Help needed with legal scenario...

[AviationUnenthusiast]

Hi everyone.

Currently trying to solve up a scenario, but having great difficulties getting my head around all this Aviation business. I Have been guided to make exclusive use of the CAP393 in order to address all the issues presented.

Here are a couple of facts I plucked out just to make sense of the subsequent paragraphs:

Peter hired a Cessna 172 for the weekend.
Peter's instrument rating was time expired.Peter noticed that directly underneath the aircraft there was a very large airport with commercial aircraft taking off. “Ooh look, isn’t that an Easyjet asked Liz?” “Yes”, said Peter “but I don’t think we should be here, we are only at 2,000 feet”. Slowly it dawned on Peter that he was over Luton CTR/CTA and was flying in controlled airspace on the wrong radio frequency. He changed frequency and made a quick call to the control tower. The air traffic control officer was furious with Peter and asked for his call sign and his name and where he had come from. “You will be hearing from the CAA about this. Now fly this QDM and exit to the North as quickly as possible, maintain 2000 feet and report leaving the ATZ”. “Roger, November-Bravo” confirmed Peter. On departing to the North Peter made the departure call and proceeded on course for Leeds.

Peter flew along designated airways. In the course of the flight the weather deteriorated and rather than diverting to the east or west Peter decided to press on with the flight. At one point, Peter was flying in cloud the visibility was down to zero and he was out of sight of the ground. “It’s a good job I’ve done a bit of instrument flying isn’t it Liz or we would be in a pickle”.

With regards to flying over the airport...from what I understand, in order to fly in controlled airspace, a instrument rating is required? As Peter's IR is time expired, he must then have infringed something? Does anyone know of a specific provision/regulation? I can't seem to find it under the CAP393. Peter said "...we are only at 2000 feet", but what significance does that have in controlled airspace?

Just to get this straight - Peter started the flight under visual flight rules, but once he was flying in cloud (with zero visibility) and out of sight of the ground he was then operating under Instrument flight rules? Would I be required to mention something along the lines that in order to be able to fly in such conditions Peter would require an IMC rating?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[2 sheds]

Groan...! Can you afford the necessary consultancy fee?

2 s

[dublinpilot]

Would I be required to mention something along the lines that in order to be able to fly in such conditions Peter would require an IMC rating?

Required by who?

from what I understand, in order to fly in controlled airspace, a instrument rating is required?
Only a limited type of controlled airspace requires an instrument rating.

You've asked some basic questions that didn't require the whole story line in order to be asked. It would seem that you are not a pilot yourself, so I'm a little confused about your motivation for asking these questions. Do you mind explaining to us why you want to know about instrument flying legalities?

If you were Peter, you'd know the answers to these questions.

If you were Liz, why the desire for help with a 'legal scenario'?

Be a little more open with us, and you'll proably find that we'll be more open with you.....but we have a long history here of trolls.....

dp

[BackPacker]

from what I understand, in order to fly in controlled airspace, a instrument rating is required?

No. In order to fly in controlled airspace, you need to have permission from the controller.

You need an instrument rating, essentially, to fly in "instrument conditions" (IMC). But particularly in the UK this is not an easy concept, with an IMC rating, and the possibility to file and fly IFR for pilots without an IMC/IR as long as they stay in VMC. You might want to grab an air law book and see what the rules are.

But anyway, your Peter ending up above Luton doesn't have to do all that much with not having an IR, but not having asked permission. Which, in turn, was a navigation blunder, which in turn might have been caused by the weather conditions.

we are only at 2,000 feet”

A typical CTR extends to 3000 feet above ground level (3500 MSL in the case of Luton). This is so that aircraft can receive their final vectors, perform the approach and perform the go-around procedure up to 2000 feet AGL without having to leave the frequency at busy times. So a lot of CTRs can be overflown legally at 3000 feet AGL or above.

However... To protect the initial approach phase there's typically a layer of CTA/TMA overhead busy fields. Or, in case of London, this becomes one contiguous layer over the whole of London. This layer starts somewhere around 1500-2000 feet, with higher start levels as you get away from the area, and extends up to a level that's practically not reachable in a GA airplane with a basic VFR PPL. Grab a map of the Southern UK to see what the situation really looks like.

So overflying Luton at any altitude without permission is not possible - you have to go around its airspace at low level. But 2000 feet is particularly bad because that's typically the final approach and go-around altitude. In other words, it's got the highest traffic density of any altitude if things get busy. Statistically speaking you are safer at 1000' or 3000'. On the other hand, statistically speaking you are safer directly above the runway than 6 miles out. No commercial aircraft has any business flying directly above the runway at 2000 feet - they should be on the ground by then.

report leaving the ATZ

I would certainly hope that the Luton controller would know the difference between a CTR and an ATZ, and would ask Peter to report leaving the CTR. In fact, looking at my map here, it looks like Luton doesn't even have an ATZ.

once he was flying in cloud (with zero visibility) and out of sight of the ground he was then operating under Instrument flight rules

Nope. He was already "in IMC" when he got near the cloud. To fly under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) require you to fly in Visual Meteorological Circumstances (VMC), and they prescribe a minimum distance from clouds. And to fly in IMC requires an IR or an IMC rating, plus conformance to IFR rules.

Peter flew along designated airways.

Most of the "designated airways" in the UK are class A. You need an IR and an IFR plan to fly them. You will also fly them at a relatively high altitude. And you fly them from navigation beacon (or intersection) to the next. It doesn't fit at all with your scenario where somebody was bimbling about, and got lost, at 2000 feet.

Currently trying to solve up a scenario, but having great difficulties getting my head around all this Aviation business.

You come across as a lawyer that's tasked to defend a client that's done something wrong along these lines. If that's indeed the case, you are in way over your head.

You also forgot to mention a few other things that might be extremely important in a court case. Was Peter using a transponder? Was his flight preparation OK, and what caused him to get off-course? What licenses did the pilot have, were they current, how long was his IR/IMC expired? Did he file a flight plan? What did he do *exactly* when he found out his navigation blunder?

Do I need to go on?

[The Old Fat One]

Can't help you with the legal specifics, but having recently worked in a flying club, I witnessed similar half-witted flying on one or two occasions and therefore can offer a little (not so tongue in cheek) advice.

As dublin bloke comments, we are a bit short of info, so I'll make a couple of assumptions...

One, you're a legal eagle.
Two, you're acting on behalf of Liz, who needs compensation for the PTSD.

Or three, you're acting on behalf of the CFI of the Flying Club/School who wants the retarded pilot grounded for life.

They are probably both wasting their money and your time...difficult to get the CAA to move in any direction other than the one they are already going in (plenty of Pprune threads to read for enlightenment in this area), however as you are tasked by the Law Society to counsel best advice (and not merely to act as a partner of Douie, Fleecem and Howe) pass this on...

Liz, be thankful you are in one piece and don't get in an aircraft with someone of dubious sanity again.

Mr CFI, be thankful you got your asset back, rewrite the Flying Order Book to include a mandatory, thorough competency check before hiring your kites to people you don't know.

My invoice is in the post.

[IO540]

Is this a wind-up?

With regards to flying over the airport...from what I understand, in order to fly in controlled airspace, a instrument rating is required?

This bloke doesn't even have a PPL.

Maybe time to pull out that famous trip report of a flight to Albania (or whatever) using a road atlas...

[The Old Fat One]

Immediately after I posted above I read this...


Northamptonshire Coroner Anne Pember recorded a narrative verdict.
She said: "Rodney Badham was the pilot and Christopher Davis a passenger in a Beech Baron twin engine aeroplane.
"The plane took off from Coventry Airport with approximately a quarter tank of fuel on a journey to France.
"The plane got into difficulties over the Channel and landed in the sea about 16 miles north of Cherbourg.
"It is likely that the plane ran out of fuel, resulting in the deaths of both men by drowning."
Hour of fuel
An inquest at Northampton General Hospital heard the aircraft set off from Coventry Airport.
The trio were due to fly to Guernsey to refuel, then continue to France, but over the Channel one engine cut out, then the other started to have difficulties.
The inquest heard the plane crashed into the sea, sparking a rescue by French authorities.
All three were rescued from the water, but only Mr Wilkinson, of Brigstock, Kettering, survived.
Mr Wilkinson told the inquest Mr Badham treated the plane as his own and took care of refuelling and maintenance.
Julian Firth, from the Air Accident Investigation Branch, said based on the evidence, the plane would have had about an hour of fuel when it set off.
He said it crashed as a "probable consequence of running out of fuel".


So no I0540, sadly I doubt it is a wind up. Given some of the GA stuff you read on here and elsewhere, anything is possible.

[overandout]

I think this guy is a rubbish author/editor trying to get a bit of his story / plot believable. He has a long way to go.

[IO540]

sadly I doubt it is a wind up

You may well be right.

However I suspect that Baron pilot was one of many (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=67101) who don't understand that refuelling in Jersey or Guernsey is usually pointless, when the duty drawback would have a similar effect.

The trio were due to fly to Guernsey to refuel, then continue to France,

What is the range of a Baron? :ugh:

[BackPacker]

I think this guy is a rubbish author/editor trying to get a bit of his story / plot believable. He has a long way to go.

That's another possibility. In which case it would be a very wise idea to visit a flying club/school around the Luton area, have a long chat with the CFI about the legal and practical aspects of a flight in/around a CTR, and then go for such a flight. Best 300 pounds ever spent I'd say.

[24Carrot]

If it is a novel, the plot does need work.

Despite the impression you might get from some in the "Roger isn't Looking" thread, I can't believe an ATCO would read the Riot Act and only then give vectors. A non-radio contact needs a lot of separation because it is unpredictable. Once it comes on the radio, I can't believe a ticking-off is a priority. Especially as 'Peter' might just switch the radio off if he doesn't like what he is hearing.

And "Report leaving" the whatever? Peter didn't know he was in the zone till he saw the easyjet, so how credible would that report be.

Incidentally, I can't find anything in CAP413 about roastings from ATC. Should one just say "Roger", or would some of you opt for "Cringing"?:)

[AviationUnenthusiast]

Many thanks for the replies so far, particularly BackPacker. Okay, I think a little insight is in order. As much as I'd like to give you all your juicy story, I'm merely an LLB student who regrettably opted for an Aviation module. We haven't been taught anything in relation to the scenario, as it's more of a self-study research type assignment.

[Fuji Abound]

Good try, but for me this isnt what the forum is about. :)

Sorry.

[IO540]

I'm merely an LLB student who regrettably opted for an Aviation module.

You have quite a learning curve on aviation law, etc, before you will be able to make sense of this stuff.

For example one doesn't need an IR to go into controlled airspace. What one needs is an ATC clearance.

Even if you come here with the best of intentions, nobody is going to type up the vast reams of stuff that would be needed to make it all hang together.

[BackPacker]

Well, in that case I'd definitely start with buying (or borrowing) a normal PPL-style Air Law book. Amongst other topics, you'll learn about IFR/VFR/IMC/VMC, license requirements and privileges, airspace division and classes, ATC responsibilities, incident investigation and a lot of other things that are currently part of your scenario.

This one might just do the trick and is not too expensive:
The ANO in Plain English - Airplan Flight Equipment (http://www.afeonline.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=1538)

Otherwise either of these are the standard textbooks for PPLs:
OAT Media PPL Book 1 - Air Law (inc. Operational Procedures) : OAA (http://www.afeonline.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=38_179&products_id=2370)
Private Pilot's Licence Course, PPL 2 Air Law, Operational Proce : AFE (http://www.afeonline.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=38_179&products_id=213)

[Heliplane]

So this was nothing to do with the Cessna I overheard departing from Elstree to Leeds last Saturday?

[AviationUnenthusiast]

BackPacker, many thanks yet again. Found some samples of The ANO in Plain English and it looks the one. :ok:

[mad_jock]

Personally my completely none legal advice to someone who discovers they are 2000ft over head of any of the main London airports with out being cleared would be ouch your shafted mate. Some threads for you to have a look at.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/384905-light-aircraft-down-dundee.html


http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/371175-caa-prosecution-lesson-learnt.html

The first one is an indication of some of the prats that are about. And has the offical report in it as well. This one is still live on the legal front I believe.

And the second one is actually one which is more likely to happen in real life and happens too many times.



The ANO is your source document but its never used day to day. In fact the only time I look at it is when there is some on here starts talking ****e about logging hours or some such.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF

There are 2 airlaw books out there for private pilots Airlaw by either Thom or Pratt. You can go to the next level and get the Oxford Airlaw commercial notes but to be honest they won't give you any more than the PPL books for the basics. You can pick them up on ebay or your local public libary might have a copy.

To be honest its quite hard to actually go through all the points that you need to be educated on and would be quite lengthy on here. But a couple of hours of ground school with a flying instructor (make sure its an auld fart grizzerly one) would cover everything you would want to know.

If you give your region on here I am sure that someone would sit down with you and your mates for an afternoon for cash (would't have thought it would cost more than 30-40 quid). It doesn't actually need to be an instructor just someone that has done something a bit more than go for a burger in the same airport once a month or just bimbled round their local area.


opps took along time writting that one and re-covered backpacker suggestions

[Whirlygig]

Good try, but for me this isnt what the forum is about. Wny not? Help the aviation law student now and he or she may well help any of us in the future.

Cheers

Whirls

[The Old Fat One]

Good try, but for me this isnt what the forum is about. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Sorry.


Beg to differ. Lots of folk taking an interest, the poster has got some good feedback and potential for the thread to take off (no pun intended) in various directions. Plus a little humour and sarcasm to boot and, as yet, not a troll in sight.

It's the internet, not a lecture hall.

PS Whirls was a fraction quicker on the keyboard

PPS Got one assumption nearly right....he/she is a legal eaglet :D

[Jev Flyer]

I'm merely an LLB student who regrettably opted for an Aviation module. We haven't been taught anything in relation to the scenario, as it's more of a self-study research type assignment.

Legal research is about researching the law not posting the question on a forum. Is that how you intend to practice when you qualify?

Get off the internet and into some legal research tools.

[englishal]

There is not enough information an too many variables in the original post and the only thing Peter is guilty of is busting Luton's airspace. The IR is an irrelevant red herring.

With regards to flying in the airways, that is a highly unlikely UK scenario due to the nature of their CAS as one cannot be VFR in a UK airway. If he was then it was illegal, but I think the question is written with other classes of airway in mind where VFR is possible.

In the USA or France, then possibly I could see this scenario happening....But despite having a lapsed IR, he probably had an IMC rating (doesn't an IR revert to an IMC when it time expires?), and therefore if the weather became IMC nothing changes or matters.

Besides Peter may have held a CAA CPL which allows for life time IMC privileges. Or he may also have held a foreign IR which allows for IMC outside CAS without formality....who knows.

[IO540]

Get off the internet and into some legal research tools.I think you need to visit a modern university...

My other half is a university teacher, and does MA and PhD supervision.

The stuff I see her bring home is absolutely staggering. Nowadays most postgrad students are foreign and are sent here to get educated because in their home country they are nobody without a "management degree", the majority of them can barely write in English, and totally in-your-face plagiarism (I mean copy/paste of whole essays from the internet, even leaving the page numbers within the text) is the norm. Most "humanities" Masters degrees are basically bogus nowadays, and PhD work is not a lot better, with the students getting a huge amount of help in return for their massive fees. It's a business!

What this chap is doing is not bad but he is asking a simple question to which there is a huge long answer. I suspect the assignment was written by some clue-less person to start with. Pointing him to the ANO itself is not going to help much because the ANO is virtually unreadable.

Legal databases are good for precedents but there are very few of those in this game. The UK CAA prefers to not have too many grey areas clarified so they prosecute only obvious cases (like beating up a stewardess, or politically visible CAS busts) and do various deals.

[mad_jock]

Current Jar license CPL/ATPL have no IMC rights for life.

If you wish an IMC you have to pay for it off the back of your SPA-IR.

Once your IR has lapsed you have no rights to fly in IMC.

Orginally they said that your IMC rating was kept valid by holding a MPA-IR but they changed that and now you have to do the test like any other holder.

Myself I don't actually mind doing the test as I fly SPA imc very rarely the test is more of a training exercise in partial panel work than anything else as my work machine is EFIS.

Apparently you can keep your SPA-IR valid by experence if you hold a MPA-IR on some type. I don't know the ins and outs of it but personally the partial panel work needs to be done and I get the whole lot signed off at mates rates with the examiner.

[Fuji Abound]

Of course I dont mind everyone discussing it, and in any event what does it matter what I think.

For me it is just not of interest because the question is far too general, not very realistic, and it is doubtful the poster will be able to understand or produce a meaningful paper with so little apparent understanding of the issues.

However, it is a jolly good thing that some of you want to help him out and give him a steer in the "right" direction - after all I guess there are less interesting things to discuss like should we be saying "Roger" or "visual".

[Vizsla]

Presumably Peter & Liz are now dead so who cares

[The Old Fat One]

Legal research is about researching the law not posting the question on a forum. Is that how you intend to practice when you qualify?

Get off the internet and into some legal research tools


Jev Flyer,

Your post reminds me of the old adage...

In every group there is always one, and if you don't know who it is, it is probably you.


There is not enough information an too many variables in the original post and the only thing Peter is guilty of is busting Luton's airspace.


Only?

[wsmempson]

Aviationunenthusiast, it sounds to me as if you need an hour or so in front of a 1/500,000 chart with someone who is a pilot, in order to make sense of the questions that you've asked.

PM me and, if you buy the beer somewhere in west london, I'll do just that!

[Nibbler]

wsmempson - great idea!

I was going to suggest was for our young law student to go visit an airfield on a wet and windy day and buy a bored looking FI a nice cup of coffee...

[Trinity 09L]

Aviationunenthusitwotsit

I am somewhat puzzled why you have an aviation module. There is a very limited need for this legal advice in this area, and already plenty of Counsel. It would be better to concentrate on contractual aviation law (more profitable & busier + rewarding). Is your lecturer familiar with this area? how will they check your answers - post here? :ugh:

[Jev Flyer]

Jev Flyer,

Your post reminds me of the old adage...

In every group there is always one, and if you don't know who it is, it is probably you.

The Old Fat One - I think you must be right since I don't understand what you are trying to say. I can only presume that its an insult so thanks for your friendly welcome. Or perhaps the 'one' is you since you are the only one who has chosen gratuitously to insult another poster (assuming that is what you have intended to do - if not my apologies).

The legal training of the original poster seems a long way away from the establishments at which I teach. He (or she) needs a wake up call if they intend to practice law in the future. If a student is set a legal question, they should be researching the answer not asking on an internet forum.

My 2p worth is that everyone here is being misguidedly helpful to a person who describes themselves as someone who 'regrettably opted' for an aviation module and is an Aviation Unenthusiast. If they want a hint, try volume 2 of Halsbury's (Air Law).

[Whopity]

We haven't been taught anything in relation to the scenario, as it's more of a self-study research type assignment.Probably explains why the average lawyer makes such an arse of himself in aviation cases whilst the few that fly run rings around them.

[LH2]

The legal training of the original poster seems a long way away from the establishments at which I teach

That is a big compliment to the original poster, in light of the following comment:

they should be researching the answer not asking on an internet forum

and your previous, which probably ticked a few people the wrong way as well:

Get off the internet and into some legal research tools.

I'm not sure in which cave you teach, but modern, reputable, and efficient training establishments will expect you to use the internet as one of your first stops (and let me give you a hint (http://scholar.google.com/) why you should). If it's good enough for MIT and Stanford, both of which encourage it, I don't see why it shouldn't be good enough for you.

With that said, you are told "here's a scenario for you to research", you are given no help, and you have no clue whatsoever about the subject matter... turning to a relevant internet forum seems like a pretty good first stop. He's reached a bigger audience than by driving to an airfield and came up with a few good leads. Also, some of the most knowledgeable people in aviation law in the UK contribute to this forum regularly and have in the past offered invaluable insights.

My 2p worth

No, it isn't worth nowhere near that much.

is that everyone here is being misguidedly helpful

Since when is being helpful "misguided"? Again, in your cave maybe.

to a person who describes themselves as someone who 'regrettably opted' for an aviation module and is an Aviation Unenthusiast

So you've never been in a position where you thought "this course seems like a really good idea", only to then find out that no it wasn't at all, when it's too late to turn back? It could also be that the course is in fact good, but it's being taught by one of those incompetent gits of which there always has been such an abundance, that like making everyone's lives miserable.

If they want a hint, try volume 2 of Halsbury's (Air Law).

Ah, very good. So our esteemed fellow will come out of the library being able to recite the ANO by heart, while still not knowing what controlled airspace or an instrument rating are, or what an aeroplane looks like for that matter. Very clever indeed. :rolleyes:

Btw, all questions are rhetoric. I feel a bit guilty every time a new three-poster takes up residence in my killfile. Oh well, it's just an extra four bytes of storage (plus overhead) :E

[Jev Flyer]

LH2 thanks for your comments. Let's agree to disagree on some things without my needing to take up residence in your killfile!

I think you have misunderstood my comment on the internet. I agree its a useful (indeed now vital) research tool but that wasn't what I was trying to say. Its how you use it which matters.

There are basically 2 types of legal education (indeed any education). So called 'chalk & talk' and 'learning by doing'. The former is somebody lecturing others as to what the law is. This can be done in a classroom, over the internet or many other ways. The latter is setting the student an assignment, case study or the like and the learn by solving it. 'Learning by doing' is what I do where I 'teach' (actually they tend to prefer to describe it as facilitate learning). I consider this much more progressive - its the chalk and talk that is for cavemen.

The OP has been to lectures and so should have been taught the basic legal framework (if he hasn't he simply needs to get his head down & teach himself it). He has now been set some learning by doing. If we do it for him, he learns nothing.

The key skill in being a lawyer is how you move from merely knowing the law to applying it to the facts and so giving the client good practical advice. By telling the OP what we think that advice should be we are depriving him of learning that key skill.

I would therefore suggest the following for the OP, looking the first part of the question (from memory)

1. Revise lecture notes as to classes of airspace.
2. If lectures no good, or to supplement (1) obtain at least one of the three below
(a) student text on air law.
(b) practitioners work on air law.
(c) Halsbury's vol 2.
I would use (c) because I have it to hand but you will probably be better with (a).
3. Educate oneself as to airspace classification in the UK.
4. Now move to the facts, check chart to determine the classification (and any other characteristics) of the airspace above Luton at relevant altitude.
5. Back to the law - having identified airspace research rights and obligations for that class of airspace. This should give you the 'answer' as to what laws have been broken.
6. Check provisions setting out penalties for breaking laws identified in step 5.
7. Preferably double check everything with source material (easily found over internet).
8. Possibly search for secondary material - precedents and/or any CAA material as to practical consequences of busting the airspace (again the internet is invaluable).

Our OP won't come away knowing the ANO - he'll have come away having used the source material to discover the answer and learnt both the law and the skills to be a real lawyer in the process.

I think thats worth at least 2p ;)

Final comment - I'm trying to teach him how to do his homework. I think I am qualified to do that. I believe it would be wrong to do it for him (and note IO540 experience which I am trying to avoid). Besides with my PPL law I can't do his homework without myself following steps 1 to 8 above!

[BackPacker]

5. Back to the law - having identified airspace research rights and obligations for that class of airspace. This should give you the 'answer' as to what laws have been broken.

You jump to conclusions too early here. Wandering into controlled airspace without a clearance is not the only law that got broken in this scenario.

He could conceivably also be "done" for:
- Failing to plan his flight properly, or failing to fly the plan.
- Failing to adhere to his license restrictions (VMC only).
That's just from the limited description of the scenario. And we haven't discussed generic laws like "endangering goods or people" yet.

What might be a good next step before you jump to the "airspace bust" conclusion is to pull a few AAIB reports of similar incidents, and see what sort of things the AAIB checks by default (things like license/currency/experience of the pilot, maintenance history/airworthiness of the aircraft, flight preparation including fuel planning, weather) before they go into the description of the incident/accident.

In aviation there's too much redundancy built into the system for an incident/accident to have a single cause. We occasionally compare aviation safety to a few slices of swiss cheese. An incident/accident only occurs if multiple holes line up simultaneously. It's important to identify all the holes that lined up before you jump to a conclusion.

[englishal]

- Failing to adhere to his license restrictions (VMC only).
Objection !!!

Supposition.

He could hold a CAA CPL which DOES entitle one to IMC privileges. Besides only the pilot can report in flight visibility, for the CAA to prove this would be impossible.

Perhaps he could argue he had some sort of emergency or potential emergency which distracted him, which then allows for him to break any and every ANO rule....(like flying under Skye bridge ;) )....

The CAA would need to prove he endangered people by showing radar traces of near misses to support that last one.

I guess this is why the CAA doesn't prosecute that often.....too technical, too difficult to prove anything.

[BackPacker]

Well, if he admits that he actually flew in cloud, and that his IMC/IR had lapsed (as was written in the scenario) then what further proof does the CAA need?

Obviously any lawyer worth his salt will prevent such an admission from being given in the first place and then indeed it becomes a matter of not what laws have been breached, but what laws can be proven to have been breached.

All I'm saying is that the airspace bust, although a breach of law in itself, may have several causes, some of which may also be breaches of the law. So the paper should not focus on the airspace bust exclusively, but also look at the events that preceded it. And AAIB reports always follow a very good structure for determining this sequence of events.

[SpeedbirdXK8]

I would have thought a law student learnt about laws and how to apply them not the "what ifs". Most lawyers I know answer the "what if" question by saying "lets cross that bridge if you get there!". I agree with an earlier post; reading that scenario dear old Peter doesn't have a PPL or IMC and both he and Liz would be dead and Liz's family would be suing Peters' for negligence.

[IO540]

Incidentally, can you get done for illegal IFR if you state (e.g. in writing) that you flew in cloud while "VFR"?

I thought this was impossible to prosecute, because a self-implication like that can always be retracted. The writer can say "I was only kidding" and bang goes the prosecution evidence.

There have been loads of cases of pilots writing about having done illegal stuff. Some in the UK mags too - I recall one bloke writing about flying in IMC in France, on his IMCR.

I am sure there is case law on this...

[24Carrot]

I believe you can get done for "wasting police time", though I don't know if that would apply to a CAA investigation.
So best retract pretty quick!

[flybymike]

Incidentally, can you get done for illegal IFR if you state (e.g. in writing) that you flew in cloud while "VFR"?


Surely that would be illegal VFR? ;)

[IO540]

U know wot I mean... :ugh:

[Pace]

Just to get this straight - Peter started the flight under visual flight rules, but once he was flying in cloud (with zero visibility) and out of sight of the ground he was then operating under Instrument flight rules? Would I be required to mention something along the lines that in order to be able to fly in such conditions Peter would require an IMC rating?

Gliders cannot by their nature fly IFR in cloud but they are legal to fly in cloud with no instrumentation as I found to my horror real time a while back.

VFR in cloud must therefore be possible? :ugh:

He would only be flying IFR OCAS at quadrantle levels so if not at those levels not IFR!

Pace

[jack786123]

Section 1 article 115 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 states that,

“A person shall not act as an air traffic controller if he knows or suspects that he is suffering from or, having regard to the circumstances of the period of duty to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, such fatigue as may endanger the safety of any aircraft to which an air traffic control service may be provided

also , in peter case if hes instruments rating has expired , which meant that he could not fly under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and could only be able to fly under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Its also a falsified entries ,

Read my message , i might have the useful stuff for you.......


Jack

[Fuji Abound]

Pace


Gliders cannot by their nature fly IFR in cloud but they are legal to fly in cloud with no instrumentation


I think you may have managed to be wrong twice in the same sentence (or part thereof). :)

[FleetFlyer]

I've flown in cloud in a glider with no artificial horizon, purely by reference to the turn and slip, asi, vario and alt. I performed a 180 turn and came out again. I was wearing a parachute at the time and had plenty of height to use it. It was reassuring to know that I could do it but its not something I would resort to in anything other than the direst of situations. Its not what I would call 'habit forming'.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[Swiss Cheese]

I find it odd that an Aviation Module for an LLB course goes into the guts of the ANO.

Even the LLM Air and Space Law courses do not go into the operational detail alluded at in the problem question. Please tell us more, to the extent you are not incriminating yourself for plagarism!

The simple civil legal answer is that Liz might have a negligence action against Peter for damages she can prove. Peter may have busted his aviation insurance cover, as he has breached the ANO (standard weazle words in Policy AVN1C).

Peter faces big bills and lawyers fees...

If Peter was flying with an AOC, then he will be strictly liable for damages to Liz, but only if she has bodily injury, as opposed to pschiatric injury.

On a criminal note, a CAA prosecution is probable. More bills and fees...

[englishal]

I doubt you would lose insurance cover for a breach of the ANO which resulted in an airspace bust.

[mixsfour]

LLB student? I don't think so. I reckon 'Aviation Unenthusiast' is in fact someone from NATS or the CAA who has dreamed up this hypothetical scenario to get us all thinking and talking about two dangerous and far too common issues, i.e. incursions into controlled airspace and unintentional then continued flight into IMC.

Nice one Sir!

[Swiss Cheese]

You read it here first - Part of the standard GA insurance policy used by the aviation insurance market - this relates to the hull claim plus any liability (to pax and third parties)....

the weasel words are "condition precedent........ before any liability"

I have seen claims denied before, on the basis of breach of the ANO, based on this policy language.........


"(B) CONDITIONS PRECEDENT APPLICABLE TO ALL SECTIONS
It is necessary that the Insured observes and fulfils the following
Conditions before the Insurers have any liability to make any
payment under this Policy.
Due Diligence 1. The Insured shall at all times use due diligence and do and concur in
doing everything reasonably practicable to avoid accidents and to avoid
or diminish any loss hereon.
Compliance
with Air
Navigation,
Orders etc.
2. The Insured shall comply with all air navigation and airworthiness orders
and requirements issued by any competent authority affecting the safe
operation of the Aircraft and shall ensure that
(a) the Aircraft is airworthy at the commencement of each Flight;
(b) all Log Books and other records in connection with the Aircraft which
are required by any official regulations in force from time to time
shall be kept up to date and shall be produced to the Insurers or their
Agents on request;
(c) the employees and agents of the Insured comply with such orders
and requirements"

[wsmempson]

I notice that Aviationunenthusiast has stopped posting a while back; The offer is still open to sit in front of a 1:500,000 chart over a beer and I can answer most of your questions? In the absence of a reply, I shall have to assume a degree of "Troll" activity...!:rolleyes:

[IO540]

As Swiss Cheese is an aviation lawyer (by the looks of it) perhaps he can offer a view on whether one can get done for writing a confession of illegal behaviour in a pilot forum?