UK: CAA prosecution: Infringement

[John R81]

CAA prosecution of helicopter pilot who infringed London zone (Class D). Stopped Northbound departures from LHR for a short time.

Pilot pleaded guilty by post, fined by the Court.

http://ukga.com/news/view?contentId=36692

[airpolice]

Now, here's a guy who clearly thinks the rules are for other people to follow.

A helicopter pilot who illegally entered controlled airspace, causing disruption to flights at London Heathrow Airport, has been successfully prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Christopher Kiley was flying from Wycombe Air Park to Cliveden House, Buckinghamshire, when he entered the London Control Zone, without air traffic control clearance, just after 1pm on 30 April, this year.

The infringement was spotted by air traffic controllers at NATS, Swanwick, who were alerted by radar to the presence of an unexpected aircraft in the zone. As a result, air traffic control was forced to temporarily halt all northbound departures at London Heathrow Airport.

The aircraft flew southwest and up to two miles inside controlled airspace, descending to 300ft. The aircraft disappeared from radar at 1.06pm and departures at the airport were allowed to resume.

Kiley told the CAA he had been to Wycombe for a flight test, before deciding to fly to Cliveden House for lunch. He explained he had been given directions to Cliveden House, but did not have co-ordinates. In addition he said he had been listening to air traffic control but it was extremely busy and, as the landing area was in view, he decided to land his helicopter. He further admitted he should have waited for clearance and apologised for his misjudgement.

Kiley, aged 62, of Caswell, Swansea, pleaded guilty via post, to one count of entering Class D airspace in the vicinity of London Heathrow Airport without air traffic control clearance, in contravention of the Air Navigation Order 2009.

At Uxbridge Magistrates' Court, on Tuesday October 27, 2015, the court was told Kiley had two previous convictions for aviation offences.

Kiley, who did not attend, was fined £1,700, order to pay costs of £600, a victim surcharge of £120 and a court user charge of £150.

CAA prosecutor, Alison Slater, said: "When a pilot infringes controlled airspace the CAA has a number of options it can use including further training, however in the most serious cases we can and do prosecute. Airspace infringements, no matter how short lived, can cause significant disruption and the knock-effects could means hours of delays to thousands of people. Every pilot should know and abide by the rules of the air and we expect all pilots to plan their journeys well in advance and follow the regulations."

The London Control Zone is an area of class D airspace, which surrounds London Heathrow Airport and is one the world's busiest airspaces. No aircraft can enter the zone without clearance from air traffic control.

[Mister Geezer]

So you have a defendant who pleaded guilty by post and was fined a total, that won't even get you 10 hours self hire in a R44 in the UK.

Is it not Mr Kiley who is having the last laugh here?

[[email protected]]

How did he even get a licence in the first place?

[SilsoeSid]

The other prosecutions;

https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/AnnualProsecutionResultsfrom01042011to31032012.pdf

On 14 March 2011, at about 1230hrs, helicopter registration G-NISA landed in the market ground in Treorchy, which is a congested area. Police officers attended and found the pilot, Christopher Kiley, in CK Stores in the High Street. Mr Kiley told police that he had had to land because a clutch warning light had come on. The police contacted the CAA and a ‘no-fly’ Direction was placed upon the helicopter until the clutch problem was resolved. Mr Kiley signed for receipt of the Direction. At 1630hrs, after the police had left, Mr Kiley flew G-NISA out of Treorchy. On 3 June 2011, at Pontypridd Magistrates’ Court, Mr Kiley pleaded guilty to one offence of failing to comply with the Direction without reasonable excuse (Article 232(3), Air Navigation Order 2009). The Magistrates decided that their sentencing powers were insufficient and committed the case to the Crown Court for sentence. On 24 June 2011, at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, Mr Kiley was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,873.19.


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2600/CAA%20Prosecutions%202013-14%20-%20web%20release.pdf

CHRISTOPHER KILEY
On Friday 19 July 2013, an unknown aircraft appeared on radar having entered class A airspace in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport. Using radar interrogation, the Air Traffic Control Officer identified the registration of the aircraft as G-OHJV. Two inbound passenger flights were of concern to the ATCO, given the track of the unknown aircraft. He instructed one not to descend and broke-off the other. A third aircraft was then broken-off from its approach.
Christopher Kiley pleaded guilty to:
1. Flying within class A airspace without permission (Rule 18, Rules of the Air
Regulations 2007)

[ShyTorque]

At least this one flies himself (and therefore doesn't put undue pressure on other pilots..).

[SilsoeSid]

He may well fly himself, but I think a few of us can guess how he is going to end up with the attitude he appears to have. Let's just hope he doesn't carry passengers too often!

Supermarket boss Chris Kiley says he's not building the third runway at Heathrow at his Gower home | South Wales Evening Post (http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Supermarket-boss-Chris-Kiley-says-s-building/story-17918177-detail/story.html)

Residents at Bishopston's Pact meeting, held at the community hall in Murton Green, said they understood Mr Kiley had been in touch with the Civil Aviation Authority about the future use of the land. They further claimed that he had told workmen to carry on removing the hedgerows after a stop notice was issued.


If anyone hereabouts knows him, keep clear in 2017 :eek:

[ShyTorque]

He may well fly himself, but I think a few of us can guess how he is going to end with with the attitude he appears to have. Let's just hope he doesn't carry passengers too often!

Yup, more or less what I was thinking.

[n5296s]

In the US I'm pretty sure that this would result in certificate action, certainly after three times. Generally my impression is that the CAA is more strict than the FAA, not less - kind of amazed they haven't just taken away his ticket and torn it into very small pieces.

[Hughes500]

Would have hoped that his licence would have been suspended until he had had some form of navigation training and then had to do a skills test with a senior examiner. Lets be frank a fine of that order is nothing if you can afford a helicopter !

[jellycopter]

The fine is issued by the court after CAA prosecution; the court decides the appropriate punishment. However, the courts do not have the remit to take any licensing action, that's up to the CAA. Now he's pleaded guilty and the court have ruled, the CAA can now do what they think is necessary - including license suspension. The public won't hear about that unless he decided to appeal under Reg 6 when the outcome of the appeal would be published in ORS 4. Indeed, he may well already have been provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the CAA investigation and prosecution.

[ShyTorque]

Hughes500,

until he had had some form of navigation training and then had to do a skills test with a senior examiner.I don't think navigation is the problem here. After all, he managed to find his own car park and then on this occasion the hotel he wanted to land at....

Hopefully, after his earlier prosecution after landing in his supermarket car park, he does now understand the legal requirement to obtain CAA written permission to land at a private site in a congested area; but he probably already knew about that too.

However, I have been a little surprised how many pilots on this forum aren't aware of that requirement, or don't bother gaining CAA permission for congested area landings, either! :rolleyes:

[Bravo73]

...kind of amazed they haven't just taken away his ticket and torn it into very small pieces.

Even if they did, I doubt that it would stop him flying.

[John Eacott]

And his previous thread on Rotorheads: Pilot fined after landing helicopter in village carpark (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/455828-pilot-fined-after-landing-helicopter-village-car-park.html).

Serial offender?

[Hughes500]

Shy

Yes I know but you would be surprised at the number of pilots that get lost without satnav. So much more of a punishment in having to be retrained than just a fine !
Now don't get me going on congested areas, there is no definition of what one is. When I asked my Ops inspector he gave me an example on an AOC check flight, a golf course is !!!! Now I had assumed that would not have been the case, I further asked what was the definition to be told you have to be pragmatic about the definition !!!!! or should that be ??????

[OvertHawk]

Errrrmmmmm... :confused:

The Air Navigation Order defines a congested area as being ‘any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes’

Seems fairly clear and specific to me!

[Hughes500]

Overt

Actually not very clear. So tell me is a golf course with no one playing a congested area ? Is a rugby pitch is therefore counted as a congested area even if no one is playing on it ? Is a National park which one of its primary functions is for recreation counted as a congested area . Bet you will find that every hotel that has a landing pad is therefore a congested area ! I know I am being a bit silly but ....... what is the answer ?
The actual answer to any of this lies with a judge and as my inspectors view, you have to be sensible and pragmatic about it, I would suggest that a car park is a congested area especially when it has cars in it though

[handysnaks]

H500 A national park is not 'any area of a City, Town or settlement'!

[SilsoeSid]

Is the car park of the 'Plume of Feathers' in Princetown, Dartmoor, a congested area?
:p

[Hughes500]

Why would I want to go To the Plume of feathers bit of a dump as is Princetown really !!!:p

Handysnaks think recreational purpose as per the ANO

So who is going to answer the questions then

is a golf course a congested area ? I know lots of golf courses that have non approved helipads !!!!
is a hotel pad next to the hotel a congested area ?
is a rugby pitch with no one playing a congested area ?

Who has landed in any of the above without CAA written consent ?

The point is the law or definitions are not as clear as you think. This is dangerous as your interpretation can be different to what The CAA thinks

[Hughes500]

Silsoe

Two bridges is better, certainly better food and there is a field next to the pub you can land in. Oh hang on a moment I haven't been there as it is in a NP and it is within the curtilage of a public house !!!

[nigelh]

I just take a view that if there is a strip of green you can fly over to get in and out then it is not congested area ...if there are back to back houses and no green all the way around then it is . Having said that if the landing site is big enough to be able to transition and climb to 1000ft before going over the houses go for it !!!

[chopjock]

So who is going to answer the questions then

is a golf course a congested area ? I know lots of golf courses that have non approved helipads !!!!
is a hotel pad next to the hotel a congested area ?
is a rugby pitch with no one playing a congested area ?


The Air Navigation Order defines a congested area as being ‘any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes’


"Substantially used" are the key words, and is open to interpretation...

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

After the introduction of SERA you no longer need to get a rule 5,3,c permission / exemption for non CAT flights

CBS

[OvertHawk]

CrazyBroadsword.

That was, indeed, the CAA's positions several months ago and they did stop issuing rule five permissions for congested area landings for a time after SERA was introduced which, as you say, did remove the requirement.

They have now back peddled on this and rule five permissions ARE REQUIRED for congested area landings. Rules of The Air 2015 (March 2015) Section 2 para5(1).

:ugh:

[ShyTorque]

It would have been too optimistic to expect the CAA to surrender an income stream for long (£113 per application). :(

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

Thanks for that ! Too much to expect the rules to stay the same for more than a week or two

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Hughes;

Take a look at Leicester Race Course (N51 35.5 W001 05.44) I was in there one evening a few years ago when the Feds arrived and took a Gazelle, a 206 and 4 Robbie 44 owners/pilots to bits for landing in a congested area without permission.

I was in one of two AOC twins in there with all the correct permissions and was amazed that three of the pilots had CPL's and no idea of the requirements, the Feds spent a LOT of time with those guys, especially as the 206 was on a public transport flight.

SND

[ShyTorque]

I once arrived back at work (non AOC operator with a bit of a reputation) from leave to discover that ops had scheduled me to fly into Leicester racecourse a couple hours later. I asked where the CAA permission was and received a blank look......

I was put under some company pressure ( := ) but I point blank refused to go, for exactly the reasons above. It's always the Captain's responsibility and Ops staff don't get taken to court, do they?

[Hughes500]

SND

Leicester race course you have to overfly / flying into a built up area so obviously. Think the issue is when is an area congested and when is it not ?
To use the rugby pitch/s scenario as an example. If no one is playing on it / them and the club is not surrounded by houses etc etc is it congested ?
You could argue that it is used for substantially recreational use as the pitch isn't used for anything else so therefore it has a sole use of playing rugby on.
Like all things in life common sense has to prevail ( although if sense was common everyone would have it ):{

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Hughes;

For God's Sake Man. This helicopter aviation post EASA. Write out 100 times "I must not mention common sense."

Then see me in the library with your trousers over your left arm.

SND

[nigelh]

A congested area has no route in or out that doesn't involve overflying property .
If a town/city was in a U shape , you could fly right into the centre of the U as it wouldn't involve overflying property ..a bit like the route to City Airport from the North . A rugby pitch or golf course in itself cannot be a congested area , but it could be landlocked inside a congested area . You need to look at the reason for the rule . It is all to do with having a safe landing spot in the event of engine failure on approach or landing . That is how I have decided over 30 years and never had any problems !!

[Hughes500]

SND

I had you down as trousers on the right arm with a funny left hand handshake in the Parlour !

[handysnaks]

Handysnaks think recreational purpose as per the ANO


H500, The ANO specifies that the rule (in this case), applies to any city, town or settlement, not any and every area of countryside!
As just about every National Park is there because it is an area of spectacularly beautiful countryside, then the rule doesn't apply. The caveat of course, is that it does apply to a city, town or settlement that does happen to be in a national park!:)

[Hughes500]

Handysnaks,
My posts are trying to provoke people to think about where the are landing and what is and what is not congested because at times it is a difficult call !