CAA prosecutions

[Rod1]

I was having a look at CAA prosecutions and noticed a surprising number of “dangerous goods” items. Anybody know what the most popular “dangerous good” is?

www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=9533 (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=9533)

Rod1

[englishal]

Don't know, probably stuff that shouldn't be loaded into a passenger aircraft - e.g. lithium batteries etc...?

But get this one:

Dangerous low flying under motorway bridge

:}

[mm_flynn]

I think you will find most DG prosecutions are of the shipper for failure to properly document or package said goods not for shipping them as such.

It is sometimes staggering what is considered a dangerous good - with my favourate being a life raft! (Compressed CO2 and survival knife).

[jollyrog]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=322658

Contains details of the bridge incident.

[niknak]

So it's OK to fly underneath a bridge?

If you drive across any large bridge when the weather is anything less than perfect you'll notice the effect on the car.

Imagine what it might be like when you're flying a microlight, a very vunerable a/c by comparison to, perhaps, a C150.
The pilot clearly couldn't have recovered as quickly and one wonders if he has the mental capacity to pilot a kite, never mind a powered aircraft.

Despite what the Flying Lawnmower, who makes a pathetic attempt to make the CAA the big bad ogre, the pilot was wrong and proved wrong.:confused:

[Mariner9]

Interesting list Rod.

I note a Class D infringement warrants a £6K fine, whereas a Class A infringement only warrants a £1500 fine!

So, if you're gonna bust airspace, might as well route through Heathrow's overhead and get your moneys worth ;)

[IO540]

The UK CAA do virtually no enforcement. Most (not all) of their prosecutions are cases where somebody was blatently taking the micky. One or two are of people who p*ssed them off in previous years (the police do the same).

There is a lot of stuff the CAA could enforce but they choose not to - presumably because the vague wording of the ANO (and its many and varied interpretations on pilot forums ;) ) suits them. They do not want to test a lot of that stuff and end up with a precedent which would open the floodgates.

The FAA (in the USA) is pretty heavy in comparison.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

The CAA will only go for a court case if they think they are going to win, and have very good evidence to prove it. There's a lot of people out there who get off on a technicality and receive either a formal caution or written letter.

As always, the people who should be prosecuted are the ones who always get away with it.

I thought the bike rider at Kemble had big cajones to appeal......and then got a bigger fine!:rolleyes:

[Legalapproach]

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.

[englishal]

The FAA (in the USA) is pretty heavy in comparison.
But the punishments seem to fit the crime better.

Why fine someone £6000 for busting airspace? What they should do is to order some retraining with a CAA inspector / examiner and invalidate their licence until it has been completed. If they fly with an invalid licence, then fine them £6000.

This is more like what happens in the USA. Of course they dish out big fines there too, and prison sentences, but not for mistakes.

[IO540]

Sure, Englishal, though what I was getting at was rather more along the lines of enforcing technical breaches e.g. a departure into known icing conditions, and a VFR departure into "obviously" non VFR conditions. The CAA never enforces any of that - nor should it because with any half decent defence lawyer it would lose most of the cases, and it would make a mockery of the regs.

I suppose the FAA can afford to go after some people in such cases because the FAR rules are more clearly written. Far from perfect (plenty of grey areas) but a lot clearer than the ANO.

[Flying Lawyer]

'Flying Lawnmower', 'pathetic attempt' Oh niknak. :{ You used to be a fan. :sad:
Only last year you wrote "I have the utmost respect for most of your postings ..."
Rest assured I don't for one moment think you changed your opinion when I pointed out the glaring inconsistency between posting (about a pilot jailed for turning up to work over the alcohol limit):
“I sincerely hope that he serves the full sentance, gets the help he needs to accept the gravity of his problem, and never, ever flys again”
when, in the ATC forum literally only a few days earlier, you'd posted (about a fellow ATCO):
"A colleague ... on his way to work today, (3pm start), ….. minor shunt ….. observed by the local plod. He was breathlysed. He'd had a bit to drink yesterday but stopped at around 6pm, had a big meal and solid sleep until 10am, nonetheless, he still registered on the machine as having alcohol in his system, albeit below the legal driving limit. Plod asked his occupation, which he gave without thinking and said Officer immediately and strongly suggested he turned around, went home, and phoned in sick. Thumbs up to Plod. :ok:"
Not for one moment. ;)

So it's OK to fly underneath a bridge? No, it's not OK because it would be a breach of Rule 5 - unless the bridge is sufficiently high and the supports sufficiently far apart to allow it to be done without breaching the provisions of Rule 5.
..... pathetic attempt to make the CAA the big bad ogreGiven that the pilot was identified (unfortunately for him), the CAA had no sensible option but to prosecute; it would have been ludicrous if they hadn't. Although I don't entirely share IO540's view, flying under a bridge in breach of Rule 5 certainly falls into his "blatently taking the micky" category.
the pilot was wrong and proved wrong He wasn't 'proved wrong'; he pleaded Guilty to (admitted) the Rule 5 offence. (NB: Rule 5 does not refer to danger or endangering.)
He did not admit endangering; the CAA did not proceed with that allegation. If they had, my advice would have remained the same: 'Your decision, but IMHO you should plead Not Guilty and challenge the 'endangering.' (I was in a position to call expert opinion evidence that, although illegal under Rule 5, the manoeuvre did not endanger anyone or anything - spoilt for choice of experts actually.)

If you drive across any large bridge when the weather is anything less than perfect you'll notice the effect on the car. etc. I'm sure, given time to reflect, you can work out the fallacy of comparing the effect of 'less than perfect' weather on a car driving across a large bridge and on an aircraft flying through the air. Or ask a pilot to explain it.
(Just for info, the incident happened on a calm evening with nil or no significant wind.)
..... one wonders if he has the mental capacity to pilot a kite, never mind a powered aircraft. You're free to wonder whatever you wish.
Personally, I think a pilot with insufficient ability to fly an aircraft the size of a microlight/C150 perfectly safely under a bridge the dimensions of Medway Bridge shouldn't be allowed to fly anything more than a kite.
NB: Just in case you misunderstand me again, I refer to ability; I'm not advocating doing so because it's illegal.

I don't doubt some pilots consider it dangerous. (There was an interesting discussion a few years ago about some pilots who flew light aircraft under a bridge in Scotland. Some strong views were expressed in both directions.) But nor do I doubt there are some pilots who would love to fly under a bridge (depending upon clearance), and are capable of doing so safely, but are deterred only by the risk of being caught.


Just for you, in the hope we can express opposing opinions without personal animosity, my favourite bridge pic:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/PieceofCake.jpg


Safe and legal at about 200 kts.
Considerably smaller than the Medway bridge - but the pilot was considerably more skilled and experienced than most. ;)


FL


(Edit)

englishal
UK courts do not have power to order further training etc.
Of course, there is nothing to stop the CAA coming to such an agreement with a pilot as an alternative to prosecution.
IMHO it would be the far better course in very many, probably most, instances.

[hoodie]

The CAA got £2,000 costs, their actual costs were over £50,000

Fair enough - at least it wasn't my money.

Oh, hang on... :mad:

[Flying Lawyer]

their actual costs were over £50,000
A figure many may regard as beyond comprehension - given that all or virtually all relevant facts were agreed and the issue was whether or not endangerment was proved - which is a matter of opinion.

FL

[chrisbl]

There is a big difference between the CAA and the FAA. Actions brought by the FAA tend to be civil actions which do not lead to criminal convictions. They are dealt with as an administrative actions where penalties tend to be suspensions of privileges.

The CAA act like the HSE and are responsible for bringing their own prosecutions. They still have to operate on the basis of a) is the prosecution in the public interest and b) the likelihood of securing a conviction.

The recent prosecution of the flying instructor who flew through the Red Arrows display at Duxford was a case of yes to both criteria.

[Bravo73]

***THREAD DRIFT ALERT***



Just for you, in the hope we can express opposing opinions without personal animosity, my favourite bridge pic:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/PieceofCake.jpg


Safe and legal at about 200 kts.
Considerably smaller than the Medway bridge - but the pilot was considerably more skilled and experienced than most. ;)


FL,

You've no doubt already seen it but I've only just discovered this on youtube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_OF0v1dwYC8&feature=related

(The really interesting bit starts at about 1:50.)

:D:D:D

[PPRuNe Radar]

Why fine someone £6000 for busting airspace? What they should do is to order some retraining with a CAA inspector / examiner and invalidate their licence until it has been completed. If they fly with an invalid licence, then fine them £6000.

Surely it depends on the circumstances and the effects of their infringement ? If we knew that, then we could all make our own judgement on the scale of the fine and whether it was a suitable way of dealing with the matter. It does seem high to me, compared to other fines you read about for other criminal offences.

Perhaps a nominal fine closer in value to those motorists might have to pay, plus the pilot paying the costs resulting from their actions might be more effective. These costs might rightly include those incurred by commercial operators having to break off their approaches :E How much ?? Well, here's the CAA poster ;)

Flyontrack Infringements Poster (http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/costinfringe.pdf)

Generally speaking, most ATC units, although having to take reporting action, will not be thinking of a CAA prosecution as the next step UNLESS safety has been compromised and/or there has been disruption to the flow of air traffic.

Mostly they will seek to talk with the pilot, find out what happened, and offer guidance on what to do to prevent a reoccurence. If the pilot is receptive and the two way exchange of information resolves things to the satisfaction of both, then the report is closed from the ATC point of view without recourse to CA939 action (Breach of Legislation). Filing the report will however help identify trends, both in individuals and pieces of airspace. I guess if a particular pilot makes several low impact busts and doesn't appear to be 'learning' then the CAA might be asked to get involved.

[chrisbl]

Nice to see the Military authorities take a dim view too of stupidity

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7349623.stm

[flybymike]

Excellent last post by Flying Lawyer ( who must be the last bastion of correct use of the colon and semi-colon....:))

[twelveoclockhigh]

FL

I am confused - how is the flight in the picture legal - surely he is within 500 ft of the bridge and anyone who might be on it?

[Bronx]

12 o'clock

There's a good thread about that Spitfire flight and the answer to your question here --

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1173701

B.

[bookworm]

Perhaps a nominal fine closer in value to those motorists might have to pay, plus the pilot paying the costs resulting from their actions might be more effective. These costs might rightly include those incurred by commercial operators having to break off their approaches.

I don't think it helps to fuse criminal and civil law in that way. If the commercial operators suffer loss because of the negligence of an aircraft operator or pilot, they have the usual remedies available, don't they?

Fines are fines. There's an argument to suggest that they should be linked to real safety risk, but not to commercial loss.

[Shunter]

I'd take a guess it's legal because the photo is a still from a film (1980's?) and was hence almost certainly filmed with the luxury of a rule 5 exemption from the CAA. You can get those, you know...

[PPRuNe Radar]

If the commercial operators suffer loss because of the negligence of an aircraft operator or pilot, they have the usual remedies available, don't they?

I wonder how many small claims actions a GA pilot can have against them at once :)

The £6000 fine might seem paltry if everyone who suffers a loss due to an infringement sues the infringing pilot :(

[twelveoclockhigh]

bronx

many thanks and an interesting thread

[WanSum]

Just thought a photo of the Medway Bridge in question might be appropriate!

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/images/46_51.jpg

[gpn01]

I'd imagine that once the CAA is equipped with the ability to detect and identify airspace busts then they'll be able to prosecute offenders more easily. Guess that's a 'benefit' of all aircraft having Mode-S and 24-bit idents built-in. Rather like speed cameras, it'll provide a great revenue opportunity and will avoid the need for pilots to be retrained or learn from their mistakes - doesn't matter why you busted airspace (e.g. genuine mistake), fact is you did. Just like doesn't matter that you broke the speed limit because you thought you were in a 40 zone when it was actually a 30.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

The chap flying under the Medway bridge was actually photographed by a woman on a passing boat. I remember seeing it in a boating mag. It's not the best place to do it and get away with it:=

Ray Hanna had a Rule 5 Exemption to fly under the Bridge in the Spitfire. The CAA does occasionally give them out to those it thinks are up to the job (special occasions only:E)

[sonicpana]

If you have a 'caution' from the CAA is this the same as a 'caution' from the met police? What about a prosecution, does this mean you will have a criminal record? Just curious.

[Flying Lawyer]

WR

The short answer to your good question is that when the CPS was created, Parliament allowed the CAA (and some other bodies) to conduct their own prosecutions.
It means the investigator and prosecutor are the same body, which many regard as not being in the interests of justice.


chrisbl They (CAA) still have to operate on the basis of a) is the prosecution in the public interest and b) the likelihood of securing a conviction. In theory, that is correct and the CAA would claim that, in practice, those criteria are properly applied.

However, problems can arise where the body which investigates is the same body which decides whether to prosecute. ie Where there is no independent/objective assessment. eg Police investigate and gather evidence. The CPS (which is independent of the police) then decides if there should be a prosecution. ie Whether the two criteria are met.
Many would say the problem is far greater where it is not only the same body but the same department which considers the first of those two criteria.

FL

[Rhyspiper]

A friend of mine busted Heathrow by 6nm, delayed arrivals and departures for 30 mins and had the police heli scrambled all on his first hour after gaining his ppl!

He got a telling off and a tour round D&D!!

Makes me wonder what would happen if you did a touch and go at Heathrow?

Bar of gold, Knighthood?

In all seriousness though, I wonder why some peopleget fined £6000 and others get a slap on the wrist!

And also how do they find the culprits in the cases of the bridge incident, or the dangerous goods case?

[Rod1]

“Mode-S and 24-bit idents”

Firstly, there are no plans to make mode s compulsory

Secondly, on most mode s units you can change the code and adjust the height on the front panel

Thirdly, the radar coverage to receive mode s is not in place

Rod1

[Jodelman]

Mmmm.. No plans to make Mode S compulsory?

The present proposals would allow you to use uncontrolled airspace in the UK without one and the French will allow you to use much of their airspace without one. However, the CAA proposals would not allow you to cross the FIR boundary without one!

I also heard it said that at the moment there is no such thing as a Mode S transponder, only composite mode A,C and S ones. If that is the case, I wonder how much cheaper a mode S only one would be.