Helicopter commander in court for allegedly breaking rules

[helihub]

From the Maidenhead Advertiser here (http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-19213-helicopter-commander-due-in-court-for-breaking-rules/)


A helicopter commander is due in court accused of breaking flying regulations.

Vincent Campion, of Rogers Platt, Waltham St Lawrence, is charged with being the commander of a chopper which flew closer than 500ft to a person, structure, vehicle or vessel without the permission in writing of the Civil Aviation Authority.

The incident on April 14 involved a Robinson R44 helicopter which had earlier taken off from Sherburnin-Elmet, near Leeds. Evidence relating to the case is due to be presented at Maidenhead Magistrates’ Court on January 7.

[s1lverback]

Maybe he was on a long approach to land? :E

[ShyTorque]

Here's a relevant link:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/Prosecutions%201st%20April%202009%20-%2031st%20March%202010.pdf

(See page 2).

The CAA do not remove a pilot's licence for breaking the rules.

[Flying Lawyer]

If convicted of an offence, a pilot can be punished by the Court - and only by the Court.
The punishments available do not include any orders in relaton to the pilot's licence.

The CAA cannot and should not take licensing action in order to punish the licence holder. (Punishment is for the court to decide.) However, the CAA may take licensing action (revocation, suspension etc) if the conduct of the pilot is such that he/she does not meet the criteria for holding such a licence.

The CAA does not normally take licensing action - for the good and sensible reason that the fact that a pilot has broken an aviation law/regulation does not of itself mean that he/she is unfit to hold a licence.

FL

[hands_on123]

Prosecutions for low flying are extremely rare. It goes on all the time and you're very very unluckly if someone has accurate measuring equipment, or you do it over a large group of people, then phone up the CAA and confess!

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/272620-seasonal-reminder-courtesy-uk-caa.html

[ShyTorque]

The CAA does not normally take licensing action - for the good and sensible reason that the fact that a pilot has broken an aviation law/regulation does not of itself mean that he/she is unfit to hold a licence.

And by removing the "offender"s licence, they would be removing the right to work and the means to pay the fine!

[JimBall]

I note that the sub-heading in the thread adds the word "allegedly".



So does the main heading now.
Thanks for pointing out the error.

[PANews]

The headline and content in the news report that started this thread is even more specific but nothing illegal I guess, something to do with freedom of the press - but do we really need to know all the detail this side of a trial? Still stops the speculation about who it is on Pprune I guess!;)

Certainly nothing as iffy as the recent news headlines and finger pointing content relating to the landlord who is the latest 'Christmas Day murder' suspect in Bristol.




Thread title changed.

[John R81]

The thread title has now been changed.

[JTobias]

Anyone know what he is alleged to have done (in more detail....)

Joel



Even if you do, do not post allegations while there is a court case pending.

[Fly_For_Fun]

It is very interesting that the main thrust of opinion about this is that the pilot in question should under no circumstances lose the privileges of his license.

The CAA cannot and should not take licensing action in order to punish the licence holder. (Punishment is for the court to decide.)

I suppose you should not take licensing action against a driver who drinks and drives or causes death through careless or dangerous driving. Perhaps the courts should have powers to remove the privileges of a licence granted by the CAA. They are after all privileges not rights.

What a strange attitude some pilots have toward the actions of their own kind, no matter what the misdemeanour.

[Whirlygig]

I would not have thought that low-flying is in the same league as causing death by dangerous driving; probably more akin to speeding for which drivers do not lose their licence unless it's habitual or excessive.

Cheers

Whirls

[chopjock]

FFF
you are liking a drunk driver that kills to a pilot who flew closer than 500 feet with out permission. That's b@ll@cks. Would it make you happier if the pilot had permission? Would it make it any safer if the pilot paid his fee, got permission then didn't hurt anyone anyway?

[winchman]

That low level weather abort recce for pylons and hazards must be acceptable surely???

[ShyTorque]

What a strange attitude some pilots have toward the actions of their own kind, no matter what the misdemeanour.

I don't see much strange attitude here, only knowledge of the facts from previous cases taken to court.

[Jarvy]

I kind of agree with FFF. When we are granted a license we all agree to abide by the rules and regs, are we now saying that we can do what we like and still keep that license.
Maybe some sort of points system like driving licenses is called for.

[ShyTorque]

are we now saying that we can do what we like and still keep that license.

I don't think anyone here has said that, have they? :confused:

[zalt]

That is the implication.

[Whirlygig]

No, that is not the implication just what you have chosen to infer. It can't be beyond the comprehension of any reasonably intelligent person to understand that there are degrees of offence and that a pure low-flying allegation is less severe than flying under the influence for example.

The main point being made here is that it is down to the court to decide punishment, not the CAA.

Cheers

Whirls

[Fly_For_Fun]

Many of you miss my point. I am not judging the case at hand but giving my views on a mind set that appears to be prevalent amongst fellow aviators, and more so the non professional/commercial ones at that.

[Whirlygig]

and more so the non professional/commercial ones at that.Really? You know what licence everyone here holds? Even those whose posts have been deleted subsequently?

Cheers

Whirls

[parabellum]

When a person drinks and drives or exceeds the speed limit it is a deliberate act. Now we have to wait and see if this pilots actions were accidental or deliberate and not in any way influenced by safety issue that could override the standing laws.

[John R81]

Parabellum - not so. The rule stated:

5 (1) The prohibitions to be observed are

(a) An aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions set out in paragraph (2) subject to the low flying exemptions set out in paragraph (3).

Certain offences are "absolute". This means there is no "mens rea" requirement. So whether you intended to break the rule or not is not relevant and you have no defence here. As you can see, Rule 5 is such an "Absolute rule".

If you are closer than 500ft to a person, vessel, vehicle or structure in the UK (without specific authorisation from the CAA in writing, see 5(2)(b)), there is no question of whether you meant to or not. The only defences are that you are within one (or more) of the exemptions to the prohibition created by Rule 5(2)(b) contained in 5(3) (such as being in the process of take-off / landing (5(3)(a)(ii))).

If you are forced down by weather and not in the process of landing then coming within 500ft of a pylon (for example) breaks the rule in 5(2)(b). The weather conditions do not bring you within the scope of Rule 5(3) in any way that I can see. The weather conditions you may cite to the Court to take into consideration when sentencing (after your guilty plea); or CAA may decide not to prosecute on grounds of public interest but that is entirely for their discretion.

Let's see if this post gets deleted like my earlier observation

[Helinut]

FFF,

Can you point to any evidence to support this view you have of the prevailing attitude amongst Rotorhead pilots?

[Fly_For_Fun]

Helinut..read some of the posts.

Whirls..... you are taking this personally, it is not meant that way, just an observation. As they say, "if the cap fits....."

[misterbonkers]

Observation maybe but would you turn up at an RSPB meeting and state you enjoy shooting birds?

Most of us take pride in our licences and none of us want to lose them. We do not know for sure that he broke rule5 (the court will decide) nor do we know under what circumstances the accusation was brought about.

[poppahymen]

Off topic and very tongue in cheek. I know the world has somewhat changed since aviation first started but thank goodness the Wright Brothers and all the other many aviation pioneers got a head start on the various aviation authorities, otherwise I think aviation would of died in its infancy.

I say throw the book at him daring to commit aviation without submission first to the relative authorities :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
List of aviation pioneers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_pioneers)

[Whirlygig]

Whirls..... you are taking this personally, it is not meant that way, just an observation. As they say, "if the cap fits....."Hardly .... as I said, you do not know what licences people hold nor do you know in what capacity they use them.

You make a sweeping statement vis

but giving my views on a mind set that appears to be prevalent amongst fellow aviators, and more so the non professional/commercial ones at that.
without backing it up.

As far as I can tell, most people still extant as posting on this thread are professional and commercial helicopter pilots.

Cheers

Whirls

[yme]

I for one understand where F.F.F is coming from.
That said, there is probably a very feasible explanation for the pilots actions.

[Lost Again]

Perhaps the pilot in question could ask to be tried by 12 of his peers who have not broken the 500 ft rule, maybe the case would be dropped through lack of a jury.

On a serious note perhaps someone can create and post a few situations that would and would not break the 500 ft rule.

As an example if during training you carried out an approach to a landing site in a remote valley and then noticed that there was a footpath with a stile, you then broke off the approach would you have broken the 500 ft rule and would it have been legal to land - ie is the stile and footpath a structure?

regards

Richard

[Non-PC Plod]

Given that the CAA only prosecute about 25 offences of all descriptions from the entire UK aviation community per year, is it reasonable to infer you have to be pretty blatant/wilful/dangerous/extreme to attract the attention of their legal department?

[John R81]

Lost again

You can read the rules online here http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=rules+of+the+air&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=3234864&ActiveTextDocId=3234873&filesize=535

Addressing your question: No, your example does not break the rule regardless of whether the style is a structure.

You are in a helicopter on approach to land. Rule 5(3)(a)(ii) applies. If you continue and land then the rule continues to apply and you have not broken the 500ft rule by landing. When you then decide to abort the landing on finding that the location is unsuitable (or that the unexpected observation fot he style means that you want to rethink the location as a suitable landing site) that does not change the application of said rule.

If you had been practicing approach - with no intention to land - things would be different. As this activity is not within the scope of 5(3)(a)(ii) (it is a practice approach, not an approach to land) and the area is not a Government or licensed aerodrome (see 5(3)(a)(i)) then if the style is a structure you are in breach of the 500 ft rule and liable to prosecution.

If your question was "what is a structure", then the first place to look is Section 1 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007; the definitions section. As there is no definition here one then consults the Interprettion Act 1978, Schedule 1 to see if there is a definition of "Structure" contained there Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30) - Statute Law Database (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1838152) (which there is not). Thereafter one considers whether for the purposes of transportation, or for wider purpose, the word "Structure" has been considered by the UK Court, or whether there is from another source an accepted legal meaning of the word. The short-cut here is to consult Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. The word "Structure" would then be taken to mean a "building, an establishment or an erection". As these have in common the attribution of "man made" one would therefore be able to discount natural phenomina.

Hence a tree is not a structure (it is not man-made), but a post & wire fence is a structure (a man-made erection), as is the style in your example (which is also a man-made erection).

Simples!:ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

FFF, I found it disingenuous to compare a low flight to drunk driving.

One does not pull the license of a motorist who gets a speeding ticket.

The licence may get pulled if he is habitually cited for speeding.

See also with low flying.

Whirls made good point in re degree/severity of infraction.

[Fly_For_Fun]

Non PC, that would suggest to me that the CAA needs to start discharging its duties correctly and fully, and not just focussing on collecting money, but that is of course a whole new debate.

Lonewolf, read the posts. Who knows what this guy did or did not do, it is the idea that GA can self regulate safely that is in question, and this seems to be born out by some of the opinions here, that just a bit of low flying is OK....right up to the point where the tragic accident occurs. Regulations exist for the safety of the flyers and the public.

Fly safe and legal...... Simples!!

[ShyTorque]

FFF, as previously requested, please point out the posts where folks have said what you claim. I keep reading this thread but can't understand why you are making your viewpoint so strongly here.

Are you suggesting that the CAA should invoke a "one strike and you're out" policy? If so, please explain why.

[JimBall]

There, but for the grace of God, goes any pilot - professional or otherwise. Anyone with a licence can be on the receiving end of such a prosecution.

Rather than running a kangaroo court to decide the blame and the punishment, why not use the grey cells to discuss the problems inherent in Rule 5?

Your cockpit instrumentation can be set to give you a reasonable vertical reference to the nearest (maybe) 250ft. But how do you measure 500ft FROM anything? Similarly, how do you measure 600m FROM the nearest highest object in the 1000ft rule?

What if the subject is moving? Have you seen what 500ft looks like on a quarter-mill?

Your helicopter generally wasn't designed with Rule 5 in mind. It will tell you speed, alt or height vertically, rate of ascent/descent, direction of travel etc. But it would need a certified and very special device to make any readings of distance FROM a person, vehicle, vessel or structure.

Similarly, how does the reporting witness measure with any accuracy those same distances?

It is high time the UK adopted the US rules in this respect. There they simply prosecute for endangerment - which, after all, is what Rule 5 should be about. Instead we live with a scenario that everyone, including the FOI of the CAA, hates the drafting of Rule 5, but does nothing about it.

[ShyTorque]

Similarly, how do you measure 600m FROM the nearest highest object in the 1000ft rule?

That one's a little easier. At least if pre-planned, when it can be done using a 50,000 OS map. That is what I do if deciding whether or not a permission (£108, Ker-ching!) is required to land at a specific site.

[John R81]

Or go to your local park, stand next to a tree and then pace out 500ft (for a 6ft guy that's around 167 paces). Look back at the tree.

That's what 500ft looks like.

Kinda close, actually.

[Flying Lawyer]

Fly_For_Fun It is very interesting that the main thrust of opinion about this is that the pilot in question should under no circumstances lose the privileges of his license.No-one has either said or implied that. We don't know what 'the pilot in question' is alleged to have done or whether he actually did it, and know nothing about his flying history.
As a general comment, IMHO it is important to distinguish between low flying and endangering. Breaching Rule 5 is not necessarily endangering, just as exceeding the speed limit is not necessarily dangerous driving.

I suppose you should not take licensing action against a driver who drinks and drives or causes death through careless or dangerous driving.I don't understand how you get to that from "The CAA cannot and should not take licensing action in order to punish the licence holder. (Punishment is for the court to decide.)" :confused:
Perhaps the courts should have powers to remove the privileges of a licence granted by the CAA.I have seen no evidence whatsoever, during almost four decades in the courts and dealing with numerous aviation cases, which leads me to believe there is any need for the additional power you suggest. (Nor IMHO is it desirable.) Under the existing procedure, the CAA revokes or suspends a licence/certificate if a pilot's conduct demonstrates that he/she does not meet the necessary criteria to hold it.
What a strange attitude some pilots have toward the actions of their own kind, no matter what the misdemeanour.I agree. Some pilots are far too quick to condemn fellow pilots, often suggesting that they should lose their licences for even the most trivial misdemeanour. A very strange attitude but, sadly, not uncommon.
it is the idea that GA can self regulate safely that is in question, and this seems to be born out by some of the opinions hereGA does not self regulate. With very few exceptions, it is regulated by the CAA. (Some would say too regulated.)
Which "opinions here"? :confused: You make these sweeping comments about people's opinions and posts, but have consistently declined to point to any that support your contention.

I gained the impression from your posts in another thread that you appear to have (at best) mixed views about professional pilots who were not previously military pilots, and, as in this thread, a low opinion of private pilots. I have enormous respect for mil pilots and mil training and, when a choice was available, have always chosen to train with ex-QFIs/QHIs. That said, the mil way of flying is not always practical - or necessary - in the civilian world.

Regulations exist for the safety of the flyers and the public.In very broad terms, that's true. Whether all are actually necessary is a matter for another debate. However, IMHO it is neither necessary nor desirable to prosecute every breach regardless of the circumstances and regardless of how minor the breach..
With respect, I wonder if the 'problem' you see is more in your mind than real? I've no doubt pilots occasionally fail to strictly comply with the regulations, and it may well be that civilian pilots don't always adhere to the regs as strictly as mil pilots do in the mil world, but the reality is that UK aviation (both commercial and private) has an excellent safety record. IMHO the existing system works well and does not need to be changed.

that would suggest to me that the CAA needs to start discharging its duties correctly and fully There are a few areas where some would say the CAA fails in its duty (eg failing to investigate/prosecute illegal public transport, failing to fully understand and properly tackle the problem of laser attacks on aircraft, particularly helicopters) but, in my experience, the CAA generally discharges its duties correctly and fully.

Non-PC Plodis it reasonable to infer you have to be pretty blatant/wilful/dangerous/extreme to attract the attention of their legal department? No.

JimBall Instead we live with a scenario that everyone, including the FOI of the CAA, hates the drafting of Rule 5, but does nothing about it.Rule 5 is drafted by the CAA - as are all the Rules of the Air, and the ANO. Rule 5 was re-drafted only a few years ago. (I agree the FAA low flying rules for helicopters are much more sensible.)

John R81
I don't doubt your research of the law gave you pleasure but it's of no practical value. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has ever been prosecuted for breaching Rule 5 by flying too close to a fence nor, for practical evidential reasons, is anyone ever likely to be.

.

[toptobottom]

Waltham St. Lawrence is less than 2 miles from me and I know 'Vincent' well - top instructor and first class human!! I may even offer my services as a character reference on Friday :E

TTB

[yme]

FFF
I think you nay have hit a nerve!:=
God forbid that a person holding a pilots licence may get it wrong (not that we know anything wrong has been done). We should all jump up and down to defend anyone who may possibly enjoy flying who may (or may not) in the eyes of the CAA have committed a misdemeanor!
I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Shame there may be a victim(or not) involved.:E

[John R81]

Flying Lawyer - falls into the category of "unprosecuted by concession". Something that is required to make law work in practice.

The first bit (Rule 5) required no research as I learned the rules to get my license. The rest took no research - off the top of my head, due to my day job (I am a PPL and owner, not a commercial pilot)

Whether or not anyone has (or ever will) be prosecuted for flying too close to a fence does not change the legal definition.

[Fly_For_Fun]

Flying Lawyer

This has nothing to do with mil or civ, ppl or atpl, etc etc. It is MY view that some who have posted give ME the impression of, "rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of fools", and of course we are all very, very wise :hmm:. The gentleman in question may or may not be guilty of anything, this is of no relevance as I am giving MY views as to the impression I have of some posters on this thread as well as others, not just ppl's. In fact, I know some very professional PPL holders and some questionable ATPL holders.
Waltham St. Lawrence is less than 2 miles from me and I know 'Vincent' well - top instructor and first class human!! I may even offer my services as a character reference on FridayIn any case how nice the chap is should have no baring on action taken against an individual accused of a misdemeanour. I am sure there are some very nice chaps in Parkhurst. And no, I would not like to see him join them, before you ask.

[Jonathan Penny]

Can any of you tell me what Rule 5(3)(a)(ii) is? I'm having trouble finding it.

[hands_on123]

Is this the real 'Jonathan Penny', or is someone taking the p*ss?!

British Team (http://www.britishhelicopterteam.co.uk/default.asp?id=399559)

[ShyTorque]

Can any of you tell me what Rule 5(3)(a)(ii) is? I'm having trouble finding it.

The relevant CAP393 paragraph numbers for Rule 5 have been re-written... ;)

The latest version (2010) is downloadable as a .pdf file from the CAA website.

[Jonathan Penny]

What is real?

'As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.'

But in this case, yes, hello it's me and I still can't find Rule 5(3)(a)(ii).

[hands_on123]

CAP 393: Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226)

page 330 in the pdf

[Jonathan Penny]

Ref: ShyTorque and hands_on123

Thank you.

[Flying Lawyer]

hands_on123
Rule "5(3)(a)(ii)" is not not in your link.
John R81
Ditto.

The Low Flying section of the Rules of the Air Regulations was changed almost 4 years ago.
It has been amended since and is likely to be amended again in the near future - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2072/20101118RulesofAir2007Rule6aaPreliminaryConsultation.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


John R81 The first bit (Rule 5) required no research as I learned the rules to get my license. The rest took no research - off the top of my head, due to my day job (I am a PPL and owner, not a commercial pilot)Your attempts to state the law place me in an invidious position: I would like to correct your various errors - in order to avoid anyone being misled - but unfortunately (in this context) I'm now very limited in what I'm permitted to say about legal matters.

Just one example, taken from your posts -
In response to Parabellum saying: Now we have to wait and see if this pilots actions were ........not in any way influenced by a safety issue that could override the standing laws. you asserted: Parabellum - not so ..............

The only defences are that you are within one (or more) of the exemptions to the prohibition created by Rule 5(2)(b) contained in 5(3) (such as being in the process of take-off / landing (5(3)(a)(ii))).
You are wrong.
The law can be an ass at times, but it's not in this instance.

ANO 2009
Article 160
(3) It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;


NB: The above is not a comment re the pending prosecution, about which I know nothing and, even if I did, would make no comment.


FL

[hands_on123]

True, maybe it's somewhere here

The Air Navigation Order 2005 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1970/contents/made)

The Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 1110) - Statute Law Database (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=rules+of+the+air&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1990897&ActiveTextDocId=1990897&filesize=21645)

No wonder people break these rules if they are so hard to find and understand.

[Cows getting bigger]

Flying Lawer, You say

Under the existing procedure, the CAA revokes or suspends a licence/certificate if a pilot's conduct demonstrates that he/she does not meet the necessary criteria to hold it.

Are you at liberty to describe any broad-brush criteria and the process involved for the CAA to initiate such a course of action?

[John R81]

FL - I stand corrected regarding departure from ANO where it is necessary to avoid immediate danger.

[Lawyerwing]

The late news: Helicopter pilot with clean record fined £1,250 + £360 costs for breach of Rule 5 (500ft Rule). He pleaded guilty at Maidenhead Magistrates Court to flying closer than 500ft to a steam train carrying 300 pax, while undertaking aerial filming sortie. Max. fine which could be imposed was £2,500. End.

[ShyTorque]

A permission to do this sort of job within the law should have been applied for (paperwork plus £108 to CAA).

I can't, for the life of me, understand why some pilots risk being taken to court and fined heavily for this sort of thing. Another example is making a landing in a congested area without gaining a permission.

[parabellum]

Cows getting bigger - I suspect any offence concerning drugs wouldn't go down well with the CAA, trafficking especially. FL will have a longer list.

[chopjock]

ShyT
I can't, for the life of me, understand why some pilots risk being taken to court and fined heavily for this sort of thing.

Perhaps because some of us have to pay our own CAA fees. Would the flight be any safer if a fee was paid I wonder?

[ShyTorque]

Safer? Possibly. The CAA always impose conditions as part of the permission.

You saying you break the law because you don't like paying?

[chopjock]

Safer? Possibly. The CAA always impose conditions as part of the permission.

If they impose a condition that was not already in place by the operator, then yes I agree. But when you pay a fee, and the typical conditions are for example, a named pilot, a specific reg, door off, life jackets must be worn, survival suits etc etc and you were already doing all that, then it becomes just a permission for money, the flight would already have been planned to be as safe as possible.

You saying you break the law because you don't like paying?
No, I'm saying I can see why some of us might want to and clearly some of us do.

[Fly_For_Fun]

Quote:
You saying you break the law because you don't like paying?
No, I'm saying I can see why some of us might want to and clearly some of us do.

I rest my case.

[TRC]

A few years ago, I was asked by a UK video producer to find a helicopter to do some aerial filming. A foreign film crew were to video a specific train on a specific stretch of line in the UK. This flight would take place over the Easter weekend. They were to bring their own camera equipment and helicopter mount.

I put him in touch with a charter operation and told him that if the mount wasn’t approved in the UK he’d have to rent one that was.

The operator applied to the CAA for Rule 5 exemptions but this was turned down. The main reason given was that as the specified part of the railway line ran parallel to a major A road, the helicopter may distract drivers and cause a road accident – quoting the example of the Land Rover & trailer ending up on the line causing a serious rail crash, and it was Easter weekend with expected heavy traffic. The job was therefore turned down and that was the last I heard of it.

About a year later the same producer called me for another task. During the conversation I said that it was a pity that the train job hadn’t happened but that’s life, etc… He then told me that it DID happen, on the day and at the place that they wanted. He had simply rung around until he found someone that would do it without permissions.

He went on to tell me what great shots they got, including a shot of the train entering frame from ABOVE – i.e. the helicopter was BELOW the level of the embankment.

He told me that the reason given by the operator for being able to achieve this without CAA permission/exemption was that ‘it wasn’t in a built-up area, so it doesn’t need permission’. I am also led to understand that they used an un-approved camera fit.

So, job done and customer happy. No road accident as far as I know. The cameraman/camera didn’t fall out…. but, if the flight was conducted in breach of the Rules of the Air and if it did have an un-approved camera mount which would invalidate the C of A (I expect that the insurance would be invalid too with no C of A) - who was right and who was wrong?

[John Eacott]

From the discussion about getting permission from the CAA and paying a fee, one of our CASA FOI's summed it up for me on one occasion: they are granting you an exemption to break the law and have every right to ensure that whoever signs off on the exemption will not be held to account. There may be further limitations imposed by the FOI, depending on the flying requirement and the pilot/equipment, or there may not. We were granted a permanent low flying ops permission (as are many AOC holders) which imposed certain criteria, but the cost was negligible and the benefits to both CASA and the operator are obvious. They don't get tied up dealing with lots of approvals, and the operator self regulates within the conditions of the permission.

Whilst the CAA and CASA can both seem overly restrictive, if you seek to deliberately operate outside the Rules and Regulations you should make sure that your backside is properly covered. In the scheme of things a fee for a permission is inevitably much less than the cost of a court case.

[Ian Corrigible]

Helicopter pilot hit with fine after train 'buzzed' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8249009/Helicopter-pilot-hit-with-fine-after-train-buzzed.html)
..........
Helicopter pilot hit with fine after train 'buzzed'

It was supposed to be a wonderful cross-country jaunt on a steam engine that the 300 passengers on board would never forget.



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01771/Britten_60_1771056j.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/)
By Nick Britten (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/nick-britten/) 7:00AM GMT 10 Jan 2011

And it is certainly a voyage that will live long in the memory, but not for the reasons intended.

Soon after the Edinburgh-London journey began, passengers noticed the train was being “buzzed” and that a helicopter was flying low over it, criss-crossing its path.

Some were so worried they immediately contacted the Civil Aviation Authority, whilst others filmed what was happening on their mobile phones.

What none of them knew was that the pilot, Vincent Campion, 44, had been hired by the steam train owners to film a documentary of the journey.

Campion, who is highly experienced and has helped shoot a number of films before, flew the film crew to within a few hundred feet of the vintage train as it thundered south, criss-crossing its path to get good shots of the plume of steam billowing from the funnel.

However, the pilot's low-level flying has landed him in trouble with the CAA, who prosecuted him for flying closer than the legal 500ft limit, landing Campion with a £1,250 fine.
Magistrates in Maidenhead heard how Campion, who also filmed a steam train race featuring Jeremy Clarkson for the BBC's Top Gear, and works for FlyingTV, an aerial filming company run by the former BBC DJ Mike Smith, was hired by a specialist tour company in April last year to record the final, 400-mile leg of the Great Britain III steam train excursion.
Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said: "The reason for the 500ft rule will be apparent. It is a safety issue.
"Soon after departing a number of passengers observed, or became aware that there was a helicopter flying alongside the train, and crossing over from side to side."
Some of the passengers estimated the aircraft was less than 150ft away.
At York the Princess Elizabeth locomotive gave way to The Bittern, and after a break for both the train and the Robinson R44 helicopter helicopter in Nottinghamshire, the filming resumed.
The aircraft only parted company with the train when they were passing Huntingdon, Cambs, with passengers still concerned at how close it was.
Miss Slater said: "Photographs were taken by some of the witnesses. Three have been examined and it has been calculated that the distance between the photographers and helicopter is between 248ft and 261ft."
Tim Scorer, defending, told the court the crime was "something of a technical offence".
He said: "It was a rather special journey for people who had paid quite a lot of money and the owner of the steam train commissioned Mr Campion to provide a very good film account."
Describing Campion, from Waltham St Lawrence, Berks, as "Captain" he said the defendant was a commercial helicopter pilot, qualified on both rotary and fixed wing aircraft, with more than 4,500 hours of experience and who had flown all over the world working on many television and film assignments.
Fining him and ordering him to pat £360 costs and £15 victim surcharge, Brian Darracott, Presiding magistrate, said: “We have heard no expression of any recklessness in your flying. On the other hand you are an experienced pilot and you should have been aware you were flying below 500ft for some considerable distance."
The CAA said it would be reviewing Campion’s license.




I/C

[hihover]

I think that just about covers Ex 33 - Wazzing and Train Rocking.....any questions Bloggs?

[ShyTorque]

Just goes to show who the CAA go after - the pilot.

But how come the AOC holder hadn't obtained the necessary Rule 5 permission?

[chopjock]

But how come the AOC holder hadn't obtained the necessary Rule 5 permission?

What makes you think there was an AOC holder involved?

[ShyTorque]

I read the report of the court case.

[Torquetalk]

You have to wonder why so many passengers took exception or were surprised. Had they known the purpose of the flight (informed by the conductor, am announcement or an info leaflet) bet they would have seen the flight in a more positive light and not complained.

[toptobottom]

ShyTorque - good point. If it was a company car, the fleet administrator would be at least equally liable for legislative compliance. I also agree with Torquetalk; communicating to all train pax that the trip would be filmed from a helicopter at close quarters would have probably avoided the original complaint. So much for hindsight...

As for you Mr. Campion, I have no doubt it's been a traumatic time, but try and put it behind you now. Pick yourself up, dust yourself down and get back in the seat! :ok:

[chopjock]

ShyT
I read the report of the court case.
Was that a newspaper report?

[Whirlygig]

Yes ... the Daily Telegraph as linked above in post #64 by Ian Corrigible. The AOC holder is mentioned by name. Or didn't you know they held an AOC?

Cheers

Whirls

[chopjock]

I'm sure the report above states that Campion was hired, not Flying TV. He just works for them. Probably works freelance for himself too. If Flying TV were hired I think they would have been prosecuted by the CAA as the operator.
I would have thought that Flying TV would most certainly have a permission to fly closer than 500 feet.

[Bronx]

If Flying TV were hired I think they would have been prosecuted by the CAA as the operator.

Prosecuted for what? :confused:
Unless they told the pilot to go closer than 500 feet they ain't done anything illegal.
IMHO prosecuting the pilot was OTT. He should have been given a warning.

Miss Slater said: "Photographs were taken by some of the witnesses. Three have been examined and it has been calculated that the distance between the photographers and helicopter is between 248ft and 261ft." Examined by who I wonder.
There's no way the distance could have been calculated to within a range of 13 feet.
Brian Darracott, Presiding magistrate, said: “........ you should have been aware you were flying below 500ft."
So the court deciding the punishment didn't understand the law. :rolleyes:

[ShyTorque]

Chopjock, if a passenger was on board taking photographs it was Public Transport.

[chopjock]

if a passenger was on board taking photographs it was Public Transport.Even if the pax is employed by the operator?

For example, If I dry hired a machine, took one of my employees with me to take some pics, is that public transport?

[Noiseboy]

It's only public transport if the photogropher or someone on their behalf hires you to carry them. As you say a photogropher employed by the operator is a passenger but does not require AOC cover.

An opertor with no AOC, and only offering aerial filming services may even carry other pax so long as the flight goes with or without them at the same cost. It remains aerial work.

A company who holds an AOC may not carry free pax without considering it Public Transport. So if you offer filming as well as other transport services as an AOC operation, a director for example would have to be carried PT, while the dedicated filming operation could carry them free wiith no AOC.

It's all out there to look up in various documents!

[Helinut]

Many moons ago, the Legal Enforcement Branch of the CAA (or whatever they are called these days) was headed by a keen PPL(H). He used to fly from where I worked. He said that it was a relatively straightforward thing to work out how far away an aircraft was from where a photograph was taken, knowing things like the focal length of the lens used and the size of the helicopter. There must undoubtedly be an inaccuracy associated with such estimates, but it might be wise to remember that they will try to "distance" you from a photo.

Does it say in any of the reports whether the defendant pleaded guilty or not? I could not find this rather important piece of info.

I think it likely that the flight was carried out using one of Flying Tv's R44 ENG machines, with permanent video camera ball. Most AOC holders who do lots of aerial filming/photography seem to have permanent exemptions from the 500 ft rule (with conditions). I assume that Flying TV do not, or at least it was not mentioned in the reports.

Flying TV have ruffled a few feathers since they started their operations - some twin engine operators were annoyed when they started doing filming and photography in areas where it was presumed only twins could effectively do filming. I believe the arguments were raised here on a thread, and someone purporting to represent Flying TV had a robust view of what was and was not possible. The other feathers that may have been ruffled were some at the CAA. The CAA has a long memory, even if it did not involve Kim Campion in the earlier incidents.

2 thoughts for the future, as a general suggestion, and not presuming to necessarily apply here:

Given that almost everyone has a camera these days, almost any flight you do in the UK WILL be photographed or filmed, especially if its profile is high.

Never rely on your operator - check out everything yourself. The ops people may well be keener to get the work than protect your licence. Recognise that the pilot is almost always the one closest to breaking the rules, and whose breach can most easily be proved.

Incidentally, although it is not strictly relevant to this incident (the 500 ft rule applies to all flights), I am not so sure as Noiseboy that whether a flight is PT or not is always so clear. It can be a complicated issue. For example, take a filming job where a helicopter is used with a camera mount, a cameraman and film director (who are not employees of the operator0. THe flight is carried out by an AOC holder who gets paid for the flight. The paperwork for the mount says that the aircraft C of A is downgraded to "aerial work only" as a result of fitting the mount. How is it ever possible to legally carry out this flight?

[parabellum]

For example, If I dry hired a machine, took one of my employees with me to take some pics, is that public transport?


I think it might be classified as 'Aerial Work' and 'work' signifies that a commercial aspect exists, assuming your photographs are not just holiday snaps etc. but are for commercial purposes.

[ShyTorque]

It appears that the company quoted by the defence are not on the AOC holder's list on the CAA website dated Nov 2010, so no pax would have been on board. If no PT pax were carried, then it would be aerial work and presumably no AOC was needed.

However, this is an abbreviated quote from the company's own website:


******** will perform all the planning based on the information you give us.
What are you trying to achieve?

The answer to this will determine some critical flight parameters. For instance, trying to film a car being driven. Generally speaking, this would need to be done from less than 500 ft if you wanted to see close-up detail – see our Fifth Gear work on the Movies page. Flying closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure needs a CAA filming exemption. Not difficult to organise – but we need quite a few details on the location in order to satisfy ourselves that the exemption is possible.

So the lack of the CAA permission must have been an unfortunate oversight in this instance. The court case emphasises the fact that it is ultimately the pilot's responsibility to ensure that any flight can be legally made.

[chopjock]

Whirls
The AOC holder is mentioned by name. Or didn't you know they held an AOC?
ShyT
It appears that the company quoted by the defence are not on the AOC holder's list on the CAA website dated Nov 2010, so no pax would have been on board. If no PT pax were carried, then it would be aerial work and presumably no AOC was needed.

Does this answer your question Whirls?

[misterbonkers]

I thought FTV used Heliairs AOC. If they had their own then they would be obliged to carry out all flights as PT and not AW.

Generally just AOC holders get permanent Es & Ps from things such as Rule5 because they have procedures in place to monitor and record usage of them.

In my opinion if rule 5 is deliberately broken in a high profile situation as a filming flight by a non-AOC holder then the pilot deserves to be prosecuted, the idea of giving them a 'warning' is not acceptable.

[Bronx]

misterbonkers
In my opinion if rule 5 is deliberately broken in a high profile situation as a filming flight by a non-AOC holder then the pilot deserves to be prosecuted, the idea of giving them a 'warning' is not acceptable.

I suppose the fact you work for a competitor that does aerial filming is just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

[mickjoebill]

Flying closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure needs a CAA filming exemption.



If you have permission of the owner of the building and of any person who will be closer than 500ft, is a 500ft exemption still required??


Reference to causing a distraction to motorists has always been a legal curiosity to me because of the instances when this could happen where the location of helipads dictate flying closer than 500ft to public roads.




Mickjoebill

[misterbonkers]

Bronx;

No coincidence - in fact I have worked for several competitors of FlyingTV and have a lot of experience in aerial filming/survey and operating under a wide range of permissions (one-offs and blanket); hence I stated my opinion.

Ironically you'll find quite a few pilots on here work for competitors of FlyingTV. :ugh:

[ShyTorque]

If you have permission of the owner of the building and of any person who will be closer than 500ft, is a 500ft exemption still required??

Yes you do still need the expensive CAA piece of paper in your sticky hand. And a record of all the times it applies has to be kept.

(I do not work for a rival film company).

[nimby]

Whilst those of you with very long memories (or PP search) will know why I picked NIMBY ...

... my concern is always whether the pilot was flying responsibly, i.e. was able to survive unexpeced failures, avoid any obstacles, not cause by-standers (or livestock) to be unduly disconcerted, etc. All of these risks are completely different from the motoring/speedign risks mentioned earlier, there's less time to react, mother nature is less forgiving, fewer options are open to you and bystanders generally know very little about helicopters other than they make a frightening noise up close.

It isn't clear to me from the reporting whether the court (or indeed the CAA officers) considered whether margins were below reasonable levels. Defence claimed a 'technical' infringement. What is clear is that sanctions are slight, perhaps a few hours costs, even for serious breaches.

What is slightly more worrying is the "should he get away with it?" flavour of the discussion here, when I'd have thought "is the pilot being properly responsible" is rather more important.

N

[ShyTorque]

What is slightly more worrying is the "should he get away with it?" flavour of the discussion here, when I'd have thought "is the pilot being properly responsible" is rather more important.

Not sure exactly what you mean here because your statement is ambiguous, but if responsible pilots make the necessary application and pay the money for a Rule 5 permission, why should another not do so? The cost should be included in the price paid by the client.

[Flying Lawyer]

nimbyIt isn't clear to me from the reporting whether the court (or indeed the CAA officers) considered whether margins were below reasonable levels.
The pilot admitted, by his Guilty plea, that the 'margin' was less than the law permits (in the absence of dispensation).
It is important to understand that a breach of Rule 5 does not necessarily mean the flying was dangerous. Pilots can be, and often have been, successfully prosecuted for breaching Rule 5 even where there was no danger whatsoever. The issue is distance; absence of danger is no defence.
In contrast, where the CAA considers (rightly or wrongly) that a pilot's action was dangerous, he/she would be prosecuted for a completely different offence or offences. If disputed, it is then for a court to decide the issue - after hearing the evidence and arguments advanced by each side.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.

Defence claimed a 'technical' infringement.I assume the defence advocate, during the course of his plea in mitigation before sentence, properly and sensibly reminded the court that, although the pilot infringed Rule 5, there was no evidence of danger being caused. According to the Daily Telegraph report (above), the court appears to have accepted that point. When imposing the penalty the presiding magistrate said:“We have heard no expression of any recklessness in your flying."

What is clear is that sanctions are slight, perhaps a few hours costs, even for serious breaches. Penalties are not "slight" in my (considerable) experience.
Unless you know all the relevant facts of a particular case, the pilot's record and his/her financial circumstances, you are not in a position to make a sensible judgment about whether the sanction was 'slight', entirely appropriate or harsh.

[toptobottom]

What is clear is that sanctions are slight, perhaps a few hours costs, even for serious breaches.

How naive!! The penalty imposed by the court may be slight (all things are relative), but I suspect this is the bit that is causing some sleepless nights:

The CAA said it would be reviewing Campion’s license.

I wouldn't describe losing one's livelihood as a 'slight' penalty. :=

[bellolli]

I am amazed by the amount of discussion over this particular case and am surprised by the high profile particularly as it was reported in the broadsheets......seems a bit odd...like there may be a hidden agenda from somewhere.....

The court said that he was not reckless, therefore a misjudgement at worst, a mistake, we are all capable of that. If the Pilot was just wazzing around buzzing anything that moved I could understand it but in this instance it is just not correct. It seems like a sledge hammer has been used to crack the Pilots walnuts!!:bored:

[Heliport]

misterbonkers
Ironically you'll find quite a few pilots on here work for competitors of FlyingTV. :ugh:

Ironically that could explain quite a few of the comments. ( :ugh: )

[misterbonkers]

Heliport - that's what I was pointing out to Bronx!

[ChippyChop]

Brian Darracott, Presiding magistrate, said: “We have heard no expression of any recklessness in your flying. On the other hand you are an experienced pilot and you should have been aware you were flying below 500ft for some considerable distance."

It seems even the Magistrate didn't have an understanding of the law, what has flying below 500ft got to do with it?

I've seen Kim at work filming the Welsh Rally and he is safe and professional.

I guess the lessons for us all here are:
1. Never assume those onboard whatever you are filming have been advised you will be filming them, make sure they are.
2. Never assume those you are working for have obtained the necessary exemptions or approvals, sight them yourself.

As they say assumation is the root of most f ups.

Oh and remember everyone (well the only ones that don't still have those old Nokia bricks) now has a camera at hand at all time!!

[Digital flight deck]

The CAA said it would be reviewing Campion’s license

Does anyone know what the CAA decided to do?

[toptobottom]

I don't think the CAA has decided what to do yet

[Helinut]

I am told he CAA have a page on their website where they record action taken against a pilot's licence. Never seen it myself though.

[101BOY]

I think the CAA link is this one, although the latest entry in April 2010.

List of Official Record Series 8 - Decisions by the CAA Following a Regulatory Review | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=list&type=sercat&id=28)

[Fly_For_Fun]

Typically speedy CAA then. :D

[212man]

Typically speedy CAA then

Maybe that was the last action against a licence holder?

[Fly_For_Fun]

Except for the last one.

[212man]

Except for the last one

Which one was that? Not the case in this thread if the CAA are still reviewing their response.

[Fly_For_Fun]

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Intersting how the aircraft operator and the AOC holder are so quiet. I wonder what help they gave the pilot.................

[hands_on123]

Knowing that operator they probably sent him an invoice.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Knowing that operator they probably sent him an invoice.

Ho123 :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Need money]

hands_on123 :ok:

[Heli32]

Just come across this thread as I am searching for contact details for Kim. I hope he still has his livelihood. He is without doubt the best helicopter instructor I have ever come across. I want him to teach my son to fly and I hope the CAA can maintain a sense of perspective on this issue. Seems to me its a procedural oversight and nothing more.

Reply via PM, please.

SP

[JimBall]

Very much still flying and instructing.

One day I'll put my thoughts down in writing about this ludicrous prosecution which used everything about the law to persecute a pilot for no real reason. And the evidence was enhanced. The CAA legal dept used the threat of a criminal record like a baseball bat and forced the plea.
Low life.

[toptobottom]

Heli32 - just sent you a PM
TTB

[rick1128]

JB,

You really don't want FAR 91.13. It is the most abused regulation the FAA has. Several years ago it was not so bad when FAA inspectors had some real experience. Unfortunately now, many have very little real experience and they look at an event and judge it on if they personally would do that or not. If not then you were operating in a manner that was careless and reckless and file a violation.

Fortunately, the FAA Chief Counsel's Office looks at things a little differently. One of the criteria they use is 'were your actions, reasonable and prudent?' If they were and you can show that, that is the end of it.

[JimL]

Rick1128,

All States have a FAR 91.13 equivalent.

Jim

[SASless]

Pilots can be, and often have been, successfully prosecuted for breaching Rule 5 even where there was no danger whatsoever.


Just why must one be "Prosecuted" for an act that creates no hazard...presented no recklessness....and did no harm....and was absent any intent to do harm or cause damage and the vile perpetrator cooperates with the investigation?

Does the Crown treat all miscreants that way for other such similar heinous "Crimes against Humanity"?

The FAA is far more realistic in their approach to the Rule 5 silliness of the CAA.....

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
top
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

[Docket No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]



JimL......

Yes all States have the equivalent of our FAR Part 91.13.

Sec. 91.13

Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.



The question extant is not about the existence of the Rule....but rather the enforcement attitude and general appearance of high handedness of the enforcement of the Rule. It would appear Rule 5 is being used as a different avenue to achieving the same intent of the UK equivalent of 91.13. The key being the "prosecution" of an inidividual for what was not a reckless or dangerous act in and of itself.

Our German friends have a saying about "Orders are Orders!"....is this a case of "Rules are Rules!"?

Under the UK system...who gets the money paid by the violator....the "Costs" and "Fine/Penalty"? The CAA or the Exchequer? If the CAA gets the money...I can see a vested interest for them in aggressively enforcing each violation or assumed violation and doing so purely for monetary gain rather than ensuring the Public Safety.

[rick1128]

Jim,

Unfortunately, 91.13 is so vague that the interpretation of it is really in the eyes of the beholder. Which can lead to some very major abuses.

[SASless]

Here is a good example of how the FAA (and other guvmint agencies) make themselves so popular with people in the real world.

How much investigation and how long should it take to make a decision in this matter?

Is there not both the "Letter of the Law" and the "Spirit of the Law" that enters into the consideration of things?

Will the Feds now having stuck their beaks into this....drag their feet until the whole intent of the Conservation Project is rendered useless? I know one cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs but damn....where is the commonsense in this?

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WHOOPING_CRANES_GROUNDED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-07-03-24-15)

[Thomas coupling]

This is so clear cut, I don't know what the fuss is about.
Has anyone spoken to Vincent (since it seems so many know him anyway) and asked this 4500hr guy, why he infringed the rule?

Strange how so many pilots are ringing every last drop out of this issue:confused:

[toptobottom]

'Vincent' maintains that he didn't break the rule [5]. In fact, in the summing up, the somewhat confused judge described Vincent as guilty of flying closer than 500' to the ground...

[Lonewolf_50]

This is so clear cut, I don't know what the fuss is about. Has anyone spoken to Vincent (since it seems so many know him anyway) and asked this 4500hr guy, why he infringed the rule? Strange how so many pilots are ringing every last drop out of this issue
Wringing? (Was there an intentional pun regarding amount of noise involved? :confused: )
In fact, in the summing up, the somewhat confused judge described Vincent as guilty of flying closer than 500' to the ground ...

What, in a helicopter? :ugh:

This thread has been a curious read, that I'll grant you.