Mile High Club Grounded

Some readers may find the content of this blog post offensive, please refrain from reading further if you are easily
offended or of a sensitive disposition.
____________________________

The CAA have refused to renew a licence granted to an air charter company based at Gloucester who offered real ‘earth moving’ experiences to amorous couples.  The reason given by the CAA is that the noise of lovemaking may be
distracting for pilots in the cockpit. The story which featured in the Metro of 31 December 2010 and reached me via @AirFreddy on Twitter, is interesting on several levels. The role of the CAA as a safety regulator is well established, as is their mission to promote and foster commercial air traffic and tourism. The operator believes that he is the victim of the CAA acting as a moral guardian of the air. Providing the intended flight isn’t illegal then surely the CAA should be working with the operator to find a safe and satisfactory way of making the mission happen? The first issue that grabbed my attention was that the CAA must have granted an Operators licence at the outset, in order to now be refusing to renew it. Why the change of heart now? Ahh, relationships can be so fickle… The airline has been in operation for at least two years, so it is also reasonable to assume that there has been at least one other review during that period. 

Interestingly enough, similar Mile High flights already take place in the US. In theory there is no reason why Mile High flights  should not be allowed. An easy example to use for comparison is that there are many private aircraft flying all over the globe, with all sorts of shenanigans going on inside them. The general public may be surprised to know that there is a considerable number of private aircraft equipped with lounges, bars and bedrooms flying above our heads. Anyone remember Hugh Hefner’s ‘Bunny Jet’? The CAA appear not so concerned about the safety of these flights to issue specific guidelines to pilots about the dangers of flying sexually active consenting adults. The reason why it becomes the CAA’s concern is that in this case it is a commercial undertaking. Customers are paying money for the
privilege.

Is hearing lovemaking distracting for pilots?

Anyone who has ever had a trial flight,or even flown in an aircraft knows that hearing anything at all is nigh-on impossible due to the noise of the aircraft.  As a student pilot I know that I would no more be able to hear my rear-seat passengers making out than I would be able to hear an approaching aircraft in danger of colliding with me. My ears are encased in a headset which is used to communicate with Air traffic control & passengers through the intercom.  Therefore noise interference from whatever source can be controlled in an aircraft environment. If noise is the sole reason for refusal of the operators licence it certainly seems to be a poor reason for something that has already been licensed for some time.

I have already mentioned above that the US permits Mile High flights. ICAO administrate the international treaty in force, of which both the US and UK are signatories, and it is hard to understand why the UK would not permit activity which is commonplace in another co-signatories country.  The Air Navigation Order is the Statutory Instrument by which aviation is governed by the UK, designed to implement the ICAO Treaty and is policed by the CAA. However, an interesting anomaly is worth mentioning.  If the operator changes his aircraft to an N-register (registering it as a US aircraft) then the CAA would be unable to interfere. The operator might therefore wish to consider this possibility, by doing so he would be able to run his business under the more liberal regime operated by the Americans.  Obviously this would result in a change to the system of maintenance in order to comply with the US system but it may prove to be a cost effective solution. This is just one example of the benefits of using a different register in order to achieve the maximum flying pleasure. It is not an unusual action and there are quite a number of aircraft on the ‘N’ register operated from the UK. There are so many the CAA were actively looking at ways of controlling such aircraft a few years ago.  Lord Sugar operates at least one of his aircraft on the N Register (This is not an attack on Lord Sugar and should not be interpreted as such.)  Such tactics can be designed to take advantage of more liberal aviation rules and training requirements and are mentioned purely to emphasise the differences in interpreting ICAO rules in different nation states.  It is therefore reasonable to assume that there should be a way in which the safety issues can be resolved in order to ensure that the Operators licence can be renewed.  This is best achieved by working with the Operator to determine the issues and then working together to resolve them to everyone’s satisfaction.  

How did the CAA reach their decision? Have the CAA accompanied a pilot in order to reach their supposition, or was it based upon a desk-top exercise? The ‘bedroom’ is curtained off from the cockpit and the pilot is wearing a headset which (from experience) offers excellent noise-cancelling benefits. In addition, the pilot is busy doing what he is being paid to do; fly the aircraft.  If he can be so easily distracted by outside interference then even flying over beautiful scenery could be said to be a distraction and therefore a safety issue.  For instance, I know that I love being a passenger because it’s the only opportunity I get to house hunt from above, but I wouldn’t try this if I were P1. The story refers to flights being taken in a Cessna, although it doesn’t say which type.  Let’s consider the possibilities. I could understand the CAA’s concern if it was a Cessna 172 (quite small, single engine, 4 seats, SEL).  That would throw up many safety issues, not least of which would be weight and balance considerations as the couple got increasingly ‘jiggy with it’.  But the size of aircraft has obviously been taken into account by the Operator; it at least needs to be big
enough to be ‘fit for purpose’. A Cessna 340 (twin engine, cabin class, 6 seats, MEL) would be a different consideration, although I would suggest that even this might be a bit small to be able to offer the clients a suitable level of privacy.   And whilst we may discuss this, size isn’t an issue raised by the CAA.  The Operator would also be responsible for conducting a risk assessment suitable for the mission profile, for example by careful screening of potential pilots and further training to ensure that they were unlikely to be distracted.  The flight profile has got to be examined closely to determine which parts of the flight are most appropriate ‘windows of opportunity’.  There are obviously parts of the flight where specific activities i.e. lovemaking, should be rightly excluded; for example on take-off or landing.  However, the clients could be advised that they may now ‘use the facilities’ in exactly the same way that the commercial pilot illuminated the ‘you may now use the bathroom, unfasten your seatbelt’ light. Any risk assessment would ideally identify the most appropriate portion of the flight in which the restricted activity could be conducted. One can only imagine the euphoria of post coital descent… As with larger commercial aircraft the use of electronic devices is not permitted below 10,000ft and the passengers must be dressed appropriately ready for the landing phase.  Gives a whole new meaning to coming back down to earth…

Is it a flying hotel room or is it a brothel?

The parties would obviously need to ensure that their positions were clearly defined within the constraints of a suitable Agreement at the outset. If the CAA are taking on the role of moral arbiter then they would clearly wish to prevent the use of flying brothels at least in part due to the criminal nature of such activity. However, let’s not forget that in the scenario under discussion the clients are paying for the provision of a private flight, not the provision of sex or a sexual partner. The provision of a space on a flight does not necessarily mean a seat, Virgin Atlantic also sell ‘beds’ and one could argue that there is more privacy on this operators flight than on a Virgin Atlantic one. 

A recent improvement to flying comfort has been introduced by Air New Zealand who now offer ‘cuddle class’ which is pitched at couples and families.  A row of three seats can be purchased and converted to a couch. Sadly for those wishing to join the Mile High club the airline has stressed that whilst cuddles are permitted, anything raunchier is not. However, Rob Fyfe, the airlines CEO did say ‘just keep your clothes on please’ so perhaps it is permitted so long as you  aren’t naked… who knows? As can be gleaned from this discussion it is not impossible to find a solution and it would be interesting to see if the operator does appeal the decision. It may be that all these considerations have been discussed between operator and CAA and the operator’s aircraft is found to be inappropriate or that to achieve a safe flight it becomes too long a flight and therefore not cost effective. Without the full facts the CAA is likely to be painted as the dominatrix ‘Miss Whiplash’ in this. However, as a publicly funded safety regulator it must be seen to be maintaining public safety and not public morals.

What is important to remember is that the Operator has suddenly lost his business and his livelihood.  Whilst the business may not be to everyones taste, it is clearly popular and, very probably, lucrative.

Tweet