CAA Threat

All bow before the mighty rings!

Yessir, always carry a big stick, and swing it around wherever you go…:rolleyes:

Except that’s a Gripen, we don’t use those. We use Typhoon, much better stick (more like sword).

That is indisputable

But the point is that an unfortunate pilot will earn an indeterminate and instant suspension of his licence for flying a twin engined Beech Baron over a field of sugar beet three or four miles south of Duxford.

Moggy

Yes it doesn’t seem what should be happening in a ‘fair’ and open society in the 21st century.

I feel the problem is that early laws were made with the protection of the people and got the understanding and cooperation from the said peeps. But then ‘The State’ started passing laws that did not make common sense to the people and seemed to be there to protect The State from the will of the People, should such a disagreement occur.

A law or regulation that isn’t for the benefit of the people (like stiffing some pilot for flying a twin somewhere uncool but with two fans not unsafe) is inherently wrong.

But the real problem is that we believe we live in an open and free society and that a ‘free democracy’ is to the benefit of the masses. When I suspect the real truth is that none of us has any real freedom from interference of The State. I feel our free elections are there to give us the false impression we are in control of the ruling elite when all we actually do is vote in one dictator or the other.

Our rights are being eroded all the time and as for ‘pilot’ rights, we have none, and we never did have any.

If there were a near extinction even or a nuke war we’d soon enough find out what human rights we (don’t) have. We would be ruled by the gun by The State and the establishment would be in control.

Why should Mr Green have to explain? Are you a Policeman? Or just keeping the police informed. (Note no smiley)

No, I am not a policeman and have no connection with the Police service. Mr Green does not have to explain if he does not want to. Mine was just natural human curiosity. Guess I will have to get by without a smiley, tough as that will be !!!

Planemike

Re 20

David Burke

Thanks for the correction. Sad to write that I don’t find that difficult to believe. I wonder if there is much difference in circulation.

Rapier ? I don’t think that I mentioned anything about that.

John Green

Dont forget the improper use of remote control Mini Drones .ie large R/C jet & Turbine powered model aircraft .And piston powered prop models for that matter.

John -sad to let you down but the ‘indisputable’ fact that the Mail is the largest selling tabloid is wrong ! Easy to research -The Sun is the largest selling tabloid in the U.K.

As for the other points – be assured a Rapier will happily acquire a low flying light aircraft .

Re 18

Bravo 24

I like to keep people happy so I will explain, not that any should be necessary; quality speaks for itself.

I am aware that many contributors to these forums loathe and detest the Mail. Quite why this should be so is beyond my undersanding.

I do not agree completely with some of the Mail’s articles and some in the Telegraph send me positively incandescent.

Nevertheless, it is an indisputable fact that the Mail is this country’s biggest selling tabloid and the biggest selling broadsheet is the Telegraph.

Both papers carry a wealth of information about most things and the resident journalists write both controversially and entertainingly.

Planemike.

Happier now? Thanks to Bravo 24? Let us also thank the comically named Ewan Hoozbarmy who provided the original statement.

John Green

Explanation

Why should Mr Green have to explain? Are you a Policeman? Or just keeping the police informed. (Note no smiley)

Yes, I absolutely adore the Daily Mail ditto the Telegraph
John Green

Errrrrrrrrrr !!!??? Care to explain why.

Planemike

Re 11 & 14

Ewan Hoozarmy

Well now, aren’t you a contradiction! Read my comments slowly. As many on these forums know I am no fan of the Human Rights Act. My original comment was that specifically the CAA could well have a job on its hands in
(a) applying that particular sanction and (b) for what seems to be an unspecified time against a defence citing a relevant provision of the HRA. I wouldn’t put too much money on the CAA succeeding. Simple really.

The last para. of your No. 14 makes the statement that you think that we live in a Police State and ‘it’s’ all done in the name of security. I happen to agree with that. The Human rights Act with all irs flaws – and we know some of them, especially those to do with border control, is in place to provide at least some protection against the Police State you’ve correctly identified; hence the contradiction. In that respect, the HRA is there for your benefit.

Incursions into controlled airspace – for whatever reason are the bane of NATS and the CAA and they’ve been going on for as long as I’ve been in aviation. Small country, too much controlled airspace. The CAA won’t improve matters by issuing condign threats.

Yes, I absolutely adore the Daily Mail ditto the Telegraph

John Green

Then again, anyone who would think it a good idea to fly a single-engine aircraft over a whole bunch of peeps isn’t showing correct airmanship. So they would probably deserve to lose their ticket to fly.

That is indisputable

But the point is that an unfortunate pilot will earn an indeterminate and instant suspension of his licence for flying a twin engined Beech Baron over a field of sugar beet three or four miles south of Duxford.

Moggy

Paramotor ‘Pilots’ indeed don’t need licenses at present, but they do have to obey the Rules of the Air. Now I work out that if there are no Licenses, how do the ‘pilots’ know about the Rules of the Air? Yet you do need CAA permission to fly a model aircraft of 20kg+….. Confused.com

I reckon that apart from getting shot if somebody tried to fly into the stadium, that paramotors would be severely restricted in what they could do after the event.

Can’t have these loose cannons doing what they want now can we?

I’m getting more and more convinced that we DO live in a Police state, all done in the name of ‘security’. The Police can literally do anything they want in the name of “security’.

The CAA can suspend your license any time they want if they have the grounds to do so. And the Government can close the airspace any time they want, as they did post 11/9. The Human ‘Rights’ Act doesn’t even figure…

I do sometimes wonder whether these forums are wholly populated by Daily Mail readers……..:rolleyes:

Yup! A pilot’s licence is not a right but a pri…

Well you get the idea. None of us really have any rights at all that the government could not take away under some alleged state security reason or other.

Then again, anyone who would think it a good idea to fly a single-engine aircraft over a whole bunch of peeps isn’t showing correct airmanship. So they would probably deserve to lose their ticket to fly. Now, were someone to fly a paramotor (i.e. a paraglider with a 250cc engine on the back of the harness) into the stadium when the games are taking place there is not a damned thing anyone could do really. except lock the pilot up after the event. Paramotor pilots don’t have a CAA licence, and are not required to have one. So the CAA has little power over them, only the criminal court.

You can bet if someone did that (like the Buckingham Palace landing by that Aussie pilot) the government would get really heavy in court though.

Yessir, always carry a big stick, and swing it around wherever you go…:rolleyes:

The Human Rights Act

FFS, Get a grip man!!

If you don’t want to have your license suspended, stay out of the Restricted Zone. Easy peasy. It’s all a big stick ploy to just make sure all those idiots who are planning on joining in with the nausea and flying around London will 200% make sure they don’t infringe. The public feel safer and the Politicians feel like they are doing something.

The CAA can suspend your license any time they want if they have the grounds to do so. And the Government can close the airspace any time they want, as they did post 11/9. The Human ‘Rights’ Act doesn’t even figure…

I do sometimes wonder whether these forums are wholly populated by Daily Mail readers……..:rolleyes:

I have my doubts that modern military missiles would even be able to acquire and hit a light plane. Are they not designed to go after turbine engine heat sources?

Depends what sort of missile it is. Rest assured that you can bring down a light a/c with an AAM. Or don’t rest assured, depending on your viewpoint…:) You could take it out with cannon as well but I doubt the people on the ground below would appreciate being sprayed with cannon shells. I don’t suppose they would like the wreckage of a light aircraft dropping on their bonce though either.

Bring on Matthias Rust…

I have my doubts that modern military missiles would even be able to acquire and hit a light plane. Are they not designed to go after turbine engine heat sources? And cannon would only work if a jet fighter could slow down enough to near-match a light aircraft’s airspeed.

I feel this is all bluster and show. I wonder if we could actually stop a determined pilot who intended to fly a plane packed with a fuel-air bomb and the 40 us gallons of avgas in the wings.

I don’t think it would be a good idea to put your assumptions to the test.

Re 2

Tony T

I never ever thought that I’d write this: Put your faith not in the Lord but in the EU ! Human Rights trumps virtually everything including Draconian sentencing. How do you separate a deliberate incursion from an accidental one ? The answer is; only at the point where the incursion is discovered and the pilot asked to skedaddle and then continues with the incursion. Then it is a breach but, as Moggy C writes; should not merit an inderminate suspension.

John Green

I can outrun an Apache 🙂

(Though not it’s main armament, of course)

Moggy