Consultation – Advanced Information for International Flights

Helipaddy will be providing the following response to the consultation by Border Control on behalf of private pilots (who are also captains and operators).
Please add any comments at the bottom.

This consultation ends on 16 June 2023

The proposal is for counter-terrorism, crime and immigration purposes.

Details at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/advance-information-requirements-for-international-general-aviation-flights/general-aviation-consultation-on-advance-information-requirements-for-international-flights-accessible#the-proposal

Respond at https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/general-aviation-consultation/

Border control would also like to hear views on alternatives, including alternative regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to securing the border and managing the vulnerabilities around GA.

For the purpose of this consultation GA means any aircraft whether operated commercially or privately, not operating to a specific and published schedule, not subject of a written requirement to provide advance information to an immigration officer or police officer, and not making a military flight other than those carrying non-military personnel.

Questionnaire and responses

Responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper are:

1. Do you consider the proposed regulations to be necessary and proportionate for border security and law enforcement purposes?
   
   • No they are not necessary or proportionate.
   • They are not necessary because they do not address crime, terrorism and smuggling. Your average criminal does not fill in government forms truthfully, does not switch on their transponder (ie is inconspicuous) and does not land at Designated Airfields (or even at airfields at all).
   • They are not proportionate because, in fact, they miss the stated objective.
     If the stated objective was simply to track immigration mainly for statistical purposes then they would most certainly not be proportionate.
   • The known incidents of crime are extraordinarily small relative to boat crossings for example. We are not aware of illegal dinghy pilots filling in government forms.
   • They are neither necessary nor proportionate because they do not address the stated objective and alternatives exist which do, such as TMZ’s for conspicuity.
   • Pilots who regularly fly could join a scheme similar to Global Entry to avoid bureaucracy.
   • You could request that pilots have mode S transponders and provide their transponder code.
     
2. What are your views on the information that would be required in respect of each person on board as set out on page 12?
   
   • This question is irrelevant in the context of the objective as criminals are unlikely to complete forms truthfully. If the stated objective were amended such that it is an information gathering exercise, this is easily and efficiently dealt with by the GAR form where the information fields already being used are similar and sufficient.
     
3. What are your views on the proposal to require notification no earlier than twenty-four hours and no later than 2 hours before departure to or from the UK?
   
   • This question is irrelevant in the context of the objective as criminals are unlikely to complete forms truthfully. If the stated objective were amended such that it is an information gathering exercise, this is easily and efficiently dealt with by the GAR form.
   • However, private helicopter flights are not planned in such time restricted ways due mainly to weather. There used to be an excellent onlinegar.com service to do this, neatly tied in to the major navigation apps such at SkyDemon. For some unknown reason Border Control felt it necessary to produce their own, substantially inferior online system, and this does not set the precedent well for them to introduce other systems.
     
4. What are your views on the information that would be required in respect of the flight (including in respect of the aircraft) as set out on page 13?
   
   • This question is irrelevant in the context of the objective as criminals are unlikely to complete forms truthfully. If the stated objective were amended such that it is an information gathering exercise, this is easily and efficiently dealt with by the GAR form where the information fields already being used are similar and sufficient.
     
5. What are your views on the proposal for information about flights and persons onboard to be submitted only online using portals or apps?
   
   • Online forms are the way to go to save the government money. In fact, as a taxpayer, I would find it inexcusable to allow other forms of submission. Pilots are not a set of people who cannot use internet forms.
   • This question is irrelevant in the context of the objective as criminals are unlikely to complete forms truthfully. If the stated objective were amended such that it is an information gathering exercise, this is easily and efficiently dealt with by the GAR form.
   • However, private helicopter flights are not planned in such time restricted ways due mainly to weather. There used to be an excellent onlinegar.com service to do this, neatly tied in to the major navigation apps such at SkyDemon. For some unknown reason Border Control felt it necessary to produce their own, substantially inferior online system, and this does not set the precedent well for them to introduce other systems.
     
6. What are your views on the gov.uk online service that allows for the online submission of data (s-GAR)? Does it meet your needs as a user of the portal? If not, please explain why?
   
   • There used to be an excellent onlinegar.com service to do this, neatly tied in to the major navigation apps such at SkyDemon. For some unknown reason Border Control felt it necessary to produce their own, substantially inferior online system, and this does not set the precedent well for them to introduce other systems. The government system is tricky to use and does not provide an API for developers to integrate with. It is buggy such that saved details are not saved. It is ambiguous and unclear about reporting for outbound flights.
     
7. If you are a pilot, captain or operator, what would be the practical implications for you of providing advance information online? Please state whether you are answering this as a pilot, captain or operator.
   
   • As a private pilot, I am the pilot, the captain and the operator. Advanced information is easy provide online. The issue is that it doesn’t solve the criminal problem fundamental to the proposal.
   • Advanced notice is not necessary and causes danger with pilots making bad decisions n weather in order to comply with arbitrary deadlines.
   • If the objective is to record normal, legal, arrivals which require passport inspection, the correct amount of notice is the time needed for border force to arrive at the landing location. However, this is half-baked because it is common for a VFR pilot to divert due to weather.
     
8. If you are an operator of commercial GA flights what do you consider the impact of the proposals would be on your business operations?
   
   • Commercial flights are no different, although access to them is possibly easier for the average criminal. But a criminal might be happy to pay the proposed £10,000 fine in order to smuggle. That’s not even the price of the flight on a private jet. Monetary fines are not the right stick.
     
9. If you are an operator of commercial GA flights what are your views on the practicality of complying with a requirement to provide PNR data?
   
   • It does not deal with weather diversions or unavoidable delays.
     
10. Do you think that a civil penalty will provide an effective incentive to comply with the advance reporting requirement? Why do you think this?
    
    • Criminals probably not care about fines as they will be inconspicuous anyway. The pilot should lose his license if found aiding and abetting criminal activity.
      
11. What is your view of the implications of operating the Authority to Carry Scheme in respect of international GA flights?
    
    • This could work if it was similar to Global Entry. Trusted pilots would have to prove that they fly the aircraft conspicuously (ie with transponder mode S).
      
12. Do you have any views on how the reporting requirement should operate in exceptional circumstances, such as weather disruption or technical problems?
    
    • The proposal is in a muddle because it is conflating control of criminal activity with immigration reporting.
    • If the proposal is dealing with immigration , then the GAR form deals with this sufficiently
    • Money should not be spent purely on bureaucracy
    • You will never be able to deal with delays and diversions through forms. But you could ask the pilot to provide the transponder transmission code.
      
13. Do you have any views on the operation of the twelve-hour notification period under paragraph 12 of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000?
    
    • A bit of a nonsense because criminals don’t give notice. It doesn’t not deal with the delay and diversion risks.
      
14. Do you have a view on alternative approaches, whether regulatory or not, to securing the border and managing vulnerabilities relating to GA flights?
    
    • A new TMZ surrounding the UK. This will force pilots to (a) have transponders and (b) become conspicuous
    • A coordination between LARS providers around the coast
    • Be smarter about the sort of pilots and flights that are more likely to be acting criminally. A version of Global Entry will do this. Plus tracking with ADS-B.
    • Do not apply bureaucratic procedures for the 99.99% of flights that are operated legally.
    • Do not use fines as the method of jeopardy because you will never get the amount right. You cannot reconcile the cost of a private jet and the “pain” to a small microlight operator.
      
15. Do you have any views on the impact of these proposals on the operation of the Common Travel Area?
    
    • The CTA is a travel zone for the British Isles (broadly speaking). So it is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of immigration.
    • It would be a great strength if the government were to reinforce freedom of movement in the CTA buy removing bureaucracy altogether. For example, there should be no requirement to file flight plans for any flight in the CTA. For private flights, it should be at the pilot’s discretion as to the safety benefits.
      
16. Are there any further comments you would like to make relating to the proposed regulations?
    
    • The objectives are not met by the proposals
    • The proposals introduce ineffective bureaucracy
    • Helipaddy would be happy to discuss any technical aspects (TMZ, Transonders etc) via support@helipaddy.com
    • We welcome a review of the existing GAR procedures which are still missing some logic