Originally Posted by
EAP86
Is this necessary? The CAA can prosecute without recourse to the Police/CPS. While they may not have had access to 'proper' evidence nor wish to deter the use of the Airprox process, the pattern of behaviour suggests it might have been called for in this case.
EAP
In aviation we have a very good reason to embrace open reporting with a bias towards a no-blame culture. To someone outside of aviation this may appear to be a 'soft' option especially when compared to something like motoring offences. The societal gain from reduced accidents by virtue of an open and honest reporting system tips the scales of justice away from prosecutions. If an individual or organisation steps away from open and honest reporting or any flight safety investigation then the scales of justice should revert to normal.
Once the regulator has grounds to suspect either gross negligence, a deliberate act or a deliberate effort to frustrate a safety investigation then the regulator should suspend any relevant licences and provide any & all non-privileged information to the police. From then on the regulator should be in a supporting role until the police / CPS / courts come to a conclusion. In my previous discussions with the CAA I expressed a preference for all such investigations to be handled by the NCA rather than an individual force. As aviation can cross boarders the NCA is best equipped to liaise with other national authorities. My sense from the CAA was that they were verging on clueless when it came to anything that looked like a formal or legal sanction. Indeed, they frequently make excuses on behalf of any miscreant even when the individual has made no effort to engage with an investigation. About the only exception to this is with alcohol where direct police enforcement has become the norm.
My overriding concern with the CAA is that they seem to have become detached from the 'aviation' bit. Any professional aviator would baulk at the thought of using a circuit joining clearance as permission to fly as low as you like, with any flightpath you like with zero regard to other airfield users. Yet in this case some members of the board thought that a civilian pilot attempting a military-style VRIAB could be absolved from knowing or understanding the limits. In no way is a 30ft high-speed beat-up of an airfield acceptable when you have been cleared to join the circuit. It is either a deliberate act or a yawning gap in professional ability and regulatory action is required. Yet I am left with doubts regarding the professional ability of the UKAB Secretariat itself:
UKAB Secretariat
The Chinook and Spitfire pilots shared an equal responsibility for collision avoidance and not to operate in such proximity to other aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
Do they really think that an aircraft taxiing to park has
any responsibility for collision avoidance with circuit joining traffic, let alone equal? What next... giving equal collision avoidance responsibility to a taxiing C-130 that has the audacity to dangle its 40ft fin over the runway it is just exiting? How about an aircraft under tow, or just one waiting to clear the runway?
There is a whiff of madness with both the CAA and UKAB when it comes to professional aviation standards.