Pilot Fined Following Serious Infringement

[Zorax]

Pilot fined after causing havoc over Stansted airport | Uttlesford village headlines (http://www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/News/Uttlesford/Pilot-fined-after-causing-havoc-over-Stansted-airport-20130418102741.htm)

And didn't even have a current licence:ugh:

[24Carrot]

And didn't even have a current licence

I wonder whether it was actually the key to the prosecution. A paperwork violation is cheap to prove and well assured of success in a prosecution?

[thing]

I had an interesting 15 minutes or so on the ATC simulator at the CAA safety day at Duxford last weekend. Coincidentally it was set up to show a GA incursion into Stanstead airspace. It does cause havoc.

The cost in fuel alone in the a/c I had to shuffle around to maintain standard seperation would have been far more than the fine the guy had.

[trident3A]

Unbelievable - I can't imagine the mentality of people like this

[peterh337]

To be fair, probably a few thousand UK pilots were flying with lapsed licenses due to the 5-year expiry rule, which was not in most cases implemented with any sort of reminder.

In this case the CAA is still reaping the rewards for slagging off GPS for all those years, and for the flight training industry almost totally supporting them in it.

[Pace]

Anyone can make a mistake but it is identifying and rectifying that mistake which is important.

He talks twaddle about flying the aircraft, navigate and finally communicate.
That maybe appropriate where there is a problem with flying the aircraft but his aircraft was fully functional albeit floating along in strong winds.
As for part 2? Navigate he obviously had no ability to do that wandering blindly through Stansted and Luton so that left part 3 communicate!!!

Having seen a major airport his priority should have been to communicate the fact that he was lost and in Stansted airspace.

In my eyes that was the priority threat and his no 1 priority.

Most disturbing is his inability to acknowledge any wrong doing and making it out to be a fuss about nothing.
He almost claims that his superior skills would have avoided any collision risk with another aircraft maybe travelling at 250 kts maybe popping out of the clouds in front of him?
What a Wally! piloting skills? he obviously does not have any.

Pace

[kevkdg]

"A separate offence of failing to carry secondary navigation equipment, including a transponder, which is required in controlled airspace, was taken into consideration."

I've been cleared through airspace without a transponder!

[BackPacker]

An important issue, AFAIC, is a complete lack of understanding of how radar/transponder works, and what the ATC procedures are in this respect. That either shows a lack of initial or recurrent training, or a lack of interest in what equipment is on board and what it's doing.

His decision to stay at a lowish altitude to stay out of the way of CAT was a sensible one, but apparently he was not squawking at all, or squawking mode A exclusively. What he did not know, apparently, was that ATC in that case only has a lateral position fix on the aircraft, not a vertical one. So ATC has to work on the assumption that the aircraft is at a "dangerous" level. If he would have had a transponder with altitude encoding (mode C or S) then ATC would have altitude information as well (unverified, though). I don't know the exact procedures that ATC has for dealing with an infringement that is squawking an unverified altitude, but I can imagine that ATC has a little more flexibility, compared to dealing with an unknown altitude.

[soaringhigh650]

maintain standard seperation

What separation?!?!? There is none between VFR and IFR in Class D.
Or was he IFR?

[Torque Tonight]

Bloke clearly has no comprehension of how his actions affect everyone else. There is making a mistake and then there is negligence; this is the latter.

I could see and avoid other traffic.

How well does he see and avoid other traffic coming at 250kts from his six o'clock?

PSA Flight 182 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182)

[Mariner9]

"A separate offence of failing to carry secondary navigation equipment, including a transponder, which is required in controlled airspace, was taken into consideration."

I've been cleared through airspace without a transponder!

There's a TMZ around Stansted, and thus transponders are mandatory there.

[dublinpilot]

In fairness the transponder thing is a bit irrelevant. If he never intended to be in the TMZ and didn't know that he was, then he could hardly be expected to have a transponder.

[BackPacker]

In fairness the transponder thing is a bit irrelevant. If he never intended to be in the TMZ and didn't know that he was, then he could hardly be expected to have a transponder.

True. But if he would have known how ATC operates, he would have known that descending to 800 feet to stay out of the way of CAT would not make one yota of difference as far as ATC was concerned. He should have contacted ATC straightaway, if necessary on 121.5.

Instead, he used "I descended to 800 feet to stay out of the way" as an excuse. Which it isn't.

[thing]

What separation?!?!? There is none between VFR and IFR in Class D.
Or was he IFR?

You talking about the ATC sim? It was an unknown flight, non radio contactable but the Stanstead air trafficker who talked me through the scenario said they had to maintain 5 miles sep between an unknown contact and other traffic in the zone, I guess he knows his job.

[wb9999]

What separation?!?!? There is none between VFR and IFR in Class D.
Or was he IFR?

ATC wouldn't have known if he was IFR or VFR. They did not know his altitude or what conditions he was under. So I would imagine they have to expect the worst (IFR) and separate IFR from the infringer.

[2 sheds]

wb9999
That is correct, the major problem being that the intentions of such an aircraft are not known.

2 s

[Zorax]

The separation requirement against unknown traffic inside controlled airspace is 5nm or 5000ft - the latter can only be applied if the infringing aircraft has a Mode C transponder, otherwise it has to be 5nm. This is why infringements can be so disruptive.

[Silvaire1]

I liked the comment that it was only "sheer luck" that there had been no collision. Apparently see and avoid becomes impossible once you've established Class D airspace.

The reason collisions don't occur is because of layered safeguards. Each one is like a leaky bucket, but the small amount that leaks though one layer becomes miniscule after two of three more layers. Its ridiculous to believe that busting airspace leads directly to collision. What an unbelievably unsophisticated opinion.

Speaking as somebody who flies in controlled airspace almost continuously, I think an appropriate punishment for this violation is mandatory retraining, re-passing the relevant check ride, no fine.

[Zorax]

Its ridiculous to believe that busting airspace leads directly to collision

I'm not sure that anybody is suggesting this, however
The reason collisions don't occur is because of layered safeguards

How many safeguards were in place during this event?

An aircraft with no transponder (and thus no TCAS protection) with a pilot who is lost (who presumably could climb at any time given the fact that he doesn't know he's in controlled airspace) and doesn't even consider the safest action of contacting ATC. What safeguards were left?

See and avoid against a B737 travelling at possibly 180Kts?:ugh:

[Silvaire1]

See and avoid against a B737 travelling at possibly 180Kts?I do it frequently in Class D and E airspace, with and without transponder.

[Pace]

Silvaire

The problem here is not so much the violation itself but the lack of remorse or acceptance that this pilot had shown a complete lack of airmanship and very poor decision making!
The collision potential is small but real and such a collision could kill hundreds of people!
With aircraft transiting from IMC to VMC at speeds up to 250 kts there is a danger from an unseen loose canon light aircraft flown by an idiot!
The effects of such behaviour and attitude is to have light GA further restricted from such airspace as the risk of having such amateurs in that airspace is too great!

Pace

[Zorax]

Perhaps it's different in the USA but in the UK is would be rare to find a commercial B737 flying in Class E.

I take it you fly two aircraft? One with a transponder and one without?

The problem here is not so much the violation itself but the lack of remorse or acceptance that this pilot had shown a complete lack of airmanship and very poor decision making!
The collision potential is small but real and such a collision could kill hundreds of people!
With aircraft transiting from IMC to VMC at speeds up to 250 kts there is a danger from an unseen loose canon light aircraft flown by an idiot!
The effects of such behaviour and attitude is to have light GA further restricted from such airspace as the risk of having such amateurs in that airspace is too great!

Well said!!

[Silvaire1]

Yes, I fly two aircraft one with and one without a Mode C transponder. There is no Class A below 18,000 feet in the US, and airliners descend in Class E. See and avoid is necessary for both the airliner and anybody else. I am often looking out for airliners, military jets and biz jets when flying in local Class E.

Its surely not a good idea to bust airspace, but the Dickensonian approach strikes me as over reaction.

[Pace]

Silvaire

In your airspace ! Of course no risk of collision because of the filter mechanisms in place !

PSA Flight 182 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182)

Pace

[wb9999]

I do it frequently in Class D and E airspace, with and without transponder.

In Class D without ATC contact within 5 miles of a busy international airport with 737s arriving and departing every couple of minutes, where nobody knows what height you are or where you are planning to fly?

See and avoid in the Stansted zone is pretty difficult when you have a rogue aircraft near the take off or approach path at an unknown height.

[Local Variation]

Agree with all the comments here particularly by Pace.

We need the support of the likes of Luton to transit north to south east and instances such as this do potential harm to how we as a community are perceived. You only need the airlines to complain to the airports and we run the risk of losing that support.

Hopefully the fine will put him off for life.

[peterh337]

I see the Ppr00n and Flyer (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=82789) lynch mobs are alive and happily kicking.

[ShyTorque]

I do it frequently in Class D and E airspace, with and without transponder.

Hopefully the difference is that you are in contact with the relevant ATCU and complying with a clearance.

[Silvaire1]

Pace, the PSA collision was 35 years ago and as you're likely aware the US airspace system was changed as a result. It works well.

In the US, I think we are just more accustomed to dense airspace and dealing with it. When 'stuff happens', as it will, the reaction is about 1% of what you might read here. And that works OK too :)

Shy Torque - Class E requires no clearance or ATC contact for VFR traffic.

[Local Variation]

Too right we're alive and kicking when you read instances like this.

[ShyTorque]

Shy Torque - Class E requires no clearance or ATC contact for VFR traffic.

Yes but Class D does and he was in Class D airspace without clearance. In this case, there is also a well publicised "TMZ", i.e. Transponder Mandatory Zone around the edge of the busy CTR, to give an extra "buffer" of airspace, because this particular airspace has historically been affected by similar instances.

The pilot had no current licence which is perhaps an indicator of his inappropriate attitude to lawful and safe operation of an aircraft.

[Pace]

Silvaire

What rattled me with this incident was not the pilot making a mistake which we all do but his complete denial of any wrong doing and poo pooing the whole incident as nothing.
Infact he displayed very poor airmanship and decision making which apart from the risk factor would have caused a lot of expense to aircraft being shifted all around him.
Had he put his hand up and stated that he had messed up and wanted training so that he did not cause such a problem in future I for one would have a lot more sympathy.
As it stands I wish they had removed his licence for a year because he is the type who will continue to be a loose canon creating problems for the rest of us in the future.

Pace

[Silvaire1]

I offered my opinion, that's all it is. I remain unrattled :)

Ciao

[Pace]

I offered my opinion, that's all it is. I remain unrattled

Silvaire

So you are defending this guy and stating that he has done nothing wrong and its all been blown out of all proportion???
I fail to understand!

pace

[Silvaire1]

Maybe the lack of communication is a cultural thing. If I read what I wrote, its really pretty clear ;)

Shy Torque - Class D doesn't provide for separation of VFR traffic from IFR traffic. FWIW I operate out of an airport with 650 operations per day, with a Class D control tower handling mixed IFR and VFR traffic including both microlights and jets. About 10 miles away is another similar airport, handling 500 operations per day, also with a Class D tower. The aircraft in one Class D zone can be within 1-1/2 miles or so of aircraft in the other Class D zone, and non-communicating aircraft can legally fly between the two zones. None of the three would be talking to each other and neither are the two towers. Not too far above above either traffic pattern are airliners. So when I read about a non-communicating aircraft in a Class D zone, 4 miles from another aircraft it just doesn't shock me a whole lot regardless of the details. But hey, that's just me.

PS sorry for the edits - one of these days I'll learn to type!

[wb9999]

Silvaire, you're forgetting that an airport like Stansted would be equivalent to a Class B airfield in the US. Try flying into a Class B in the US without communication and transponder and you will likely be escorted in the air and get a bit more than a fine.

[piperboy84]

I would imagine Stanstead would be like a Class C in the US but still need to talk to someone, like Burbank, i bet they get airspace infractions all the time

[wb9999]

Tampa, as one example, is Class B, with slightly less passenger numbers than Stansted.

[ShyTorque]

Shy Torque - Class D doesn't provide for separation of VFR traffic from IFR traffic.

Having been based at an international airport inside UK's Class D airspace for the last twelve years, and transitting others every time I fly, which is a couple of hundred times a year, I'm fully aware of that.

But you are arguing about a rather different thing to a pilot flying into controlled airspace without clearance or communications, the correct equipment, or even a licence.

[Silvaire1]

Try flying into a Class B in the US without communication and transponder and you will likely be escorted in the air and get a bit more than a fine. On top of (above, overlaying) and within 3 miles on both sides of the Class D airport runways I described in my post above is Class B airspace, to the ground. And as you'd probably expect, Class B busts occur. Escorts?! Ah, no.

Ninety-nine % of aircraft in the area would be mode c transponder equipped, although not all. I have no idea if they'd see me if I busted the Class B while negative transponder.

What happens hereabouts for Class B busts is that the pilot gets a phone number when he lands - typically Center follows the guy's mode c trace to wherever he's going and calls the tower who figures out who it was. Mode s is not a factor. Then, if its not too bad a bust, when the guy calls they basically tell him not to do it again. If its a really bad bust, an in-person discussion with the FSDO follows the phone call.

Among locals, I have heard of quite a number of the 'phone call then nothing' Class B bust incidents, and (edited) two of the FSDO incidents. None involved a fine, although the most flagrant did involve training to repass every check ride on the guys certificate. I think that could be appropriate.

I'm happy none of them were me!

[Prop swinger]

Stansted would not only be Class B in the US, it would also have a 30nm radius Mode C veil, not the piddly little TMZs it currently has. Airspace busts tend to be less of a nuisance simply because the larger airspace affords more protection to commercial traffic.

Historically (until Europe interfered) GA in the UK has been very lightly regulated, so long as we kept to the "open FIR". The GA lobby ensured that controlled airspace was kept to the absolute bare minimum so any infringement automatically impinges on commercial flights. The benefit of having Class G everywhere instead of Class E is that we can go IFR without having to ask anyone's permission, a right not enjoyed in FAA-land.

Fortunately the CAA lack the legal authority to suspend licences. Whereas an FAA bureaucrat can remove your right to fly at the stroke of a pen, the CAA can only take you to court where you are at least innocent until proven otherwise.

[Silvaire1]

Stansted would not only be Class B in the US, it would also have a 30nm radius Mode C veil, not the piddly little TMZs it currently has. Airspace busts tend to be less of a nuisance simply because the larger airspace affords more protection to commercial traffic.

Some of us, not too many, fly within FAA Mode C veils without a transponder, per FAR 91.215(b)(3). That plus a handheld unlicensed radio does the trick. Mode S doesn't exist anywhere. My cost of avionics to fly in the Mode C veil and class D airspace with that aircraft was $220 USD including ebay radio, new intercom but not my fancy headsets.

It's a significant responsibility, something I personally take very seriously, that will continue once ADS-B Out is implemented in 2020. Other times I fly within a Mode C veil with more equipment, in the other aircraft.

Of course, I can only agree about "Europe interfering". It's a cancer with no solution in sight that I can see, directly in opposition to 1000 years of superior English law. Do something, now.

[englishal]

Stansted would not only be Class B in the US, it would also have a 30nm radius Mode C veil, not the piddly little TMZs it currently has. Airspace busts tend to be less of a nuisance simply because the larger airspace affords more protection to commercial traffic.
More likely Class C if you ask me. And the beauty of Class C is you are automatically cleared through the airspace if in contact with ATC - no express clearance required.

Compare movements out of Stanstead and Luton to the likes of John Wayne (SNA) / Burbank and these are totally accessible to VFR traffic, over flying, doing circuits, etc....

[wb9999]

Englishal, Stansted's passenger numbers are slightly higher than Tampa and San Diego (both Class B). Stansted handles 8 times more passengers than Burbank and double the number of John Wayne. Stansted's movements are predominantly 737s (no spamcans landing there due to £500 landing fees), so 300+ 737's and bigger landing per day. Not quite what you would see at Burbank.

There are many busier airfields, in terms of movements, in the US than Stansted that mix spamcans with jets. The difference is that they have 2, 3, 4, or even more, runways. Stansted has a single runway, with a 737 landing every 3 minutes all through the day - which, by the number of aircraft movements per runway, is busier than MIA, EWR, JFK and similar to LAX.

Would the FAA be so lenient of an aircraft flying through the approach for LAX without permission and no transponder?

The recent AOPA video about the glider pilot who was locked up for 2 days for flying somewhere he was allowed to, due to over-zealous law enforcement officials, shows that the US can be more draconian and paranoid than Europe at times (hard to believe!).

[englishal]

We'll we'll have to agree to disagree. Stanstead and Luton don't seem to me like a Class B airport (I've flown into them in the past).

However, on the subject of the USA, one can fly into Hawthorn, which is essentially right next door to LAX, VFR with no clearance required if one wants. In other words the airspace around LAX is designed in such a way that it protects the aeroplanes arriving and departing LAX, but doesn't put unnecessary restrictions on other airspace users. In the UK they like to splat a great bit bit of CAS around an airport "just in case". Bournemouth is a good example - how many 737's fly around 4 miles north of the airfield below 1500'? Not many!

So although not defending this chap in his cub, he was right to say that at 800' he was well away from commercial air transport - just like you could fly at 800' (actually up to 2.5k) right next to LAX (a mile) and not be busting their Class B airspace.

Agreed about the transponder requirement, the US would require Mode C in this area, though you could get a dispensation from ATC beforehand. And the FAA come down hard on anyone who does bust airspace - though there is also the NASA program where one, if they think they have busted airspace you can file a report yourself, and then this protects you from prosecution. Seems like a good idea....

ASRS - Aviation Safety Reporting System (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/)

9. Enforcement Policy

* Administrator’s Responsibilities. The Administrator of the FAA will perform his or her responsibility under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) subtitle VII, and enforce the statute and the 14 CFR in a manner that will reduce or eliminate the possibility of, or recurrence of, aircraft accidents. The FAA enforcement procedures are set forth in 14 CFR part 13 and FAA enforcement handbooks.
* Enforcement Action. When determining the type and extent of the enforcement action to take in a particular case, the FAA will consider the following factors:
o Nature of the violation;
o Whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate;
o The certificate holder's level of experience and responsibility;
o Attitude of the violator;
o The hazard to safety of others which should have been foreseen;
o Action taken by employer or other government authority;
o Length of time which has elapsed since violation;
o The certificate holder’s use of the certificate;
o The need for special deterrent action in a particular regulatory area or segment of the aviation community; and
o Presence of any factors involving national interest, such as the use of aircraft for criminal purposes.
* Enforcement Restrictions. The FAA considers the filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or occurrence involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII or the 14 CFR to be indicative of a constructive attitude. Such an attitude will tend to prevent future violations. Accordingly, although a finding of violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed if:
o The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
o The violation did not involve a criminal offense, accident, or action under 49 U.S.C. § 44709, which discloses a lack of qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy;
o The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, or any regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence; and
o The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, or date when the person became aware or should have been aware of the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA.

NOTE: Paragraph 9 does not apply to air traffic controllers, who are covered under the provisions of the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), as described in the ATSAP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

[Pace]

he was right to say that at 800' he was well away from commercial air transport -

Englis

That comment is not correct! How do you know that without seeing the radar traces of his movements.

800 feet across the approach or departures tracks?? Remember this guy had no clue where he was butsing not only Stansteds airspace but Luton as well.

So his aviate navigate communicate statement was meaningless as he did none of those things.

Any of us as pilots can and do make mistakes the sign of a good pilot is one who identifies that mistake and rectifies it quickly.
The Bad pilot will make a mistake not even notice the mistake and then in his confusion make subsequent mistakes.
This pilot was a bad pilot.
The most telling point was the fact that he actually tried to defend himself and his actions in court rather than eating humble pie and trying to learn something.

Pace

[Zorax]

I totally agree with the comments above - well said Pace.

Traffic inbound to Stansted or Luton and within the CTR is not in level flight and descending on the ILS. The fact that he was flying at 800' and was at the position he was against the Ryanair aircraft is fortuitous and nothing more. Knowing he was lost, could see Stansted Airport but still choose not to call ATC is irresponsible in the extreme.

[wb9999]

Englishal, nobody knew how high he was (and judging by the rest of his actions, I doubt the pilot himself knew!), and as Pace says, we don't know where he was in relation to the approach or take off path. A rogue aircraft on the approach path at 800ft a mile from the threshold is going to cause a lot of disruption.

Stansted has many more passengers than Burbank or John Wayne, and I said earlier, comparable with Tampa or San Diego. Stansted also has more passengers than Kansas City, Cleveland and Pittsburgh (all Class B). US Class B is based on passenger numbers and IFR movements (it appears that VFR traffic is not a criteria), and so I am confident in saying that Stansted would be Class B in the US.

You're confusing the issue of flying through airspace without either clearance, radio contact OR transponder with what this guy did. Sure you can fly into somewhere like Hawthorn without one or two of those, but try doing it without all three. Hawthorn is Class D and towered. Fly overhead their airfield heading towards LAX without radio and transponder (and so nobody knows what height you are or where you are planning to go), and see what would happen. Do you think that aircraft on approach at LAX will continue their approach?

[englishal]

That comment is not correct! How do you know that without seeing the radar traces of his movements.
I haven't seen is track, but what I was alluding at was that it *can* be safe to fly near a major airport ;) Obviously not across the approach path unless reasonably far out.

I agree this chap was a cock and an idiot, which is why he should be forced to have remedial training and new flight test IMHO. Hawthorn is class D - albeit US class D which is handled differently and more like an ATZ in the UK but you are right you would need a radio as a minimum.

PS one of my buddies did circuits at Lindbergh Field when we were fresh PPLs ;)

[Legalapproach]

PPrune is a rumour network and so never lets the facts get in the way of a good rant. I assume the posters here all know the full facts and so their measured criticisms take full account of all of the evidence. However, in case one or two people here were not in court or privy to the statements and exhibits I want to make a few comments.

This pilot made mistakes but hindsight is a wonderful thing and the pilot himself would, I suspect, be the first to acknowledge that given the same situation again he would have done things differently.

This was a case in which there was never an actual identified collision risk. Had there been, the pilot would most likely have been charged with negligent or reckless endangerment. As far as the infringements were concerned, they were at the western edge of the Stansted zone and the eastern edge of the Luton Zone. In terms of physical penetration of the airspace they were relatively minor, I have certainly seen far worse. Neither involved the approach paths – and yes I have seen the radar traces.

The suggestion that the lack of a collision came about because of luck was contained in a statement from a NATS witness who set out the different layers of theoretical protection and was commenting from an air traffic control perspective. The major issue, as some have rightly identified, was that although ATC had the aircraft on radar throughout, they had no height information and therefore had to assume that he could potentially be at any height and thus provide a conflict that would not be as easy to resolve as it would have been had they known his height. Further, the lack of a transponder would render TCAS useless, although as ATC had him on radar there was no aircraft relying solely or even partly upon TCAS to hopefully avoid him. Silvaire1 has it spot on.

This pilot made a navigational error (who hasn’t at some point). He realised his mistake when he saw Stansted and turned away to get himself well clear. In doing so he went slightly too far and entered the Luton zone but again corrected and turned away. His major mistake was in not contacting Stansted on the radio, but as I say hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As far as the licence was concerned the lack of validity was a failure to renew rather than lack of currency, medical or qualification. He isn’t the first pilot to make this mistake and he won’t be the last whilst there are still so many variations in licences around. There is a similar situation with photocard driving licences; which many people do not realise only last 10 years. I was in a case recently where, during a discussion about whether a driving licence was genuine or not, an eminent Q.C and judge got his own licence out to compare it only to realise (when it was pointed out they expire) that his had expired two years earlier. You will note that the Magistrates imposed no penalty for this offence.

Please understand I am not trying to defend the pilot, merely inject some clarity into the arguments. As a lawyer who served more years than most of my clients I have found that it is generally useful to hear all of the evidence and establish the facts before deciding upon guilt and more importantly, the sentence.

As to some specifics:

“Most disturbing is his inability to acknowledge any wrong doing and making it out to be a fuss about nothing.
He almost claims that his superior skills would have avoided any collision risk with another aircraft maybe travelling at 250 kts maybe popping out of the clouds in front of him?”

“The most telling point was the fact that he actually tried to defend himself and his actions in court rather than eating humble pie and trying to learn something.”

As to inability to acknowledge wrong doing – I am not sure where that comes from. He pleaded guilty which is a pretty good clue that he was acknowledging that what he did was wrong. He gave his explanation to the court, it’s called mitigation and he is entitled to do so. The newspaper report makes a few selective quotes but does not provide a complete transcript nor necessarily put it in context. Do you suggest that a defendant should go before the court and say “please give me the maximum sentence in order to show my contrition”? If you get caught speeding will you decline the offer of a £60 fixed penalty in the hope that you will be fined thousands to show how sorry you are? Of course not.

Dealing with another aircraft popping out of clouds in front of him at 250 knots, what clouds. This was a VFR Cub at 800’ in VMC. Can you enlighten us as to the weather that day and, having regard to his position, why an aircraft travelling at 250 kt would pop out of cloud in front of him? What he did was to point out to the court that he was in VMC and flying accordingly.

“The problem here is not so much the violation itself but the lack of remorse or acceptance that this pilot had shown a complete lack of airmanship and very poor decision making.”

How do you know there was no remorse? How do you know he has never tried to apologise?


“How well does he see and avoid other traffic coming at 250kts from his six o'clock?”

Well that seems like a good argument to ban all VFR flying. I fly a 65 hp Cub and whether it’s at 250 or 100 kts any aircraft in my six is going to be going faster than me so as I’ll never see them and I will never be able to avoid them, unless of course they see me.

“Of course no risk of collision because of the filter mechanisms in place”

You cite the PSA 182 accident. This occurred in 1978. The FAA launched the TCAS programme in 1981 in part as a result in part of that accident. Those filter mechanisms were not in place to prevent that accident.

“Had he put his hand up and stated that he had messed up and wanted training so that he did not cause such a problem in future I for one would have a lot more sympathy.”

How do you know what he did? He never denied the incident and would have happily undertaken further training and/or a ride with an examiner. He never got the chance. He was happy to discuss the matter with the CAA but other than asking for his paperwork they never interviewed him but, without warning or further discussion prosecuted. Sadly (or luckily for me at times) this seems to be happening more and more now. There was a time when the CAA often dealt with offences (particularly airspace infringements) with a conditional caution, i.e. that they would not prosecute if the pilot concerned undertook a similar flight with a CAA examiner to prove his competence. This seems to happen less now. I do not make this point as a criticism but point it out as a fact. In this case the pilot was never given that option.

“As it stands I wish they had removed his licence for a year because he is the type who will continue to be a loose canon creating problems for the rest of us in the future.”

Do you know the pilot then? You speak from a position of personal knowledge and authority that he will continue to be a loose cannon, that he has learnt nothing from this or the large amount of money it ended up costing him?


“Fortunately the CAA lack the legal authority to suspend licences.”

No they don’t. The Air Navigation Order obliges the CAA to be satisfied that UK-licensed pilots are and remain competent, qualified and fit persons to exercise the privileges of their licences. If the CAA becomes aware of information from any source of a nature that leads it to conclude that it can no longer be satisfied with respect to competence, qualification or fitness, then the CAA may vary, suspend or revoke the particular licence.

Where the CAA has cause to doubt the competence, qualification or fitness of a person to continue to exercise the privileges of a licence the most likely action is provisional or substantive suspension of the privileges (not revocation) until the CAA can again be satisfied in these respects. Where a licence is revoked on grounds of not being a fit person, this will most commonly take place because the licence holder has demonstrated a propensity not to comply with rules and regulations through committing a series of acts over a period, which may or may not involve actual or alleged criminal acts.

The courts have no power to suspend or revoke a licence but the CAA does.

Pace, I know a number of these comments are yours. Please don’t take it personally as I very often agree with the sentiments expressed in your posts. However, on this occasion I'm not convinced that you commentbeing in possession of all of the facts.

As I said earlier, I'm not trying to defend anyone, merely trying to inject a bit of factual clarity into the arguments.

[Torque Tonight]

An interesting contribution, Legalapproach. To address one of your comments, which I touched on earlier:


Dealing with another aircraft popping out of clouds in front of him at 250 knots, what clouds. This was a VFR Cub at 800’ in VMC. Can you enlighten us as to the weather that day and, having regard to his position, why an aircraft travelling at 250 kt would pop out of cloud in front of him? What he did was to point out to the court that he was in VMC and flying accordingly.

The risk is that he could be hit by a 737 coming from his 6 o'clock doing 250kts (probably with a good 150-200kts of overtake on the Cub). He has no prospect of 'see and avoid' even on a CAVOK day. The jet that's eating him up from behind may be descending, and the cub may be below the nose and therefore outside the field of view of the airliner. See and avoid is unlikely to work and this is exactly what happened in the PSA crash, now referenced on this thread three times. Exacerbating this are the facts that TCAS will not work with a non-transponding target, and primary radar returns from a cub are probably quite unreliable, especially in lowish level clutter. When I'm not flying Boeings at Stansted, I fly a similar light aircraft for fun and it is actually quite stealthy.

The pilot concerned, screwed up, not maliciously but he still screwed up. There are of course multiple layers of protection to avoid midairs, but through this chaps negligence, not just one but several layers were invalidated. The risk, cost and disruption are significant and that is why it is entirely appropriate that he should be held to account.

Obviously the risk of collision is higher flying VFR in uncontrolled airspace and there are limitations to 'see and avoid'. All parties operating VFR in uncontrolled airspace know and accept the lower level of protection. Also probably 90% of traffic outside controlled airspace is doing not more than 120kts. There is no reason to infer that VFR flying should be banned. Stansted controlled airspace however is not a place to fly VFR and not a place where a lower level of protection is acceptable.

[Zorax]

Legalapproach

As far as the infringements were concerned, they were at the western edge of the Stansted zone and the eastern edge of the Luton Zone. In terms of physical penetration of the airspace they were relatively minor, I have certainly seen far worse. Neither involved the approach paths – and yes I have seen the radar traces.

Are you sure about this? If the pilot was routeing from en route to Cuckoo Tye in Suffolk to Tisted in Hampshire I suspect it was the eastern edge of the Stansted zone.

I'd also be interested to know how/why you had access to the radar traces. Are you able to share?

[Legalapproach]

Torque Tonight

Yes, I'm well aware of the theoretical risk and I fully understand the point but the pilot was addressing the facts of his own particular case where ATC had him on radar, where there was no conflicting traffic and where he was away from any obvious flight paths. In his mitigation he was pointing out to the Magistrates that he was in VMC with good flight visibility which would reduce the risk compared with the situation in IMC i.e. it would give both him and any other aircraft the opportunity to see each other. This was coupled with the fact that his height would put him well below any commercial traffic. Because of the way the NATS statement was drafted, the magistrates (who might know nothing about flying) might be left with the erroneous impression that without SSR and/or TCAS there would be nothing available to any pilot that might prevent a collision.

If there was a 737 descending through 800' at any of the Cub's positions somebody else would already be having a seriously bad day.

[Legalapproach]

Zorax

Yes I am sure. The aircraft entered the Stansted Zone from the North East roughly on the centre line but tracking west, it then then tracked down the western edge before turning away towards the Luton Zone where it entered into the eastern corner closest to Stansted, came out turned back into the zone momentarily before turning away again. The Luton infringement was very minor. This is in the public domain because it was produced in court in evidence.

Suffice it to say that I have seen the radar traces and other evidence in this case.

And, for the avoidance of doubt it was a Super Cub and not my L4, if that's what you're thinking:=

[Zorax]

Legal approach

Not wishing to split hairs but your posts are at odds with each other:

Neither involved the approach paths – and yes I have seen the radar traces.

roughly on the centre line


Didn't involve the approach paths but roughly on the centreline? That takes some doing!

[Torque Tonight]

All this mitigation reinforces my opinion that he has very little understanding of how his actions affect everyone around him and how the systems work at major airports.

He could not have known at the time whether or not ATC had him on radar. What obvious flight paths? Jets are often vectored and therefore do not follow any published routes. I'm sure he wouldn't be familiar with the published SIDs and STARs anyway, and as he was lost that would be no help. The 'see and avoid' mitigation is not valid, as discussed. Not talking to ATC, no knowledge of his height, no knowledge of his intentions, all airliners pass through 800ft twice per flight anyway, etc, etc, etc.

In defence and mitigation the pilot seems to assert that he had it all under control when clearly he did not. His understanding is weak and his decisions were bad. His impression that everything was rosy is simply a result of everyone around him picking up the pieces. Blissful ignorance - not acceptable in 'serious' environment such as STN.

[Silvaire1]

Stansted controlled airspace however is not a place to fly VFR and not a place where a lower level of protection is acceptable.

Maybe it should be something other than Class D airspace then, which by definition allows for VFR operations, requires 'see and avoid' and provides nothing more in terms of 'protection' for IFR traffic than notification of VFR traffic within the Class D.

Legalapproach - very nice write up, a pleasure to read.

[Torque Tonight]

You fail to see the distinction between a VFR clearance issued by ATC and an infringement by an unknown, non-transponding and non-communicating aircraft?

[silverknapper]

Silvaire

With idiots like this about, with a clear lack of SA, navigational skills and ability to accept blame perhaps you're right.

However most of the time Vfr traffic entering class D does so legally.

[Legalapproach]

Zorax

they are not at odds - "roughly". Lack of precision on my part. To be strictly accurate it was in fact to the west of the centre line by about half a mile and 8 miles out and tracking west ie away from the centre line.

Torque tonight

I made the point in my post that the newspaper report contains only a limited part of the mitigation. Were does he assert he had it all under control and everything was rosy? As an example of the accuracy of the reporting the Newspaper report states he was over the airports when the closest he got was just over 4 1/2 nm miles as he tracked down inside the western edge of Stansted.

All airliners pass through 800' twice per flight anyway

Really? I never realised. You will note that the point I made was that no airliner would be at 800' in any of the positions the Cub was in. Would you expect an airliner to be climbing or descending through 800' at 10nm from the runway (hardly a stabilised approach) or at 6nm 45 degrees from the centre line or at 4.5 nm parallel to the runway?

As for obvious flight paths the likelihood of finding an airliner at 800' in the TMZ between the Luton and Stansted zones or on the edge of either control zone is?? You say you fly from Stansted, have you ever been at 800' in any of these locations in a Boeing? And I suspect you know better than I do the usual routings into and out of Stansted.

The pilot made serious mistakes and has been punished for them. The point is not that he was aware of everything going on around him and had calculated accordingly but, as was recognised I believe in the investigation into the incursion, that he did not create a real or significant risk of collision but did create disruption.

[Torque Tonight]

It risk of flogging a dead horse, the chap concerned didn't seem to have a very good handle on where he was and certainly wasn't helping anyone else understand where he was or where he was going next, so saying that this wasn't an issue because of his exact position is missing the point somewhat.

The disruption is the final layer of protection against a collision - clear the airspace around the threat. This does not make causing disruption A-OK.

[mad_jock]

descending through 800' at 10nm from the runway (hardly a stabilised approach) or at 6nm 45 degrees from the centre line or at 4.5 nm parallel to the runway?

Was PIA or Air china anywhere in the London TMA at the time?

Joking aside

Air ambulance
Police helicopter
Survey Aircraft
Cleared to enter traffic which is low level.

Its not just airliners that use that bit of space.

[Legalapproach]

Air ambulance
Police helicopter
Survey Aircraft
Cleared to enter traffic which is low level.

So VFR and at less than 250kts.

We could go on and on but the sun is still shining, it must be Gin o'clock somewhere in the world and my intention as stated earlier was to clarify some facts rather than start a game of Pprune tennis.:ugh:

[Legalapproach]

OK Torque Tonight, I take it all back, he might after all have met this

Russian Airplane Departing Australia - YouTube

[mad_jock]

220knts for a F406 survey machine. Add in the 90knts going the other way and you have a 310knts head on.

And they aren't always VFR and if they are on task and in controlled airspace they won't have there heads up as much.

Or calibrator turning and burning to reposition.

[Mariner9]

Thanks Legal Approach for injecting (or trying to inject) a degree of rationality to this thread.

I think psychologists would have a field day with this one. So many posters expressing outrage, based primarily on a newspaper report, which we all (should) know rarely accurately grasp aviation matters, and have their own sensationalist agenda. Some posters have even gone so far as to have made assumptions regarding the "attitude and arrogance" of the pilot without any credible evidence in that regard.

You only have to read the quarterly incident reports to realise just how many airspace busts there are in the UK, including many from professional pilots. Human Factors training tells us that pilots will make mistakes. What made this pilots mistakes different, and thus worthy of both prosecution, and (in particular) the demonisation from fellow pilots on this thread?

[Pace]

He said he recognised Stansted but then misjudged the distance, adding that he did not make radio contact because he was concentrating on his flying and navigation.
He said he was dealing with a difficult situation and following his training: "aviate first, navigate second and communicate third." He disputed the prosecutor's claim that it was only "sheer luck" there had not been any collision.
"That's misleading," he said. "That was never the case. It was a technical breach rather than a flagrant disregard for the regulations.
"I was clearly thrown by the velocity of the wind. I could see and avoid other traffic. I was deliberately at a relatively low level so below any commercial traffic.
"The infringements were completely inadvertent and once I became aware I attempted to avoid them."
After yesterday's (Wednesday, April 17) hearing, Marriott said he still had his licence and had not flown since although the ordeal had not put him off. "It was a frightening experience," he said. "That's why I deliberately didn't contact anyone. I was still trying to work out where I was and where I was going."
He said he thought the CAA decision to prosecute was "incredibly harsh" over something he described as "one navigation error".

Mariner

So we are being harsh and do not know the facts which are ???

[flybymike]

What made this pilots mistakes different, and thus worthy of both prosecution, and (in particular) the demonisation from fellow pilots on this thread?

“Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.”
(Nietzsche)

[wb9999]

Legalapproach, a great and insightful post.

However, I am still of the view that the pilot was reckless in his actions. He "deliberately" avoided contacting ATC when realising his error (an ideal time to apologise, which may have been the end of the matter) and he was flying with an expired licence. One of the items on an AFE checklist is to "check licence validity". What else is he omitting in his pre-flight checks? Weather, Notams, fuel? Why should everyone else pay for an EASA licence to replace an expired JAR licence if we forgive pilots who don't bother to renew?

Such actions affect all pilots, and so we are entitled to rant. Reckless behaviour can result in tighter restrictions for everyone else.

[flybymike]

One of the items on an AFE checklist is to "check licence validity".
Indeed, I always get my AFE check list out and then make sure I check my licence for every flight just in case it expired overnight.
AFE really ought to be awarded a prize for the most valuable checklist item I have ever heard of...

[mad_jock]

He "deliberately" avoided contacting ATC when realising his error (an ideal time to apologise, which may have been the end of the matter)

That's the nub of it.

Maybe his instructor wasn't one of the ones that practises a practise pan with all of there students.

The swings and roundabouts of if he was a danger to anyone but himself is neither here nor there.

If you get lost anywhere near controlled airspace get on 121.5 at the very least I would expect a smaller fine if they do charge you. And lets face it most PPL's won't have multiple mates to pull up to counter act the expert witnesses that the CAA can get there hands on. But if you haven't contacted 121.5 you really don't have a leg to stand on and just have to take what's dished out to you.

[wb9999]

AFE really ought to be awarded a prize for the most valuable checklist item I have ever heard of...

I agree, but from the attitude of the infringer it would seem to be necessary.

[Pace]

Ok I will stop bashing him now:E But this is a good lesson! Firstly we all make mistakes but it is important to be able to identify those mistakes quickly and to take the right course of action to rectify the mistakes and not to compound things by letting one mistake lead to another and then another based on bad judgment and airmanship.

The pilot puts a lot of emphasis in his defense of aviate navigate communicate!
The aircraft was fine so the priority becomes the fact that he was in Stansted airspace.
His navigation had failed as he was basically lost.
One of the best navigation forms for a pilot who is disorientated or lost is through communication where someone will navigate for you.
Had he instantly made communication with Stansted or the emergency frequency or even London Info that would have been seen as good airmanship and there would not have been a prosecution.
Hopefully he will think and look at his decision making for the future.

Pace

[englishal]

and there would not have been a prosecution.
You think ! Maybe a NASA scheme in the UK would be a good idea....

[mad_jock]

Yes it would.

But in most cases and this one, I suspect it wouldn't make the slightest difference.

If your not willing to contact anyone in the air your likely to land and walk away and think you have got away with it if nobody says anything for a week.

The number of prosecutions compared to the actual number of airspace busts is very small. And from the people I know who have been caught it is usually dealt with by the ATS shift supervisor on the telephone. And its only when attitude is shown that things are taken further.

It may well be though that they take a case through the courts every 6 months or so from the London TMA just to highlight the problem. And its just bad luck if your the one that gets done.

[piperboy84]

RW.

That would most definitely be the best, safest and most reasonable way to resolve the matter, but could you imagine what the press would say If the judge said during sentencing that he was going to wave thousand of pounds in fines under the condition the defendant spent an equal amount on flight lessons? The press would be all over that and probably suggest that the judge should waive sentences/fines for bank robbers if they agreed to take some target practice lessons and high speed driving courses.

[englishal]

I only keep commenting because I am at work on a boring, grey, cold Sunday in the Arctic...! But....

I think the problem with bring a case like this to court is that it is a rather specialist topic, and if your average magistrate has no flying experience then he is not really in a position to "judge". The CAA can say "he endangered hundreds of lives on a Ryanair flight" and then he'd probably think "oh no, this guy is super dangerous". Luckily there are lawyers out there who do fly, so perhaps they can mitigate the circumstances somewhat, but perhaps there is a better way to deal with issues like this.

IMHO, I think it would be better for the CAA to carry out their own investigation, interview the pilot at a formal hearing in Gatwick, with a lawyer if required, and then make their own judgment to either impose penalties such as remedial training etc., or to then send the case off to court to be heard by a magistrate.

I am sure that in circumstances like this, I do think that rather than a £3400 fine, that this chap would have been better off having an order to carry out X hrs of remedial training with a FI followed by a flight test with an examiner on the nav element. Once that is satisfied, then he can have his licence re-instated. To most pilots, the licence itself is more important than a fine. Without it you cannot fly. If you have cash, then it is simply to write a cheque. If you don't have cash then it could cause undue hardship elsewhere. Plus rather than £3400 going into some bank somewhere and used for some rubbish, the money would be better off spent re-training this chap, and would benefit everyone...

[Maoraigh1]

It used to be that English marine cases were held in an Admiralty Court - where the Judge sat along with Trinity House Brethern. (Admiralty Court had nothing to do with the Royal Navy.)

[Crash one]

As usual I have had a good read here, the last time some moron/pilot really cocked it up was Biggles & everyone & his dog had a go at him.
It then gets personal between one of his "admirers" & one or two who would hang him.
I am therefore gonna say nowt this time. Apparently the Courts have dealt with it, it's a lesson on what it could cost if the law decide to, & it points out what a nightmare it must be over the Deep Saaf. If £3400 wakes him up, fine, if not then I'm glad I live far enough north not to be a likely target.
I will say, if he is flying a Cub he can't be that thick??:ugh:

[mad_jock]

I wonder if biggles is back in the sky yet.

If you if you read through that one, that was multiple airspace busts and nothing went to court.

[Pace]

That is why I am convinced that it was this pilots attitude which made the CAA go to court! The fact that he tried to defend the indefenceable!
I am sure had he apologised and said he made huge errors of judgement was going to finance training to make sure such s thing would be handled differently then the CAA would have probably let him
Off with Caution!
My guess and it's only a guess is that he got lost scared himself silly when he saw a large runway ahead and in a non transponding aircraft decided to slip out undetected by his registration!
Having been caught he played down the whole episode as insignificant and somehow convinced himself that he was making the right choices in aviating, navigating and communicating in that order!
In fact apart from flying the aircraft he was doing neither of the other two parts of his defence!
He would have boxed clever by not going to court accepting his guilt on airspace bust and apologising profusely !

Pace

[mad_jock]

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/P%20M%20Aviation%20Ltd%20Flight%20Design%20CTSW,%20G-VINH%2008-10.pdf

Here is biggles report for anyone that hasn't seen it.

Must admit the folk I have spoken with that have done something stupid I have always told to phone the ATS and fess up what they did and say they are sorry. And none of them have had any formal problems afterwards.

[Legalapproach]

Pace

Read my earlier post. The CAA never spoke to him, they never interviewed him, they never got his side of the story, he never displayed an attitude to them because he never got the chance. Possibly because they were running up against the 6 month time limit in which to bring a summons they simply went ahead and prosecuted.

I am not saying this to be critical of the CAA but because you seem to have (are convinced of) a pre-determined view of the pilot as an individual without knowing the facts.

[piperboy84]

Here is biggles report for anyone that hasn't seen it

Just read it and couldn't help noticing what an excellent performance from that little machine, fast, efficient and low fuel consumption ( obviously not as low as the guy thought, but very good nonetheless) They really do have building those LSA's down to a T.

I note he landed in the Caird Park, lucky it was up a tree or his wheels would have nicked

[silverknapper]

No one is disputing that mistakes happen. I have a few thoughts:

1. He has had a licence for over 5 years so this isn't an absolute beginner we are referring to. He screwed up, didn't follow up his mistakes in a proper manner, and tried to bull**** his way out of it, assuming the report is correct. It would have been useful to see if he received refresher training since gaining a licence, or like many at my local aero club is scared of being examined so did the minimum to avoid a renewal.

2. Everyone who says he didn't hit anything. Where do you draw the line? Given his lack of navigation skill who says his lookout is any good.

3. His fine is a mere fraction of what he cost all the airlines disrupted by his actions. Is it means tested does anyone know? Proportionally it's a half of the cost of a PPL. These days anyone caught speeding to excess can expect a heavy fine, in the region of half the cost of attaining a driving licence. Put into that perspective is it so bad?

4. It's obviously a deterrent. It's made me more aware of airspace. And with the ever increasing number of infringements maybe making an example of someone will act as a deterrent, or reminder may be a better word.

As Peter says it does raise the issue of the anti GPS brigade. But with no transponder I wonder if he had even a basic GPS.

Incidents such as this do back up the mandatory transponder argument.

[mad_jock]

I note he landed in the Caird Park

Its not called that any more, it is called 27R.

[Crash one]

I don't know what the place is like down there for bimble flying, but this guy could be a farm strip flyer (Super Cub?) he may have been used to flying from one grass strip to another, at low level, talking to no one, not bothering anyone, no transponder, GPS or any other up to date "Pilot Toys". Then he goes a bit further, gets lost & is out of his comfort zone in the land of "Authority" & loses it thinking "what's the big deal? I ain't done nothing". Pure guesswork & speculation by the way.
What he perhaps should have done or said is another story.
It would be interesting to know what sort of flying he normally does. Prob not PA28/172 Club hire Skydemon planned stuff.
As for 121.5 the first time I ever did a pracice pan was 5 years after the GFT.

[mad_jock]

There could be an element of truth in that.

It could also be that there is a suspicion that he has done it before but they couldn't get the required radar plots to prove that it was him.

This time they got a point of departure and a point of arrival and all points in between and went for him. I suspect there where other radar assets in the area which got the evidence.

[Piper.Classique]

Hmmmmm
Flying a Cub doesn't mean not touring. It means touring more slowly. With or without a GPS. Not saying I've never been uncertain of my position, you understand. No transponder ever navigated an aeroplane yet, but it is handy for getting through the controlled bits with minimum hassle.

Have any of you ever said something then wished you hadn't?

Have you ever been somewhere a teeny bit where you shouldn't?





Thought so.

Give the guy a break, eh? He's paid his fine and had time to think about what he is or was doing.

[Crash one]

Hmmmmm
Flying a Cub doesn't mean not touring. It means touring more slowly. With or without a GPS. Not saying I've never been uncertain of my position, you understand. No transponder ever navigated an aeroplane yet, but it is handy for getting through the controlled bits with minimum hassle.

Have any of you ever said something then wished you hadn't?

Have you ever been somewhere a teeny bit where you shouldn't?





Thought so.

Give the guy a break, eh? He's paid his fine and had time to think about what he is or was doing.


Just in case that was aimed at me.
Point one. I for one was not passing judgement (I said "Pure guesswork & speculation").
Point two.
I did not even hint that he should have a transponder, I don't have one in my a/c, nor do I have a GPS just an Aware basic to keep out of trouble like this.
Point three
Yes I have said things I wish I shouldn't, right here right now, so what, haven't you?
Point four.
No I haven't been (flying) somewhere I teeny bit shouldn't. But then I fly in wide open class G so it's not difficult.
Thought so, my ass.
I actually thought I was giving the guy a break.
As for flying a Cub doesn't mean not touring. If this guy is a touring type of person (Cub or PA28 or Citation) then more fool him, he should be used to CAS. A farm strips low level only kind of pilot is likely to never come across authority normally. Then when he does it comes as a shock to the poor sod. Do I have to spell it out in minute dumbed down detail?
I wish I hadn't said a word.:ugh:

[Piper.Classique]

Sheesh......

no, crash one, not aimed at you specifically. Calm down, please.

[piperboy84]

Hmmm "farm strip" types huh, reminds me of a story of when my uncle bought a farm down near Evesham in the 70,s. Old Joe the guy he bought it from had never been out the area in his life (but was never far away from a bottle of home brewed scrumpy) so now that he wasn't busy on the farm he agreed to a suggestion to go the the Bristol (I think) show. So of he set in his old Nuffield at 4am but arrived before the gates opened at 9am, thought bugger this, and turned around and came home.

Wasn't big on planning either was old Joe

[mary meagher]

so why am I reading this thread for the first time? Must say I appreciate the learned exposition from Legal Approach. The newspaper report hasn't won the hapless pilot any friends....but thoughtless pilots can spoil things for the rest of us.

As one who has flown a Super Cub more than anything else, if this guy was near a big airport and failed to communicate, he was big time in trouble. To rely on see and avoid is not easy in the Cub, keeping a good lookout requires a lot of lifting wings, lowering nose, maneuvering to check all those places hard to see what's coming. The only reason I am here on the planet is that a glider pilot I was pulling up once informed me of traffic, and when I turned the wrong way to look for the conflict, he radioed TURN LEFT NOW!!! which avoided a midair. The other pilot never saw us at all, as we found out from the airmiss investigation....

As for ATC being able to track an intruder, the Russkis didn't even notice Matthias Rust in his 172....until he landed in the middle of Moscow...

[Crash one]

I can never understand why the Mil want us to squawk something.
Goerings lot didn't use mode A C much.

[grafity]

Just read it and couldn't help noticing what an excellent performance from that little machine, fast, efficient and low fuel consumption ( obviously not as low as the guy thought, but very good nonetheless) They really do have building those LSA's down to a T.


Good landing performance too, they've that down to a tree :}
Seriously though, to be able to leave an aircraft, that's capable of cruising at well over 100 knots, with minor injuries after crashing into a tree is pretty impressive. He must have been able to get the speed right back. He also has my respect for putting the people on the ground first before himself. Although, he didn't consider the fact that Sergio Garcia might have been up the tree playing for the green. :)

Apologies for diverting hopelessly off tread.

[peterh337]

and tried to bull**** his way out of it, assuming the report is correct

which it isn't, apparently, see the post 2 above yours :)

[Pace]

Peter

So this is a miscarriage of justice? The Pilot did no wrong his actions did not cost other aircraft which had to be diverted all over the place vast sums of money which would have paled his £3500 fine into insignificance?
There was absolutely no conceivable chance that a mistake by ATC could have resulted in a collision with an aircraft carrying 200 PAX?

What I fail to comprehend is why having seen a major airport below his instant action was not to contact someone.

Yes the fine was heavy and disgusting if true that the CAA did not ask for an explanation before prosecuting but it is instances like this which closes off airspace for the rest of us and tarnishes the good private pilots with the brush of incompetent amateurs who should not be let near CAS.

Remember we have the whole EASA thing with easier PPL IRs in the pot and do not need events like this.

Pace

[wb9999]

This was a case in which there was never an actual identified collision risk. Had there been, the pilot would most likely have been charged with negligent or reckless endangerment. As far as the infringements were concerned, they were at the western edge of the Stansted zone and the eastern edge of the Luton Zone. In terms of physical penetration of the airspace they were relatively minor, I have certainly seen far worse. Neither involved the approach paths – and yes I have seen the radar traces.

Legalapproach, I'm puzzled by this. I don't see how the pilot could have been in Stansted's zone for 11 minutes, 1200 feet from a 737, only clip the western edge of Stansted and eastern edge of Luton, when flying from Cuckoo Tye Farm (to the east of Stansted) and recognise Stansted from 800ft (the western boundary is 8 miles from the field). It just doesn't add up, and so I'm less likely to believe to that CAA didn't contact the pilot before prosecuting. I didn't think evidence could be used in court that was not disclosed to the defendant beforehand, so there must have been some communication before the case got to the magistrates court.

[soaringhigh650]

Read my earlier post. The CAA never spoke to him, they never interviewed him, they never got his side of the story, he never displayed an attitude to them because he never got the chance. Possibly because they were running up against the 6 month time limit in which to bring a summons they simply went ahead and prosecuted.

Perhaps they thought he was so incompetent they didn't even want to waste their time.

Look, it really ain't that hard - someone with an IQ of 50 can understand this - just pick up the radio and negotiate a clearance many miles BEFORE you hit that boundary.

[mary meagher]

My very first cross country in a power plane...Cessna 152, departing from Wycombe Air Park, I managed to find Blackbushe Airport without getting lost.

So far, so good. They signed my logbook. I took off to return to WAP....and the visibility began to get very very indistinct. Like crap. Having the notion I was somewhere near RAF Benson (landed there several times in a glider from Booker) I dialed up their excellent radar service and asked for assistance in Navigation as I was Uncertain of My Position.....

Nope, no transponder in those days. So Benson asked me to do a turn onto 360. And another turn onto 270. Which I did. And they kindly informed me that I was directly overhead ..... Benson! I was now confident that the motorway just to the North was the M40, so happy to proceed at a low level, as all good pilots do, IFR, I Followed the Road, and got back to WAP. End of drama.

This guy who flew his Supercub out of a farm strip should go fly at WAP or White Waltham with an instructor to hone his situational awareness....one is all too aware of the neighbouring aerodromes when flying from those particular facilities....

[Legalapproach]

It just doesn't add up, and so I'm less likely to believe to that CAA didn't contact the pilot before prosecuting. I didn't think evidence could be used in court that was not disclosed to the defendant beforehand, so there must have been some communication before the case got to the magistrates court.

I really don't mind if you believe it or not. If you know better than me and have seen the radar trace then please enlighten us as to were the infringement was. If he was interviewed and gave an explanation please tell us what he said. I really don't appreciate being effectively accused of lying.

As for your last point the prosecution are not obliged to serve all of their evidence in the magistrates court however they did on this occasion (the CAA always do). Yes, there was communication before the day in court, the CAA sent him the evidence when they sent him the summons.

[TC_LTN]

Pace

Read my earlier post. The CAA never spoke to him, they never interviewed him, they never got his side of the story, he never displayed an attitude to them because he never got the chance. Possibly because they were running up against the 6 month time limit in which to bring a summons they simply went ahead and prosecuted.

I am not saying this to be critical of the CAA but because you seem to have (are convinced of) a pre-determined view of the pilot as an individual without knowing the facts.


I rarely contribute these days but I know for a fact that this is totally incorrect.

[Legalapproach]

Totally incorrect? I would agree that "they never spoke to him" might give the impression that there was no communication when and was poor drafting on my part. The point I was answering was whether he had given his explanation and had thereby failed the attitude test. As I said in my initial post, the CAA had asked for his documentation, he was aware they were investigating the infringement and thus they had been in contact with him. However, he was not interviewed and did not give his side of the story to the CAA. A point I believe that he made in court - hence his statement that the decision to prosecute him was "harsh."

[silverknapper]

I did indeed read that post Peter. Before I posted. He still tried to bull**** his way out of it. I don't see what difference the post you refer to makes. See and avoid and ANC. All fairly weak arguments given his obvious lack of SA.

[mad_jock]

If they are the prosecuting party are they even allowed to interview him and discuss matters without screwing with the case?

They would have to caution him and if they didn't that would cause issues. And if they did caution him that would have seemed heavy handed and would have limited what he could discuss.

So it seems to me that they have to decide if the prosecution is going ahead before that initial contact.

The fact that the dept that deals with this sort of thing is staffed with ex policemen and lawyers and not pilots. It would seem that even if there was a discussion it would be a bit limited with either party understanding each other.

If it was the pilot side of things do they even have anyone that would be able to talk constructively with him without making a prosecution impossible?

[Zorax]

Legal approach

Totally incorrect? I would agree that "they never spoke to him" might give the impression that there was no communication when and was poor drafting on my part. The point I was answering was whether he had given his explanation and had thereby failed the attitude test. As I said in my initial post, the CAA had asked for his documentation, he was aware they were investigating the infringement and thus they had been in contact with him. However, he was not interviewed and did not give his side of the story to the CAA. A point I believe that he made in court - hence his statement that the decision to prosecute him was "harsh."

I find your comments interesting. I find it very hard to believe that the CAA would have gone ahead with a prosecution without speaking to the pilot. Without knowing his side of the story, the chances of a successful prosecution would be unknown. I can think of no legal examples when a decision to prosecute would not have included a statement from the "defendant".

Could you please tell us what your involvement has been with this case? You've seen the radar traces, know the CAA didn't interview him and other info not widely in the public domain.

Lastly, the article mentions that the pilot considered the decision "harsh" because it was a technical breach and not a flagrant one! So that's ok then!

[mm_flynn]

Lastly, the article mentions that the pilot considered the decision "harsh" because it was a technical breach and not a flagrant one! So that's ok then!
Zorax (and others), I don't think anyone is arguing the pilots actions where 'OK'. The points being made are that the newspaper report of 'directly over airport, within 1200 feet of 737, only luck prevented collision' are moderated by LegalApproach's apparent insider knowledge.

If the newspaper reports are right, the CAA's approach seems reasonable. On the other hand, if LegalApproach is correct, it does seem an unusually strong response from the CAA. Specifically, in a case with minimal collision risk (given he was visible on Radar and ATC shut down arrivals and departures ) the CAA appear to have chosen not to ask any questions but go direct to prosecution, which is not in keeping with past practice. If true, does this have implication for a general move to prosecution vs education or is there some additional background information that provides context.

[Legalapproach]

Zorax

I find it very hard to believe that the CAA would have gone ahead with a prosecution without speaking to the pilot. Without knowing his side of the story, the chances of a successful prosecution would be unknown. I can think of no legal examples when a decision to prosecute would not have included a statement from the "defendant".

You do seem to find an awful lot hard to believe. I know of plenty of legal examples where a decision to prosecute is taken without a statement from the defendant largely because defendants decline to say anything or it is unnecessary. Speeding is a good example, if you get a speeding notice through the post the only information they want is whether or not you were the driver. You are never asked for an explanation as to why you were speeding.

In fact I did a case today where the defendant, charged with robbery, refused to be interviewed and so we had no statement from him. We were still confident in the chances of a successful prosecution and we were right - he's now doing 7 years.

In this case the CAA did not need to know what the pilot's explanation was in order to assess the chances of a successful prosecution. Provided they had enough evidence to show that he was the pilot of the relevant aircraft and it entered the Stansted Zone and Luton Zone without the permission of the relevant air traffic control unit they had enough of a case.

All I have tried to do with regard to this case is inject some factual accuracy because of the wild speculation that some posters were mistakenly involving themselves in. You can take the information or leave it.

My involvement in this matter is irrelevant. If I told you what it was, on current form, you probably wouldn't believe me.

[Legalapproach]

mm_flynn

Stansted infringements are a sensitive issue. I am not going to criticise the CAA. They do not in fact conduct that many prosecutions but if you look at their lists of prosecutions you will find that Stansted Zone incursions feature a fair few times compared with other airspace infringements. That's not to say there are a lot but they are taken seriously.

[TC_LTN]

Legalapproach your involvement with pilot in this case fascinates me. Either you have chosen to spin a yarn about the pilot not being interviewed and not given the opportunity to explain his side of the story or perhaps the pilot has relayed a different version of events to you?

Either way, you are sadly misinformed as to the events surrounding this case and the safety significance of this particular infringement.

[flybymike]

It appears we have two separate parties here, each with a direct personal involvement, and each of whom totally disagree with the other's version of events.

[Flying Lawyer]

Zorax
I find it very hard to believe that the CAA would have gone ahead with a prosecution without speaking to the pilot. Without knowing his side of the story, the chances of a successful prosecution would be unknown. I can think of no legal examples when a decision to prosecute would not have included a statement from the "defendant". You clearly have limited or no experience of criminal proceedings.

TC_LTN Either you have chosen to spin a yarn about the pilot not being interviewed and not given the opportunity to explain his side of the story or perhaps the pilot has relayed a different version of events to you?

I have known Legalapproach, professionally and personally, for about 30 years. He would not 'spin a yarn'. He is also very experienced and very able; he would not make assertions without ensuring that they are correct.

Surely it must obvious by now that he is in a position to say with certainty that the pilot was not interviewed, and equally obvious why he is in a position to say so.

When I did aviation cases, in my former professional life, it was unusual for the CAA not to interview a pilot (or offer the opportunity to be interviewed) but it did happen from time to time.

flybymikeIt appears we have two separate parties here, each with a direct personal involvement, and each of whom totally disagree with the other's version of events. Only one of them is in a position to know whether the pilot was interviewed.
He says the pilot wasn't.

Legalapproach
Good informative and balanced posts. :ok:
I know, from years' of reading and posting on PPRuNe, that there will always be people who continue to believe that a pilot's 'attitude' when interviewed by the CAA influences whether there will be a prosecution. You and I know that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't but, however hard you try, there will be those who remain unconvinced.
Some even believe it is the determining factor, and adamantly refuse to allow the facts to interfere with their theory.
There was a time when the CAA often dealt with offences (particularly airspace infringements) with a conditional caution, i.e. that they would not prosecute if the pilot concerned undertook a similar flight with a CAA examiner to prove his competence. This seems to happen less now. That's a pity.


FL

[stevelup]

An awful lot of people have, over the years, spouted an awful lot of rubbish on PPRuNe when it comes to legal matters.

Given that most of us don't know Legalapproach from Adam, it's not unreasonable to be wary of statements posted as fact with no explanation as to why the poster is in a position to comment authoritatively.

It's human nature, and we'd be in a far worse position if no-one did ask questions.

[Flying Lawyer]

An awful lot of people have, over the years, spouted an awful lot of rubbish on PPRuNe when it comes to legal matters.
I couldn't agree more. :ok:
There are examples on this thread. it's not unreasonable to be wary of statements posted as fact with no explanation as to why the poster is in a position to comment authoritatively. Again, I agree.
However, it's usually possible to sort the wheat from the chaff and, in this instance, not difficult to work out why Legalapproach (an experienced barrister) is in a position to comment authoritatively.


FL

[Pace]

Again, I agree.
However, it's usually possible to sort the wheat from the chaff and, in this instance, not difficult to work out why Legalapproach (an experienced barrister) is in a position to comment authoritatively.

Not really ;) He was not the lawyer representing the defendant as the pilot defended himself.
He was not the prosecutor as he defends the defendant in this thread.
So ???
But yes as he has now been convicted so nothing said is subjudice I cannot see the secrecy of laying out the facts which we are unaware of?
All we can go on are the reported facts stated in the journalistic report

Pace

[mad_jock]

but this type of cost must be built into their contingencies

What contingencies?

If say 5 737 sized aircraft were held on the ground after start for 15 mins. That's 10kg * 5 * 15 which is 750kg which is 1000 ltrs so about 800 quid worth.

And 5 have to stay in the air for an extra 15 mins at 2700kg/hour

So that's 3409kgs or 4430ltrs or 3541 quid.

That's only taking into account fuel not maint or engine depreciation.

So the fine is about right for the fuel wasted.

[Pace]

I obviously do not know all the facts other than the pilot got lost and ended up in Stansted and Luton airspace!
That in itself is a mistake which we all can make at one point or other!
Having made that mistake I am pretty sure had his priority been to make contact with either Stansted, the emergency frequency or London info then there would not have been a prosecution!
Even air traffic make mistakes or miss something and the combination of the two mistakes could have lead to a collision with an airline carrying 200 pax hence my guess on the severity of the fine!

Pace

[Flying Lawyer]

Pace
All we can go on are the reported facts stated in the journalistic report
Ah! Now I understand your stance. 'If it's in the papers it must be true.'

It's not actually all we can go on.
Information has been provided by a barrister with much experience of aviation cases.
When I was in his position, I often had information that I could reveal but could not reveal my source.

FL

[Pace]

FL

I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the fact that you both post here and add legal knowledge and advice to these threads.
The biggest crime ( for sake of a better word ) was the failure of the pilot to communicate the fact that he was lost and in CAS!
He was not a solo student on a qualifying cross country!
If you have facts that his radios failed meaning he had no ability to communicate then that is a different matter
If this has been a miscarriage of justice then we need to know why? As then I am sure everyone would be shouting to have it put right

Pace

[mary meagher]

Unfortunately it is the attitude of some "sky gods" that the usual rules don't apply to him. A Piper Super Cub flying from a farm strip may enjoy beetling around the countryside without the nuisance of having his radio turned on AND USING IT WHEN UNCERTAIN OF HIS POSITION. But as I mentioned before someplace, the visibility from a supercub cruising at 60 mph is far from perfect.
Even a glider has better visibility, and as they spend a lot of time circling, usually notice large jet planes in the vicinity.

I had to get located by a US Coast Guard Helicopter once, and it took a Coast Guard cutter to tow the sailboat into harbour through a nasty storm; must have cost them a packet in petrol, etc, but because it was a genuine emergency, they kindly did not charge expenses. The fine levied in this case is truly a slap on the wrist compared with the cost of delays due to the inappropriate location of the small aircraft. Will he learn the lesson?

[Torque Tonight]

RW, Your former example is an operational hazard that goes with the territory, is unavoidable and can be reasonable expected. The latter is basically avoidable negligence which results in a significant hazard. The CAA, the airport and the airlines affected will not benefit from the fine so it can hardly be seen as a revenue generating exercise. The penalty makes the point that events like this have consequences and hopefully will remind others to raise their game when flying close to serious airspace such as Stansted.

[Pace]

Richard a tyre blowout is an accident ie something which happens totally our if the pilots control.
A mistake is something different which we all do at one time or another!
With a competant fairly experienced pilot should be identified and his training and experience should lead him
As the commander to make the right decisions in rectifying that mistake ?
In this case it appears that he made all the wrong decisions ? But I do not know the true facts as our Lawyer friends state and we are still awaiting those facts

Pace

[Torque Tonight]

Indeed, but a certain minimum level of competence is expected and demanded, otherwise there would be no need to licence pilots. When an individual's performance falls far short of the standard expected from his training and demanded by his licence, and where there are significant safety implications for other airpace users, then it is entirely appropriate to take action. The CAA and the magistrates seem to agree and presumably also the pilot involved, hence the guilty plea.

[Pace]

Richard

I have no gripe with the fact that he got lost and ended up seeing a large runway ahead!
We would all say to ourselves "**** " and panic!
It's what happened next which is very questionable and suspect !
The very first thing I would do in that situation would be to instantly call Stansted! If I did not have the frequency I would call the emergency frequency or even London info!
As a Non transponding aircraft there was a risk which I would be aware of and I think any half competant pilot would do the same!
The fact that NO call was made smacks of if I can find my way out and talk to no one I am not transponding I may get away with even being identified?
I cannot see any other reason for not communicating with a reasonably experienced pilot ?

Pace

[englishal]

Pace,

You must have nothing better to do today...... So go out and enjoy the weather (I hear it is nice at home), and do some flying (for fun).......... but don't bust any airspace ! :ok:

[dont overfil]

I don't know the pilot involved. This may have been an isolated brain fart or it could be that he is genuinely incompetant.

What concerns me is that I have seen nothing reported which addresses his problem. If he is not renting in a flying club environment he can just go flying and get into trouble again. In fact the large fine may make him even less current next time.

Does a magistrates court have the power to make him take remedial training?

The fine is typical from a system and a society which considers every pilot to be on footballers wages. There you go! I'm making generalisations as well.:uhoh:

[mad_jock]

Richard it depends which runway you blow your tyre out on.

If you close a runway at one of the big ones, you are fined by the quarter hour for the runway closure by the airport operator. And if they have to shift it you get billed for that as well. I can't remember what the charge is but it makes the fine look small.

There are specialist company's that do aircraft removals off runways if you really smack it in and the aircraft needs wings jacked and dollys etc to move.

In a nice world we would have a panel with some ATCO's, an examiner or two, a couple of layman pilots and a bod from the CAA. They would then form a report and recommended training / donation to charity or for that matter recommend prosecution. If you refused that panel of peers then you would be taken to court.

But there is no money for that sort of thing and no inclination to do it either.

[Flying Lawyer]

Pace

Thank you for your kind comments.

I have not claimed to know any of the facts concerning the incident. Even if I did know the full facts, I would not be able to make any comment because of restrictions placed upon me. My earlier comments related to what I considered to be the rather curious response of some posters to Legalapproach's informed and informative posts.

As for the prosecutor's claim (mentioned in the newspaper report) that "It had the highest and most significant risk of mid-air collision in the UK", a now famous answer given by a witness in a very high profile and widely publicised trial in 1963 comes to mind: "He would, wouldn't he." (An answer which became so famous that, some years later, it was included in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.)

I make no comment whatsoever, either way, upon the decision to prosecute in the case being discussed.

As an entirely general comment, based upon a few decades' experience of aviation cases, I believe that an 'investigate and educate' approach in which those involved can speak freely and, when appropriate, learn from the experience does far more to enhance flight safety than using the criminal process.


FL

[Mariner9]

...I believe that an 'investigate and educate' approach in which those involved can speak freely and, when appropriate, learn from the experience does far more to enhance flight safety than using the criminal process.

I certainly agree that it would help the individual concerned FL. I wonder though if the CAA may feel that regular prosecution is beneficial to flight safety by acting as a deterrent to others?

[UV]

Sounds like a rather inexperienced guy (in many respects, look at his age) but I wonder whether the result would have been different had he employed the services of an experienced aviation lawyer? Any professional observations?

That said the cost would not have been insignificant and may have been beyond his means.

As an aside the CAA have frequently prosecuted people for infringing Stansted Airspace and the associated newish TMZ's (no doubt to make their point) and I am sure they will continue to do so bearing in mind the number of serious infringements in that area.

[wb9999]

It would be interesting to know if the "facts" as reported by newspaper are correct with regards to the length of time he was in the Stansted zone (11 minutes) and if he was within 1215 feet of an inbound 737.

[Heliport]

UVthe CAA have frequently prosecuted people for infringing Stansted Airspace and the associated newish TMZ's (no doubt to make their point) and I am sure they will continue to do so bearing in mind the number of serious infringements in that area.

So would you say frequent prosecutions are achieving the intended deterrent effect?

Is it possible that education might be more effective than prosecution?

[soaringhigh650]

Is it possible that education might be more effective than prosecution?

I hear ATC have run roadshows around the country and have been present at almost every GA safety meeting, and flight school.

Obviously he didn't give a damn and I don't think anyone else would give a damn other than to prosecute.

[cockney steve]

Well, i've read the whole thread and cannot recollect any poster referring to the fact he was unlicensed at the time,being a contributory factor to his state of mind.

In his position, if you knew you weren't legal ( only a technicality) you'd probably attempt to "duck and run" Unfortunately, our hero omitted to rationalise the wealth,power.equipmentand staff the CAA/ATC have at their disposal.
I think his bank-balance will serve as an aide-memoir in that respect!

I firmly believe that the validity of his license would make not a jot of difference to his level of competence...nevertheless, it was invalid and I don't buy the "he didn't know" scenario.

[Pace]

I can forgive the airspace infringement as that is a mistake anyone could make but its subsequent actions I find very suspect.
If it was me I know that if I saw a huge runway near me the very first think I would think was " Sh+t"!!! My panic would be to tell someone as quickly as possible so they knew and could steer me out safely!
He was not a novice solo cross country student who lost the plot so my guess is he thought "sh+t" I maybe in serious trouble here! No transponder get myself out and hopefully no one will identify me and I will get away with it!
That is the only thought process which would make sense and the decision which although the risk was minute could have brought an airline carrying 200 pax down.
To me that was his guilt his crime.

Pace

[UV]

And the fine wasn't over the top.

Just look at this from Gov.uk for "Driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink"

A £5000 fine.

https://www.gov.uk/drink-driving-penalties

Quote:
the CAA have frequently prosecuted people for infringing Stansted Airspace and the associated newish TMZ's (no doubt to make their point) and I am sure they will continue to do so bearing in mind the number of serious infringements in that area.

So would you say frequent prosecutions are achieving the intended deterrent effect?


I would say this one probably is!