operator who permitted him to fly in a designated airspace. 4 As Carl has flown without prior permission over designated air space, he did not have any calculations about the distance of take off or landing. Investigations will also consider this one also a fault on the part of Carl along with the fuel shortage. The lack of information about the distance and the place of landing may result in excessive thrust on the aircraft and may result in dangers or crash landings. The fuel shortage was an added problem to these miscalculations. As per the information given in the case, description Carl is not having any information about availability of land for landing or atmospheric and traffic conditions in the airspace he is flying. 5 According to the regulations of Aviation AME should undertake medical examination of class I pilots and it did not happen in case of Carl as his operator who hired him an aircraft did not check him about fitness to fly. Though this is not a commercial flight, the operator should check him for the fitness for flying and it was not mentioned in the case brief. This may be a problem for both operator and Carl as it is mandatory due to section 39(3) of human rights act 1993. As it was mentioned that Carl did not fly for 10 months, the absence of medical fitness certificate for flying may result him in a problem, as he is involved in illegal landing case. 6 As Regulatory review group considering the UK air space as a national asset and recommended that CAA should ensure through monitoring the proposed increase of controlled airspace. As Carl flied through designated airspace by getting permission from controlled airspace, the traffic in designated air space may be affected according to this recommendation. The recommendations and regulations of UK regulatory commission has considered the aircrafts like small jets and considered trade benefits while considering the safety of the fliers. The training and licensing of the very light jets are taken as a policy matter. The regulatory commission has increased controlled airspace and created choke points in the open flight information region. This is due to adequate access arrangements for GA traffic, which are in place for the safety measures. The flying of the flier in designated air space is an violation of the rules and regulations made by commission for controlling the traffic in controlled and designated air space. 7 According to UK regulatory commission, there are some rules for private fliers or pilots. The manual of the regulatory commission addresses the airspace for these pilots and controls the traffic in it. There is no provision for controlling the accidents or arranging for landing of the very light jets if they enter designated airspace for passenger aircrafts from controlled air space. As Carl did this, he violated the norms and restrictions for pilots flying very light jets. 8 When we consider the state of Carl flying after a gap of more than 8 months having his licence valid, it can be a desperate condition. As he has to conclude a business in Scotland, he is in a compulsion to travel as soon as possible. He might have convinced Betty Brown that he is a current by the valid licence he is possessing. As he is having the record of previous flying with the firm of Alan and Brown, he might have convinced Betty Brown that he has flown in the recent past with some other operator. It is clear that he has not acquired flight information report as he entered into clouds and unclear weather in the course of flying. The absence of flight information report with him may create legal problems for him. Even in the presence of Flight Information Report, the pilots may run into adverse weather but the presence of FIR with them will help them to escape the legal adversaries. The contact with regulatory authorities while on flight by flying in controlled space can avoid human errors and Carl did not follow it. According to UK regulations, it is mandatory for very light jets to have an additional fuel for a flight of 45 minutes more than the intended or targeted flight. The flight of Carl has not met this condition and he is supposed to answer about it. References: 1. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf 2. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051110.htm 3. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1239/Aeronautical%20Information%20Circular.pdf 4. http://www.nlr.nl/id~7793/lang~en.pdf 5. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/rto0705.xml 6. http://www.executive.govt.nz/minister/gosche/pilots/ch13.htm 7. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/reg%20review.pdfs 8. www.nat-pco.org/nat/CurrentNAT%20IGA.doc Read More