Norfolk pilot fined £17,500
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the central issue of this case, with regard to the impact of it on the rest of us, is whether it is acceptable or even legal for an engineer to withold a C of A (or release to service) on purely commercial grounds.
Obviously the relationship between owner and engineer is a commercial one and attached to it are all the usual risks associated with such transactions. If a dispute arises while the work is in progress, the engineer might have grounds for concern and even action.
But the engineer is not 'working for' the owner when he signs the documents, since the owner has no power himself to sign them. What is the status of an engineer when signing these documents? Is he an agent of the CAA, or the state? Or just himself? Crucially, does he have any right to withold his signature, or can the owner require him to sign anyway? If he refuses to sign for commercial reasons, is he in contravention of his licence in some way? Or is this an arbitary power given to all engineers?
Avweb have been carrying an interesting and in some ways similar story. In subsequent correspondence in the members area, it is pointed out that the FAA would normally issue a ferry permit at short notice in order to allow the move of an aircraft to another maintainer. I wonder if the CAA (Or is it EASA?) would show similar flexibility and if not, whether this might be an aggravating factor in an owner's decision to fly illegally.
Obviously the relationship between owner and engineer is a commercial one and attached to it are all the usual risks associated with such transactions. If a dispute arises while the work is in progress, the engineer might have grounds for concern and even action.
But the engineer is not 'working for' the owner when he signs the documents, since the owner has no power himself to sign them. What is the status of an engineer when signing these documents? Is he an agent of the CAA, or the state? Or just himself? Crucially, does he have any right to withold his signature, or can the owner require him to sign anyway? If he refuses to sign for commercial reasons, is he in contravention of his licence in some way? Or is this an arbitary power given to all engineers?
Avweb have been carrying an interesting and in some ways similar story. In subsequent correspondence in the members area, it is pointed out that the FAA would normally issue a ferry permit at short notice in order to allow the move of an aircraft to another maintainer. I wonder if the CAA (Or is it EASA?) would show similar flexibility and if not, whether this might be an aggravating factor in an owner's decision to fly illegally.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get such permits but they are difficult. I know this from about 2 years ago when one maintenance company was "busy on other jobs" for a number of weeks, but only "became busy" after the plane in question had been de-registered from G. Awfully handy, isn't it, old chap. Can't fly your plane anywhere else.... and no you can't go back to G either because of these little mods which we can see were never CAA approved... God knows what is involved now, under EASA.
If the owner got a temp permit then the engineering firm wouldn't have him over the barrel. They just hope that he doesn't know about the option.
But this happens in all walks of like. Nowadays, electricians have to sign a certificate for all new work, to meet Building Regs. Electricians, as a profession, have long been the most expensive, most lazy, least reliable and the most arrogant of all "trade"smen. Now they really do have you over the barrel, because no electrician is going to sign off work done by somebody else.
Airfield politics come heavily into this, however. GA is full to the brim of politics. Probably as a result of too many people making too little money from too few customers. As an owner, you need to be on civilised terms with your local maintenance shop. You just never know when you will need them to do something which may be trivial but without it your plane cannot actually fly (permit or no permit).
A colleague, a long-term owner of many different planes which he worked on himself, told me there is only one way to get away from this cr*p, and that is to become a LAME (G-reg) or A&P (N-reg). That gets you out of perhaps 50% of the brown-nosing which every aircraft owner has to do in the UK. To get out of the other 50%, you need to buy your own hangar, and preferably an airport
Except EASA is going to put the lone LAME out of business, I gather. Just like the problem with the electricians, isn't it?
If the owner got a temp permit then the engineering firm wouldn't have him over the barrel. They just hope that he doesn't know about the option.
But this happens in all walks of like. Nowadays, electricians have to sign a certificate for all new work, to meet Building Regs. Electricians, as a profession, have long been the most expensive, most lazy, least reliable and the most arrogant of all "trade"smen. Now they really do have you over the barrel, because no electrician is going to sign off work done by somebody else.
Airfield politics come heavily into this, however. GA is full to the brim of politics. Probably as a result of too many people making too little money from too few customers. As an owner, you need to be on civilised terms with your local maintenance shop. You just never know when you will need them to do something which may be trivial but without it your plane cannot actually fly (permit or no permit).
A colleague, a long-term owner of many different planes which he worked on himself, told me there is only one way to get away from this cr*p, and that is to become a LAME (G-reg) or A&P (N-reg). That gets you out of perhaps 50% of the brown-nosing which every aircraft owner has to do in the UK. To get out of the other 50%, you need to buy your own hangar, and preferably an airport
Except EASA is going to put the lone LAME out of business, I gather. Just like the problem with the electricians, isn't it?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: North England
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting points raised by david v. My view as a LAME (and aircraft owner) is the only requirement upon me regarding whether or not to issue a release to service is not to issue if the work carried out does not comply with the requirements of EASA/CAA regulations or the aircraft fails to meet the prescribed inspection criteria.
The normal commercial arrangement is: the M3 inspects the aircraft and processes the documentation for issue of the CofA in exchange for payment. If the owner announces that he will not pay the bill, if it were my M3, I would stop all work until the issue is resolved. Even if the physical inspection and associated rectification has been done there will still be manhours required to inspect the logbooks, check AD status, complete documentation etc which all have to be paid for.
Lets face it, if you took your car for an MOT and on completion announced to the garage that you wouldn't pay because you don't agree with the bill would he still give you the certificate? I would expect not.
The key to avoiding this aggrevation is communication and a clear written agreement/understanding of: scope of work, costs, who can authorise further repair work or manhour expenditure beyond what has been agreed.
The normal commercial arrangement is: the M3 inspects the aircraft and processes the documentation for issue of the CofA in exchange for payment. If the owner announces that he will not pay the bill, if it were my M3, I would stop all work until the issue is resolved. Even if the physical inspection and associated rectification has been done there will still be manhours required to inspect the logbooks, check AD status, complete documentation etc which all have to be paid for.
Lets face it, if you took your car for an MOT and on completion announced to the garage that you wouldn't pay because you don't agree with the bill would he still give you the certificate? I would expect not.
The key to avoiding this aggrevation is communication and a clear written agreement/understanding of: scope of work, costs, who can authorise further repair work or manhour expenditure beyond what has been agreed.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a general comment only and not related to anything here.
I wonder what the legal position of the maintenance organisation really is. Surely... if you take your plane for say an Annual, and they accept the job, then they must do the Annual. Not 90% of it, not 99% of it, but the whole Annual. And all the paperwork.
Then, they can give the plane back to you (if they trust you to pay), or ask for a cheque (if they don't trust you).
What they cannot do, IMHO, is to do a part of the job, to the extent that the airworthiness of the plane is in question, and ask for money before continuing.
I am not a lawyer but I bet they could be sued for loss of use etc. Especially if the plane is being rented out.
If, partway through the work, the customer informs the company that he isn't going to pay (say the Annual has uncovered a can of expensive worms) that would be different. But absent such a statement, the company is not entitled to make such an assumption. Equally, the company is obliged to inform the customer if they have discovered a can of worms.
I bet there is ample case law on this from the motor trade.
I wonder what the legal position of the maintenance organisation really is. Surely... if you take your plane for say an Annual, and they accept the job, then they must do the Annual. Not 90% of it, not 99% of it, but the whole Annual. And all the paperwork.
Then, they can give the plane back to you (if they trust you to pay), or ask for a cheque (if they don't trust you).
What they cannot do, IMHO, is to do a part of the job, to the extent that the airworthiness of the plane is in question, and ask for money before continuing.
I am not a lawyer but I bet they could be sued for loss of use etc. Especially if the plane is being rented out.
If, partway through the work, the customer informs the company that he isn't going to pay (say the Annual has uncovered a can of expensive worms) that would be different. But absent such a statement, the company is not entitled to make such an assumption. Equally, the company is obliged to inform the customer if they have discovered a can of worms.
I bet there is ample case law on this from the motor trade.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happened with our plane apparently (before my time some years ago). An annual took 5 months, and on the 4th 4 hour drive (each way) to collect it and after being given the runaround each time the then owners seized it back.
What worries me about these cases is that an oversight could bankrupt you. For example, lets say you had forgotten that your SEP rating had expired and you were flying illegally (despite being current / meeting all the requirements, just not having the tick in the box - a paperwork exercise say)....You could find yourself with a hefty fine. Yet if you are driving without a driving licence, while drunk with no insurance, you'll probably end up with a driving ban (work that one out??) and a few hundred quid fine. One lad who was convicted of death by dangerous driving, on the SECOND occasion was fined £200......
Oversights shouldn't happen in flying...yea yea....but a friend of mine, who is a JAA CPL/IR had no idea how long his SEP rating was valid for, he thought it was 5 years......
What worries me about these cases is that an oversight could bankrupt you. For example, lets say you had forgotten that your SEP rating had expired and you were flying illegally (despite being current / meeting all the requirements, just not having the tick in the box - a paperwork exercise say)....You could find yourself with a hefty fine. Yet if you are driving without a driving licence, while drunk with no insurance, you'll probably end up with a driving ban (work that one out??) and a few hundred quid fine. One lad who was convicted of death by dangerous driving, on the SECOND occasion was fined £200......
Oversights shouldn't happen in flying...yea yea....but a friend of mine, who is a JAA CPL/IR had no idea how long his SEP rating was valid for, he thought it was 5 years......
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing to do, which no one, including me, ever does is to agree in advance what work may be done without specific authority and above what limit they must refer to you. This should prevent the unexpectedly large bill and should allow you to get an estimate for any exceptional items of work. Of course, if the aircraft is in bits you are in practice over a barrel.
If you instruct the organisation to do the annual, without qualification then they cnnot pull out before they have finished the work unless they are told by the owner they are not to be paid, in which case they would be entitled not to work any further on the aircraft.
IO540: you are right, unless they have reserved for themselves the right to demand a payment on account. If not then if they contract to do the annual that is what they must do. They can of course exercise a lien over the aircrfat by not returning it until the bill is paid in full. Until the paperwork is done then they have not completed the job and are not entitled to be paid.
If you instruct the organisation to do the annual, without qualification then they cnnot pull out before they have finished the work unless they are told by the owner they are not to be paid, in which case they would be entitled not to work any further on the aircraft.
IO540: you are right, unless they have reserved for themselves the right to demand a payment on account. If not then if they contract to do the annual that is what they must do. They can of course exercise a lien over the aircrfat by not returning it until the bill is paid in full. Until the paperwork is done then they have not completed the job and are not entitled to be paid.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Oversights shouldn't happen in flying...yea yea....but a friend of mine, who is a JAA CPL/IR had no idea how long his SEP rating was valid for, he thought it was 5 years......"
"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."
As I said before the penalty should fit the crime.
Taking a drivers license away for a period is often a real inconvenience. I doubt many PPLs would feel the same about their pilot's license - they would far rather be "banned" from flying for three months than pay a big fine. (and of course I accept this would not be true for all).
Asking them to prove they were fit to fly is a bit of a nonesense. How do you prove you were any more or less fit to fly after three months because you flew the aircraft without a C of A. I suspect the pilot knew full well he had to have a C of A, and genuinely thought it had been issued. I am not sure reminding him that he should have ensured "it was physically in his hand" is a very difficult lesson. Getting him to do a full PPL course again is just daft - because you are wasting their time for no real gain. Impose a fine by all means.
No. The simple fact is the CAA should do its job and regulate its members. In cases such as this the court should never have got involved unless one or other party disputed the position. The CAA should simply be able to levy a fine of say £1,000, issue a formal reprimand, and possibly suspend the pilot's license for a short period of time. That would seem to fit the bill. Surprise, surprise the pilot would have accepted the CAAs action, it would have hurt (a bit), the pilot would have learnt a lesson and would (hopefully) be less likely to repeat his mistake, and most importantly the Court would have been able to get on with some proper business.
"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."
As I said before the penalty should fit the crime.
Taking a drivers license away for a period is often a real inconvenience. I doubt many PPLs would feel the same about their pilot's license - they would far rather be "banned" from flying for three months than pay a big fine. (and of course I accept this would not be true for all).
Asking them to prove they were fit to fly is a bit of a nonesense. How do you prove you were any more or less fit to fly after three months because you flew the aircraft without a C of A. I suspect the pilot knew full well he had to have a C of A, and genuinely thought it had been issued. I am not sure reminding him that he should have ensured "it was physically in his hand" is a very difficult lesson. Getting him to do a full PPL course again is just daft - because you are wasting their time for no real gain. Impose a fine by all means.
No. The simple fact is the CAA should do its job and regulate its members. In cases such as this the court should never have got involved unless one or other party disputed the position. The CAA should simply be able to levy a fine of say £1,000, issue a formal reprimand, and possibly suspend the pilot's license for a short period of time. That would seem to fit the bill. Surprise, surprise the pilot would have accepted the CAAs action, it would have hurt (a bit), the pilot would have learnt a lesson and would (hopefully) be less likely to repeat his mistake, and most importantly the Court would have been able to get on with some proper business.
