PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - CAA Prosecution (updated)
View Single Post
Old 14th Nov 2003, 08:57
  #10 (permalink)  
Flying Lawyer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
headsethair
You've put it a little more strongly than I would, but I agree it was an unnecessary prosecution. I think a formal warning, recorded on his CAA file for future reference, would have been sufficient.

B. Sousa
Very kind of you to say so.
He didn't take legal advice until after he'd been interviewed, admitted the offence, and been told he was being prosecuted.
We'll never know if it would have made any difference to the end result if he'd sought advice earlier but, in general, it's very unwise to be interviewed without taking advice from an aviation specialist solicitor - whether or not you're proposing to admit the offence. BTW, I'm not advertising - I'm not a solicitor.

Chopperman
Sympathy is a subjective emotion. You either feel it or you don't. Fair enough. If you mean prosecution was the correct course in this instance, I disagree but respect your point of view.
A more accurate comparison would be a car driving at 80 mph in your deserted motorway analogy.
If what you're saying is that pilots should always be prosecuted if they are caught breaking any Regulation, then I'm afraid we're so far apart it's unlikely we'd ever meet in the middle.

Rick
The pilot suspected local politics lay behind the complaint being made. I have no idea if it did. All I know is the owners of the house where he landed had allowed their field to be used for the previous year's festival, but not this year.

I have no reason to suspect there was anything more than meets the eye in the CAA's decision to prosecute. Despite claims to the contrary, they tend to prosecute even minor breaches if they've got the evidence. Even allowing for that, I would have expected this infringement to be dealt with by a warning in all the circumstances, especially as he didn't endanger anyone.

Flingwing207
No-one's suggested the pilot wasn't guilty. He admitted he was, and pleaded guilty.
Having failed twice to get through to anyone on the 'temporary heliport' number (a mobile phone) he flew 12 minutes from the hotel towards his friend's house, intending to make an assessment when he got near. He identified the 'heliport' (actually a field), saw there was no activity and assumed (wrongly) that explained why he couldn't get through on the phone. He assessed the house was either just outside the restricted area or, at worst, just inside. It could be reached without overflying either the heliport or the festival itself (even further away), so he continued.
He admitted he was wrong to fly there without reading the AIC. He admitted he was wrong to continue knowing the house might be just inside the restricted area. Because there was no activity at the heliport and, at worst he'd be landing only just inside the restricted area, he assumed nobody would be too bothered. He got that very wrong - some kind soul reported him.

Zlin526
Re Mr Owen added: "Someone should have said there was a temporary restriction but no one did."
(I didn't use those precise words, but they're close enough.)
No, he didn't check the Notams; yes, he should have.
My point was:
Although there was no flying, the Ops Manager (Ford) and 'controller' (Ward) were on site, saw him land the far side of a nearby village and sent the an assistant (Tolley) to get the registration. Tolley saw the pilot at the helicopter but, instead of speaking to him, took the registration back to Ford and Ward.
It was a quiet all day with little flying. Ford, or someone on his behalf could easily, and in my view should, have spoken to the pilot to point out he was in the restricted area - just in case he didn't realise. I didn't suggest they were under any obligation to do so.
My point was that, if they were so concerned about the infringement, it's rather surprising they didn't speak to him about it when they had the opportunity to do so. If they had, it would have ensured there were no further movements without prior permission.


I believe we should help each other in aviation. If we see someone doing something wrong, and have an opportunity to speak to them, a simple 'Do you realise ......... ' is preferable to keeping quiet, letting them carry on and then reporting them.
Just my opinion.

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 15th Nov 2003 at 12:24.
Flying Lawyer is offline