Norfolk pilot fined £17,500
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing that is not in any way disputed is the fact that the pilot flew the aircraft without it having a C of A. Simple answer to that is to take away the pilot's licence. The only debate should be about how long the licence should be withdrawn for.
By bringing money into the issue, the CAA give the guilty party something to moan about.
I love the people who try to say that the maintenance organisation should not have said the aircraft could be picked up if the C of A was not valid. Rubbish! There was nothing wrong ( from an air law perspective) with taking the aircraft away by road!
Regards,
DFC
By bringing money into the issue, the CAA give the guilty party something to moan about.
I love the people who try to say that the maintenance organisation should not have said the aircraft could be picked up if the C of A was not valid. Rubbish! There was nothing wrong ( from an air law perspective) with taking the aircraft away by road!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC - I agree. The fact is the pilot flew the aircraft without a C of A. That is an offense. The pilot had no choice than to plea guilty - which he did.
As DFC says if he wanted to secure the aircraft he had other options.
The penalty should be proportionate to the crime. Flying an aircraft without a C of A and therefore not knowing whether it is airworthy is a very serious matter. In this case it would seem the pilot knew the C of A was complete and the aircraft airworthy - it was the administrative part that was incomplete.
On another issue it is interesting how aviation “offences” attract such publicity - in the same way as any aviation related matter. I guess thousands of motorists are on the roads every day without an MOT. The fines when they are caught are relatively small. It is easy for the press to argue flying an aircraft without an MOT is inherently more risky - aircraft crashing into schools and all that sort of thing. I am not sure it is - a wheel coming off on the motorway at 70 mph is unlikely to have a good outcome either.
As DFC says if he wanted to secure the aircraft he had other options.
The penalty should be proportionate to the crime. Flying an aircraft without a C of A and therefore not knowing whether it is airworthy is a very serious matter. In this case it would seem the pilot knew the C of A was complete and the aircraft airworthy - it was the administrative part that was incomplete.
On another issue it is interesting how aviation “offences” attract such publicity - in the same way as any aviation related matter. I guess thousands of motorists are on the roads every day without an MOT. The fines when they are caught are relatively small. It is easy for the press to argue flying an aircraft without an MOT is inherently more risky - aircraft crashing into schools and all that sort of thing. I am not sure it is - a wheel coming off on the motorway at 70 mph is unlikely to have a good outcome either.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Whopity
Not so long ago an enthusiastic Microlight pilot reported another pilot for the same offence. The CAA were not in the least bit interested in taking any action! Regulation is like Russian Roulette, this guy found the loaded chamber!
Or was this one pursued cos they didn't like the owner? or his attitude? or the guy in charge of the case is a mate of the Engineer? or something else that we don't know.
IMHO we should be told.
If one feels that a bill is exorbitant then take the engineer to court. Crashing in mob handed (as independantly attested by stik earlier) is not going to do anybody any favours when it comes to settlement in court time.
All the engineers I have met have been happy to discuss the make up of the invoices and have been open to negotiation when there is some obvious "padding" in the bill. Also, all the engineers I have met have been able to tell stories of people flying off and not settling their invoices for up to 6 months later. When was the last time a garage let you drive off without settling the bill first?
Starting the engine in the hangar? Only one word sums that up and it's TW@T
All the engineers I have met have been happy to discuss the make up of the invoices and have been open to negotiation when there is some obvious "padding" in the bill. Also, all the engineers I have met have been able to tell stories of people flying off and not settling their invoices for up to 6 months later. When was the last time a garage let you drive off without settling the bill first?
Starting the engine in the hangar? Only one word sums that up and it's TW@T
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
Well done for trying to put the case in sensible perspective. 
LowNSlow
Stik didn't independently attest to anything. He simply repeated what he'd been told by another engineer and which may or may not be accurate.
I followed the link posted by rustle. If anyone's interested, the other discussion is better informed, more balanced and of a better quality than this one.
Such a shame IMHO when Pprune is let down by the level of some of the contributions on this thread.
The penalty should be proportionate to the crime. Flying an aircraft without a C of A and therefore not knowing whether it is airworthy is a very serious matter. In this case it would seem the pilot knew the C of A was complete and the aircraft airworthy - it was the administrative part that was incomplete.
LowNSlow
Stik didn't independently attest to anything. He simply repeated what he'd been told by another engineer and which may or may not be accurate.
I followed the link posted by rustle. If anyone's interested, the other discussion is better informed, more balanced and of a better quality than this one.
Such a shame IMHO when Pprune is let down by the level of some of the contributions on this thread.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
better informed, more balanced and of a better quality than this one.
As for better quality, it seems that the other forum the discussion has developed in much the same way as discussions do here, with balls being knocked backwards and forwards on secondary issues, particularly between the professional lawyer and the amateur judge.
I think the original post concerned the fact of the prosecution and the penalty imposed, including the costs. It has since become apparant from the other forum that:
- The owner did not check the paperwork, but relied on a letter saying the aircraft was ready for collection
- He started the engine in the hangar doorway - his own account
- He did his checks whilst taxing (not the A check presumably!) - - his own account again
- He argued the issue of whether he knowingly flew without a C of A - this took two days in the Magistrates' Court, with apparently 11 witnesses for the prosecution - he appears to have largely lost the argument here, though the posts are not clear.
Can we judge whether the prosecution was correctly brought? Probably we can, and all can hold our own opinions. Can we judge if £12,500 was a reasonable cost figure to be ordered? Not really, since we don't know what all the costs claimed were. Does it appear at first view to be disproportionate? In my view it does, but there may well be circumstances justifying the costs of which we are unaware.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What have 2 and 3 got to do with the offence he pleaded guilty to
I am going on what the pilot himself has posted elsewhere regarding the nature of the evidence given in court and the findings of the DJ, as reported in the very first post here.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justiciar
When I referred to the discussion in the other place as "better informed, more balanced and of a better quality than this one", I was referring to the contributions by the participants in the discussion. I'm sorry that wasn't clear; my fault.
(I was excluding contributions of the type made by, for example, chrisbl who has posted in similar vein on that thread.)
______________
Heard in the bazaars (legal bazaars
) …..…
The Defendant pleaded Guilty at a hearing on the 20th February. At that stage, the CAA told the defence that they would be applying for costs of about £750.
The CAA told the court that there were safety implications for the pilot, the aircraft and the public because, when the pilot flew the aircraft, it was still being worked on and the work had not been completed.
This was disputed by the Defence.
The Magistrates decided that what is commonly known as a ‘Newton Hearing’ should be held. In brief summary, this is a procedure which may be used where a Defendant admits he committed the offence but does not accept all the prosecution’s allegations concerning it. The procedure should only be used where there is a significant difference between the Prosecution and Defence versions and the difference is likely to affect the penalty imposed. ie Is the Defendant to be punished on his or the Prosecution’s (more serious) version of events. The court hears evidence and argument and then decides the basis upon which the defendant should be punished.
The case was adjourned for a Newton hearing to be held.
Two days later, on the 22nd February, the CAA took a witness statement from the test pilot. He said he’d conducted a test flight and everything was satisfactory. ie The only thing remaining to be done was to actually issue the CofA – which is what the defence had asserted.
The CAA provided this statement to the Defence - as they were bound to do.
For some reason, the CAA refused to back down despite acknowledging that the aircraft work was in fact complete.
At the next hearing, the case was before a District Judge. The barrister instructed by the CAA (whom, I’m told, appeared to know nothing about aviation) argued that the Newton should go ahead, saying that the paperwork issuing of a CofA was far from a formality. I assume he did this on instructions from his client (the CAA) who had lawyers present in court. (I can’t pretend to understand the logic of this, but that’s apparently what happened.)
So, the only outstanding issue was: Did the pilot know there was no C of A in force or was he under the mistaken belief that it had been issued?
The District Judge decided midway between the two: The CAA failed to prove there were any safety implications (test pilot’s evidence) and failed to prove the pilot knew the CAA had not been issued but the pilot was ‘reckless’ as to whether or not it had been issued. He was dealt with on that basis.
The CAA applied for costs of £17,500 – a massive jump from the £750 they intended to claim on the 22nd February if the pilot had rolled over and accepted their version of events.
The District Judge ordered the Defendant to pay £12,500.
Background:
The maintenance organisation carried out the work on the aircraft and billed the owner. The bill was almost treble the amount originally agreed. They then refused to complete the paperwork until he settled the bill.
The owner decided to seize the aircraft and have the CofA work carried out by a different organisation. He did so knowing that the work had been completed and that the aircraft was fit to fly - not least because he had been billed for the work .
In what some may regard as a fit of spite, the maintenance organisation reported the pilot to the police for theft of his own aircraft (because of a claimed lien) and to the CAA for flying the aircraft when the CofA had not actually been issued.
The police arrested the pilot but, when the whole story emerged (a civil squabble), sensibly decided to take no further action.
The CAA ……… the rest we know.
(The maintenance organisation eventually settled the civil proceedings for the original sum agreed.)
Comment by my source: “The CAA no doubt have chalked this up as a wonderful example of their ensuring air safety!”
NB: With the exception of my explanation of a ‘Newton’ procedure, none of the above is from my personal knowledge. I have known my source for over 20 years and regard him as 100% reliable. Others can decide for themselves what weight if any they choose to attach to what I've related.
FL
When I referred to the discussion in the other place as "better informed, more balanced and of a better quality than this one", I was referring to the contributions by the participants in the discussion. I'm sorry that wasn't clear; my fault.
(I was excluding contributions of the type made by, for example, chrisbl who has posted in similar vein on that thread.
)______________
Heard in the bazaars (legal bazaars
) …..…The Defendant pleaded Guilty at a hearing on the 20th February. At that stage, the CAA told the defence that they would be applying for costs of about £750.
The CAA told the court that there were safety implications for the pilot, the aircraft and the public because, when the pilot flew the aircraft, it was still being worked on and the work had not been completed.
This was disputed by the Defence.
The Magistrates decided that what is commonly known as a ‘Newton Hearing’ should be held. In brief summary, this is a procedure which may be used where a Defendant admits he committed the offence but does not accept all the prosecution’s allegations concerning it. The procedure should only be used where there is a significant difference between the Prosecution and Defence versions and the difference is likely to affect the penalty imposed. ie Is the Defendant to be punished on his or the Prosecution’s (more serious) version of events. The court hears evidence and argument and then decides the basis upon which the defendant should be punished.
The case was adjourned for a Newton hearing to be held.
Two days later, on the 22nd February, the CAA took a witness statement from the test pilot. He said he’d conducted a test flight and everything was satisfactory. ie The only thing remaining to be done was to actually issue the CofA – which is what the defence had asserted.
The CAA provided this statement to the Defence - as they were bound to do.
For some reason, the CAA refused to back down despite acknowledging that the aircraft work was in fact complete.
At the next hearing, the case was before a District Judge. The barrister instructed by the CAA (whom, I’m told, appeared to know nothing about aviation) argued that the Newton should go ahead, saying that the paperwork issuing of a CofA was far from a formality. I assume he did this on instructions from his client (the CAA) who had lawyers present in court. (I can’t pretend to understand the logic of this, but that’s apparently what happened.)
So, the only outstanding issue was: Did the pilot know there was no C of A in force or was he under the mistaken belief that it had been issued?
The District Judge decided midway between the two: The CAA failed to prove there were any safety implications (test pilot’s evidence) and failed to prove the pilot knew the CAA had not been issued but the pilot was ‘reckless’ as to whether or not it had been issued. He was dealt with on that basis.
The CAA applied for costs of £17,500 – a massive jump from the £750 they intended to claim on the 22nd February if the pilot had rolled over and accepted their version of events.
The District Judge ordered the Defendant to pay £12,500.
Background:
The maintenance organisation carried out the work on the aircraft and billed the owner. The bill was almost treble the amount originally agreed. They then refused to complete the paperwork until he settled the bill.
The owner decided to seize the aircraft and have the CofA work carried out by a different organisation. He did so knowing that the work had been completed and that the aircraft was fit to fly - not least because he had been billed for the work .
In what some may regard as a fit of spite, the maintenance organisation reported the pilot to the police for theft of his own aircraft (because of a claimed lien) and to the CAA for flying the aircraft when the CofA had not actually been issued.
The police arrested the pilot but, when the whole story emerged (a civil squabble), sensibly decided to take no further action.
The CAA ……… the rest we know.
(The maintenance organisation eventually settled the civil proceedings for the original sum agreed.)
Comment by my source: “The CAA no doubt have chalked this up as a wonderful example of their ensuring air safety!”
NB: With the exception of my explanation of a ‘Newton’ procedure, none of the above is from my personal knowledge. I have known my source for over 20 years and regard him as 100% reliable. Others can decide for themselves what weight if any they choose to attach to what I've related.
FL
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, FL for that account.
One gets the impression that the CAA have gone over the top here and have not presented the correct technical information to the court. However, I am puzzled by your statement:
"The owner decided to seize the aircraft and have the CofA work carried out by a different organisation. He did so knowing that the work had been completed and that the aircraft was fit to fly"
If he thought that the work had been done and aircraft fit to fly then why did he need to move it to "have the Cof A work carried out..." Was this not the crux of the case? Owner does not seem to mention this on his post in the other place! He was apparently told different things by different people. Should he not have checked? Is this not the basis of the finding of recklessness by the DJ? Dis he really have anything in writing confirming the C of A had been issued and if so was it produced during the Newton hearing?
Are any of us as pilots entitled to "assume", whether it is the existence of the C of A, the amount of fuel in the tanks, or anything else relevant to the safety of the aircraft or its legal operation.
One gets the impression that the CAA have gone over the top here and have not presented the correct technical information to the court. However, I am puzzled by your statement:
"The owner decided to seize the aircraft and have the CofA work carried out by a different organisation. He did so knowing that the work had been completed and that the aircraft was fit to fly"
If he thought that the work had been done and aircraft fit to fly then why did he need to move it to "have the Cof A work carried out..." Was this not the crux of the case? Owner does not seem to mention this on his post in the other place! He was apparently told different things by different people. Should he not have checked? Is this not the basis of the finding of recklessness by the DJ? Dis he really have anything in writing confirming the C of A had been issued and if so was it produced during the Newton hearing?
Are any of us as pilots entitled to "assume", whether it is the existence of the C of A, the amount of fuel in the tanks, or anything else relevant to the safety of the aircraft or its legal operation.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justiciar
I understand your point but, bear in mind (1) that I've merely related what I've been told and (2) the real interest from a legal perspective was not in whether the DJ's finding of fact was justified - it may well have been - but in what was said by the CAA (20 Feb) which led the Mags to order a Newton hearing, the CAA persisting in a Newton hearing despite what the test pilot said in his statement (dated 22 Feb), the fantastic investigation/prosecution costs run up by the CAA and the fact that a man pleaded Guilty yet still ended up paying £12,500 in costs to the CAA because he contested one aspect of the prosecution case.
Given some of the comments in this thread (including yours), I thought it important that people should know that when the owner/pilot flew his aircraft, he knew the maintenance work had been completed to C of A standard, that it had been flight-tested and found to be satisfactory and the aircraft was ready for collection.
None of that alters the fact that he committed the offence, but it's very different from (and IMHO far less serious than) someone simply flying an aircraft without ensuring it has a valid C of A and without knowing that it's airworthy.
Our opinons may have moved a little closer, but we are still a long way apart -
You think it was a serious offence.
I don't think it was serious on the particular facts of this case and consider that the circumstances provided significant mitigation.
You "can't see anything in the report to suggest that the prosecution was not fully justified."
I can. I think the police approach was far more sensible.
You think we can't judge if £12,500 was a reasonable costs figure because we don't know what all the costs claimed were.
I think we can and consider £12,500 was (not 'appears to be') disproportionate to the offence - regardless of how the costs were run up.
The CAA actually applied for £17,500 costs! For investigating and prosecuting a straight-forward case in which the basic facts were not in dispute? The pilot flew the aircraft. It did not have a C of A. No dispute.
What concerns me, as a lawyer concerned about fairness and as a lawyer who conducts aviation cases, is that someone pleaded Guilty and contested just one narrow issue - yet ended up being ordered to pay the CAA £12,500 costs.
It concerns me because I know the system leads to pilots accused of offences by the CAA 'admitting' offence(s) even when they don't consider they are guilty simply because they fear the potential costs implications of fighting the CAA and losing.
Some may regard that as justice; I don't.
My criticism is not restricted to the CAA; the courts are as much, arguably more, to blame.
FL
Edit -
You keep saying the pilot wasn't entitled to assume. I agree with you. I don't think anyone would disagree with you. However, IMHO, there are far more important and far wider issues here which might affect any pilot accused of any offence by the CAA.
I'm sorry to say so, but those discussing the case in the other place have realised that and moved on to discuss those issues whereas we're still bogged down in whether he was entitled to assume the C of A had actually been issued, starting the engine in the hangar doorway, doing his checks while taxying etc
I understand your point but, bear in mind (1) that I've merely related what I've been told and (2) the real interest from a legal perspective was not in whether the DJ's finding of fact was justified - it may well have been - but in what was said by the CAA (20 Feb) which led the Mags to order a Newton hearing, the CAA persisting in a Newton hearing despite what the test pilot said in his statement (dated 22 Feb), the fantastic investigation/prosecution costs run up by the CAA and the fact that a man pleaded Guilty yet still ended up paying £12,500 in costs to the CAA because he contested one aspect of the prosecution case.
Given some of the comments in this thread (including yours), I thought it important that people should know that when the owner/pilot flew his aircraft, he knew the maintenance work had been completed to C of A standard, that it had been flight-tested and found to be satisfactory and the aircraft was ready for collection.
None of that alters the fact that he committed the offence, but it's very different from (and IMHO far less serious than) someone simply flying an aircraft without ensuring it has a valid C of A and without knowing that it's airworthy.
Our opinons may have moved a little closer, but we are still a long way apart -
You think it was a serious offence.
I don't think it was serious on the particular facts of this case and consider that the circumstances provided significant mitigation.
You "can't see anything in the report to suggest that the prosecution was not fully justified."
I can. I think the police approach was far more sensible.
You think we can't judge if £12,500 was a reasonable costs figure because we don't know what all the costs claimed were.
I think we can and consider £12,500 was (not 'appears to be') disproportionate to the offence - regardless of how the costs were run up.
The CAA actually applied for £17,500 costs! For investigating and prosecuting a straight-forward case in which the basic facts were not in dispute? The pilot flew the aircraft. It did not have a C of A. No dispute.
What concerns me, as a lawyer concerned about fairness and as a lawyer who conducts aviation cases, is that someone pleaded Guilty and contested just one narrow issue - yet ended up being ordered to pay the CAA £12,500 costs.
It concerns me because I know the system leads to pilots accused of offences by the CAA 'admitting' offence(s) even when they don't consider they are guilty simply because they fear the potential costs implications of fighting the CAA and losing.
Some may regard that as justice; I don't.
My criticism is not restricted to the CAA; the courts are as much, arguably more, to blame.
FL
Edit -
You keep saying the pilot wasn't entitled to assume. I agree with you. I don't think anyone would disagree with you. However, IMHO, there are far more important and far wider issues here which might affect any pilot accused of any offence by the CAA.
I'm sorry to say so, but those discussing the case in the other place have realised that and moved on to discuss those issues whereas we're still bogged down in whether he was entitled to assume the C of A had actually been issued, starting the engine in the hangar doorway, doing his checks while taxying etc
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Apr 2006 at 08:14.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL:
I think we are closer in views than maybe this exchange appears. Have you not often found that the costs in prosecutions brought by agencies such as the CAA, Trading Standards, HSE etc are substantially higher than is the case with CPS prosecutions and that they seek to recover the entire ir substantial price of the investigation. I can recall many trading standards cases in particular where the costs were substantially higher than the penalty, often because the technical nature of the subject matter involved expert evidence.
I have found that lay clients are often beaten down by the investigatory authorities, apparently making what could be damaging admissions before their solicitor can prevent it. The fact that the investigation is somewhat low key (no arrest, being searched and shut up in a cell) somehow diminishes the seriousness in the eyes of many clients.
These cases often lack the sort of balance I think you are talking about and the prosecution have a tendancy to plough on with their case even in the teeth of further evidence showing either no case or one substantially reduced in seriousness. Often the only approach that has worked for me is substantial amounts of bullying of the prosecution. Any lawyer has to be very "hands on" in thse cases if the juggernaut is not to role right over one's client.
I think we are closer in views than maybe this exchange appears. Have you not often found that the costs in prosecutions brought by agencies such as the CAA, Trading Standards, HSE etc are substantially higher than is the case with CPS prosecutions and that they seek to recover the entire ir substantial price of the investigation. I can recall many trading standards cases in particular where the costs were substantially higher than the penalty, often because the technical nature of the subject matter involved expert evidence.
I have found that lay clients are often beaten down by the investigatory authorities, apparently making what could be damaging admissions before their solicitor can prevent it. The fact that the investigation is somewhat low key (no arrest, being searched and shut up in a cell) somehow diminishes the seriousness in the eyes of many clients.
These cases often lack the sort of balance I think you are talking about and the prosecution have a tendancy to plough on with their case even in the teeth of further evidence showing either no case or one substantially reduced in seriousness. Often the only approach that has worked for me is substantial amounts of bullying of the prosecution. Any lawyer has to be very "hands on" in thse cases if the juggernaut is not to role right over one's client.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the whole business of what the pilot is entitled to assume is a can of worms.
It's normal, in the PPL school/club scene, for a renter to be told to look in the paperwork for the amount of fuel on board, etc, for the plane he is about the take off in. Once this amount is below the level which can be physically checked (more commonly the case on a twin) and particularly if he is "asked" to not come back with too much in the tanks, what is one to do? Walk away, is the right answer, but that's not how life works. Of course I am not referring to a particular well publicised case of a few years ago
I think it is totally wrong of the CAA to use this costs strategy to obtain guilty pleas, but their alternative is to go shutting down large sections of the flight training and maintenance industry, which they obviously won't do. The whole system is rotten.
It's normal, in the PPL school/club scene, for a renter to be told to look in the paperwork for the amount of fuel on board, etc, for the plane he is about the take off in. Once this amount is below the level which can be physically checked (more commonly the case on a twin) and particularly if he is "asked" to not come back with too much in the tanks, what is one to do? Walk away, is the right answer, but that's not how life works. Of course I am not referring to a particular well publicised case of a few years ago
I think it is totally wrong of the CAA to use this costs strategy to obtain guilty pleas, but their alternative is to go shutting down large sections of the flight training and maintenance industry, which they obviously won't do. The whole system is rotten.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps the level of fine/costs will act as a detterrant to other pilots before they take the law into their own hands.
this pilot had choices, he didn't have to take his aircraft in the manner he did, he chose to do it, and now he is living with the consequences.
this pilot had choices, he didn't have to take his aircraft in the manner he did, he chose to do it, and now he is living with the consequences.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And of course if this case had occured in Scotland the person wouldn't have have to pay a penny in costs. Also as well if the maint organisation was holding the aircraft over a disputed bill. A call to the police complaining of extortion would have released the plane pretty quick.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where can one find details of all enforcement actions taken by the CAA? I trawled through their web site and found nothing of interest. Would it be cynical to think they only take on the small guys and don't bite the hands that feed them?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the comment about negotiation regarding engineering bills and that in some cases it is agreed that there is a element of padding and this padding is removed. Has no one ever reported such organisations to trading standards? That is where such disputes should go.
Even if the C of A had been signed and the owner had it in their hand. They could still have been prosicuted for flying without a valid C of A. Not doing maintenance required by the LAMS (or other approved schedule) renders the C of A invlaid. No A check means C of A not valid until A check completed.
I still say that the CAA should use their rights under the Aviation Acts to revoke, suspend or vary the licenses of pilots that act in such a manner. No need for a £12,500 lesson. Remove their PPL and say that provided that they can show thay they are reformed and once again a fit person to hold a PPL, complete another full PPL course to get their licence back.
That would feed the flying industry insted of the legal industry!
Regards,
DFC
Even if the C of A had been signed and the owner had it in their hand. They could still have been prosicuted for flying without a valid C of A. Not doing maintenance required by the LAMS (or other approved schedule) renders the C of A invlaid. No A check means C of A not valid until A check completed.
I still say that the CAA should use their rights under the Aviation Acts to revoke, suspend or vary the licenses of pilots that act in such a manner. No need for a £12,500 lesson. Remove their PPL and say that provided that they can show thay they are reformed and once again a fit person to hold a PPL, complete another full PPL course to get their licence back.
That would feed the flying industry insted of the legal industry!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dfc
I still say that the CAA should use their rights under the Aviation Acts to revoke, suspend or vary the licenses of pilots that act in such a manner. No need for a £12,500 lesson.