|
Originally Posted by Kit Sanbumps KG
(Post 10714817)
So they stopped, but were not prosecuted; they were handed down no sentence and paid no fine; they kept the profits of their enterprise.
That's OK, is it? |
Originally Posted by Blackfriar
(Post 10715050)
Calm down, I'm not the CAA. I have no idea if he was prosecuted or not and I agree he should have been.
Clearly, he wasn't prosecuted (at least not successfully). The CAA's record of prosecutions shows that. Mind you, they have stopped admitting their errors, and no longer record their unsuccessful cases, which itself is disgraceful. |
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
(Post 10714596)
What is almost laughable able if it weren’t so serious is the outrage from guys like SND. The biggest problem in stopping this practice is the level of evidence required by the regulator before they’ll take action on a report. It is as frustrating as the illegal practice. Unless someone from the regulator is a witness, or as in this case there’s a tragic outcome a prosecution is almost impossible. While it all may quieten down for a while the Henderson’s of this world will be back, other lives will be risked, all to save a few quid. SND |
Originally Posted by Sir Niall Dementia
(Post 10715984)
Once again Pitts you hit your keyboard in ignorance. I’ve been fighting against illegal public transport for years. Well before this case I was subject to some serious threats from some dodgy operators, as have others on this thread been. If you think my outrage is laughable I invite you to my office to take a look at the standards we are required to keep up and the oversight we are subject to.
The biggest problem in stopping this practice is the level of evidence required by the regulator before they’ll take action on a report. It is as frustrating as the illegal practice. Unless someone from the regulator is a witness, or as in this case there’s a tragic outcome a prosecution is almost impossible. While it all may quieten down for a while the Henderson’s of this world will be back, other lives will be risked, all to save a few quid. SND What does that mean? You and authority have been fighting a multi year effort and you fail to gain traction because of lack of evidence?? So just how wild is the landscape? With all the email, electronic communication, money transfer, online (and therefore very visible) advertising, a helicopter ops guy at the regulator happy to wade in and no evidence over multi years??? Mystery shop? A go-pro or similar ? I don’t think it’s very hard, it’s not even very resource intensive. My summary is either this isn’t actually all that common to a level the outrage might suggest or there is more than one blind eye being turned. If it’s the later it’s no time to be shy in outing these people because they are as guilty as any pilot transgressing the ANO. |
Pitts;
I’m not the CAA. PM me. I’m happy to discuss with you. SND. |
Look I don’t want to run you over so I’m sorry if my post are/were a little aggressive, it’s not personal it’s just this issue isn’t new and we have regulations to stop it. So let’s keep the debate open because with this type of issue keeping things on top of the table is useful.
So let’s take this illegal charter market as being widespread, the frequency of its abuse is often and over many years. There are now a limited number of answers given the lack of prosecutions. Either you raise the issue with heli ops at the regulator and they say “yes we know, nothing to see here.. move on”. Or perhaps “no we didn’t know that... let’s look... we looked and actually nothing to see here... move on” Because given what we know about CAA heli ops there is no way they said “thanks but we can’t be bothered to look”. Nor (if the view is that it is the same people doing illegal charter month in month out) can it be credible that over the long term no evidence of such illegal activity exists. Unless you know different and in which case you should expose all. |
In full agreement with SND. Why should his company go through the whole regulatory system at great cost only to watch SEPs tootling back and forth at TT, Deauville, Ascot, Turweston(Silverstone) et Al for a fraction of the cost with aircraft maintained on LAMPS, Pilots on a PPL with neither an IMC or Night rating never mind a CPL? Asking how many know of this going on is a waste of time. Ask how many don't.
It's dangerous practise and can bring GA only grief if allowed to carry on. Keep the faith SND and don't stop banging your head against the wall, it will eventually collapse. |
The UK onshore rotary commercial world is really quite small. Many of us with commercial licences have been around long enough to recognise each other on the radio, let alone by sight on the ground. I have known SND for almost twenty years and his credentials are beyond doubt. At some of the busy main events previously mentioned it seems that no-one recognises certain individuals who, by the way they fly appear to be rank amateurs yet by the way they inter-react with their passengers, are undoubtedly being paid to fly them. If they only ever appear on that occasion, doubts are understandably raised. Without fail, the CAA used to send an Ops Inspector to carry out ramp checks at such events. I no longer attend them due to the nature of my present employment so I don’t know if this still occurs. If not, it certainly should occur.
|
Of course I totally agree so with a small industry, events that highlight or are a focus of such nefarious activity- how hard can it be to find these offenders? It really can’t be, which comes back to the wider point. Either it isn’t happening to such a vast scale or the regulator can’t be bothered and i can’t see how the later becomes the case.
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10717094)
Without fail, the CAA used to send an Ops Inspector to carry out ramp checks at such events.
|
Seeing that illegal charter flights are un-insurable, maybe the authorities should be given the power to impound an aircraft used in these suspicious circumstances and the pilot and passengers taken to one side for interview. Such as occurs with an uninsured road vehicle. It wouldn't take long for word to get around if the passengers' cheap day out got spoiled.
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10717702)
Seeing that illegal charter flights are un-insurable, maybe the authorities should be given the power to impound an aircraft used in these suspicious circumstances and the pilot and passengers taken to one side for interview. Such as occurs with an uninsured road vehicle. It wouldn't take long for word to get around if the passengers' cheap day out got spoiled.
How about CAA enforcement watching to see if the Pilot actually attends the event, instead of sleeping in Cabin, or flying off to pick up more victims? Ramp checks at events to see where these aircraft have been. 3 or 4 trips a week in a Saratoga/421 to non tourist locations is expensive for a lowly PPL. Even better if aircraft is on N reg, use Common Purpose, which according to latest FAA guidance states pilot decides he is going somewhere and is only supposed to invite close friends or family. Change rules when we leave EASA to Common Purpose and equal costs too. This NEEDS stopping.. Just a few thoughts. |
A thought
All the CAA need to do now is take note of the regular racegoers who now that there is no racing simply stop flying- those then are potentially the ones to watch in future..... 😉
|
Originally Posted by Midlifec
(Post 10719497)
All the CAA need to do now is take note of the regular racegoers who now that there is no racing simply stop flying- those then are potentially the ones to watch in future..... 😉
|
Hang on we are over thinking this aren’t we? Apparently everyone knows who is at it. On which basis their aircraft have a registration, a transponder, home airfield, etc etc.
The problem is clearly evidence enough to prove that something is happening that goes beyond what is currently legal in terms of cost sharing. That is the issue and very sadly when you have an activity that in many cases people are prepared to pay 100% to do because they either enjoy it or think that with x number of hours it becomes something more. The prospect of paying something less than 100% is attractive, and currently you can pay 99.999999% less than a 100% and still be potentially legal and by the way nobody has defined what 100% is...... |
Cost sharing is one thing. It’s different when four are five passengers are paying 99.99% each.
|
An article from yesterday in the Guernsey Press:
https://guernseypress.com/news/2020/...grey-charters/ PROGRESS is being made on tackling grey charters, but there is still more work to do, the Channel Islands’ civil aviation director Dominic Lazarus has said.The issue was brought into the spotlight following the death of footballer Emiliano Sala and pilot David Ibbotson in Channel Islands waters last year. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch report last week confirmed that Mr Ibbotson did not have the correct type of licence to fly the night journey or enough experience flying on just instruments in difficult weather conditions. Mr Lazarus said there had not been any surprises in the report, since his organisation had helped provide the information. He welcomed the fact that it highlighted the issue of grey charters – unlicensed charter flights – and the dangers that could be involved. The Civil Aviation Authority has been working to raise the profile of the issue. Mr Lazarus said the public had an important role to play. ‘It does not surprise me that people do not check when they get in an aircraft,’ he said. ‘You get in someone’s car [and you don’t ask] whether the driver has a licence, but with aircraft you have to be very careful. The Sala incident has brought the issue to the forefront.’ He said the best way was for the public to ask whether it was a private or commercial flight and, if private, to look carefully at what figures they are quoted for a journey. A pilot should not be making a profit, unless they are operating a commercial operation. That means they should be able to break down the costs of the flight. Mr Lazarus said one of the common reasons people looked to use private charters was to move pets on and off the island. However, some airlines operating into Guernsey have introduced the option to carry pets on some services and Mr Lazarus said people should look at that service, ‘People should be very, very careful,’ he said. The local aviation authority has been working proactively to tackle the problem. ‘We had a sting operation at the end of last year when we stopped an aircraft coming in from Alderney, so it is going on,’ he said. Mr Lazarus said his organisation had worked closely with the CAA and shared information about which journeys aircraft were making and how often. Sometimes they will stop every aircraft coming in on a certain day and question the people aboard about the journey to make sure all documentation is approved. ‘It’s ongoing,’ Mr Lazarus said. ‘I think we are getting there and I think we are making progress, but there is still a long way to go. It is more prevalent when the weather is better, so we expect to get busier [in the summer].’ Can I ask if a high profile AAIB report like this case would be shown to the SoS for transport Grant Chapps and if so would he push for investigating of this and other cases mentioned above ? |
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10719605)
Cost sharing is one thing. It’s different when four are five passengers are paying 99.99% each.
im not defending that I’m just highlighting the situation and the most likely rational for the lack of prosecutions - because you can’t get prosecuted on the spirit of the rules but the actual rules. SND hasn’t given detail of his engagements with authority ( no doubt because he doesn’t want a CAA sword hanging over him ) but authority are clearly not minded to change things in this regard because they could have acted already. |
It certainly appears that you are defending it.
|
I think Pittsextra is making the point that it can (probably is) very quickly so complicated that the chance of a successful prosecution falls below the required 'proceed' threshold.
In a perfect world there would be unlimited resources to do this, in our imperfect world they have to choose what to do on the basis of 'where is our energy/money most usefully applied'. I remember working with a TA colleague a few years ago, who's real job was HMRC, and he said exactly the same - they went for the easy ones because the moment it got complicated: 1. It absorbed vast amounts of time and money. 2. They nearly always lost. Real world v. ideal world. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:46. |
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.