A seasonal reminder courtesy of the UK CAA

[JimBall]

With the open-air concert and gathering season upon us, the CAA's extensive legal department have a topical reminder for us all. News just in from the courts:


High flyer lands in the dock

Jeremy Paxton broke air aviation regulations

A flying businessman who uses his helicopter like other people use a car was fined yesterday after he breached air aviation regulations.

Jeremy Paxton took off from his helipad in The Warren, Caversham, while thousands of revellers gathered opposite the River Thames at the Womad and Reading festivals last year.

The 47-year-old millionaire violated Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) rules because he was within 1,000 metres of a public event of more than 1,000 people, Newbury magistrates heard yesterday.

Prosecutor Rushnee Shah told the court witnesses heard Paxton’s helicopter take off at about noon on July 29 last year – the second day of the Womad festival.

She said around 20,000 revellers would have been on the festival site at Rivermead, which is across the Thames from Paxton’s house and helipad, at the time. Paxton realised straight away he had breached the regulation and emailed the CAA that same day admitting he had flown out, Miss Shah said.

She said the businessman consequently undertook a training course on August 21 last year but three days later he committed a further breach when he flew off the day before the Reading Festival was due to kick off.

By that time some 60,000 revellers had descended on the Little John’s Farm site and were busy setting up their tents in anticipation of the rock festival, Miss Shah told the court.

She said Paxton had originally denied breaking the rule but co-operated fully with the CAA and later admitted the breach.

The court also heard Paxton had been granted permission by the CAA to fly below 1,000 metres to take off from and land at the helipad at his home, which is considered a congested area, and had no previous problems with the CAA.

Paxton, who is a trained commercial pilot and has clocked up more than 3,000 hours of flying, admitted the two charges.

The father-of-three, who moved to The Warren with his helicopter seven years ago, told magistrates he regretted breaching the regulations.

“I have never given the CAA any concern,” Paxton said. “Safety has been my priority and remains my priority.

“The offences that I am going to be convicted for will place me in some difficulty, not the fine but the criminal offence because I travel a lot to the US.

“I do regret it tremendously, one of the reasons I am here is to apologise to the court and the CAA.”

He was fined £400 for each of the offences and was ordered to pay £600 towards prosecution costs.

After the hearing Paxton told the Evening Post he used his helicopter like others used their car.

He added he did not use his helicopter for pleasure but as a means of transport.

[fkelly]

So getting an exemption for operating close to these well known events was too difficult then...

[Heliport]

So just a warning letter from the CAA for this trivia was too much to expect ..... :rolleyes:

[kissmysquirrel]

So if he'd crashed on take off, would he be labelled a 'hero' for narrowly averting disaster and not landing in the crowd?

Valuable court time taken up, when a letter of caution might have sufficed? No wonder real crims get away with murder these days, literally!

Another day living in a police state! Ho Hum.

[Whirlygig]

If he crashed on take-off, he'd have been in the Thames first!

Cheers

Whirls

[rudestuff]

what a disgrace that this was ever prosecuted.

Vote for me next general election and this sort of thing will be a thing of the past. Along with landing fees, motorway speed limits and those holiday camps we call prisons...

[JimBall]

The interesting bit:

She said the businessman consequently undertook a training course on August 21 last year but three days later he committed a further breach when he flew off the day before the Reading Festival was due to kick off.So - what training course do you get that teaches you how to read Rule 5 if you already know you've committed a breach ?

And flying off the day before the Reading festival - organised assembly.....the day before.....this guy needed a real lawyer.

Lesson 1: don't waste bandwidth sending an email to the CAA. Especially the same CAA that has given you an annual permission for your pad.

And the funny bit: CAA bods "dressing down" into rock gear, camping for the weekend and interviewing witnesses whilst dressed as mosh-pit specialists.

[Heliport]

Paxton realised straight away he had breached the regulation and emailed the CAA that same day admitting he had flown out, Miss Shah said.
And they prosecuted him!
Just the sort of thing that encourages pilots to be open about infringements.

three days later he committed a further breach when he flew off the day before the Reading Festival was due to kick off. He flew out again on the 24th, obviously believing he was doing nothing wrong, and they prosecuted him for that even though the "organised open-air assembly" didn't start until the 25th.

She said Paxton had originally denied breaking the rule but co-operated fully with the CAA and later admitted the breach.Sounds like he decided to cut his losses and admit the breach instead of spending time and money fighting it.

“I do regret it tremendously, one of the reasons I am here is to apologise to the court and the CAA.”I wonder what he was really thinking about the CAA . ;)

So a private owner who's serious enough about his flying to do a CPL, and has done 3000 hours with no problems, gets prosecuted for one trivial infringement which he reported and one that probably wasn't an infringement anyway. AND the CAA asks for £600 for their costs on top of the fine. £600!!!
Meanwhile, the CAA does nothing about the people we all know - and they know - who regularly do illegal public transport.

[helimutt]

NO!! they aren't! I personally don't think i'll tell the CAA anything anymore, unless forced to under oath in court. Seems like being honest drops you into the sh*t!

Maybe someone cancelled a test with the CAA and they needed the £600 to make up the shortfall.

Whilst on the subject of the CAA, visiting the Ivory Towers last week, I noticed in the 'subsidised' restaurant that employess get cheap meals and visitors get not so cheap meals. Hang on, isn't it the visitors, ie the licence holders etc, who should get the best deal? After all, we seem to pay for it in charges.

[Francis Frogbound]

Having had a visit from the enforcement people some years ago I can tell you it's very intimidating. Certainly if I'm accused of sinning again I won't see them without a lawyer present. This has been a complete over reaction to a simple error.

Having "done" this guy maybe they'll now start attacking all the uninsured illegal public transport which goes on under their noses.

Wonder what happened to the chap in a foriegn registered aircraft at Ascot last year....................

[nimby]

Heliport, I was surprised at you taking such a leading position.
Rule 5 (2)
(e) Flying over open air assemblies
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not fly over an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons below:
(i) a height of 1,000 feet, or
(ii) such height as will permit, in the event of a power unit failure, the aircraft to alight clear of the assembly, whichever is the higher. (my emphasis)
(f) Landing and taking off near open air assemblies
An aircraft shall not land or take-off within 1,000 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons, except:
(i) at an aerodrome, in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA, or
(ii) at a landing site other than an aerodrome, in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA and with the written permission of the organiser of the assembly.
This rule is carefully worded in such a way as to remove any doubt about whether the power available, alternate areas for rejection, etc. should be considered. I recall thinking about the possible objections when I sat my first Air Law exam back in 1980. I also recall the CFI explaining that (a) you can't examine every single incident so you write clear rules and (b) human herd behaviour is sometimes odd and unpredictable, best not to excite them!
Whether or not you regard such a Law as sensible (given the specifics of this location, the timing, etc.) it was clearly broken. Then broken again, just after 're-training'. I rather think the authority may have been assuming there's there's an attitiude issue here.
Clearly, there are many parts of the ANO where the reasoning is obscure to me ... for example the rules on how high you can fly a kite in an ATZ! (30m AGL btw), or the maximum volume of airship you can tether at an airfield without telling the CAA.
In this case there is a specific procedure, which if Mr Paxton had followed it, would have rendered the flights legal.
Respectfully,
NIMBY

[Heliport]

Nimby

I allow myself a personal view a few times each year. :)

Rule 5 (2)(e) Flying over open air assemblies
What's that got to do with it? :confused:
The CAA didn't claim he flew over (my emphasis) the revellers, and they didn't claim he would have been unable to alight clear of the assembly in the event of a power unit failure.

Rule 5 (2)(f) Landing and taking off near open air assemblies.
Even if a law restricting landing and taking off up to a kilometre away is sensible, enforcing it by prosecuting someone "given the specifics of this location, the timing, etc" and the circumstances is not sensible IMHO.

"it was clearly broken"
I don't think it's clear the law was broken on the second occasion.

Then broken again, just after 're-training'. I rather think the authority may have been assuming there's there's an attitiude issue here. Fair enough, but that's not how I see it.

H.


Interesting link ;) (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=897908)

[DBChopper]

The article makes no mention of whether Mr Paxton was represented at the court hearing, and seems to imply that he wasn't. Can anyone clarify? It also makes no mention of AOPA, who I suspect may have had a few things to say about this in his defence. So yet another over-zealous prosecution that is not in the public interest..

:rolleyes:

[heli1]

Interesting discussion.Definition of an "aerodrome "is anywhere that an aircrft flies from,so his regular helipad is an unlicensed aerodrome,therefore arguabl;y he didn't break the law !
In fact the boot should habe been on the other foot.
He should have warned the festival organisers of his aerodrome and to keep people clear or else they would be hazarding aircrft and liable to prosecution !
Why shopuld we be on the defensive all the time...a good lawyer would surely have been able to fight the CAA on this one.
What does Flying Lawyer say ??

[hihover]

Does anyone know if these festivals are held in the same place each year? I presume that they are, in which case, I smell a history here.

If Mr Paxton moved to The Warren 7 years ago with his helicopter, one would expect him to have noticed what has been going on across the river every so often. I would be very surprised if this is the first time that Mr Paxton and the "Campaign" have discussed this issue.

I hope he got a refund from the training course he undertook as a consequence of his first infringement.

[Hughes500]

Jeremy must be one of the most responsible pilots I have ever met what a joke !They should look into more serious matters eg. Recently my engineer reported to the CAA possible fuel contamination of one of my machines - MOR submitted ( 2 occassions on the same day had to do a forced landing ). The CAA turned up 3 days later looked at the fuel installation, their report consisted of 3 lines. They did not take a fuel sample, didnt look at the fuel filter and said that the installation at the airfield appeared to be new and was therefore ok ????????. Refused to anayise a sample from the helicopter or examine spark plugs that had been fouled within 20 mins of flying. Strangely change fuel to another supplier and problem goes away immediately.
Engineering has now said that will be the last time an MOR will be submitted, as it is a complete waste of time, not even the courtsey of a reply- just about sums up the CAA really

[zalt]

So no concept of a just culture at CAA?
Though at normal legal charging rates it obvious how long CAA spend thinking about this case (30seconds!).

Hughes 500

You have missed the point - its your job to do the tests (in the eyes of CAA). The MOR is only a reporting scheme it initiates no worth while action at CAA.

If you want to complain: [email protected] is in charge of MORs

[VeeAny]

Aerodrome defn from the ANO is
'Aerodrome' means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or
commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft and
includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or
elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the
landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically, but shall
not include any area the use of which for affording facilities for the landing and
departure of aircraft has been abandoned and has not been resumed;'
So Perhaps there is a point to be made !
I seem to remember an ex CAA speaker, who used to be in charge of Low flying Prosecutions talking at an FI seminar who said no one had ever contacted him, to say they had contravened a rule (even for a safety reason), perhaps now we can see why.
Flying Lawyer perhaps you could give your opinion, even if just based on what has been posted here, just for our education.
V.

[DennisK]

I'm confused.

On the basis Jeremy Paxton was charged with contravening the 1000 feet, 3000 persons rule, ( ie Rule 5, 1, (d) 1.) I'm sure most of us know that ... "It shall be a good defence to prove the flight was made at a 'reasonable' height and for a reason not connected with the event." (not exact ANO wording)

Knowing Jeremy as I do, it seems odd that he was not represented by an aviation knowledgeable lawyer.

A few years back, I was alleged to have broken one of the CAA's daft ANO rules, having taken off from and landing back at a private non CAA licenced site on my way to a licenced aerodrome for a training sortie. Leaving aside the outcome for a moment, the CAA elected to raise four identical charges for each occasion over a four day period, which had the charge been proved, would have increased the maximum allowable fine fourfold ! The case was discharged by the Magistrates Court, but the CAA then asked for costs of £6,000. Dear Jeremy you did well.

In my selling days, it became routine to make a helicopter sale to a newcomer to our industry. Buyers invariably owned a substantial property with land, where they planned to operate their newly acquired machine.

The above 'licenced airfield' requirement precludes an instructor from providing specific and dedicated 'on site' approach and landing training, which is an aspect where a new owner must surely benefit and which some might say is essential.

Many of us will know of one particular instance where a well known figure, being unable to receive any local 'on site' training and using his own 'site slope assessment' ... subsequently suffered a 'landing rollover' and demolished a one million dollar MD in the process!

How do ppruners apportion blame for that accident?

Dennis K

PS One day I suppose, I may well empty my closet and write up a dozen silmilar areas where common sense seems to have evaporated.

[JimBall]

Dennis: you appear to be quoting the old Rule 5. The new Rule 5 has a specific section about landing and taking off near open air assemblies : here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005a.pdf)

And there's a seperate doc which outlines procedures : here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Landing%20%20Take-off%20at%20organised%20open-air%20assemblies1.pdf)

Heard of a case recently where the CAA tried to prosecute someone for changing the landing site after the crew saw that the site nominated did not conform to requirements. Because that decision was taken in the air, no written permission was obtained although permission was obtained over the radio and the landing happened at a safer site still within the bounds of the landowner. However, CAA somehow found out and decided to launch an investigation - including questioning under caution and interviews with witnesses.

If it had gone to court, the CAA would have been prosecuting someone for being too safe!

[hihover]

Wouldn't that be something....
Captain ......, you are charged that, on the afternoon of ...., you did manoeuvre your aircraft in a manner that was safer than that for which you were authorised. How do you plead? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: