NikNak
The point that FL makes is that the way the case is reported in the CAA document is somewhat economical with the actualite.
You will note that there were charges brought under articles 73 and 74 ANO and rule 5. It is described as Dangerous low flying under a bridge. The CAA document gives the impression that the pilot pleaded guilty to all of the allegations including the fact that the flying was dangerous. In fact according to FL's account he only pleaded guilty to the 500' rule offence and therefore the CAA were only partially successful in their prosecution. Is that spelt out in the CAA table? I don't agree that FL is making an attempt (pathetic or otherwise) to make the CAA out to be a big bad Ogre. He is simply raising the issue of the apparent accuracy of the picture contained in the CAA table.
You are correct that the pilot did wrong but the question is what wrong?
Similarly in the Bournmouth case the CAA brought allegations of recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft and recklessly endangering the safety of persons and property on the ground. At trial they added a charge of flying an aircraft with an invalidated C of A because of the damage to the engine.
The CAA indicated that they would not accept a guilty plea to the C of A offence There was no real defence to this charge but for tactical reasons and because the CAA would not accept a guilty plea and drop the other charges anot guilty plea was entered. The whole trial was about the endangerment and the jury found the pilot not guilty rejecting the CAA's case.
Interestingly the Judge readily accepted that if the C of A offence had been the only charge it would have been a guilty plea in the Magistrates Court and the fine and costs reflected that. The CAA got £2,000 costs, their actual costs were over £50,000
IO540
You are spot on that in fact CAA prosecutions are a rarity rather than the norm and there are thankfully numerous occasions where breaches of the rules are dealt with in a more constructive way than prosecution, however on those occasions when they do get the bit between their teeth they sometimes do not see the wood for the trees.
Last edited by Legalapproach; 15th Apr 2008 at 19:54.