HC Deb 28 November 1994 vol 250 cc544-5W
Mr. Home Robertson

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the actions taken by his Department in response to each of the recommendations of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch's reports on the military-civil collisions on 29 August 1991 and 23 June 1993.

Mr. Soames

As a result of the accident on 29 August 1991, my Department in conjunction with other authorities has implemented the recommendations made by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, as follows:

  1. (i) Greater publicity of the civil aircraft notification procedure—CANP—and its benefits has been achieved through articles in general aviation safety leaflets and briefings to civil pilots at a number of open evenings.
  2. (ii) Extension of the CNAP system to encompass civil aerial work carried out below 1,000 ft was introduced in August 1993.
  3. (iii) Information has been published showing the directional flow of aircraft in the few areas of high-intensity low-flying operations and RAF stations operating fast jets have been identified.

As far as the accident on 23 June 1993 is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 7 July, Official Report, column 264. My Department continues to work with the appropriate authorities and organisations in order to maximise flight safety in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Home Robertson

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many notifications have been made under(a) the civil aircraft notification procedure and (b) the pipeline inspection notification system in each month from October 1993 onwards; and how many reports have been received in each month of (a) breaches of notified areas by military aircraft and (b) non-compliance with notifications by civil aircraft.

Mr. Soames

Under the civil aircraft notification procedure only commercial activity attracts temporary avoidance status; details of recreational and other aerial activity are passed as warnings to military aircrew who will take account of them in planning their sorties. The numbers of notifications, broken down by type of activity, received in each month since October 1993 are as follows:

Commercial activity Recreational and other aerial activity
1993
October 50 79
November 10 52
December 5 13
1994
January 15 31
February 26 63
March 22 40
April 40 65
May 59 117
June 58 106
July 57 134
August 62 90
September 34 81
October 35 95

Since October 1993, there have been six reported breaches of avoidances accorded to commercial activity; three in June 1994, one in September 1994 and two in October 1994.

Under the pipeline inspection notification system a summary of all relevant activity is issued daily from Monday to Friday. Each summary comprises several individual notifications; it would incur disproportionate cost to identify the total number of notifications made.

Notification under PINS attract the same status as recreational and other aerial activity notified under CANP. They constitute a warning of activity, but do not attract avoidance status; they cannot, therefore, be breached.

Participation in CANP or PINS by civil pilots is on a voluntary basis, the question of non-compliance does not therefore arise, nor is there any mechanism for identifying civil activity which could have been but was not notified.