Unlimited fines for infringements.

[ericferret]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/rules-of-the-air-increased-fines-for-infringements...

Yet another revenue raising effort by HMG, note this doesn't apply to Scotland!!!!!
The use of the word proportionate beggers belief.

I would urge all to submit a comment.
I am so shocked by this totally unreasonable proposal that I don't know what to say.

[ericferret]

If this goes through it could be a disaster for GA.

Who wants to go flying knowing that an error could cost you your house or a large proportion of your savings. The fines are one thing but we have all seen the CAA's "costs" which of course will be on top.

[Jan Olieslagers]

The link does work for me - and I am quite shocked too, but mainly at the lack of professionalism shown.

Why must responses be to one person's private identity? Isn't that a breach of privacy? Surely the least bit of professionalism would point one to some functional mailbox, like comments at organisation dot uk dot gov ?

Why is no reason or motivation given for the proposed change? How can one comment meaningfully without knowing the reasons for a change?

What club of amateurs published this kind of rubbish?

[ericferret]

http://ukga.com/news/view?contentId=37556

Alternative route to log in

[soay]

Who wants to go flying knowing that an error could cost you your house or a large proportion of your savings.

While not agreeing with the proposed change, it doesn't help to be unnecessarily alarmist:

"4.9 Where prosecutions do occur, whilst the fine amount is unlimited the fine will have to be proportionate and have to have regard to the financial circumstances of the individual being fined."

[fulham fan]

This is NOT about GA airspace infringements - although the title from DfT doesn't help (neither does today's email from Pilot magazine who have also got the wrong end of the stick - don't know if they checked with DfT ?) if you read the doc it's actually about trying to recoup some of the very expensive costs of launching RAF fighters to intercept airliners who suffer loss of comms - presumably where it was avoidable

[blueandwhite]

The link does work for me - and I am quite shocked too, but mainly at the lack of professionalism shown.

Why must responses be to one person's private identity? Isn't that a breach of privacy? Surely the least bit of professionalism would point one to some functional mailbox, like comments at organisation dot uk dot gov ?

Why is no reason or motivation given for the proposed change? How can one comment meaningfully without knowing the reasons for a change?

What club of amateurs published this kind of rubbish?

The response is addressed to the person dealing with the response, and it is to their work address. One would assume they have agreed to this. It could be seen as more appropriate than sending your response to an anonymous mail box. :ugh:

The reason and motivation is explained in detail if you trouble to read the document.:ugh:

[IFly]

This is NOT about GA airspace infringements - although the title from DfT doesn't help (neither does today's email from Pilot magazine who have also got the wrong end of the stick - don't know if they checked with DfT ?) if you read the doc it's actually about trying to recoup some of the very expensive costs of launching RAF fighters to intercept airliners who suffer loss of comms - presumably where it was avoidable
That was my reading of it too. Flyer and Pilot just being alarmist.

[BEagle]

Some of the proposals could well affect GA. Communications obligations under IFR outside CAS, under VFR at night and under VFR in RMZs, for example.

The Southend RMZ experience triggered a change to the associated airspace category, primarly because pilots weren't communicating in accordance with SERA.5005:

A VFR flight operating within or into areas or along routes designated by the competent authority, in accordance with SERA.4001(b)(3) or (4), shall maintain continuous air-ground voice communication watch on the appropriate communication channel of, and report its position as necessary to, the air traffic services unit providing flight information service.

[aox]

If it's aimed not much at GA but mainly at infringing airliners, why the point about the means of the convicted party, with the specific description that this is an individual?

[Planemike]

This is NOT about GA airspace infringements - although the title from DfT doesn't help (neither does today's email from Pilot magazine who have also got the wrong end of the stick - don't know if they checked with DfT ?) if you read the doc it's actually about trying to recoup some of the very expensive costs of launching RAF fighters to intercept airliners who suffer loss of comms - presumably where it was avoidable



How often does this happen...?

[fulham fan]

'how often does this happen' - more than people probably think - around Europe it's a regular occurrence - and you can imagine how much it costs to launch a Typhoon!

[tmmorris]

In about 2005 I found myself having lunch with the Stn Cdr of Leuchars. Then, the answer was 'every day.' I doubt it's got less frequent.

[Weeeee]

Of course you completely trust the CAA not to use this sanction against a GA offender when they have the power, and only ever to use it against rich corporations. They have such a strong track record in not gold-plating fines and costs when recognition of a genuine mistake and / or some reeducation might be more appropriate.

[MadamBreakneck_v2]

It isn't actually the CAA's power to fine for this, just to prosecute. Any penalty will rest with the sentencing court, in accordance with sentencing guidelines. The guidelines as to the amount of fine imposed require the court to take into account the "relevant weekly income", amongst other things, of the offender. A typical maximum would be around 150% of weekly income; so a premier league footballer could expect to pay more in cash terms than a school teacher.

MB
(This is not legal advice - consult a lawyer if this affects you)

cf Sentencing Guidelines Council (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/types-of-sentence/fines/)

[Maoraigh1]

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/567140-caa-civil-penalties-proposal-consultation.html#post9104851
This thread should be seen in context with the CAA Civil Penalties proposal. PPRUNE thread link above.

[Piltdown Man]

It is the government's problem if they want to hurl our Typhoons at naughty people who were deliberately negligent in not maintaining a two-way communications with ATC. Just of of interest, would plod or MOD police be dispatched to Swanwick if they had finger (or God forbid, power, Internet, telephony) problems? I think not.

I think this is a ridiculous suggestion. The muppets who dreamed this one up should be neutered to stop them breeding. We already have too many sub-normals in our country. An unlimited fine will change nothing. Isn't it nice that people who nothing about aviation have so much control over it?

PM

[Bob Upanddown]

Unfortunately the intelligentsia allow lesser beings to deal with the mundane, hence we end up with a "Dave" running the country, but then we allow them (police, government departments, quangos) too much power over what they do themselves. It was OK when judges had final say..... but, in the CAA's new order, they have final say.

[N-Jacko]

The proposal relates to alleged infringements of the Common Rules of the Air (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 923/2012) also known as SERA, and of any UK national rules of the air. There is no indication that it will only apply to CAT.



As discussed above, the proposal opens the door to vastly different punishments in England (unlimited fine) compared with Scotland (max. £5,000). Some may say that serves the horrid Sassenachs right for being, well, English https://www.euroga.org/system/1/design/assets/smile.png?1410810610, but I'm not so sure.



Also, since the proposal refers to a European Regulation, levels of fines which vary widely across the EU might be seen as contrary to the spirit of the Single European Sky. In this respect I would welcome input from other countries – what is the maximum fine in your country for infringement of the Common Rules of the Air (aka SERA)?


There’s not much real meat in the DfT/CAA consultation. There’s no regulatory impact assessment, allthough it does seem to be characteristically packed with nonsense such as the assertion that the "preferred option" will result in fewer ROTA/SERA infringers being blasted out of the sky…


As for the cost of sending RAF aircrew to escort or guide an alleged infringer - well, we don't pay them to polish their backsides in the mess all day so they might as well get in their aircraft and do something practical.