Dodgy flying school going ons. What to do?

[Say again s l o w l y]

A bit of advice would be appreciated.

I have heard from a source that I trust implicitly that a certain school I used to teach at has been up to no good. The owner of the school (a PPL holder) has been spotted taking trial lessons. This is not something I have seen myself yet, but I will be investigating. Aside from any legal issues, I worry since I hardly rate the chap as competent enough to fly himself, let alone an unsuspecting and paying punter.

So, what is the best course of action? Talk my concerns through with a mate from the Belgrano? Confront the school? Or go down an 'official' route? (whatever that may be.)

Has anybody had any experience of this sort of thing? If so, what was the outcome.

Cheers in advance.

[noisy]

Your source is clearly not an idiot, but hearsay is not much to go with. You need dates, times and photographs. (The risk being that the guy could kill someone while evidence is collected). This sort of behaviour is bad for the whole flying community and personally I wouldn't hesitate to shop him to the CAA.

Not very much fun. :(

[mybawbag]

Just being noisy, any chance of saying which school this is. As im looking for a FI job, and dont want to be going to one with bad rep and practise.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I won't say who it is in public, as I don't want to get Pprune into trouble.

It will probably be known soon enough anyway........:{

[jaarrgh]

SAS
That is a terrible state of affairs! I aggree that the best route is the official one but with evidence eg tech logs and even testimony from the students as to who flew it. I would take him/her straight to the CAA. I think many of us have come accross pushy owner/operators who believe the rules don't apply. Not only do they endanger others but also we all end up being dragged in to the sinking mess. I wish you luck.
!

[tacpot]

The evidence would also need to include invoices and receipts for the flying to show that commercial flight had taken place.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Getting the evidence is the very first step, what I would really appreciate is some idea of what to do with it after collection. I don't want to be vindictive and potentially take down what has been a good place in the past.

Dilemmas, dilemmas....

[niknak]

Don't do anything that may put you at any risk, just refer it to the CAA, they have their ways and means of collecting evidence, and its probably far better that you're not involved beyond the initial reporting stage.

[2close]

Niknak's on the ball. Let the powers that be deal with it.

It's quite possible that this may wind up as a criminal prosecution so you don't want to run the risk of getting yourself caught up with any legal technicalities.

Best Regards,

2close

[Send Clowns]

Keep track though. The Belgrano can be very wary of even investigating these things very thoroughly, let alone prosecuting, for fear of legal action. There was a case I know of not dissimilar that they refused to deal with until too late. So monitor what goes on, and if the CAA does nothing within a time period you think reasonable then let this person know that you know what's going on. He must be stopped before someone is killed.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Good advice all round, thanks.

E-mail being sent to the Belgrano this afternoon.

[SKYYACHT]

If this truly is the case, then the implications are potentially very bad. If the flight is being conducted 'illegally' by a PPL holder, then should any sort of incident/accident occur, then I doubt if the insurers would be too keen to hand over wads of greenbacks! Secondly, this sort of conduct hugely damages the reputation of all in the flying community, with the media fallout further tarnishing GA's already delicate reputation (vis...Low Flying, Noise etc etc). Likewise, it is morally unacceptable to condone by inaction such a dangerous activity being perpertrated on an unsuspecting member of the general public.

However, I endorse the comments above that such matters should be placed squarely into the hands of the regulators and the enforcement branch of the CAA. Naturally, the only option is to report your suspicions and 'allegations' (As until they are proven they can not be said to be accusations!) I am sure that those with a finer legal brain than mine will correct me if I am wrong, or offer further more relevant advice!

Tailwinds

[essouira]

On a similar note - my local flying school has employed a newly qualified instructor, straight from test, who is teaching fulltime with no unrestricted instructor on site ie this guy is getting no supervision. I suspect that this negates the CAA school authorisation and probably the insurance but am at a loss as to what to do. I don't want the guy to lose his licence or the school to be shut down but believe that it is dangerous for him to be instructing without the support/advice of a more experienced supervisor. Was it clearer when we had an "AFI" rating ? Am I just being an old fart ? Who has a view ?

[BlueLine]

Would you want members of your family to go for a "trial flight" knowing that they were probably not insured? That the organisation was not correctly supervised, that corners were being cut; and that the management were failing to exercise any duty of care

I think the answer is obvious!

A useful number is 0207 453 6175

[BEagle]

Probably the most ridiculous piece of Eurocracy concerning FIs was the introduction of the 100/25 requirement for upgrading. Previously it was by test - for all the AFIs who hadn't been snapped up by the airlines by then, that is.

The 100 hours instructional time could be a succession of trial flights, the 25 solo sign-offs can easily be achieved if people have a think about it. But it proves nothing. OK - 100 hrs and a test I would agree with - but the 25 solo sign-offs are a complete irrelevance.

At least the definition of 'supervision' is now more flexible. It doeasn't exist........

[Say again s l o w l y]

Well unfortunately this has come back to life.
This time it's even worse, with both one of the company directors and a newly minted 17 year old PPL taking up trial lessons. Neither of whom have anything but basic PPL's. I'm spitting chips about this.

This time however, there is more evidence. So another letter to the Belgrano and hopefully something may actually happen this time!

[thereceiver2004]

perhaps the police should be involved afterall they are acting illegally and a phone call to the campaign at Gatwick

[NorthSouth]

essouira:my local flying school has employed a newly qualified instructor, straight from test, who is teaching fulltime with no unrestricted instructor on site ie this guy is getting no supervisionDifficult one this. The JAA FI regs don't specifically require a supervising instructor on site whereas the old UK AFI regs did. Common sense says there should be one but in this particular case I'd say if the guy's working full-time he'll very quickly gain the knowledge and experience required to make sound judgements. But if he's working on his own he'll never get his 25 sup. solos - unless he fiddles them, but no-one does that ;)

As regards the illegal trial flights, if you don't work there any more SAS, why not give the guy the benefit of the doubt and speak to him about it. It'll either get him to stop without the CAA getting involved, or confirm to you that he needs the heavy hand of the law.

NS

[md902man]

I posted last year about a similar subject. If you were to visit a certain few heli schools on certain days, you'd see illegal flights taking place, ie commercial flights (peasure trips) without a commercial pilot at the controls.
Maybe my name gives me away but I am powerless to do anything about it. Having had the CAA investigate a few instances, I have been informed that there was no evidence, the owner of said companies showing only trial flight took place etc. I do know of a flight which took place, was claimed as a trial lesson, was a land-away at an unlicensed site and they got away with that too. How? Claimed it was a private flight by the pilot. The pilot is known for constantly doing illegal flights!!

[Speed Twelve]

Regarding the alleged criminal activity at a certain flying school with illegal trial lessons. I doubt the individual who may be involved in perpetrating this activity would by interested in any advice given to them by a professional pilot. They certainly haven't listened to any in the past...

This complete abandonment of flying safety standards at a JAR flying school is a serious matter. It must be stopped for the safety of the public, conned into thinking they are paying money to fly with a properly qualified instructor.

ST

[NorthSouth]

Why on earth is it NECESSARY? With FIs getting paid ten quid an hour it's hardly a money-spinner to have a PPL flying it instead of an instructor. And since it's allegedly happening at a school it's not as if they have a problem with instructor availability.

NS

[DFC]

North South,

You are quite correct - big difference between supervision and observation!

However;

But if he's working on his own he'll never get his 25 sup. solos - unless he fiddles them, but no-one does that

Provided that he does not authorise any first solos or any first solo crosscountry flights, there is nothing stopping them from gaining their required solo supervisions on all the other solo flights that students make - second, third fourth solo etc and second/subsequent navigation solos!

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

It does seem that there is a lack of instructors at this particular school which has prompted this sort of unacceptable behaviour.

NorthSouth, I did consider going and talking 'man to man', but I'm not sure how productive that would be. I don't work there any more and since I know only instruct for a bit of fun, I am not particularily worried about stepping on toes about this, but it would make them aware that this has been noticed and unfortunately it may lead to a fast bit of record changing. (If they weren't falsified already.)

I know the campaign have proved themselves pretty toothless at times, but I reckon this is something they could get their baby teeth into.

This sort of thing needs to be stamped on and fast. I may yet take the bull by the horns, but at the moment I would like to see what the authority will do first.

I really wish I could just name the school and spread the word, but I don't think Danny would appreciate that somehow!

[Blackshift]

This will be the same Director who, shortly after taking over the reins at this establishment :-

(a) announced that it's not necessary to be an FI to perform the functions of a CFI

(b) posed the zen-like question "What is an instructor anyway?"

(c) is known to associate with a certain other infamous PPL CFI, from whose temple of wisdom he has doubtless graduated.

...such thoughts promptly inspired most of his instructors to resign and pursue their destiny elsewhere.

The subsequent nominal or "puppet" CFI ( I'm doing him a favour here, since this would be his best line of defence in court if the above allegations are true) recently stood up at a social gathering within the club and announced that things had greatly improved since they had got rid of the old instructors - much to the disgust of many club members who, unlike him, had experience of the club with the previous instructor team, and actually knew the difference.

The current situation as outlined in previous posts would therefore be laughably farcical were it not so wilfully negligent and dangerous with regard to public safety. It is scarcely possible for a driver to obtain insurance to transport a member of the public on the road in a taxi until he is aged 25 - to put a 17 year old in such a position in an aeroplane without fit and proper experience, qualifications and insurance would be a serious crime.

I sincerely urge any instructor associated with this outfit who may be aware of such goings-on to resign as soon as they possibly can for the sake of their own professional integrity, and the hard-won priviledges contained in their own licence.

"What is an instructor anyway?"

....The only way he'll learn the answer to that is when he no longer has any.

[Say again s l o w l y]

A phonecall and letter to the Belgrano has been done, but like everything, there is a procedure and like it or not we are all innocent until proven guilty.

Going in guns blazing may make you feel better, but at the end of the day procedures need to be followed. So it may be better if the previous poster removed the name of the school. I'm not confirming it's them however.

[tonker]

I have removed my post naming the school in Glenrothes, not that it's their of course.

The CAA had better bloody do something about this sort of behaviour before it pervades the rest of our professional enviroment. I just know the minute i inavertantly do something wrong i'll have people down on me like a loads of bricks.

cheers Tonker

[Tallbloke]

If you know someone has burgled your neighbours house, do you ask others what you should do or contact the police?

If the law is being broken surely the only people who should be informed are the appropriate authorities. If the criminal law is being broken surely that is the police. Illegal operations do the cause of aviation no good at all, neither does public hand wringing.

And for the conspiracy theorists....if one business is in competition with another business one method sometimes used by unsavoury competition is the dissemination of false information to dissuade prospective new clients. Whilst I am sure this is not the case in this case and I am not for one instance casting any doubt on any claim made in the above post, this is perhaps the wrong arena in which to discuss such matters.

[Say again s l o w l y]

In response to the last post, it is a fair point that some people may use this sort of thing for their own ends. Not in this situation however.

I have no connection with any school in that area and this is not motivated by anything other than horror that this sort of thing happens.

It's not as cut and dried as the analogy you use referencing a house being burgled, unfortunately.

We'll have to see what happens.

[Blackshift]

If the law does not appear to show sufficient teeth when dealing with such matters, as has been suggested by others above, this is indeed an appropriate forum for such discussion.

It is not, however, an appropriate place to name the alleged perpetrators of criminal activity.

[Tallbloke]

How is burglery a more criminal act than acting not in accordance with the ANO? Because it is an offence against the person? How much damage could this person do to the whole flight training industry if he were allowed to continue operating and went on to have an accident. The press would have a field day, the NIMBY's would be given yet more ammunition to bash flying schools with etc. If a person suspects a pilot of being drunk, they tell the police (witness the farce of the Manchester go-arounds). How is this case any different?

[Blackshift]

In this case, irrespective of the legal outcome, we have the ability to influence our peers not to stand for such conduct within their own zone of influence.

In doing so we can help to protect the good name of the industry and avert a tragedy that would provide fodder for public scandal.

It's quite simple really and its Pprune at its best.

[Sally Cinnamon]

I'm surprised this chap hasn't started doing his own engineering too like his fellow PPL CFI buddy, based about 30 nm WSW from him. :rolleyes:

[Speed Twelve]

Yeah, there's nothing you can't fix with a trip to Halfords, a hammer, and the Haynes Workshop manual for the Katana. Who needs engineers?!? Or properly qualified flying instructors for that matter? It's a free-for-all folks! Do what you like!

ST

[Blackshift]

Any instructor who turns up for work at such an establishment without complaint in the full knowledge of what is going on is criminally complicit, and should hang their head in shame.

You know who you are.

The proverbial dogs in the street will know who you are by now.

[Another Pilot 2005]

I know who they are....
It is really bad...if it's happened twice, then it will happen again.
I once heard the new 'director' clear an aircraft for take off (not a controlled airport) with the CFI around and the CFI did not say a word about it, probably too scared to open his mouth. What a man!

Blackshift is absolutely right...

Shame on the 17 year old too who obviously does not know about the privileges of his licence.

SAS, I know who you are talking about and I definitely agree with you, these people are dangerous and not very professional, to say the least....They are just in for the money, they know absolutely nothing about aviation!
Take the matter as far as you can with the campaign.

Good luck

[NorthSouth]

Guys, before you bust a blood vessel shopping allegedly illegal activity to the CAA just take a moment to consider the one missing item in all of this - the changing hands of money. If these alleged flights took place but the person receiving the flight did not give or promise valuable consideration then there is nothing illegal about them. If money did change hands then sure, go ahead and shop. But make sure you have the evidence before you waste the CAA's time and blacken fellow pilots' names. Some of you seem to have personal knowledge of this school. But the money side of any flying school is an administrative matter which may not be visible to the passing observer. Make sure you know what you are talking about.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Gift vouchers, say no more........

[tonker]

Just wondered if their was such a thing as a Cumbernauld sausage.

I've heard if you witness one smoking and then get the next chef to take it for inspection....say Belfast.....the chances are that the chef who has taken the sausage for inspection would have his life put at risk as he wasn't aware of the previous problem. He would then probably have to crash his sausage at any availble site.

Of course the chef who sent this bod on this suicide trip would obviously be reported and dealt with...........or not as the case may be!!

I suppose this is why they're called bangers:O

[Blackshift]

But make sure you have the evidence before you waste the CAA's time and blacken fellow pilots' names.
NorthSouth,

When this thread appeared last year I hoped it would serve as a shot across the bows for the operator concerned not to continue with such practices.

The more recent allegations, which are even worse, have also reached my own ears from a trusted source.

Bearing in mind that the operator concerned will no doubt have the gumption not to leave a transparent paper trail for any passing CAA inspector, what do you suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?

Lets not bother the busy and important men at the CAA.

Lets not go casting aspersions on our fellow aviators.

Lets just wait until it all goes tragically wrong one day.

Then those of us who knew what was happening can just quietly shrug and continue on our way without having troubled anyone about something that wasn't our doing anyway.

Thank you for taking an interest in my conscience.

[NorthSouth]

sas:Gift vouchers, say no more........But you do need to say more don't you? Certainly if these alleged flights were given in exchange for gift vouchers which were submitted to the operator and receipted then there's illegality. But as I said in my previous post you would have to be able to show that the gift voucher was used for that flight.

Looking back, all of this was already said way back last August by tacpot and jaarrgh. It's still true even though it's me saying it.

[Blackshift]

NorthSouth,

I grant you that those who post here are presumably not in the position to produce such hard evidence. If that's what you want to hear - well bully for you, now you've heard it!

Nevertheless I have good reason to believe that there are those who could and may well do so, in which case this thread will no doubt be pulled on account of the matter becoming sub judice.

In the meantime, however, I have 5 specific questions for you, to which I would be very grateful if you could extend me the courtesy of a reply :-

(1) It would appear that you would prefer us to put up or shut up, but has it not crossed your mind that this thread could encourage such a whistleblower to emerge with the requisite evidence, or at the very least have a quiet word with the alleged offender threatening to do so if this occurs again?

(2) Failing that, if others within the organisation know these allegations to be fact, could this thread not perhaps precipitate instructor resignations (if I was there right now, I'd certainly be on the look out for pastures new - plenty of vacancies elsewhere at the moment) and/or the alleged offender having his responsibilities quietly re-consigned such that he less able to continue offending in this manner?

(3) Even if none of this happens, if the alleged incidents are perhaps now just the slightest bit less likely to be repeated in the future would that in itself not justify the peer-pressure exercised by means of this forum?

(4) Having appealed to the conscience of those of us who have the temerity to "waste the CAA's time and blacken fellow pilots' names", here's an appeal to your own : I note from your profile that you are a fellow Instructor and yet I fail to detect any strong disapproval of these alleged infringements of our professional status by an employer or the consequential diminishment of public safety standards entailed if they are proven to be true - does this not trouble you at all?

(5) On behalf of those of us who have good reason to believe the allegations to be true, I repeat to you the question which I directed to you before, and to which you have chosen not to reply in your previous post : what do you suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?

A conspiracy of silence is no longer an option in any case, and with almost three and a half thousand views of this thread so far, I suspect that I am not alone in looking forward to your reply to these questions.

[NorthSouth]

Blackshift:
1) you misinterpret. I have never said "put up or shut up". I have simply said that if the CAA is to be approached with a view to regulatory action then you/they/whoever they are should be sure of their evidence. Yes, if the alleged events occurred then these discussions could well bring someone out of the woodwork with the requisite evidence. I have no problem with that. If it happened, it's wrong and it should stop.

2) Absolutely agree, if the alleged events did happen and there are people in the organisation that know this has been going on, then anything which encourages a little internal reflection is a good thing. But your question is a little odd. If there are instructors in this school who have known all along that PPLs have been illegally flying trial lessons, why would *they* resign? Wouldn't it be more likely that the instructors who DIDN'T know it was going on would resign? All on the assumption that the events did occur of course. I know it's not the fashion these days but I prefer to think that people are presumed innocent until proved otherwise. Hey there's an idea - flying school control orders. Dear Mr Clark.......

3) Like I said, I'm not suggesting that this thread is somehow illegitimate.

4) No, you can't accuse me of not disapproving. Throughout, I've said that if the evidence is there then it's illegal and it should be stopped. Don't try to turn the argument round. If I saw the alleged events happening where I work I'd be the first to object.

5) I refer you to my posts on 16 and 23 Feb. You're trying to twist the argument again. Don't confuse a concern with establishing evidence of wrongdoing with some sort of complicity with breaches of the ANO. You say you believe the allegations to be true. But the legal system still (so far) works on evidence, not faith.

NS

[Blackshift]

NorthSouth,

Thank you for your reply, which has indeed cleared up a few misunderstandings.

It is only fair that I likewise respond in turn to some of the points you have made in response to my questions :-

If there are instructors in this school who have known all along that PPLs have been illegally flying trial lessons, why would *they* resign? Wouldn't it be more likely that the instructors who DIDN'T know it was going on would resign?If they know about it, it doesn't mean they are happy about it or that they feel that they have any power within the organisation to do anything about it - hence the possibility that they might resign when their desire for a glowing reference is outweighed by concern for their own peace of mind, licence, and reputation.
No, you can't accuse me of not disapproving. Throughout, I've said that if the evidence is there then it's illegal and it should be stopped. Don't try to turn the argument round.I have asked you a simple question in order to clarify your stance on this issue, and moreover was not aware of any "argument" between us until your recent gibe about wasting CAA time (they get enough money from all of us and can get on with it as far as I'm concerned!) and blackening the name of fellow pilots (since when has pilot = good guy?).

I refer you to my posts on 16 and 23 Feb. You're trying to twist the argument again. Once again it's a straitforward question...

In your post on the 16th you suggested that SAS should have a quiet word with the alleged offender before deciding whether to involve the law. As ST replied "I doubt the individual who may be involved in perpetrating this activity would be interested in any advice given to them by a professional pilot. They certainly haven't listened to any in the past..." This is a point of view which has been echoed by others here including myself. The chap concerned has in fact been known to respond to such attempts at professional advice with an assurance that he has "done the correspondence course" - just witness the post by AP'05 to get some idea of the extent of this situation.

On the 23 Feb you appear to taunt us about missing evidence and then appeal to our conscience with regard to the poor overworked CAA and our apparent disregard for some kind of pilots code of honour. This time there is no positive suggestion or as to any course of action whatsoever, just stern warning to make sure we know what we are talking about.

Having therefore responded to your posts of the 16 and 23 Feb and moving on from there to where we are now, with no apparent smoking gun as yet, I am tempted to repeat to you the question a third time: what do you (now) suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?

Most of us are generally aware of how the law works thank you very much, and that is precisely why I have decided to stick my oar in on this thread in the meantime in order to do my bit to try to help bring about a result of some kind.

[NorthSouth]

what do you (now) suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?If you have the requisite evidence, use it. If not, there's no case.

[Blackshift]

Irrelevant conditional advice followed by an anodyne conditional assertion with which, on the face of it, one could hardly disagree.

However, whether or not there is in fact a case can hardly be said to depend on whether I myself have the requisite evidence. Whether or not I could be said to have a case is of course a very different question. But then it's not just about me, is it?

I retain a firm enough grasp of logic to recognise that you have still not answered the question that I have put to you three times now.

I'll tell you what, I'll start you off with the basic form of an appropriate relevant reply in a similar form to your previous attempt, but this time with an applicable conditional bit to start with which is valid in the context of the question, and you can finish it off for me : -

"If you do not have the requisite evidence, but nevertheless have good reason to believe such allegations to be true, then...."

If you think that I should say and do no more then why not just say so?

- answers on a postcard please.

[Send Clowns]

NorthSouth

You don't seem to realise how serious this is. Surely part of the responsibility of the CAA is to investigate this sort of allegation. They have authority to collect evidence that other people can't. They can look into paperwork that you or I could not ask to see, that might prove the issue. There is no need for evidence before informing the CAA.

[NorthSouth]

SendClowns: Fair point. Looking back, I see the CAA was informed on 19 August last year. Presumably if they thought it had substance they would have acted by now?

NS

[Blackshift]

Not only do they appear to have been informed in August last year, but also approximately ten days ago - and this time about the alleged repetition of such events to a worsening extent, which is what brought this thread back to life after a long period of inactivity.

It has become apparent to some, as it may to others, that they have done and are doing something about it.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It does sometimes matter WHO is informed rather than what form the information comes in.

Last time it took the form of a chat to a mate, this time it has seemingly gone up a gear, I wonder what they'll find? (I believe that the enforcement chaps have been to the school in question, good to see they take this sort of thing seriously.)

[lartsa]

The caa are shortly going to licence whistleblowers for a fee of £284.58 [yearly] subject to a annual checkout or 3 whistleblowings in the preceeding 12 months

they will only accept telephone calls from properley licenced blowers the first training courses starting at sherburn,shorereham ,gatwick,ascot,and cardiff commece in april

the first courses are for faa,medical and commercial reportings rotor wing [as this is the biggest growth industry at the moment]

lol

[Blackshift]

The Clowned Head of all that he surveys in his Kingdom's sadly diminished Flying Circus has developed a cunning plan of revenge : he has contacted the employer of one of his ex instructors to complain of his inappropriate use of computers in the workplace i.e. posting here when he should be working.

It is of course noteworthy that he should have reason to consider himself to be the subject of discussion in this thread.

However in this case he has added up "tree plus wun plus wun" and got something other than the correct answer.

Myself and others have agreed to disclose our identity to his employer to prove that we are not who Inspector Clouseau thinks we are. Some of us even have our own computers.

However, he could well be on a very sticky wicket here...

Harassing an ex employee in such a defamatory manner as to name him in connection allegations of misconduct in his current workplace which are so easily falsifiable (and therefore nothing more than the figment of a lamentably febrile imagination) is not really very clever I would have thought.

He would have been well advised to tread much more carefully.

This'll only serve to ensure that by now there will be even more who have got his number with regard to inappropriate use of aeroplanes in the workplace - and no mony o' them will want tae side wi him!