Pilot prosecuted for irritating rival football fans

[Heliport]

The court was told one person in the crowd also thought the aircraft was so low it was going to crash into the stadium. :rolleyes:
The prosecution was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority after a complaint from someone within the ground. :rolleyes:


Pilot made blues fans see red (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1127596_pilot_made_blues_fans_see_red)

[Captain Smithy]

Typical Citeh fans :rolleyes:

Interesting case however.

[liam548]

Dont think the reporter in the video knows what he is talking about..

[airborne_artist]

From the report:

A PILOT who gave actress Angelina Jolie her wings

What colour were the wings, I wonder? :E

[ShyTorque]

I don't see how, in the lack of evidence of the actual altitude flown, this accusation can be upheld.

If the report is correct, the pivotal evidence appears to be a complaint by a member of the public.

[modelman]

He said he did not believe the aircraft could have glided to an emergency landing site at Newton Heath.

No requirement for the pilot to reach 'an emergency landing site' only to glide clear.A successful FL is more for the self preservation of the pilot and pax and not a mandatory requirement:ugh:.

MM

[ShyTorque]

Manchester CTR is Class D airspace so Mode C is not mandatory. Nor is a transponder, for that matter.

[modelman]

The clue is there:glide clear which by suggestion is clear of any potential hazards which includes people,there is no requirement to make it to an emergency landing site ( whatever one of those is).

MM

[PompeyPaul]

Shame that Southampton all lies within the CTR otherwise I'd have a go at this.

[bjornhall]

SoCal App, what modelman said is the exact same as what you say: Gliding clear is mandatory, a successful landing is optional.

[englishal]

The overriding factor is to not put anybody or anything on the ground in harm.
Which is what Rule 5 states:

An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.

There is a park 500m from where he was flying and some accounts suggest he was at 1800'.....It all depends what is classed as gliding clear or congested area.

Angelina Jolie did her flying in N939RJ, Red and White Archer III. It is the one they are stood infront of in the picture - and the one I did my IR in ;)

[HeliCraig]

It strikes me that without a definite height the CAA surely can't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. Does "reasonable doubt" remain the standard for this type of conviction?

And the suggestion by the CAA that the transponder " had not been switched to the correct mode" is ludicrous. They should know better - while we all should use Mode C if it is available, it isn't a legal requirement then he shouldn't be accused of using it incorrectly in a court. I hope that either there is some severe journalistic licence being used here, or that the defending solicitor rips this statement to pieces.

Of course, within the flying fraternity I would like to ask why Mode C wasn't selected if he had nothing to hide? Was it just inop, no Alt Encoder perhaps? Who knows, but one expects the CAA to be at least accurate!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Aunty Betty’s fun police won’t let me open the link. Probably totally irrelevant but was he flying SVFR? I suspect he would be.


Rules of The Air and Air Traffic Control Rule 5 (3) (c)


Special VFR clearance and notified routes

Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made at other than a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.

[ShyTorque]

It was more likely to be a VFR flight in Class D airspace unless the weather or time of day (night!) made the zone otherwise IFR.

But the 1,000 ft rule probably isn't the main concern [or the 1,500 ft rule (!) incorrectly mentioned in the press report].

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

SVFR only gives you exemption from the 1000ft rule, Rule 5(3)(c). It does not exempt your from the 'Land Clear' rule, Rule 5(3)(d)

I guess you can't really get the accurate story unless you were sitting in the courtroom, I'm amazed that posters here rely on what a journalist writes as an accurate record of fact.......:confused:

[ShyTorque]

What ho, Chuffer. Who does? ;)

[Utrinque Apparatus]

Its all semantics anyway. Everyone knows that the Manchester City lot ARE 'irritating rival football fans' :}

[airborne_artist]

Like I said in my post earlier.
"Presumably the CAA must feel they have a case."...

CAA does not however appear to apply the same test/threshold as the CPS (public criminal prosecutor).

Ask Flying Lawyer about some of his defence successes...

[1800ed]

It all depends what is classed as gliding clear or congested area.
I remember my Air Law book stating that parks and school playing fields weren't suitable excuses for landing sites...

[Pace]

Like I said in my post earlier.
"Presumably the CAA must feel they have a case."...

SoCalapp

having a case can mean nothing and often prosecutions appear to be made more to set a clarification or precedance for future prosecutions.

There appears to be no evidence on the altitude flown only that which is admitted by the pilot himself ie 1300 on the QNH which nicely by coincidence keeps him in the 1000 ft rule.

That leaves the piece of scrubland for a landing which the prosecution claim had some houses close by if he got the landing wrong so it didnt count.
What a load of rubbish! you could get it wrong landing a 150 at Heathrow, You could get it wrong landing an airline in the Hudson. They are still landing sites. Finally it is up to the pilot to go for a smooth touchdown or wreck the plane to avoid hitting houses.

The CAA are their own worst enemy as they could legislate that aircraft having mode C must have it on at all times. It is common practice for pilots who are doing what they shouldnt be doing to turn mode C off.

Pace

[englishal]

It is all a bit wishy washy this "Congested area":

The Air Navigation Order defines a congested area as being ‘any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes’

Substantially is defined as "to a great extent or degree"...

If it said "city, town or settlement , including all parks and other open spaces within the town boundary are classed as congested areas" then it would be more clear cut in my view but in the above sentence it says "area of a city..." etc which implies that not all areas of a city are congested areas. I suppose that someone has to prove that the park or other scrub land near the stadium is substantially used for recreation....

[west lakes]

Just in the interest of accuaracy (as I'm sure we all agree that press reports are accurate as regards aviation matters)

This aircraft was banner towing, which would have been under an AOC!
Of course some different rules would/do apply to this case over and above those normally applied to light aircraft.

A google search brings up this: -
The Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control (Fourth Amendment) Regulations 1987 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1987/Uksi_19871812_en_1.htm)



(1) In rule 5(1)(a)(i) after the words "in the event of failure of a power unit" there shall be inserted the following —
"and if such an aircraft is towing a banner such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within the congested area" .


(2) In rule 5(1)(d)(ii), after the words "in the event of the failure of a power unit" there shall be inserted the following —
"and if such an aircraft is towing a banner such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within 3000ft of the assembly" .


But no doubt the flyers among yuou will have a better knowledge of this than I do

[Pace]

West lakes

Firstly in an emergency the commander of an aircraft overides any regulations ie it is up to him/her at what point if any he decides to drop his banner. The CAA cannot regulate at what the commander does during an emergency!

Whether he decides that he needs the extra drag or decides to get rid of that drag at 500 feet or 5000 feet in the glide is his decision in his ultimate legal position of bringing the aircraft and its occupants to a safe landing.

But on reading the two insertions thats not what it says. It basically says that in his planning he must take into account an engine failure and plan not to drop the banner within 3000 feet of an assembly or "anywhere" over a congested area (ie 20,000 feet as the banner could drop vertically) :)

This would infact limit his descisions in an emergency. What it basically says is that it is illegal to banner tow over a congested area full stop. He would have to calculate the glide with banner in tow and be at an altitude where he could glide clear with banner in tow or hang onto the banner regardless of the safety of his aircraft.

As far as I know there are no performance charts in the flight manual for glide ratios with a banner so how is the pilot expected to legally work that out?
Should he be able to do that and select a legal altitude it all becomes a nonsense anyway.

In the even of an engine failure he has a legal right to drop the banner over a congested area even at 6000 or 10000 feet as it is his overiding legal rights as a commander in an emergency situation to decide how best to bring his aircraft and occupants to a safe landing.

So he could say I calculated an altitude where I could glide clear with the banner in tow. I had an engine failure and decided to drop it over a congested area anyway (totally a legal decision) Mad quangos :)


Pace

[west lakes]

Pace

Thanks for that, I was concerned that non of the previous posters had picked up the banner towing issue.
It seems one of these legal minefields where the only information is from a press report - it's not what we know it's what we don't know here I think.

[Pace]

West Lakes

The CAA could prosecute under these regs if they could prove the altitude of the aircraft and also prove that with the banner in tow the aircraft could not glide clear.

My problem with this is the CAA would also have to prove that the aircraft could not glide clear with the banner in tow. IE they would have to have performance calculations for that specific aircraft with that specific banner.
I am not a banner tower :) but cannot imagine that such performance charts exist? Maybe someone knows more?

In the event of a real engine failure I would also question the legality of legislation which expects the aircraft to glide clear with the banner in tow.
That is different to an aircraft gliding clear as in this situation you are expecting a performane inhibited aircraft to glide clear.Ie in a state where its performance is inhibited and in a state which may have dire consequences on an eventual safe landing.

There could be an airfield 5 miles away. Clean the aircraft may glide there and land safely towing the banner to glide clear the aircraft would not make the airfield. The CAA are legislating to jeopordise the aircraft and safety of its occupants.

The simple procedure of towing the banner clear could be argued to jeopordise the aircraft? My guess is that these two paragraphs are flawed legislation which could be torn to pieces by any half decent aviation lawyer.

Pace

[ANW]

Seems like a result as just been announced. Pilot Cleared. [read (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1132237_jolie_pilot_cleared_of_flying_too_low_over_eastlands )]

[ShyTorque]

Good job, good to hear.