change to air law re: following a line feature

[kawasakiinit]

Am I correct in saying that you no longer have to have a line feature on your left when tracking one ? If so why would they remove that rule ?? surely its a good standard to have ..........

sometimes things about aviation rules puzzle me ..............

[MadamBreakneck]

You are correct. It probably got dropped due to the move over to SERA - the European rules of the air. CAP1535 ('The Skyway Code') says: "There used to be a rule in the UK Rules of the Air that stated aircraft following a line feature such as a road, railway or coastline, must fly to the right of that feature. This is no longer a mandatory rule, however it is still considered good practice, particularly if following the coast."

[kawasakiinit]

thanks madam , silly changes like this make for accidents or near misses i guess. the ssdr thing amazes me also , if you want tofit a landing light on a permit aircraft you have to apply for mod etc,ssdr it and you can fit chandelier on the thing if you want ? madness .the ssdr is still flying over the same schools/shops/houses blah blah blah .. its all gone mad ..

[garry]

Plus one on that

[Peter Twissell]

As I understand, SSDR is based on the pilot/constructors responsibility to maintain their aircraft.
It is true that an irresponsible individual could hang a chandelier from their SSDR microlight.
It is equally true that an irresponsible individual could hang a chandelier from their permit aircraft and not apply for a MOD.
It is reasonably assumed that someone who has trained as a pilot is aware of the risks and does not need rules to tell them that a chandelier may significantly detract from the flight characteristics of their aircraft.
With the SSDR and permit system, the 'line' is drawn where the pilot intends to carry a passenger, who may not be so aware of the risk, whether or not they like the chandelier.

Apologies for topic drift.

[kawasakiinit]

On the whole ssdr pilots will be safe but people being people there will always be exceptions and that's where the innocents on the ground are at risk. Indeed the same can be said for permit pilots but at least the rule is there to act on..

I'm Not down on ssdr just puzzled by the logic of some decisions made ...

[MadamBreakneck]

The difference, surely, is the risk to non-involved third parties.

Normally it's very rare that people on the ground, and not involved in the flight (eg not watching an airshow nor visiting an active airfield), are injured. Every so often, the CAA publishes aviation safety reviews (search CAP735, CAP780, or CAP1595 for examples). EASA do them annually. Of the ones I've looked up, only one (CAP735) lists incidents resulting in injury to third parties not involved in the flight - over the 10 year period (1992-2001) there was one injury to a non-involved third party caused by a microlight, during a forced landing, while in the same 10 year period there were 25 fatalities to microlight pilots or passengers. The same document also includes a table of where bit falling from aircraft of all types landed: none were near people.

The upshot is that falling bits of microlight aircraft, or whole microlights for that matter, form overall a vanishingly small risk to non-involved people going about their day-to-day business; hence the current difference in regulation between single-seat microlights and those capable of carrying an innocent passenger (or more so, an innocent paying trial lesson student who quite reasonably should be able to expect some additional regulatory protection).
................
Back to the OP, I blame the media who insist on MPs and civil servants earning their keep by making changes to the rules whether or not there's a real reason, and, of course, SERA which caused the change to the line-feature rule is a product of EASA which itself is part of the EU's administrative machinery... gotta keep those guys earning their crust!

[kawasakiinit]

Bless Em .......

[sssdu01]

I think a greater danger is people following the purple line on their sat nav device. Yes its a big sky but when routing around controlled airspace you can get congestion with similar routes AND with aircraft going in opposite directions. I used to try and minimize any risk by avoiding flying bang on a "conventional Altitude" e.g 2000 feet. Problem is that everyone else thinks the same so everyone ends up flying at 2300 feet 1900 etc !!! so I now fly at 2000 feet and never see anyone else at the same altitude

[MadamBreakneck]

I just wander up and down randomly between ceiling and floor - I too haven't run into anybody yet




My tracks tend to look a bit like a drunken spider too... the joys of bimbling.