Unlimited fines for infringements.
Thread Starter
Unlimited fines for infringements.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...-infringements...
Yet another revenue raising effort by HMG, note this doesn't apply to Scotland!!!!!
The use of the word proportionate beggers belief.
I would urge all to submit a comment.
I am so shocked by this totally unreasonable proposal that I don't know what to say.
Yet another revenue raising effort by HMG, note this doesn't apply to Scotland!!!!!
The use of the word proportionate beggers belief.
I would urge all to submit a comment.
I am so shocked by this totally unreasonable proposal that I don't know what to say.
Thread Starter
If this goes through it could be a disaster for GA.
Who wants to go flying knowing that an error could cost you your house or a large proportion of your savings. The fines are one thing but we have all seen the CAA's "costs" which of course will be on top.
Who wants to go flying knowing that an error could cost you your house or a large proportion of your savings. The fines are one thing but we have all seen the CAA's "costs" which of course will be on top.
The link does work for me - and I am quite shocked too, but mainly at the lack of professionalism shown.
Why must responses be to one person's private identity? Isn't that a breach of privacy? Surely the least bit of professionalism would point one to some functional mailbox, like comments at organisation dot uk dot gov ?
Why is no reason or motivation given for the proposed change? How can one comment meaningfully without knowing the reasons for a change?
What club of amateurs published this kind of rubbish?
Why must responses be to one person's private identity? Isn't that a breach of privacy? Surely the least bit of professionalism would point one to some functional mailbox, like comments at organisation dot uk dot gov ?
Why is no reason or motivation given for the proposed change? How can one comment meaningfully without knowing the reasons for a change?
What club of amateurs published this kind of rubbish?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ericferret
Who wants to go flying knowing that an error could cost you your house or a large proportion of your savings.
"4.9 Where prosecutions do occur, whilst the fine amount is unlimited the fine will have to be proportionate and have to have regard to the financial circumstances of the individual being fined."
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is NOT about GA airspace infringements - although the title from DfT doesn't help (neither does today's email from Pilot magazine who have also got the wrong end of the stick - don't know if they checked with DfT ?) if you read the doc it's actually about trying to recoup some of the very expensive costs of launching RAF fighters to intercept airliners who suffer loss of comms - presumably where it was avoidable
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: in front of comptator :-)
Age: 65
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The link does work for me - and I am quite shocked too, but mainly at the lack of professionalism shown.
Why must responses be to one person's private identity? Isn't that a breach of privacy? Surely the least bit of professionalism would point one to some functional mailbox, like comments at organisation dot uk dot gov ?
Why is no reason or motivation given for the proposed change? How can one comment meaningfully without knowing the reasons for a change?
What club of amateurs published this kind of rubbish?
Why must responses be to one person's private identity? Isn't that a breach of privacy? Surely the least bit of professionalism would point one to some functional mailbox, like comments at organisation dot uk dot gov ?
Why is no reason or motivation given for the proposed change? How can one comment meaningfully without knowing the reasons for a change?
What club of amateurs published this kind of rubbish?
The reason and motivation is explained in detail if you trouble to read the document.
Last edited by blueandwhite; 25th Mar 2016 at 22:19. Reason: Edited to correct a typo, so that people don't concentrate on the insignificant.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is NOT about GA airspace infringements - although the title from DfT doesn't help (neither does today's email from Pilot magazine who have also got the wrong end of the stick - don't know if they checked with DfT ?) if you read the doc it's actually about trying to recoup some of the very expensive costs of launching RAF fighters to intercept airliners who suffer loss of comms - presumably where it was avoidable
Some of the proposals could well affect GA. Communications obligations under IFR outside CAS, under VFR at night and under VFR in RMZs, for example.
The Southend RMZ experience triggered a change to the associated airspace category, primarly because pilots weren't communicating in accordance with SERA.5005:
The Southend RMZ experience triggered a change to the associated airspace category, primarly because pilots weren't communicating in accordance with SERA.5005:
A VFR flight operating within or into areas or along routes designated by the competent authority, in accordance with SERA.4001(b)(3) or (4), shall maintain continuous air-ground voice communication watch on the appropriate communication channel of, and report its position as necessary to, the air traffic services unit providing flight information service.
If it's aimed not much at GA but mainly at infringing airliners, why the point about the means of the convicted party, with the specific description that this is an individual?
This is NOT about GA airspace infringements - although the title from DfT doesn't help (neither does today's email from Pilot magazine who have also got the wrong end of the stick - don't know if they checked with DfT ?) if you read the doc it's actually about trying to recoup some of the very expensive costs of launching RAF fighters to intercept airliners who suffer loss of comms - presumably where it was avoidable
How often does this happen...?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Farnham
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not intended for GA mistakes?
Of course you completely trust the CAA not to use this sanction against a GA offender when they have the power, and only ever to use it against rich corporations. They have such a strong track record in not gold-plating fines and costs when recognition of a genuine mistake and / or some reeducation might be more appropriate.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: SEEngland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't actually the CAA's power to fine for this, just to prosecute. Any penalty will rest with the sentencing court, in accordance with sentencing guidelines. The guidelines as to the amount of fine imposed require the court to take into account the "relevant weekly income", amongst other things, of the offender. A typical maximum would be around 150% of weekly income; so a premier league footballer could expect to pay more in cash terms than a school teacher.
MB
(This is not legal advice - consult a lawyer if this affects you)
cf Sentencing Guidelines Council
MB
(This is not legal advice - consult a lawyer if this affects you)
cf Sentencing Guidelines Council
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the government's problem if they want to hurl our Typhoons at naughty people who were deliberately negligent in not maintaining a two-way communications with ATC. Just of of interest, would plod or MOD police be dispatched to Swanwick if they had finger (or God forbid, power, Internet, telephony) problems? I think not.
I think this is a ridiculous suggestion. The muppets who dreamed this one up should be neutered to stop them breeding. We already have too many sub-normals in our country. An unlimited fine will change nothing. Isn't it nice that people who nothing about aviation have so much control over it?
PM
I think this is a ridiculous suggestion. The muppets who dreamed this one up should be neutered to stop them breeding. We already have too many sub-normals in our country. An unlimited fine will change nothing. Isn't it nice that people who nothing about aviation have so much control over it?
PM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately the intelligentsia allow lesser beings to deal with the mundane, hence we end up with a "Dave" running the country, but then we allow them (police, government departments, quangos) too much power over what they do themselves. It was OK when judges had final say..... but, in the CAA's new order, they have final say.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposal relates to alleged infringements of the Common Rules of the Air (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 923/2012) also known as SERA, and of any UK national rules of the air. There is no indication that it will only apply to CAT.
As discussed above, the proposal opens the door to vastly different punishments in England (unlimited fine) compared with Scotland (max. £5,000). Some may say that serves the horrid Sassenachs right for being, well, English
, but I'm not so sure.
Also, since the proposal refers to a European Regulation, levels of fines which vary widely across the EU might be seen as contrary to the spirit of the Single European Sky. In this respect I would welcome input from other countries – what is the maximum fine in your country for infringement of the Common Rules of the Air (aka SERA)?
There’s not much real meat in the DfT/CAA consultation. There’s no regulatory impact assessment, allthough it does seem to be characteristically packed with nonsense such as the assertion that the "preferred option" will result in fewer ROTA/SERA infringers being blasted out of the sky…
As for the cost of sending RAF aircrew to escort or guide an alleged infringer - well, we don't pay them to polish their backsides in the mess all day so they might as well get in their aircraft and do something practical.
As discussed above, the proposal opens the door to vastly different punishments in England (unlimited fine) compared with Scotland (max. £5,000). Some may say that serves the horrid Sassenachs right for being, well, English
, but I'm not so sure.Also, since the proposal refers to a European Regulation, levels of fines which vary widely across the EU might be seen as contrary to the spirit of the Single European Sky. In this respect I would welcome input from other countries – what is the maximum fine in your country for infringement of the Common Rules of the Air (aka SERA)?
There’s not much real meat in the DfT/CAA consultation. There’s no regulatory impact assessment, allthough it does seem to be characteristically packed with nonsense such as the assertion that the "preferred option" will result in fewer ROTA/SERA infringers being blasted out of the sky…
As for the cost of sending RAF aircrew to escort or guide an alleged infringer - well, we don't pay them to polish their backsides in the mess all day so they might as well get in their aircraft and do something practical.
