PFD report

Carl Alan Dickerson and 3 others · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Feb 2016•Norfolk

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Lack of equivalent regulation covering non-commercial departures from unlicensed aerodromes
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of equivalent regulation covering non-commercial departures from unlicensed aerodromes

Wider context from the report

“(1) On the 13 March 2013 at the time of take-off, it was dark and there was fog. Visibility was therefore limited. There are Regulations in place which would have prevented a take-off in these conditions had this been a departure from a licensed aerodrome and had this been a commercial venture. (2) Because this was a departure from a non-commercial venture and take-off was from an unlicensed aerodrome, the Regulations do not apply. (3) It is understood there was an accident in the 1990s in similar circumstances and operating under private category rules, as a result of which the Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) published a report and noted that "The flight used a navigation approach procedure that would not meet the standards required by the UK Authorities for public transport operations. However, this was not illegal because the flight was operated under private category rules". (4) The AAIU made recommendations including that “The UK CAA should consider the establishment of a special category for the operation of corporate aviation”. It is understood this recommendation was accepted but no special category was established. Guidance was provided but not regulation. (5) New European aviation legislation affecting the non-commercial operation of aircraft will come into effect in the UK from 25 August 2016 which will introduce new regulations for the management and operation of this type of aircraft. (6) It is understood the CAA has decided a broader and deeper review of Instrument Flight Rules outside controlled airspace in general is necessary and that a project plan is being developed to address the issues, develop recommendations and suggested courses of action. There is liaison with the European Aviation Safety Agency “in taking forward any such changes”. (7) It is of concern that despite the previous accident in the 1990s and this accident, a departure from a non-commercial venture and an unlicensed aerodrome is not covered by the equivalent regulation as a departure from commercial and licensed premises. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026