" 20 feet or 6 inches?"

[Earpiece]

I've heard that today's Daily Telegraph (page 11) headlines "Hovering Helicopter Hurled Hotel Guest 20 Feet". How much downdraught is needed do hurl a 6 stone mass (42 Kgs) a distance of 20 feet?

Lu, would you like to comment?

Who measured it, the lady in question - who might have been told that two inches should always be called six - or the expert prosecutor?

"keeping an ear to the ground"

[Cyclic Hotline]

I'm afraid that any time you operate a helicopter, you have to assume the responsibility for the downwash - it simply goes with the territory. The same responsibility extends to the appropriateness of a landing area.

To find yourself in that situation relies only one thing - your own decisions. If you're blowing away all the furniture, you're in entirely the WRONG place for a helicopter.

Don't have much sympathy for anyone who creates a situation like this, whether it be at an airport, or a landing area. Responsibility comes with priveleges of operation. Instances like this, are why it there are more restrictions all the time on landing areas.

Don't know that there is anything gained by a prosecution though?

I've seen a lot of stuff destroyed by helicopters, including being blown off my feet as well (bit bigger ship than a twin-star, bit more than 6 stone)!

I once had a 1000 pound main rotor blade in a box, blown over the side of a barge into the sea by downwash! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[ppheli]

In typical press fashion it is very difficult to know what to believe in the reporting of this case. The BBC News report at BBC News | ENGLAND | Woman 'thrown in air' by helicopter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1788000/1788940.stm) states "The chair with her in it raised quite slowly to a height of about five feet."

Now that sounds like levitation to me. You'd have to have a very steady hover to manage that trick surely?

[HeliEng]

UH HUH!!!

All sounds a little over-exaggerated to me.

There says nothing about the woman in question being injured after this. I think if I was thrown into the air 20 feet (as per the Telegraph report) I would have some kind of injury!!!

. .Agree totally with the responsability bit though. It sounds like he was at fault, but the woman story has been, how should I say, stretched slightly!!

. ."Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"

[On the skids]

Talk about jumping to conclusions. Wait to the end of the case, guys. For one thing, this matter is sub judice and printed comment on the case is governed by UK contempt laws. By my count, there are six clear cases of contempt of court in this thread.

[Nick Lappos]

On the skids,

Any court that believes that boldfaced prevarication deserves our contempt.

The day a twin squirrel generates that downwash velocity is the day it has three engines and weighs 70,000 pounds.

[RW-1]

[quote] If you're blowing away all the furniture, you're in entirely the WRONG place for a helicopter. <hr></blockquote>

Is that like "If you see roots outside the cockpit, you might be too low to pull up? :)

[HALF A PILOT]

"The helicopter pilot collected a 22 year old lady that was waiting for him" ( Daily Mail). Do you think that the 64 year old lady that was alledgedly thrown 20 feet is, how should I put it, "showing some signs of jealousy or envy of a younger, no doubt, more attractive woman???"I guess that more invites are issued to ladies of a younger age!!!!!!

signed,. .Lonely helicopter pilot: . .(only young ladies need reply)

[Robbo Jock]

The BBC has a slightly different slant on that:
BBC News | ENGLAND | Pilot guilty in 'down draught' case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1792000/1792073.stm)

It would be nice if the Beeb could be relied on to report without sensationalising.

[Heliport]

I agree.. .The BBC report, especially the headline, certainly gives a misleading slant. . .Unless you read the full report, you don't find out that the CAA started off trying to prove he flew recklessly, and gave up.

As the Press/TV reports on Tuesday morning showed, the CAA prosecutor tried to make it sound like the worst piece of reckless flying in the history of aviation. . .They ended up with a pilot who made an honest mistake!

[Earpiece]

Going by the press - Torygraph and Mail- (haven't seen BBC bit yet), it is difficult to assess who was the victor this time. The bad news is that Gatwick had some success thus making it worth their while.

FL - now that it over can we have the proper version please?

[helmet fire]

New evidence comes to light:

Following discovery of large quantities of Pork Beans amongst the overturned chairs and tables at an exclusive english country club today, there is speculation that a woman whom, according to a media quote of an eyewitness, allegedly flew 20 feet into the air on her chair before "disappering from view", may have been a test pilot of a revolutionary secret new aircraft. :)

"There is some evidence to suggest that Pork Beans are being used to fuel a revolutionary new experimental aircraft called a Cheap VTOL by its designer, Dave Jackson of Pprune" said investigative legend Lu the Zed.

Speculation continued today after unsubstantiated rumours surfaced that the woman was seen consuming the pork beans moments before her flight, and photographs appearing in reports (see posted link above) allegedly show how her hair was used to cleverly hide the helmet she wore during the flight. :) :)

The designer, Dave Jackson, later denied that there was any such secret test going on, although he was particularly interested in obtaining an accurate measure of the altitide achieved by the flight, and the ability of the propulsion system to transport the woman completely out of view of nearby witnesses. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

.....more "news" at nine......

:)

[Lu Zuckerman]

From: Lu the Zed

Seeing that this woman that propelled herself into the air was 64 there is an excellent possibility that she was not wearing conventional flameproof underwear but a special incontinence undergarment. If this is true there would be a decrease in hot gas flow so as to render the system into an under powered mode. If in fact she did propel herself to the stated altitude then she must have used thrust augmentation such as water injection or reheat. I strongly suggest the Mr. Jackson look into this matter and see if he can modify the design so that the system can in effect generate greater thrust. By doing so, it would remove the weight limit of the pilot and at the same time reduce the intake of the basic fuel. He should also try to solve the problem on non-stoichiometric combustion, which would reduce the amount of unburned methane into the atmosphere.

One other problem to work on is reducing the odor of the propellant just prior to ignition.

[HALF A PILOT]

£5000 fine and £40,000 costs!!!!!! Where do these figures come from?? When was the last time you heard of a £5000 fine imposed for any non aviation offence? Drugs or something perhaps. Are the figures higher because it was a twin squirrel.. . If I had done the same thing in the R22 would I get the same punishment? What size of fine would you get in the US? . . Think I had better change my hobby !!!!!

[Flying Lawyer]

For the accurate version, see the posts by Hoverman and Heliport.

The offence of Endangering safety of any person or property under Article 64 of the ANO 2000 can be committed in two ways: either "recklessly" (serious) or "negligently" (less serious).

In a nutshell, if you take care to recce the site to ensure it is safe to land, but fail to a hazard, the law is that you are negligent - even if you've done your best to exercise great care. Taking care is not enough - genuine mistake is no defence. (eg A driver pulling out from a side road into a major road who looks before pulling out, and is convinced the road is clear, but fails to see a motorcyclist is, in law, negligent - even if he's done his best to take great care.)

The CAA set out to prove that the pilot was reckless. The alternative 'negligence' charge was there so that, if the jury was not satisfied the pilot was reckless, it would still be open to them to convict him of being negligent. This gives the prosecution 'two bites at the cherry' but it is allowed.

NB: The pilot never denied that what he did endangered people/property. [Whether the lady fell backwards in her chair, or was lifted up 5 feet and blown through the air for 20 feet (!!!) was completely irrelevant to the charges. Blowing tables/chairs around would have been enough for this element of the charges.]. .The only question for the jury to decide was whether he did so recklessly/negligently.

I repeat, the CAA's case was that the pilot flew recklessly. However, on the third day of the trial, after the versions given by the prosecution witnesses had been tested in cross-examination, the CAA agreed to drop the more serious 'reckless' charge, if the pilot pleaded guilty to the less serious 'negligent' charge.

Sadly, the CAA dropping the more serious charge didn't make a good story for the Press/TV.

Warning:. .Even if you do your best to fly safely, and follow the normal procedures to ensure your landing area is safe, you are still liable if you fail to see a hazard.. .That may seem very harsh in the context of criminal offences, but it is the law.

[Inspector Lestrade]

So the guy lands his helicopter close to a hotel where people are having lunch. He then proceeds to blow over tables and chairs (ignoring the 20 ft in the air bit).

Not exactly giving us pilots a good name is he? A little bit of common sense should have told him that even if he doesn't blow over the tables and chairs he sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch.

I have no sympathy for him at all. As regards the fine, he's a businessman who has his own helicopter or can afford to rent one so a £45,000 fine + fees for what he did will probably not upset him too much.

The CAA was right to prosecute him. Maybe they should introduce a penalty points system similar to that used by the police for driving offences. After so many points and you lose your licence! The speeding one might be difficult to prove though ;-) After all professional drivers have to adhere to the law of the road and suffer the consequences for breaking it why should we be any different with the Rules of the Air.

While the media in their usual way exaggerated the story the pilot was still wrong to do what he did and did in fact plead guilty to the charges.

We shouldn't automatically criticise the CAA for doing their job just because they prosecute a fellow pilot.

[Hoverman]

"I have no sympathy for him at all.". .If you knew all the facts, which you obviously don't, you might think differently. There again, going by the tone of your post, perhaps you wouldn't.

"As regards the fine, he's a businessman who has his own helicopter or can afford to rent one so a £45,000 fine + fees for what he did will probably not upset him too much.". .Shame the judge didn't fine him a million pounds, or £2 million. Rich git! The green-eyed monster rears its ugly head again. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> . .He was fined £5000 and ordered to pay the CAA's costs which they said were £40,000!!. .How many pilots have got £40,000 to risk fighting a case? I certainly haven't and would probably have to plead guilty rather than take the risk.

"The CAA was right to prosecute him.". .Who's suggested they were wrong?. .BUT. .* they built the incident up out of all proportion and asked for it to be heard in the crown court. He was prepared to be dealt with in the magistrates court.. .* they claimed the woman was blown through the air for 20 feet. None of their so-called "experts" (all CAA employees) pointed out that had to be complete bollox. The because it suited them to go along with it.. .* they built the incident up out of all proportion and tried to have him convicted for reckless flying which was completely over the top for a simple mistake. (He had a professional pilot with him. BOTH failed to see the hazard.)

"While the media in their usual way exaggerated the story the pilot was still wrong to do what he did and did in fact plead guilty to the charges.". .From what I've heard (from a reliable source). .* You can't blame the media this time, they aren't aviators. But the CAA are - and they still claimed the woman was lifted in the air and blown 20 feet - by a Twin Squirrel!! The CAA and their barrister were talking to the Press throughout the case.. .* Who's suggested the pilot wasn't in the wrong. He made a mistake, and paid a heavy (IMHO) price.. . "did in fact plead guilty to the charges.". .Wrong! He pleaded guilty to one charge. The CAA spent three days trying to prove he was reckless and gave up. He pleaded guilty to negligent flying. i.e. making a mistake.. ."We shouldn't automatically criticise the CAA for doing their job just because they prosecute a fellow pilot.". .I agree, as long as they do it fairly and don't go completely over the top. They weren't fair, and did go completely over the top.

PS. .Is that 'North Sea' full-time?. .Or CAA Ops Inspector with occasional North Sea trips?. .Just asking!

[Heliport]

Well said Hoverman.

" ......... even if he doesn't blow over the tables and chairs he sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch." <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

So, according to Inspector L, even if we don't blow anything over, we shouldn't land at hotels at lunchtime because that "sure as hell is going to annoy people who are having lunch." <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Heliport ]</p>

[Inspector Lestrade]

Heliport, the point is that if you land so closely to a hotel that your downwash affects people sitting outside then YES you will annoy them. Perhaps, now call me old fashioned, you should land a little bit further away so that people don’t have to dive on the table to prevent their salad from getting airborne without clearance! If you participate in aviation then you should be aware of the hazards to other people. I’m surprised that you think that I’m wrong to criticise what was inconsiderate and unprofessional flying. How would you like it if you were eating your lunch minding your own business and some helicopter lands alongside filling the air with dust and fumes, come on….. have a bit of consideration for other people. Who knows, they may be your future clients. He landed his helicopter in an area which adversely affected people on the ground.

Hoverman, he admitted flying his helicopter negligently and so YES I still have no sympathy for him. Had he given a bit more thought and consideration to where he was landing then this discussion may never have happened. . .“He had a professional pilot with him. BOTH failed to see the hazard.”. .So that makes it alright then does it? How about a little common sense here. They were landing at a hotel. Hotels have guests, maybe some of the guests might be outside – having lunch even. As you pointed out a twin squirrels downwash isn’t going to blow a women 20ft in the air but to do the damage they did they must have been pretty close. I’ve landed larger aircraft in hotel grounds. I know what downwash can do, so guess what - I chose to land in an area far enough away so as not affect third parties. I accept that there are hidden hazards in this but I don't accept hotel guests having lunch at a hotel are one of them. I know we all make mistakes and I have certainly have in my flying career but to call the incident 'a simple mistake' is very wrong. What next? I've run out of fuel - oh never mind it's a simple mistake! Can we be a little bit more open minded about this rather than just CAA bashing.. .Just out of interest..... and since you criticised me for not knowing all the facts so you're obviously an authority on this case - did they do a recce?

However, I do accept your point about the CAA going over the top with the prosecution with regards to the ‘flying lady’ <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> .

Safe flying,. . <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Inspector Lestrade ]</p>

[greenarrow]

Remember to err is not allowed even though you have satisfied yourself that the landing site is clear. Or there is no riders on horses. Or traffic on the road passing under you on the approach. Or the gust locks are is place on the aircraft you are passing. Or the hanger doors are closed and so on!.. .Negligence is a big word for small mistakes. Is this the tip of an ice berg. Was this the case that the rest will be judged by?. or an over acting ex actress/journalist who is up for an oscar.Its time for underground aviation (ie. Mode C off, wrong callsign, three log books, N reg ect ect.)and thats for the good guys!.Well it is a thought!.

[Heliport]

Inspector L.. .I don't think it's wrong to criticise the pilot. I just thought you were being very harsh on him for making, yes, a mistake.. .There but for the grace of God?

greenarrow. .My spies tell me you know quite a lot about this case in a professional capacity.. .Can you give us a bit more information?. .e.g.. .Q: Is it true the CAA went completely OTT?. .Q: Were the facts as bad as the CAA proseutor made out?. .Q: Did the CAA prosecute fairly or unfairly?. .Any views on the CAA claiming costs of £40,000 prosecuting the case?

[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Heliport ]</p>

[Earpiece]

Hoverman, I notice that the (flight ops?)Inspector didn't reply to your part time North Sea bit. Perhaps he is a Gatwick Wannabee!

I assume that you attended the court and if that is the case why didn't the defence give the CAA's professional witnesses a hard time about 5 feet up and 20 feet along? Also, what was the other (professional) pilot doing? Surely the tables and a 6 stone woman aren't so small that four eyes wouldn't see them.

Finally - for FL - "On the Skids" suggested that a discussion about a newspaper report on this forum produced "6 clear cases of contempt of court". Could this be true - bearing in mind that the CAA and their barrister were reported to be talking to the media throughout the trial?

Now that the CAA has regained some street cred, they are bound to have another go unless all of their Inspectors go into early retirement! Some are I hear! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Hoverman]

Inspector L.. .I do know quite a bit about this case. All secondhand I admit, but it's from someone I've worked with many times over the years, and trust totally as a balanced sensible and reliable guy.

Yes, the pilot did a ground recce that morning, and a downwind recce before landing. Witnesses saw him flying overhead, then he returned and landed.. .No, the fact that neither the pilot nor the ATPL with him saw the hazard doesn't "makes it alright then." But it gives a clue that the hazard wasn't as obvious as you might think.

"Can we be a little bit more open minded about this rather than just CAA bashing.". .The 'CAA bashing' isn't because they prosecuted the pilot. Everyone seems to agree that was fair enough in the circumstances.. .The 'CAA bashing' is because of the way they went about it.. .eg Charging him with reckless flying, not just negligent flying.. .eg Taking the case to the crown court instead of dealing with it in the local court.. .eg Allowing their barrister to allege the worst 'flying lady' version when (a) other witnesses had her just tipping back in her chair, and (b) their own experts must have known just like the rest of us that the Mary Poppins story had to be complete b*lls.. .eg The CAA inhouse experts were very quick to use their expertise to criticise the pilot's account, but said nothing to cast doubt on the flying lady nonsense.. .eg Why did the CAA lawyer told the jury that he was a wealthy company chairman flying his own helicopter and collecting a 22 year old young woman from the hotel? What's that but simple prejudice?. .eg The CAA lawyer claimed the pilot just charged recklessly into the site without caring about the people who might be there when every single witness said he came in very slowly.

Pause to think what would have happened if the guy had been defended by an ordinary lawyer.. .Flying Lawyer is a pilot and managed to get the case back in proportion by crossexamining the witnesses and showing the CAA's version was completely OTT. . .Why do you think the CAA gave up trying to prove reckless? Because their case was shot down.. .It could be one of us if we screwed up and the CAA decide to build it up all out of proportion. End of licence and livelihood. Worth a thought?

I'm not criticising the CAA for prosecuting, it was the OTT/unfair way they went about it.. .And why?. .Because they've lost so many cases in the past few years, they were determined to make a point this time. But they failed, thanks to Flying Lawyer. They gave up trying to prove recklessness, and the pilot pleaded guilty to what he had done, made a mistake, negligence.

IMHO the way the CAA prosecuted did more harm to the industry with all the national Press/tv coverage than the pilot did in a relatively minor incident in front of 10 old dears in a small remote hotel in Norfolk.

Hope that makes things a bit clearer, even if we disagree.. .Safe flying.

BTW, do you work for the CAA? If not, apologies for suggesting it. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Edit. .Earpiece. Just seen your post. I don't know the answer to your question. I'll try to find out and come back to you.

[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Hoverman ]</p>

[John Eacott]

From this side of the world, I can only see this as a precedent for future action <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

What does astound me, however, is the awarding of costs. Since when did a criminal have to pay Crown costs, even for the most heinous of crimes? Why on earth is a pilot required to pay CAA's costs, when they are effectively (ISTM) acting as a quasi Crown prosecuter.

FL, I'm sure that you can explain such that I can understand, but the ramifications must be enormous. Does this give a local council the right to bring charges against a pilot for landing without planning permission, then claim their costs if/when they win? If so, could you see this happening in a lower profile case, eg illegal tipping, or failing to comply with a local planning restriction?

The mind boggles <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Cyclic Hotline]

After reading the rest of the details and the informed comment here, I am left again wondering what precisely was gained from this prosecution?

As others have noted, this entire issue was blown entirely out of all proportion, and the size of the fine and costs are completely out of context with the circumstance.

That a Government agency can devote this amount of effort and expense to something of this nature, is indicative of a department that is lacking suitable management and oversight, or is totally lacking a positive, or any real, application to devote it's resources to! The expense and scale of mounting a defence against the unlimited resources of the government is enough to ensure even the most resolute would capitulate.

This issue could have been much better resolved between the parties, rather than a showcase trial to demonstrate the power of the authority. Pretty disgusting really.

I have read of a couple of these persecutions (sorry, prosecutions), and they remind me of the activities of the FAA whilst dealing with <a href="http://www.avweb.com/other/faahoovr.html" target="_blank">Bob Hoover.</a>.

Forming a defensive circle to defend their position and power, they engage you in an ever worsening battle, from which you will not walk away!

There are much simpler, effective (and cost effective) ways of resolving issues of this nature which can actually result in a positive outcome by educating others in the avoidance of situations of this nature. Pillorying an individual, is not the one that springs to my mind!

[Thomas coupling]

Q:Are the CAA a government body?

A: It depends on the circumstances! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Legalapproach]

This was a case that became compeletly out of proportion to what happened on the ground (or slightly above it). The most frightening thing was the way the CAA ran up costs which were then claimed from the unfortunate pilot. I say unfortinate because although he committed an offence, the punishment came in the form of the £5,000 fine. The £39,000 prosecution costs on top are punitive in the extreme. When a fine is imposed a Judge has regard to a defendant's means and ability to pay. When the CAA run up costs it seems to look upon it as a blank cheque.

It should have been apparent from the outset that the pilot was negligent in the very wide way in which the law defines the word (involving an honest mistake or momentary inadvertance) but this was not a case of recklessness. Had they charged him with negligence alone the case would probably have remained in the magistrate's court and the costs would have been substantially less.

The costs claimed by the CAA included the costs of the investigation (the hiring of helicopters to re-enact the incident, the hourly costs of in-house investigators already employed by the CAA and the costs of their other employees involved in the investigation/legal proceedings). There was also an outragious amount of money spent on their Barrister. The CAA originally employed a local criminal Barrister who would have done the case for a fraction of the amount charged by their eventual counsel. At some stage (and I have heard a rumour that it was after the defence had served copies of their experts reports which caused them to worry that their case was not as strong as it first seemed) the CAA moved the case to 'specialist aviation counsel' who charged a fee running into five figures. The interesting comparison is that in a criminal case the CPS claim the direct costs of the actual prosecution. The CAA equivalent is to charge for the wages of the police men, the petrol in the police car the leasing costs of the police car etc.

As to the conduct of the trial. The defence were happy for the witness statements of the unfortunate lady and her husband to be read to the jury. They did not require her to attend court or have to re-live the experience. The CAA and their counsel insisted on the lady giving evidence in person. Why? In order to attract the sympathy of the jury and lob some prejudice against the defendant. I have spoken to the experienced criminal Barrister who was first briefed to prosecute the case and asked him if he would have called her to give live evidence. His answer? No. He went on to give his opinion who might do it but on reflection I have edited his remarks.

I do not criticise the CAA for prosecuting because there was a clear case of negligence and an innocent lady suffered as a result. However I would criticise the manner in which both the case and the prosecution escalated.

What are the benefits to aviation at the end of the day? The image of aviation improved? Safety lessons learnt?

[Inspector Lestrade]

Hoverman. .“The 'CAA bashing' is because of the way they went about it.eg Charging him with reckless flying, not just negligent flying.”. .I still don’t see why that is a problem, you could argue that it was reckless flying.

“eg Allowing their barrister to allege the worst 'flying lady' version …..". .Welcome to the real world. It was the CAA barrister’s job to get a conviction and so yes he is going to do and say everything that he can to ensure that. He was doing his job. It’s not up to him to decide if a witness’s story is correct it is the job of the court. He is there to prove the case and he’ll use the witnesses to try and achieve that. As FL said, that was why they went for both the reckless and negligent charge so that they have a fullback if reckless isn’t proved.

“eg Why did the CAA lawyer told the jury that he was a wealthy company chairman flying his own helicopter and collecting a 22 year old young woman from the hotel? What's that but simple prejudice?”. .Maybe, but then that is the law that is at fault for allowing the lawyer to do that. As I said before, he was out to win in case. Did the defence lawyer pick up and on that and argue that point?

“Pause to think what would have happened if the guy had been defended by an ordinary lawyer.”. .Oh come on, if you are charged with a murder you don’t get a libel lawyer to defend you. You get the appropriate expert to defend you for the crime that you are charged with.

“It could be one of us if we screwed up and the CAA decide to build it up all out of proportion. End of licence and livelihood. Worth a thought? “. .The incident involved blowing people over along with tables and chairs. What happened if a person received an injury which lead to them losing their livelihood? What if it wasn’t a group of “old dears” as you called them but a group of small children, worth a thought? Nobody wants to be prosecuted or lose their licence but we shouldn’t become so blinkered in that approach that we forget the fundamentals of general aviation or support those that have.

“Because they've lost so many cases in the past few years, they were determined to make a point this time. But they failed.”. .No. They succeeded in one of the two charges. From the CAA’s point of view they have actually achieved a lot in this. For starters how many of us now that have read this discussion or the newspapers etc are going to be more careful next time they land at a similar site. So that’s good for flight safety. They got a prosecution for negligent flying and proved to their political masters/ the press etc.. that they are active in policing the industry which is after all their job.

“BTW, do you work for the CAA? If not, apologies for suggesting it.”. .Why? For all you know you may have paid me the highest compliment by suggesting it! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> :) No, I don’t and Earpiece I’m not a gatwick wannabee. You shouldn’t read too much in to pprune usernames. I'm just an ordinary pilot adding his opinion to a discussion board. There is no hidden agenda! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

<img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[greenarrow]

From day one it was apparent that the CAA had changed their direction of attack. This no doubt was after they had recieved the defence expert witness statements. The account of being reckless was on thin ice, this being supported by the CAA own witness evidence and the FL cross examination along with the defence expertwitness statements.

The CAA own expert witness gave a very good account of himself and talked a word perfect exercise 26(confined areas). Therfore the FL had very little to counter, although by this stage (day 3) the CAA had agreed to allow a plea bargain and go for the charge to be only that of negligence.

Points to ponder!. .1. The recce of the site, which was the mainstay of the inital charge (or should I say the implication of the lack of recce).. .This point in it's self was countered by the expert witness statements. Why carry out a full exercise 26 recce (High and Low), when most pilots with experience will make a judgement on the hoof ie, downwind or on finals.. .We as pilots are always being asked to fly in such a manner to avoid the noise nuisance this even being highlighted on the reverse of exemptions issued by the CAA.. .This was conceded by the CAA in follow up statements after they had tme to read the expert witness statements.

But after their own expert witness and the video evidence had been given, it is still apparent that they will require the recce to satisfy he procedures for off field approaches and landings.. .(So now we end up Pxxxxxg everyone off and getting complaints, please refer them to the CAA).. .They also mentioned that consideration for a late overshoot should be given (Is that a charge of low flying!).

2. The first day in court was a complete sham and it proceded to show how low the CAA intended to go with the press briefings, the sympathy vote being pushed (What if a child had run out!),Implying the accused was a wealthy buisness man who went flew to pick up the young girl and that he could'nt give a toss and the fact that the highly paid gold braded witness were here to support the defence. All of which left the FL steaming from the ears and proving that the CAA were out to try all the dirty tricks and at all cost(Hence the £40000) to win the case. (read into this I know the FL has!).

3. The CAA hired aircraft and videoed the alledged flight path. This video being filmed from on top of the instrument combing with a slight depressed veiw therfore showing that there was a very good almost unobstructive veiw. (As we all kwow the veiw from an IFR 355 is not that good but we tend to fly to compensate this difficency). It went on to show the alledged flight path along the hotel frontage this to me was an account of reckless flying by the CAA as the aircraft flew sideways along the edge of the gravel drive at around 5-6ft trying to embelish the statements. But this point was not consistant with the statements given by both the accused and the of the witnesses there at the time of the incedent.

Finally, My thoughts go to the accused who unfortunatly err'd, and the account of negligence was upheld, but he has been used as a scapegoat in this case, which in it's self should have been a case for the magistrates court and not that for the county court. This has cost a great deal of money and has showed that they will stop at nothing to get a conviction.. .How many of us could afford this sort of action! how many have insurance to cover the cost!.. .There by the grace of God!!!.

[Cyclic Hotline]

This story doesn't stop here though.

According to the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F01%2F31%2Fnchop31.xml" target="_blank">Daily Telegraph</a> story here;

[quote] The CAA is studying whether to revoke Bigwood's pilot's licence for landing his Aerospatiale Twin Squirrel helicopter in the grounds of the South Walsham Hall Hotel in Norfolk and creating a "mini tornado" that sent chairs, tables and ashtrays flying. <hr></blockquote>

What oversight exists on the action of these people?

[Flying Lawyer]

A number of people obviously know about this case. If anyone prefers to ignore what they say, and base an opinion up speculation and Press reports, that's their right. A strange approach in my view, but nonetheless their right.

I won't comment on this case, but Inspector Lestrade's idea of a prosecuting barrister's role is quite wrong, and does need correcting.

It is NOT a barrister's job to 'win the case when he is prosecuting. A barrister has an important responsibility when acting as Prosecuting Counsel: To present the prosecution case impartially, and fairly.. .For example. .He must NOT excite emotion to influence the jury. . .He must try to calm emotions down, NOT stir them up, or play to them.. .He must NOT make emotive comments which may wrongly influence the jury against the defendant.. .He should NOT try to sway the juy by building up a terrifying picture of terrible things that might have happened if they did not happen.. .Where (as is usually the case) there are different descriptions of an event, he should NOT adopt the worst/most emotive version as the prosecution case - especially when there is reason to believe the worst version may be an exaggeration of an irritated or distressed witness.. .He must NOT try prejudice the against the defendant. He has a duty to try to ensure that the jury is not influenced by irrelevant prejudices.

Of course there are legitimate 'tricks of the trade' in advocacy, just as in every other job. But, and this is a very important exception, it is NOT a prosecuting barrister's job to do everything he can, fair or unfair, to 'win' the case.

The same principles of fairness and impartiality apply whether you're prosecuting somone for careless driving or for murder - and I've done both many times at different stages of my career. :)

[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]</p>

[Legalapproach]

I was going to make the same point but I took the Miss Approaches to the pub for lunch and FL has beaten me to it.

As usual FL's point is well made.

The role of prosecuting and defence counsel are quite different. Whilst the job of defence counsel is to fearlessly defend his client and put forward his client's instructions however bizarre or ludicrous they may appear, the Bar's code of conduct makes it quite plain that prosecuting counsel should see themselves as a minister of justice and therefore under an obligation to see that justice is done as opposed to securing a conviction at all costs.

One of the strange paradox's in this case is that the CAA's allegation of recklessnes involved the pilot making an approach to the Hotel without circling or carrying out a recce pass first. The course he adopted was to make a relatively quick approach minimising noise to the occupants and locality. The jury then hear about wealthy businessman, 22 year old female passenger etc.

Wouldn't 99% of flash g**'s picking up a bit of totty have used the opportunity of a recce circuit to whazz the place and impress the bird?

Of course if you were a sensible pilot, sensitive to noise complaints, largely using your helicopter for business and collecting an employee....

[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Legalapproach ]</p>

[Flying Lawyer]

I forgot!. .Inspector L asked whether the defence barrister objected to any tactics used by the prosecutor. . .As before, I won't comment on the specific case.. .But, let's just say someone who's been round the block a few times, knows how to counter such tactics if they occur and continue.. .There are a number of versions, but the following sequence works quite well.

Initial Stage - 'Let it go - Don't react' ;)
Then comes the Look at Opponent and Frown stage :(
If that doesn't work, comes the 'Shake Head in Disapproval' stage. :confused: (More puzzled than angry, you understand.)
Next is the 'Look up at Ceiling Shaking Head in Disbelief' (whilst rolling eyes) stage. (As a helicopter pilot, I can do both these things at the same time.)
Then comes 'Look at Jury whilst Rolling Eyes' :rolleyes:
. .You can then assess the reaction of the jury.

Next time it happens comes the 'Look at Jury Expressionless' stage.. .(The jury should by now be rolling their own eyes and/or shaking their own heads.)

Having ensured you've got the jury on side, you're ready for the big one - 'Oh Really!!! Must we have any more of this?' :eek:

If you've done the above sequence properly, there should now be audible mutterings of support from the jury, and the Judge says something to your opponent like "I'm not sure this is going to help the jury decide the issues, Mr X." :(
Then comes the last and most satisfying stage. You catch your opponent's eye and ... :p


That's it .... back to work. :D

[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]

[Earpiece]

Flying Lawyer and Legalapproach, thank you both for your informative and wise words. However, one question that remains unanswered - were we in "contempt"?

[Legalapproach]

FL

Have used all of the above but then I seem to recall that I learnt from a Master during my pupillage. ;):ok:
In addition to the soto voce (not) "Oh really" and "Oh for goodness sake" I find that rising with the words;. ."While I appreciate my learned friend is extremely experienced and obviously is trying to make a valid point, I am a little concerned as I fail to understand where this is leading"

Judge usually responds with "Yes, well Mr Bloggs, where is this leading?" whereupon opponent has to explain what he is trying to achieve or if realising he is in difficulty in explaining says "I believe I have made the point and will leave it there"

Alternatively if you know your judge, find an excuse to see him in his chambers and tell him what a c*** your opponent is! Of course, personally I would never try this and I understand that it generally only works if you are blonde, leggy and appearing in front of Mr Justice Deed!

Earpiece

Re contempt, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to publications (which could include a bulletin board) which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. This topic was considered in a thread on the Southend Drugs bust some months ago.

For my part, having read the contributions on this thread I don't think that any of the comments recorded in this case would amount to contempt. What might amount to contempt would be publishing information that had been or would be withheld from the jury ie previous convictions or excluded evidence (none of which applied in this case in any event) and the test is whether the course of justice would be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

[John Eacott]

Legal,

I wonder if you would be able to explain my previous query, ie why does the CAA, which appears to me to be acting as a quasi-Crown prosecutor, have the right to demand costs? Is it normal for the crown to claim costs in these sort of cases, or indeed in any criminal prosecution (and is this a criminal prosecution, inasmuch as the defendant will have a criminal record as a result)? Does a burglar, or a rapist, or a murderer have to pay costs when/if they are found guilty, and if not, what makes this type of case different.

TIA.

[Legalapproach]

Any prosecutor can claim the costs of the prosecution against a convicted defendant, including the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS make a claim for costs in most cases but in reality where somebody is being sent to prison for a long time ie rape, murder, any application would be academic and so often is not made for practical reasons. Courts often make costs orders in favour of the prosecution where there is a non-custodial sentence or the defendant clearly has the means to pay.

The most common would be a motoring matter in the magistrates court where a guilty plea would costs somewhere between £50-100. Careless Driving guilty plea - fine a couple of hundred pounds, 3-5 penalty points on your licence plus costs of maybe £70 or £80 -v- negligent flying; fine £5,000 costs of circa £39,000.

Had the CPS prosecuted this helicopter pilot they would have asked for their costs and probably have got them. The difference is that they would have amounted to a couple, rather than tens, of thousands of pounds.

The CPS normally only apply for the costs of the actual proceedings in court. What they never do is claim for the costs of the investigation ie the costs of the police etc.

[John Eacott]

Legal,

Thanks for the answer. Can't say it surprises me, but it would smack of inequality, and open to abuse. Almost a 'further punishment', but then who said the law was just <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Flying Lawyer]

John. .The system usually works quite well. . .As Legalapproach explained earlier, although prosecuting authorities are entitled to ask for all their costs of prosecuting, in practice they consider it unreasonable to do so and ask only for a contribution - whatever the means of the defendant.. .To the best of my knowledge, the CAA is the only exception.

[John Eacott]

Not wishing to be too persistent on this, but would there be grounds to appeal the costs? No doubt the Oz legal system is based upon yours, whereby costs are examined and allowed according to a scale of fees, regardless of what the barrister/QC/clerk have actually charged.

Could the CAA be taken to task, be required to justify their expenses, and therefore the costs awarded? I just know that someone within our CASA will see this as a precedent for future action.... <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[Unwell_Raptor]

I think we may take it as read that FL would not have let his client pay the costs unless they were legally inevitable.

[Vfrpilotpb]

The pilot in question, has a duty of care, not just to his fellow passenger(s) and his Helicopter, but to any human or animal on the ground, he had with him a "professional", who it is said also didn't spot the hazard, was this "professional" taken for a reason, and if so, was it in any way to be in control of the craft for license obligations, could it have been therfore that person who should have been prosecuted!. . Irrespective of whatever has happened, all must surely agree that this pilot(who ever was in P1) has showed Pi$$ poor judgement and has given other pilots a little bit of a problem when next landing at any venue, where Mary Poppins, or great Aunty Gerty is taking tiffin! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Balance!]

I realise there was a wink message icon, but I believe this instance has helped the rest of us, not hindered. I, for one, will be much more vigilant when teaching and flying confined areas now, particularly when reviewing the hotel/restaurant table layouts (I'm even going to check whether they have cheap plastic tables/chairs or the more study metal versions when I phone ahead).... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Not sure about looking for another 'scapegoat' - hasn't enough damage been done...

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: balance_trim ]</p>

[Vfrpilotpb]

Balance,. .I was not really looking for a scapegoat more asking , What the hell the other person was there for, was the second pilot blind? or just along for the ride, whilst I am not blessed with many hours, I for one would have to question why the need to land so close to any humans at all, let alone any furniture, its all very well saying that we have all learnt from this, Yes we have,(or should have) I would suggest, if you cannot land safely( and that covers fancy fixtures and fitting at a Hotel or eatery) land elsewere, and if you cannot do that, why go there in the first place, just because we can land on a postage stamp, dont mean we have too at all costs, or am I missing somthing? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Vfrpilotpb ]</p>

[Flying Lawyer]

John E. .The following doesn't breach client confidentiality because it was said in open Court: . .My firm instructions were not to prolong the proceedings any further by challenging the CAA to justify their enormous claim for costs. The pilot was hounded daily by photographers/cameramen as he arrived/left Court and, by the third day, he'd had enough. He is a rather shy, very private man and found the enormous daily media coverage unbearable.. .When the CAA agreed to drop the allegation of reckless flying, and accept his guilty plea to the less serious charge, he just wanted to accept whatever punishment the Court considered he deserved, and put the matter behind him as speedily as possible.

I made it clear (again in open Court) that I would have preferred to challenge the costs claim but was bound by my client's instructions.

Vfrpilotpb. .Yes, with respect, you are 'missing something' - two things: . .You don't know all the facts/circumstances.. .You don't know anythig about the pilot.. .Don't forget that only the Prosecution version of the facts was reported - the case settled before it reached the Defence case.. .The Defence version (summarised in mitigation) was less dramatic, less sensational, and less attractive to the media. In other words, that wasn't reported.

Nor was the fact that a distinguished professional pilot with almost 40 years helicopter experience, whose CV included being a Chief Instructor in the Royal Navy, Chief Pilot and Chief Training Captain for major operators, and Captain of numerous Royal Flights described the defendant as "one of the most conscientious and careful pilots with whom I've ever flown", and "the most professional private pilot with whom I've ever flown.". .I'd be extremely proud if someone described me in those terms - I'll dream on!!. .Several other professionals with shorter, but no less impressive, CV's were available to say the same thing, if required.

This defendant had more than 1000 hours, without a complaint or blemish on his record, and the vast majority of his flying was in and out of private sites.

Don't forget the old adage: "There but for the grace of God." . .or, given your very bold comments, perhaps more appropriately. ."Pride comes before a ......"

Hope we never need to meet professionally!!. .Safe, legal and complaint-free flying. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]</p>

[t'aint natural]

There are two separate topics here. . .The first - whether the guy got a bum rap - is now academic.. .The second, however, concerns us all. The CAA is, it seems, in a position to mount a win-win prosecution (recklessness with a negligence fallback) and EVEN WHEN THE PILOT HAD OFFERED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO NEGLIGENCE, still claim its full costs for a recklnessness prosecution when it failed.. .Surely this question of CAA costs needs to be revisited. Why is the CAA a prosecuting authority, when even the police aren't?

[John Eacott]

FL,

Thanks for the reply.

[Balance!]

FL. .Is the defence version that you mention you raised during mitigation, in the public domain?. .Instruction is often best when we can give clear examples of what can happen and the difficulty in assessing confined areas and the obscure. If it were possible to use this case as part of the instruction process, it might help someone in the future. Rgds balance

[Thomas coupling]

FL: now that it is all over, could you name names? I'm keen to identify the co-jo who was ex mil etc. Might know him. - thanks

[Flying Lawyer]

t'aint natural. .For the reasons explained in my earlier post, the costs aspect wasn't argued in this case. However, I entirely agree with you that the costs issue, and others, deserve important and urgent consideration.. .Personally, I think it is very undesirable that a body which investigates should also prosecute. Usually they are separate, but the CAA is not the only exception.. .I think the separation of the Police and Crown Prosecution Service is better. The relationship between the two bodies is not always as friendly as might be thought. The Police often think the CPS reject too many prosecutions, and the CPS often think the Police are too anxious to prosecute when the evidence is weak, or where there is no public interest to be served by prosecuting. I think it results in a fairer system.

balance_trim. .The defence account was given in the public domain, but is not readily available. . .I'm only a PPL, so I don't feel qualified to give advice to professionals/instructors. It would take up too much space to try to describe exactly what happened in this case but, in brief summary, the pilot changed his planned approach to avoid some horses in a field in the undershoot. Good airmanship – but, concentrating on avoiding the horses, he didn’t realise that one area (containing the hazard) was then blocked from view until it was too late. It was an IFR Twin Squirrel, so not the best vis forards and downwards.. .It was a stark reminder to me, and to each of the professional pilots who were part of the defence team, is that however conscientious a pilot is in checking the landing site using the accepted procedures, it is still possible to miss something.. .If you miss something, your apologies and explanation may not be enough. They, or someone else (as in this case) may still report you. . .For what it's worth, the best advice I can offer in relation to landing safely and legally at private sites is to check, check and check again.. .The harsh fact is that doing your best is no defence. If you make a mistake, however understandable, it may turn out to be an extremely expensive one.. . . .Thomas coupling. .The ex-mil man I mentioned was Ian Thomson. He'd flown extensively with the pilot and spoke very highly of him. Ian was not in the helicopter at the time of the incident.. .BTW, good to see you on Rotorheads again - I thought you'd abandoned us since Police pilots got their private forum. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Balance!]

FL . .Thanks for the info. I will continue to emphasise and re-emphasise the importance of checking then re-checking each situation. This case will serve to remind all student (and qualified) pilots that things aren't always as straightforawrd as they seem in the classroom.

[Vfrpilotpb]

FL,. .Sorry if my post irked you a little, but I was trying to be as gentle as possible, as I did not have the full facts, I made a wrong assumption, for that I make my apology's, both to you and your client! you are quite right we are all capable of making mistakes!

Just one little question however, who reported this occurence in the first place, was it the Mary Poppins lady?

[greenarrow]

No! it was a do good aviation dirty mack spotter.

[Hughes500]

Just a thought to avoid the problem phone the hotel first and ask if they are a POSH place and can afford nice wrought iron furniture !

Mind you the landing fee might go up <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Legalapproach]

John Eacott

A fuller answer to your question about costs. By a strange co-incidence I have just had to deal with this point twice this weekin two different cases, one in the Court of Appeal.

In the UK section 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act allows a court to make "such order as to the costs to be paid by the accused (convicted of an offence) to the prosecutor as it considers just and reasonable".

As far as precedent is concerned (without considering the degree to which a Commonwealth authority might be used in Aus) the two principal cases decided in the UK which said that the costs of an investigation by a prosecutor can be included in the application are Neville -v- Gardner Merchant Ltd 5 Cr App R (S.) 349 and R -v- Associated Octel Ltd [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 435.

Whether your CAA could use these as an authority would depend upon the legislation allowing an application for/award of costs.

Personally I continue to feel that this is an iniquitous position in the UK because 'normal' prosecuting authorities ie the police/CPS do not ask for the costs of the investigation. Further, there is legislation (section 17 of the PoOA) that provides for an award of costs to a private prosecutor from central funds ie the state re-imbursing a prosecutor. This section specifically excludes a prosecutor that is a public authority or is acting on behalf of a public authority. This means that an unsuccessful defendant who is prosecuted by a public authority will have an application for costs made against them whilst a defendant prosecuted by a private prosecutor, such as a shop for theft, will not, because the prosecutor is more likely to ask for an order from central funds. This suggests that the legislature intended public authority prosecutors to far more readilly bear the costs of their own prosecutions. I have successfully used this argument against the CAA and against similar bodies; that being said many courts are very ready to award heavy costs in favour of such prosecutors.

I know that FL and his client were in an invidious position in this case and again there is more to what happened than is in the public domain.

JE I hope this goes some way to answering your question and I apologise to other ppruners for a very 'anorak' post.

. .That will be 50 guineas please. :)

[John Eacott]

Guineas? How about South Pacific Pesos <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate your help.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Legalapproach and Flying Lawyer both, these are not "anorak" post's, they are extremely informative and illuminating, and I thank both of you for taking the time to explain the process and actions that are happening here.

There will be many here, that have (I'm sure) been involved at various levels in lawsuits, and many more will be!!

To actually witness from an informed position what might occur, and at the very least, that there are lawyers that understand and have an interest in aviation, should be a reassurance to us all. As litigation becomes a solution (sic) to an increasing number of occurences, the likelihood of being exposed to the legal process is increased considered.

I think you can judge by the number of posts on the thread and the interest at all levels, that this topic is of considerable interest here. Thanks..

[Vfrpilotpb]

Legalapproach

Should that not be " Say, fifty Guineas" :)

[Legalapproach]

I don't know, it's my clerk that adds that bit!