CAA Action and Prosecution

[Smeagels Boyfriend]

Was postioning to work today and whilst waiting for my airline and doing the usual trawl of the aviation publications in WH Smith i noticed an interesting article about a flying instructor in Pilot Magazine.

Basically there has been some sort of infringement of an ATZ (Panshanger i think) which was investigated by the CAA's enforcement department and not prosecuted. The instructor then got a letter from PLD telling him to stop instructing.

Now i'm at the FBO and bored so i thought i'd look into this abit more and found this
[http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/755/CAAProsecutionsPolicyProceduresJune2005.pdf

Although it is a 2005 link it is the most recent i can find, and In the licence action section it says
"Refusal, revocation, suspension or variation of a licence, certificate or approval may only be taken if the conduct of the person concerned is such that he does not meet the criteria for holding such a licence, certificate or approval."

This is just out of shear curiosity (honestly your honour) can PLD really just contact you and suspend your licence? Does this apply to ATPL holders who are flying commercially too if they mess up enough? Can't remember the outcome because i slept on the airline but what is going on, and why have PLD got involved?

Just shear curiosity (it wasn't me either i work for NJE!!!!)

[parkfell]

Might one possible explanation be that after discussions with the CAA, this course of action was reached, and thus avoiding a court appearance where the outcome would result in a conviction?:hmm:

[ZeBedie]

I guess you were looking at this bit:



Licence Action

Licensing action cannot properly be taken in order to punish the licence holder. If the law has been broken, the offender can only be punished by the Courts after a prosecution. Refusal, revocation, suspension or variation of a licence, certificate or approval may only be taken if the conduct of the person concerned is such that he does not meet the criteria for holding such a licence, certificate or approval.

[Smeagels Boyfriend]

Zebebebebeee

yes was looking at that bit, and applying that part of the CAA's own rules they couldn't take licensing action, ie remove his instructor rating unless he doesn´t hold the requirements for licence issue (ie he´s been telling porkies)

The reason i put this in rumours and news initially because i thought it may have wider implications for the pilot community as a whole. If the rules say "we can´t take your licence/rating away" (punishment) but then someone from PLD says, we are taking your instructor rating stop instructing doesn´t seem fair. How far can they take this with professional licence holders if they don´t seem to comply with rules they set out? Could it be removal of licence?


Parkfell

As i understand the prosecution process, the head of enforcement makes the decision to prosecute or not and then is passed along to the Lawyers to deal with. If the case subsequently goes to court it´s the magistrates who deal with the case from there so negociating at that point would be useless because the magistrate probably doesn´t know an awful lot about aviation law! Please correct me or feel free to add or set straight.

[DB6]

There may be more to it of course, but if the Pilot article is accurate the CAA would appear to have been way out of line - one chap in particular - and might just get hammered on this one.

[Whopity]

The instructor then got a letter from PLD telling him to stop instructing.


Before any such action could be taken the person concerned would be invited for interview to be conducted by two pilots; the interviewee may take a friend or representative or, may decline the invitation. Unless there is a major safety issue, the above action is most unlikely. The CAA will only revoke a licence or rating if the holder is deemed an unsuitable person to hold the licence or rating; in most cases that would be the result of a court conviction.

[Smeagels Boyfriend]

Whopity
You sound quite knowledgable so i'm going to pick on you if you don't mind.

Quote
The CAA will only revoke a licence or rating if the holder is deemed an unsuitable person to hold the licence or rating; in most cases that would be the result of a court conviction.

I do seem to remember something from the article saying he was interviewed by two people at Gatwick, but one of the two could see what had happened and basically brought the interview to an end. However that was after he was told to stop instructing (i think). If someone who has the article could enlighten me further, or even post the whole article i didn´t buy a copy and it wasn´t that long.

That still doesn´t explain why this chap was "set upon" by PLD, and just exactly what powers they have. If the CAA thought he´d been negligent shirly the enforcement dept had all the facts and would have prosecuted? For the CAA ARE dept to say "no mate your off the hook" then PLD say "right now it´s my go" seems just a little unfair.

[A and C]

The CAA have a less than faultless record when it comes to prosecution of pilots and it would seem that in this case the lawers and enforcment did not fully understand the issue in question. Some might say that the CAA jummped the gun in this case and that compensation is due to the instructor in question for loss of income but I suspect that such an action would not be worth the shot & powder in terms of recoved money.

This case has a lot of the marks of another case a few years back when the CAA prosecuted an instructor for low flying (during EFATO trainning). This was an ill conceved action that seemed to have been taken because of the protests of a local anti aviation person who was smart enough to get the CAA legal department to do the dirty work.

The whole case fell apart when it turned out that the CAA witnesses could not agree if the offending aircraft was high or low wing, so if the witnesses could not agree on this how could that say that they had all been looking at the same aircraft?
How the CAA got taken in by this fabrication by a bunch of local "antis" is still a sorce of amusment to me with the "the flying lawer" making the whole two day trial look like an episode of Rumpoe of the bailey.

All turned out well in this case but without well resorced defence the story could have been a disaster for the pilot in question.

For me the real issue here is that the CAA is more than willing to chase pilots for ill founded nif-naf & trivia but has yet to prosecute one person for smoking in an airliner toilet, I can't help trying to balance the public saftey issues between a light aircraft flying at slightly below 500ft during EFATO trainning and the results of an airliner having a cabin fire mid-Atlantic.

I can only conclude that prosecuting pilots is the easy way to keep a job in the very cushy if Aviation House.

[Whopity]

and just exactly what powers they have.As the granter of the licence/rating they have the power to revoke it in the interest of safety however; to do so does require evidence. In my experience the number of prosecutions and actions against pilots are very low however they always attract attention and then the one sided stories emerge.

[Spitoon]

and just exactly what powers they have.

To be precise....

Article 27 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 sets out the basis on which the CAA will issue a personnel licence. The important bit is in para 1.

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the CAA shall grant licences, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, of any of the classes specified in Part A of Schedule 8 authorising the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, upon being satisfied that the applicant is:
(a) a fit person to hold the licence; and
(b) is qualified by reason of his knowledge, experience, competence, skill and physical and mental fitness to act in the capacity to which the licence relates;
and for that purpose the applicant shall furnish such evidence and undergo such examinations and tests (including in particular medical examinations) and undertake such courses of training as the CAA may require of him.

There is clear legislation about what the CAA must do if it wishes to revoke or vary a licence and what rights of appeal the licence holder has. This is all set out in Regulation 6 of the Civil Aviathority Regulations 1991 which says:

(1) The functions conferred on the Authority by or under Air Navigation Orders with respect to:
(a) registration of aircraft;
(b) certification of operators of aircraft;
(c) certification of airworthiness of aircraft;
(d) noise certification;
(e) certification of compliance with the requirements for the emission by aircraft engines of unburned hydrocarbons;
(f) personnel licensing;
(g) licensing of aerodromes;
(h) validation of any certificate or licence;
(i) approval of equipment and approval or authorisation of persons;
(j) approval of schemes for the regulation of the flight times of aircraft crew;
(k) receiving reports of reportable occurrences;
(l) making air traffic directions;
(m) making airspace policy directions;
are hereby prescribed for the purposes of section 7(2) of the Act.
(2) Subject to paragraphs (8) and (9) of this regulation, a decision with respect to any of the matters referred to in paragraph (1) of this regulation, being a decision to register, refuse to register, cancel or amend the registration of an aircraft or to grant, refuse to grant, validate, refuse to validate, revoke, suspend, vary or refuse to vary a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation or rating, or make an air traffic direction or an airspace policy direction may be made on behalf of the Authority only by a member or employee of the Authority.
(3) Subject to paragraphs (8), (9) and (10) of this regulation, where –
(a) it is decided that it would be inexpedient in the public interest for an aircraft to be registered in the United Kingdom; or
(b) an application for the grant, validation or variation of a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation or rating has been refused or granted in terms other than those requested by the applicant;
the Authority shall serve on the applicant a notice stating the reasons for the decision, and the applicant may within 14 days after the date of service of that notice request that the case be reviewed by the Authority.
(4) Subject to paragraphs (8), (9) and (10) of this regulation, where it is proposed to –
(a) cancel the registration of an aircraft on the grounds that it would be inexpedient in the public interest for it to continue to be registered in the United Kingdom; or
(b) revoke, suspend or vary a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation, validation or rating or make an air traffic direction or an airspace policy direction under an Air Navigation Order otherwise than on the application of the holder;
the Authority shall serve on the person concerned notice of the proposal together with the reasons for it, and the person concerned may within 14 days after the date of service of that notice, serve on the Authority a request that the case be decided by the Authority and not by any other person on its behalf.
(5) Any person who has failed any test or examination which he is required to pass before he is granted or may exercise the privileges of a personnel licence may within 14 days after being notified of his failure, request that the Authority determine whether the test or examination was properly conducted.
(6) (a) The function of deciding a case where such a request as is referred to in paragraph (3), (4) or (5) of this regulation has been duly served on the Authority is hereby prescribed for the purposes of section 7(1) of the Act: and for the purpose of making any decision in such a case a quorum of the Authority shall be one member.
(b) The Authority shall sit with such technical assessors to advise it as the Authority may appoint, but the Authority shall not appoint as an assessor any person who participated in the decision or proposal or in giving or assessing the test or examination which is to be the subject of the Authority’s decision.
(7) Where a request under paragraph (3), (4) or (5) has been duly served, the Authority shall, before making a decision:
(a) consider any representations which may have been served on it by the person concerned within 21 days after the date of service of the notice under that paragraph given by the Authority; and
(b) where the person concerned has requested the opportunity to make oral
representations in his representations under sub-paragraph (a) above, afford him an opportunity to make such representations and consider them.
(7A) (a) Where an oral hearing is held it shall be held in public except where the Authority is satisfied that, in the interests of morals, public order, national security, juveniles or the protection of the private lives of the parties a private hearing is required, or where it considers that publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
(b) The following persons shall be entitled to attend the hearing of an appeal,
whether or not it is in private:
(i) a member of the Council on Tribunals or of the Scottish Committee of that
Council; and
(ii) any other person which the Authority, with the consent of the parties,
permits to attend the hearing.
(8) Nothing in this regulation shall:
(a) prevent the Authority or any person authorised so to act on behalf of the
Authority from provisionally cancelling the registration of an aircraft or provisionally suspending or varying any certificate, licence, approval, authorisation, validation or rating granted or having effect under an Air Navigation Order or making a provisional air traffic direction pending inquiry into or consideration of the case;
(b) apply to the variation of a flight manual, performance schedule or other
document incorporated by reference in a certificate of airworthiness;
(c) apply where the Authority refuses to register or cancels or amends the
registration of an aircraft or refuses to grant or validate, grants or validates in
terms other than those requested by the applicant, revokes, suspends or varies a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation or rating pursuant to a direction given by the Secretary of State.
(9) Nothing in paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of this regulation shall apply:
(a) in respect of a medical certificate or certificate of test or experience relating to a personnel licence;
(b) where pursuant to its duty under section 5 of the Act, the Authority refuses an application for the grant of an aerodrome licence or grants such an application in terms other than those requested by the applicant or proposes to revoke, suspend or vary an aerodrome licence otherwise than on the application of the holder.
(10) Nothing in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this regulation shall apply where the Authority –
(a) refuses an application by the holder of an aerodrome licence for the substitution of an ordinary aerodrome licence for a public use aerodrome licence; or
(b) proposes, otherwise than on the application of the licence holder, to substitute a public use aerodrome licence for an ordinary aerodrome licence.

[Smeagels Boyfriend]

So ARE have looked at this poor chap and decided no action, and from what was posted earlier PLD have now backed off. So one wonders which department might be next, and can this sort of event go through every department in the CAA for assessment? That's where the money go's then!

Also having read the very interesting last post what is the relevance of the CAA publishing my initial link as "guidance" if they can always fall back on the legislation to remove a holders licence?

Sorry for getting abit deep i find this sort of thing really interesting.

[BristolScout]

It's a long time since I worked for the CAA in licensing. It was then called FCL and lived in Aviation House, Holborn so my observation may be out of date but the philosophy then was that the Authority loved a sinner come to repentance. So if someone did infringe the law and put his hands up there was usually no formal action taken beyond constructive advice and a warning letter placed on his record for a limited period. We did have the power to vary a person's licence by, for example, limiting the privileges until the pilot had re-sat the Air Law exam. I'm not suggesting the system was perfect but it did enable a graduated and proportional response to violations without invoking the majesty and expense of going to law. This was actually very pragmatic since the rights of appeal against the decisions of the Authority, contained in Section 6 of the ANO (the bit at the back which nobody ever reads) are considerable and time-consuming. Prosecution was always a last resort.

[StrateandLevel]

Once upon a time the CAA employed Aviators; now it is managed by accountants and has managers who know bugger all about aviation; "Infesters in People" I think they call it"!

[N.HEALD]

Toothless bulldogs some would say, how many people that should be presecuted get away with things simply because the CAA fail to have the bottle to actually presecute when people flagrantly and deliberately break the rules, yet will prosecute someone for accidentally infringing airspace because its an easy win

[olster]

Michael O'Leary, mega unpopular head of Ryanair is absolutely spot on when it comes to his (very) un -pc assessment of BAA and in this case the CAA:they really are the most ineffectual of regulators.In this instance happy to run after a hapless and probably impoverished flying instructor but ready to roll over whenever an airline like say,easyJet wants to alter cap 371 for its own agenda.

The impression of the CAA as a bunch of time-servers hanging on for the pension and the luncheon vouchers is only too accurate unfortunately.

[Whopity]

No luncheon vouchers at Gatwick!

[BristolScout]

Olster.

You're hugely wide of the mark. The CAA will, of course, respond appropriately to requests from airline operators but it does not automatically accede to requests, any more than it does from recreational pilots. I remember a time when they were within 24 hours of grounding a certain, well-known and respected airline which had used delaying tactics to avoid implementing a mandatory change.

Ryanair is an Irish airline and so not regulated by CAA.

[BEagle]

Personally, I though it very unprofessional and unreasonable of AOPA to print the name of the CAA investigator in the recent General Aviation article.

[2close]

If you take a read of Regulation 6 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1991 it explains the CAA's powers when it comes to revoking, suspending, etc. personnel licences and also the appeal process.

The Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19911672_en_3.htm#mdiv6)

The Guidance Document

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/3/Reg6Guidance2006v2.pdf

[TheOddOne]

Personally, I though it very unprofessional and unreasonable of AOPA to print the name of the CAA investigator in the recent General Aviation article.

BEagle,

Personally, I think it very unprofessional and unreasonable of the CAA to publish the name and address of every aircraft owner on the 'G' reg. Obviously the CAA think it appropriate for people's personal details to be bandied about so they can't really object when other people do the same, can they?

Just you try and find out the name and address of a car owner without good cause. They're certainly not available casually on a web-site.

TheOddOne

[TheOddOne]

Personally, I though it very unprofessional and unreasonable of AOPA to print the name of the CAA investigator in the recent General Aviation article.

BEagle,

Personally, I think it very unprofessional and unreasonable of the CAA to publish the name and address of every aircraft owner on the 'G' reg. Obviously the CAA think it appropriate for people's personal details to be bandied about so they can't really object when other people do the same, can they?

Just you try and find out the name and address of a car owner without good cause. They're certainly not available casually on a web-site.

TheOddOne

[olster]

BristolScout

I am aware that Ryanair is an Irish airline;however,that has not stopped MOL commenting on the CAA and the integration of their activities with his company.I guess we should 'agree to disagree' and that my considerable dealings with the CAA have frequently been disappointing on many levels.

I would concede that there is the odd individual 'star' that only serves to highlight the others.The changing of the easy ftl to suit the commercial agenda of the time was at the behest of the airline (including the approval of 5 consecutive 'earlies') was an obvious example of 'the tail wagging the dog' in the pursuit of economic goals.Prosecuting a flying instructor for a reasonable mistake seems heavy -handed in comparison but appears to correspond with the mo of the organization.Only my opinion.

best wishes