How NOT to become a Police pilot!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you are huffing and puffing too much. Where is your sense of good ol' British humour in all of this debacle? If this had happened in Ireland with the Garda (Police) Air Support Unit a lot of you would have been laughing your heads off. 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: us
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am inclined to agree with Tom...youŽd have to be a bit strait-laced not to see the funny side of it.I dont see too much harm in the judgeŽs decision but his licence should be ripped up.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately accidents do happen with Police/Air Ambulance helicopters. What would the press have made of it if Lamb had had an accident on one of the opersational sorties he flew?
This is one case where the CAA ought to get the support of the aviation community in bringing a prosecuion.
This is one case where the CAA ought to get the support of the aviation community in bringing a prosecuion.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMMMM!, I see, an alleged fraud, very bad chap to do such a thing.
Of course the charge cleverly beaten by the fact that fraud did not legally occur.
One does not get justice in a court romm, one gets law.
BUT, what did the CAA and the OLD BILL do to the prats that did not do a proper background check on this Walter Mitty, What was done about the prats that let him lose in the chopper. Surely their lack of proper checks prior to letting Mitty lose should have attracted at least a charge of aiding and abetting the commission of various offences. Seems to me that the employers were the real offenders!!!!!!!!!!
Of course the charge cleverly beaten by the fact that fraud did not legally occur.
One does not get justice in a court romm, one gets law.
BUT, what did the CAA and the OLD BILL do to the prats that did not do a proper background check on this Walter Mitty, What was done about the prats that let him lose in the chopper. Surely their lack of proper checks prior to letting Mitty lose should have attracted at least a charge of aiding and abetting the commission of various offences. Seems to me that the employers were the real offenders!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern England
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of time for setting up speed traps, but few checks on who gets to fly their expensive toys. Whoops.
Personally I'm surprised that a PPL could fake such knowledge unless he is already very experienced. It's hard to feign knowledge of flying different aircraft when you are actually put to the test. I find it hard enough sometimes remembering how to fly machines that I have trained on properly!
Don't expect Flying Lawyer to get involved in this one.
Client confidentiality may give him a good reason (or excuse!) to keep below the parapet on this one.
R
Personally I'm surprised that a PPL could fake such knowledge unless he is already very experienced. It's hard to feign knowledge of flying different aircraft when you are actually put to the test. I find it hard enough sometimes remembering how to fly machines that I have trained on properly!
Don't expect Flying Lawyer to get involved in this one.
Client confidentiality may give him a good reason (or excuse!) to keep below the parapet on this one.
R
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that the EC135 is categorised as a "simple" helicopter and so it must be if this guy (I say again"if") was a qualified EC120 pilot. Is there much similarity between the two - I mean helicopters not licences?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Draco's guess was right.
I'm restricted in how much I can say about this case at the moment. As you've read, the Defendant still faces a CAA investigation.
And yes, it was very tempting to "keep below the parapet" on this one but it would be wrong of me not to correct some points made so far. Also, the press report isn't entirely accurate.
To obtain a conviction, the Prosecution would have to prove that the Defendant was actually offered the job/contract. They overlooked the fact that he was not. He was told that, subject to production of his ATPL, flying records, satisfactory references from previous employers, and getting through Police security vetting etc, if everything was in order, he would then be offered a contract. He withdrew his application, was not offered the contract, therefore did not obtain a pecuniary advantage. (If he had been offered the contract, the offence would have been complete at that point. Withdrawing later would be mitigation, but not a defence.)
In theory, the Prosecution could have alleged an attempt to obtain the job. However, on the facts of this particular case, they would then have to prove he was actually attempting to obtain the job (rather than free rides and training) without being able to provide any of the items referred to above. Dishonest he may have been, complete fool he clearly is not.
If I couldn't secure an acquittal on that remaining charge in those circumstances, I'd think it was time to hang up my wig and gown and apply for a job with the CAA. (Not that they'd have me!
)
The Prosecution was informed some months ago that the Defendant did not dispute anything said by the ASU personnel. It was agreed that the CV he submittedwith his job application was almost entirely fantasy. The sole issue was whether the evidence proved the charges brought.
We saw there were fatal flaws in the Prosecution case, but it's not the Defence role to help the Prosecution. The law on 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage' is notoriously difficult. It needs careful consideration, but it's not impossible.
Nor is it the Defence role to tell the police how to investigate properly.
The Defendant never denied he'd behaved thoroughly dishonestly, and very badly towards those who befriended him. He issued a statement of apology to the ASU for all the trouble he'd caused them, explaining that what started as silly boasting got completely out of hand over many months. He volunteered to pay the cost of the traing flights he was given. On legal advice, he pleaded Not Guilty for the very good reason that he wasn't guilty of the criminal offences brought against him.
The Court process worked properly and fairly. No defendant ever has to prove his innocence. The Prosecution bring charges and therefore have the burden of proving them. If they bring the wrong charges, or don't have the necessary evidence, they fail.
As to the investigating and prosecuting process, I say only that I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the CID officers who carried out the investigation find themselves back in uniform directing traffic if the Chief Constable reviews this case. The CPS should have spotted the problems when deciding the appropriate charges but, as I've said, that particular offence has frequently caused problems.
Note: I have responded with the consent of the Defendant and my instructing solicitor. The comments are mine. They didn't ask to see and approve them.
Tudor Owen
I'm restricted in how much I can say about this case at the moment. As you've read, the Defendant still faces a CAA investigation.
And yes, it was very tempting to "keep below the parapet" on this one but it would be wrong of me not to correct some points made so far. Also, the press report isn't entirely accurate.
- The Judge did not stop or 'drop' the case.
- The defendant faced 6 different charges. During legal argument at the beginning of the trial, the Prosecution had to concede that they simply did not have the evidence to support 5 of them. To succeed, they would have to prove that the Defendant was to be paid (ie a "pecuniary advantage") for the operational flights he performed. Closer examination of the evidence confirmed the Defence argument: There was no agreement that he was ever going to receive payment for those flights, therefore he had not obtained a pecuniary advantage. The Prosecution conceded the point and Not Guilty verdicts were recorded.
- The Prosecution then applied to add a completely new charge to the indictment namely that he had dishonestly obtained 'services' (training) by deception. The Judge was agreeable in principle to this application. However, we argued the new charge was based upon a misinterpretation of the relevant law which requires there to have been an agreement or understanding that the services obtained would be paid for. After further legal argument, the Prosecution again conceded that was correct, and that they could not prove this essential element of the offence because there was no agreement that he would pay for his training. The Prosecution withdrew the application to add the new charge.
- That left one charge remaining. At our request, the Judge asked the Prosecution to say precisely how it put the case on the one remaining charge. This is not unusual; the Defence are entitled to know what case they are answering. When it was explained, the Judge invited the Prosecution to reconsider whether there was a realistic prospect of any jury convicting on the available evidence. Having done so, the Prosecution did not proceed.
- There was no evidence or allegation by any prosecution witness from the ASU that the Defendant had produced a forged, altered or photocopied ATPL.
To obtain a conviction, the Prosecution would have to prove that the Defendant was actually offered the job/contract. They overlooked the fact that he was not. He was told that, subject to production of his ATPL, flying records, satisfactory references from previous employers, and getting through Police security vetting etc, if everything was in order, he would then be offered a contract. He withdrew his application, was not offered the contract, therefore did not obtain a pecuniary advantage. (If he had been offered the contract, the offence would have been complete at that point. Withdrawing later would be mitigation, but not a defence.)
In theory, the Prosecution could have alleged an attempt to obtain the job. However, on the facts of this particular case, they would then have to prove he was actually attempting to obtain the job (rather than free rides and training) without being able to provide any of the items referred to above. Dishonest he may have been, complete fool he clearly is not.
If I couldn't secure an acquittal on that remaining charge in those circumstances, I'd think it was time to hang up my wig and gown and apply for a job with the CAA. (Not that they'd have me!
) The Prosecution was informed some months ago that the Defendant did not dispute anything said by the ASU personnel. It was agreed that the CV he submittedwith his job application was almost entirely fantasy. The sole issue was whether the evidence proved the charges brought.
We saw there were fatal flaws in the Prosecution case, but it's not the Defence role to help the Prosecution. The law on 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage' is notoriously difficult. It needs careful consideration, but it's not impossible.
Nor is it the Defence role to tell the police how to investigate properly.
The Defendant never denied he'd behaved thoroughly dishonestly, and very badly towards those who befriended him. He issued a statement of apology to the ASU for all the trouble he'd caused them, explaining that what started as silly boasting got completely out of hand over many months. He volunteered to pay the cost of the traing flights he was given. On legal advice, he pleaded Not Guilty for the very good reason that he wasn't guilty of the criminal offences brought against him.
The Court process worked properly and fairly. No defendant ever has to prove his innocence. The Prosecution bring charges and therefore have the burden of proving them. If they bring the wrong charges, or don't have the necessary evidence, they fail.
As to the investigating and prosecuting process, I say only that I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the CID officers who carried out the investigation find themselves back in uniform directing traffic if the Chief Constable reviews this case. The CPS should have spotted the problems when deciding the appropriate charges but, as I've said, that particular offence has frequently caused problems.
Note: I have responded with the consent of the Defendant and my instructing solicitor. The comments are mine. They didn't ask to see and approve them.
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 2nd May 2002 at 09:47.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a story! And yet when you begin to look at the detail you can see how it might/could/did happen. I have certainly been around a few flying schools and charter outfits that have been hoodwinked by conmen - the good ones are very very plausible. I can think of two lessons to learn:
Do the paperwork checks before you do anything further. When I was involved in flying training and self-fly hire we would not begin to do even dual training without sight of the licence original;
If you ever get into legal difficulty, use FL as your barrister!
Incidentally, the CAA licences are a bit of a joke when you think of something like this - not even an ID photo. The only way of verifying that the guy with a licence in his sticky mitt is the "holder" of the licence is to ask him to show you his signature - hardly bullet-proof security! I hate passport photos cos I am so ugly, but it is the very lowest standard that seems acceptable.
Do the paperwork checks before you do anything further. When I was involved in flying training and self-fly hire we would not begin to do even dual training without sight of the licence original;
If you ever get into legal difficulty, use FL as your barrister!
Incidentally, the CAA licences are a bit of a joke when you think of something like this - not even an ID photo. The only way of verifying that the guy with a licence in his sticky mitt is the "holder" of the licence is to ask him to show you his signature - hardly bullet-proof security! I hate passport photos cos I am so ugly, but it is the very lowest standard that seems acceptable.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have to agree. It certainly looks like FL knows what he's doing.
I feel very sorry for the guys at the Unit who have been dragged into this one, but they did kind of bring it on themselves.
I fly the 135 too, and I'd have to say that if he can impress the likes of a unit chief pilot, he must be a good pilot (not excusing what he did for a moment - don't shoot me) as it's not quite the same as an EC120 by a long way.
I feel very sorry for the guys at the Unit who have been dragged into this one, but they did kind of bring it on themselves.
I fly the 135 too, and I'd have to say that if he can impress the likes of a unit chief pilot, he must be a good pilot (not excusing what he did for a moment - don't shoot me) as it's not quite the same as an EC120 by a long way.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest installment from my source is the PPL visited the ASU twice a week at least for a year or so before he got any flights. Says he has his own company (true) he's selling (not true), his own EC120 (not true), is freelance heli pilot (not true). All very friendly, but no pax on police ops flights so no rides.
The shiny new 135 arrives, and he learns the numbers with everybody else. Then a vacancy is coming up and, if he's an applicant, he can ride with them as 'famil flights' etc.
He applies with a CV which puts him in Nick Lappos/John Farley league and, boom boom, gets to ride in a police 135! They like him, want to help him so he's offered line training to fill the only gap in his fantastic CV, he's never been a police pilot. He's been a PPL for 10-15 years, and gets though his Line Check with good scores.
I can see how it happened. I think he wanted the rides. How could he ever get the job?
BUT even if it wasn't a criminal offence, he must have known if the brown stuff hit the fan the guys in the ASU who'd been so good to him would be covered in it.
The shiny new 135 arrives, and he learns the numbers with everybody else. Then a vacancy is coming up and, if he's an applicant, he can ride with them as 'famil flights' etc.
He applies with a CV which puts him in Nick Lappos/John Farley league and, boom boom, gets to ride in a police 135! They like him, want to help him so he's offered line training to fill the only gap in his fantastic CV, he's never been a police pilot. He's been a PPL for 10-15 years, and gets though his Line Check with good scores.
I can see how it happened. I think he wanted the rides. How could he ever get the job?
BUT even if it wasn't a criminal offence, he must have known if the brown stuff hit the fan the guys in the ASU who'd been so good to him would be covered in it.
Last edited by Hoverman; 2nd May 2002 at 13:40.
Just a numbered other
FL
Thanks for such a detailed and enlightening post. Just about wraps this up until and unless the CAA take it further.
As to the existence or not of a dodgy ATPL, I can only quote my sources. It would seem our man wasn't daft enough to leave it behind.
Daft he certainly isn't but I can't get inside the mind of someone who so deliberately, in order to gain for himself a 'go in a helicopter', dropped so many who regarded him as a friend in the poo.
The Law is an ass, but as it stands, his excellently chosen barrister had no problem in getting him off. The CPS, once again are made to look amateurish and foolish. Interesting that FL describes the scrote as dishonest. I wonder how many times barristers find themselves in this kind of situation. Kind of highlights that Law and Justice are not necessarily good pals.
Thanks for such a detailed and enlightening post. Just about wraps this up until and unless the CAA take it further.
As to the existence or not of a dodgy ATPL, I can only quote my sources. It would seem our man wasn't daft enough to leave it behind.
Daft he certainly isn't but I can't get inside the mind of someone who so deliberately, in order to gain for himself a 'go in a helicopter', dropped so many who regarded him as a friend in the poo.
The Law is an ass, but as it stands, his excellently chosen barrister had no problem in getting him off. The CPS, once again are made to look amateurish and foolish. Interesting that FL describes the scrote as dishonest. I wonder how many times barristers find themselves in this kind of situation. Kind of highlights that Law and Justice are not necessarily good pals.
Last edited by Arkroyal; 2nd May 2002 at 14:57.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite interesting comparing the two worlds of Law and aviation. Aviation is all about safety and huge efforts are made to eliminate accidents through the sharing of information.Yet in the legal world the opposite seems to be the case.
Twice the Flying Lawyer reckons he knew the prosecution were going to crash; "It's not the defense role to help the prosecution" and "Nor is it the defense role to tell the police how to investigate properly".
It's a shame that this knowledge couldn't be shared and be put to good use. It might stop this type of 'accident' from happening again.
But I am being naive, and there is no doubt the Flying Lawyer is brilliant at the Law stuff. Makes amazing reading. Just hope the real not guilty guys don't have to pay for it.
Twice the Flying Lawyer reckons he knew the prosecution were going to crash; "It's not the defense role to help the prosecution" and "Nor is it the defense role to tell the police how to investigate properly".
It's a shame that this knowledge couldn't be shared and be put to good use. It might stop this type of 'accident' from happening again.
But I am being naive, and there is no doubt the Flying Lawyer is brilliant at the Law stuff. Makes amazing reading. Just hope the real not guilty guys don't have to pay for it.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern England
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
Thanks for the explanation.
It seems that the prosection was incompetent, you were a whizz and a selfish con-man made a lot of people look stupid. Another outstanding case of legal form taking precedence over real world issues, just like the man jailed for recovering abandoned golf balls except the other way around.
I hope that, at the very least, the whole case cost the chap a great deal of money, or don't tell me, the long-suffering taxpayer ended up footing the defence bill too???
R
Thanks for the explanation.
It seems that the prosection was incompetent, you were a whizz and a selfish con-man made a lot of people look stupid. Another outstanding case of legal form taking precedence over real world issues, just like the man jailed for recovering abandoned golf balls except the other way around.
I hope that, at the very least, the whole case cost the chap a great deal of money, or don't tell me, the long-suffering taxpayer ended up footing the defence bill too???
R
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What gets me is the lack of moral obligation on a broader scale. Say, for example, you saw an aircraft taxiing out with the control locks still in place, you couldn't say oh well, it's not for me to tell the pilot what to do. That's obvious to everyone here.
But how about a slightly lesser extreme; you operate in the GA enviroment and see a competing outfit who's aircraft has a minor defect that will result in an expensive but non fatal or harmful incident. By keeping quiet you know the result will be financial reward for you. Again it's obvious, I hope, that that wouldn't happen, but in the legal world keeping quiet means you win and get well rewarded for it too. That's their only moral obligation.
Just as well O.J. didn't give me a call.
I know I would make a useless lawyer. Just as well I'm not one!
But how about a slightly lesser extreme; you operate in the GA enviroment and see a competing outfit who's aircraft has a minor defect that will result in an expensive but non fatal or harmful incident. By keeping quiet you know the result will be financial reward for you. Again it's obvious, I hope, that that wouldn't happen, but in the legal world keeping quiet means you win and get well rewarded for it too. That's their only moral obligation.
Just as well O.J. didn't give me a call.
I know I would make a useless lawyer. Just as well I'm not one!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone needs their rear kicked over this Walter Mitty character...but don't let the Brit's claim a monopoly in unqualified pilots getting jobs without a licence.
Do you remember the Florida major airline FO who, on passing all the hoops for command, was found a bit short in the paperwork department? Never mind the Brit just having a Private licence, this American joker didn't even have one of those.
The whole incident was so embarrassing for both the company and the Feds that it never went to court.
Do you remember the Florida major airline FO who, on passing all the hoops for command, was found a bit short in the paperwork department? Never mind the Brit just having a Private licence, this American joker didn't even have one of those.
The whole incident was so embarrassing for both the company and the Feds that it never went to court.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep it happened to PANAM in the 40s, and to Matson Airways in the 40s as was well documented in Ernie Gann's spectacular book "Fate is the Hunter."
It is for these and other similar cases that the "trust but verify" doctrine of mandatory 5-10 year background checks came about, which are supposedly required before anyone can turn a motor.
British airlines I believe operate under similar stringent background check requirements, and I find it ironic that the police whom are charged with carrying out the law didn't employ similar checks. To me its a lot like the congressman getting back from the 12 martini lunch just in time to vote on the Blood Alchohol Testing for all transport workers. Could you imagine if a security company involved in transporting money operated like that? "Ummmm I'ld like a job driving an armored truck, preferably one with a lot of money in it." And these are harmless humor. Fifth columnists, sign up now...
Come on and lighten up, in this case you just have to giggle atleast a little.
Cheers
Wino
It is for these and other similar cases that the "trust but verify" doctrine of mandatory 5-10 year background checks came about, which are supposedly required before anyone can turn a motor.
British airlines I believe operate under similar stringent background check requirements, and I find it ironic that the police whom are charged with carrying out the law didn't employ similar checks. To me its a lot like the congressman getting back from the 12 martini lunch just in time to vote on the Blood Alchohol Testing for all transport workers. Could you imagine if a security company involved in transporting money operated like that? "Ummmm I'ld like a job driving an armored truck, preferably one with a lot of money in it." And these are harmless humor. Fifth columnists, sign up now...
Come on and lighten up, in this case you just have to giggle atleast a little.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This case should never have been brought.
The CPS are so stretched in resources and competence that they missed the vital point in this case
as put by Tudor Owen
"To obtain a conviction, the Prosecution would have to prove that the Defendant was actually offered the job/contract. They overlooked the fact that he was not. He was told that, subject to production of his ATPL, flying records, satisfactory references from previous employers, and getting through Police security vetting etc, if everything was in order, he would then be offered a contract. He withdrew his application, was not offered the contract, therefore did not obtain a pecuniary advantage"
If the man still lives in the police area he will have to ensure that his driving is perfect at all times!!
I forgot to mention that Mr Lamb was smart enough to ensure his solicitor got him a good lawyer with aviation knowledge. I wonder if that knowledge came from PPRune?
The CPS are so stretched in resources and competence that they missed the vital point in this case
as put by Tudor Owen
"To obtain a conviction, the Prosecution would have to prove that the Defendant was actually offered the job/contract. They overlooked the fact that he was not. He was told that, subject to production of his ATPL, flying records, satisfactory references from previous employers, and getting through Police security vetting etc, if everything was in order, he would then be offered a contract. He withdrew his application, was not offered the contract, therefore did not obtain a pecuniary advantage"
If the man still lives in the police area he will have to ensure that his driving is perfect at all times!!
I forgot to mention that Mr Lamb was smart enough to ensure his solicitor got him a good lawyer with aviation knowledge. I wonder if that knowledge came from PPRune?
Last edited by slj; 2nd May 2002 at 19:18.