6 ms·

I would have thought that there existed some local or international entity regulating private airplanes and their itineraries. I would assume the same way you c

by qnk 11y ago

I would have thought that there existed some local or international entity regulating private airplanes and their itineraries. I would assume the same way you can't get on the highway with a bicycle or a scooter, these airplanes shouldn't be allowed to fly over the Atlantic.

Afforess 11y ago
How would that work? Countries don't have radar coverage over the entire ocean. Even if the aircraft were noticed, which country would be responsible for upholding the international accords? If Russian aircraft were scrambling to stop hobbiest aircraft off the coast of Alaska, that would be a political nightmare. Given the time involved in gaining a pilots license and cost of aircraft, it seems that the adage 'Caveat Emptor' works just fine for oceanic air crossings.
- qnk 11y ago
  It could be done at the airport level. If your last known departure was from point A, how did you get here with an aircraft that is not suited to fly such long distance. Not only that, you shouldn't have been allowed to depart from point A to begin with. But again, I thought that something similar already existed. Today I learned, that it doesn't.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    You will be further shocked to know that, assuming I planned my route correctly, I could fly from Florida to Washington or Maine to California and not have to file a single piece of planning paperwork, nor tell anyone where I'm going, nor talk to anyone on the radio if I didn't want to. Exactly like you could do in your car.
    - unics 11y ago
      I thought after 911 the FAA enforced registered flight plans for all flights cross country, no? At least that's what the general news reported at the time.
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        For a short time (several weeks), there were restrictions like that via the TFR process (temporary flight restriction). Those were never meant to be (and did not become) permanent.
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    Actually, there are requirements for flying in Canadian trans-oceanic airspace. You need to fly IFR, and you might need an HF radio depending on the route: https://www.copanational.org/CC-42.cfm https://www.copanational.org/CC-42.cfm You also have to follow the usual rules about having liferafts on board, etc.
- userbinator 11y ago
  Even if the aircraft were noticed, which country would be responsible for upholding the international accords? ...and more importantly, what could they do if they noticed? It's not like you can "pull over" a plane in the air and suspend the pilot's license immediately, unlike with someone on the road.
sokoloff 11y ago
Why shouldn't they? There is ICAO and there are rules concerning the filing of passenger manifests and radio contact to break ADIZ (air defense identification zone), but what purpose would it serve to ban international or blue-water flying? For the most part, the light airplanes being discussed aren't anywhere near the trans-oceanic airliners as the lights will be at FL250 (25,000') or below and usually below 18,000'. Bicycle or scooter on a highway is a completely different concern, IMO.
icebraining 11y ago
Why not? The reason you can't get on a highway is because it's dangerous to others, but here the risks seem minimal (large area, other planes usually have radar, etc).
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Minor point: the other planes have weather radar, but that isn't useful for traffic detection. Only military aircraft have radar systems designed to pick up other traffic. Some airliners have active traffic systems (most do not), but the real reason it's safe is that all the airliner and jet traffic is cruising well above where the piston-engine aircraft are flying. (The pistons will also be on high-frequency radios, making periodic position calls to Oceanic control, but those are more for the safety of that aircraft and less for traffic de-conflicting.)
jsight 11y ago
Why wouldn't they be allowed to fly over the Atlantic?
nsxwolf 11y ago
Airspace belongs to everybody, not just big businesses.
peckrob 11y ago
Why not? The reason you're not allowed to get on the highway with a scooter or a bike is because it's dangerous to others. The only danger to me taking my airplane across the Atlantic is to me. I see this misunderstanding a lot among non-aviation people. I don't have to tell anyone what I'm doing when I fly. I can go to the airport, right now, and fly my airplane pretty much wherever I like. I don't have to file a flight plan (provided I'm flying visually - non-instrument). I can take off and fly pretty much wherever I like. I can take whatever route I prefer, provided I keep in contact via radio with the relative controllers of the various airspaces I might pass through and keep an eye out for other airplanes. If I'm flying instrument, I do have to file a flight plan and stick to a planned route (or communicate changes to my route). And unless I'm just up doing practice around the local area, I always file a flight plan even if I am going VFR. My personal rule is over 50 nautical miles or into a class C airspace or above (basically, the area around most decent-sized airports), I file a flight plan. It's free, keeps me safe and keeps ATC happy. There are some other ICAO rules when your start crossing ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone - the distance from shore where you must be identified). I have never personally encountered this so I would have to brush up on the appropriate procedure before doing it. But there is still nothing stopping me from doing it provided I follow the rules. Flying is quite free and liberating. Not so much as driving, but more than most people seem to realize. It's up to me as a pilot to exercise good judgement in not getting myself and others killed.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  >Why not? The reason you're not allowed to get on the highway with a scooter or a bike is because it's dangerous to others. The only danger to me taking my airplane across the Atlantic is to me. Quite a lot of aviation regulations are designed to protect people from killing themselves and their passengers. For example, the requirements for carrying lifejackets/rafts, survival gear, etc. depending on where you're flying. Also, as pointed out in other comments, there are requirements for flying this route (IFR, HF radio, liferafts, etc.), which are probably sufficient to protect pilots from themselves. Yet, even if you follow all the rules and wear a survival suit (which I don't think is required), it's still a highly risky endeavour.
  - 11y ago

by qnk 11y ago

Afforess 11y ago

How would that work? Countries don't have radar coverage over the entire ocean. Even if the aircraft were noticed, which country would be responsible for upholding the international accords? If Russian aircraft were scrambling to stop hobbiest aircraft off the coast of Alaska, that would be a political nightmare. Given the time involved in gaining a pilots license and cost of aircraft, it seems that the adage 'Caveat Emptor' works just fine for oceanic air crossings.

qnk 11y ago
It could be done at the airport level. If your last known departure was from point A, how did you get here with an aircraft that is not suited to fly such long distance. Not only that, you shouldn't have been allowed to depart from point A to begin with. But again, I thought that something similar already existed. Today I learned, that it doesn't.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  You will be further shocked to know that, assuming I planned my route correctly, I could fly from Florida to Washington or Maine to California and not have to file a single piece of planning paperwork, nor tell anyone where I'm going, nor talk to anyone on the radio if I didn't want to. Exactly like you could do in your car.
  - unics 11y ago
    I thought after 911 the FAA enforced registered flight plans for all flights cross country, no? At least that's what the general news reported at the time.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      For a short time (several weeks), there were restrictions like that via the TFR process (temporary flight restriction). Those were never meant to be (and did not become) permanent.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  Actually, there are requirements for flying in Canadian trans-oceanic airspace. You need to fly IFR, and you might need an HF radio depending on the route: https://www.copanational.org/CC-42.cfm https://www.copanational.org/CC-42.cfm You also have to follow the usual rules about having liferafts on board, etc.
userbinator 11y ago
Even if the aircraft were noticed, which country would be responsible for upholding the international accords? ...and more importantly, what could they do if they noticed? It's not like you can "pull over" a plane in the air and suspend the pilot's license immediately, unlike with someone on the road.

sokoloff 11y ago

Why shouldn't they? There is ICAO and there are rules concerning the filing of passenger manifests and radio contact to break ADIZ (air defense identification zone), but what purpose would it serve to ban international or blue-water flying? For the most part, the light airplanes being discussed aren't anywhere near the trans-oceanic airliners as the lights will be at FL250 (25,000') or below and usually below 18,000'. Bicycle or scooter on a highway is a completely different concern, IMO.

icebraining 11y ago

Why not? The reason you can't get on a highway is because it's dangerous to others, but here the risks seem minimal (large area, other planes usually have radar, etc).

sokoloff 11y ago
Minor point: the other planes have weather radar, but that isn't useful for traffic detection. Only military aircraft have radar systems designed to pick up other traffic. Some airliners have active traffic systems (most do not), but the real reason it's safe is that all the airliner and jet traffic is cruising well above where the piston-engine aircraft are flying. (The pistons will also be on high-frequency radios, making periodic position calls to Oceanic control, but those are more for the safety of that aircraft and less for traffic de-conflicting.)

jsight 11y ago

Why wouldn't they be allowed to fly over the Atlantic?

nsxwolf 11y ago

Airspace belongs to everybody, not just big businesses.

peckrob 11y ago

Why not? The reason you're not allowed to get on the highway with a scooter or a bike is because it's dangerous to others. The only danger to me taking my airplane across the Atlantic is to me. I see this misunderstanding a lot among non-aviation people. I don't have to tell anyone what I'm doing when I fly. I can go to the airport, right now, and fly my airplane pretty much wherever I like. I don't have to file a flight plan (provided I'm flying visually - non-instrument). I can take off and fly pretty much wherever I like. I can take whatever route I prefer, provided I keep in contact via radio with the relative controllers of the various airspaces I might pass through and keep an eye out for other airplanes. If I'm flying instrument, I do have to file a flight plan and stick to a planned route (or communicate changes to my route). And unless I'm just up doing practice around the local area, I always file a flight plan even if I am going VFR. My personal rule is over 50 nautical miles or into a class C airspace or above (basically, the area around most decent-sized airports), I file a flight plan. It's free, keeps me safe and keeps ATC happy. There are some other ICAO rules when your start crossing ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone - the distance from shore where you must be identified). I have never personally encountered this so I would have to brush up on the appropriate procedure before doing it. But there is still nothing stopping me from doing it provided I follow the rules. Flying is quite free and liberating. Not so much as driving, but more than most people seem to realize. It's up to me as a pilot to exercise good judgement in not getting myself and others killed.

cpncrunch 11y ago
>Why not? The reason you're not allowed to get on the highway with a scooter or a bike is because it's dangerous to others. The only danger to me taking my airplane across the Atlantic is to me. Quite a lot of aviation regulations are designed to protect people from killing themselves and their passengers. For example, the requirements for carrying lifejackets/rafts, survival gear, etc. depending on where you're flying. Also, as pointed out in other comments, there are requirements for flying this route (IFR, HF radio, liferafts, etc.), which are probably sufficient to protect pilots from themselves. Yet, even if you follow all the rules and wear a survival suit (which I don't think is required), it's still a highly risky endeavour.
- 11y ago