Norfolk pilot fined £17,500
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norfolk pilot fined £17,500
A few years ago Norfolk magistrates hit a helicopter pilot with fines and costs of around £40,000.
They have now done it again! Outside of aviation there can be few examples of such penalties for minor offences.
From the Eastern Daily Press
'Cavalier' Norfolk pilot fined £17,500
07 April 2006 07:10
A Norfolk pilot branded “reckless and cavalier” by a district judge was yesterday landed with a bill of £17,500 in fines and costs.
Laurie Taylor, 61, had previously pleaded guilty to flying his Piper PA28 without its MOT.
The a two-day hearing which finished yesterday at Swaffham Magistrates Court was held to determine if he had purposely flouted the law, or mistakenly believed the certificate had been issued.
District Judge Philip Browning said: “He was reckless as to whether the documents were in order. He should have checked and satisfied himself.”
The court heard Taylor took his plane from Old Buckenham airfield, near Attleborough, on August 2 last year, where it had undergone maintenance work for its airworthiness certificate.
Engineers at the airfield said Taylor had been warned that while the maintenance work had been done, the paperwork for the certificate was not completed.
They said two men had broken the chains to the hangar's door with bolt croppers before Taylor had started the plane's engine in the hangar and flown off in a dangerous manner.
Taylor, of Smallsworth Common, Garboldisham, near Diss, who has been a pilot for 44 years, said “it was the lowest point in my life” when he found out that enforcement action was being taking because of his flight.
He argued that he was never told the plane did not yet have a certificate of airworthiness and that he had received a note on an invoice suggesting that the plane was ready.
He said that he removed his plane from the airfield to Lopham because he wanted an independent engineer to have a look at the plane and settle a dispute between himself and Scanrho Aviation, based at Old Buckenham Airfield.
He said: “I would like to apologise profusely to the court for my unwitting mistake and for the tremendous nuisance I have been to the CAA.”
He denies that four 'heavies' accompanied him to the airfield and that they intimidated the airfield's engineers. He said he took his wife, son and friend who he wanted to act as witnesses.
He said he told Scanrho maintenance manager James Gropp, “I have come to collect the aeroplane. I hope you are not going to make that difficult for me.”
He said: “I could see we were going to get into a long conversation so I immediately moved to open the doors. There was no chains on the doors.”
Taylor admitted that it was normal practice to start the plane's engine in the hangar but he said it was the easiest thing to do because there was nobody around and the plane did not have the tow bar to pull it out of the hangar.
He said that while he did not make all the usual safety checks, he had checked the plane the day before and did all of the internal checks while in the cockpit. He said he drove cautiously out of the hangar.
District Judge Browning said Taylor took off in a “reckless and cavalier manner, carrying out no safety checks”.
He said: “What is clear is that Mr Taylor intended to take the plane by force if necessary.”
He added: “It may have been that the plane was safe but it did not have a have the certificate of airworthiness.”
They have now done it again! Outside of aviation there can be few examples of such penalties for minor offences.
From the Eastern Daily Press
'Cavalier' Norfolk pilot fined £17,500
07 April 2006 07:10
A Norfolk pilot branded “reckless and cavalier” by a district judge was yesterday landed with a bill of £17,500 in fines and costs.
Laurie Taylor, 61, had previously pleaded guilty to flying his Piper PA28 without its MOT.
The a two-day hearing which finished yesterday at Swaffham Magistrates Court was held to determine if he had purposely flouted the law, or mistakenly believed the certificate had been issued.
District Judge Philip Browning said: “He was reckless as to whether the documents were in order. He should have checked and satisfied himself.”
The court heard Taylor took his plane from Old Buckenham airfield, near Attleborough, on August 2 last year, where it had undergone maintenance work for its airworthiness certificate.
Engineers at the airfield said Taylor had been warned that while the maintenance work had been done, the paperwork for the certificate was not completed.
They said two men had broken the chains to the hangar's door with bolt croppers before Taylor had started the plane's engine in the hangar and flown off in a dangerous manner.
Taylor, of Smallsworth Common, Garboldisham, near Diss, who has been a pilot for 44 years, said “it was the lowest point in my life” when he found out that enforcement action was being taking because of his flight.
He argued that he was never told the plane did not yet have a certificate of airworthiness and that he had received a note on an invoice suggesting that the plane was ready.
He said that he removed his plane from the airfield to Lopham because he wanted an independent engineer to have a look at the plane and settle a dispute between himself and Scanrho Aviation, based at Old Buckenham Airfield.
He said: “I would like to apologise profusely to the court for my unwitting mistake and for the tremendous nuisance I have been to the CAA.”
He denies that four 'heavies' accompanied him to the airfield and that they intimidated the airfield's engineers. He said he took his wife, son and friend who he wanted to act as witnesses.
He said he told Scanrho maintenance manager James Gropp, “I have come to collect the aeroplane. I hope you are not going to make that difficult for me.”
He said: “I could see we were going to get into a long conversation so I immediately moved to open the doors. There was no chains on the doors.”
Taylor admitted that it was normal practice to start the plane's engine in the hangar but he said it was the easiest thing to do because there was nobody around and the plane did not have the tow bar to pull it out of the hangar.
He said that while he did not make all the usual safety checks, he had checked the plane the day before and did all of the internal checks while in the cockpit. He said he drove cautiously out of the hangar.
District Judge Browning said Taylor took off in a “reckless and cavalier manner, carrying out no safety checks”.
He said: “What is clear is that Mr Taylor intended to take the plane by force if necessary.”
He added: “It may have been that the plane was safe but it did not have a have the certificate of airworthiness.”
Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have now done it again! Outside of aviation there can be few examples of such penalties for minor offences.
Sorry - sarcasm breaking out here.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'normal to start up and taxi out of hangar'
not bloody likely
had some @@@@er do that in a C182 while I was in the back looking over some parts for sale.
Then spent 3 hours waiting in casualty to get all the swarf and crap from the hangar floor out of my eyes.
not bloody likely
had some @@@@er do that in a C182 while I was in the back looking over some parts for sale.
Then spent 3 hours waiting in casualty to get all the swarf and crap from the hangar floor out of my eyes.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SE England
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taylor admitted that it was normal practice to start the plane's engine in the hangar but he said it was the easiest thing to do because there was nobody around and the plane did not have the tow bar to pull it out of the hangar.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We should be a little wary before we defend every bit of idiocy when it happens to be a pilot being the idiot. Personally I would regard flying without a CofA or Release to be considerably more serious than driving with no MOT. There was clearly an issue about whether he knew his aircraft did not have its Cof A, hence there was what lawyers call a "Newton" hearing to determine the facts upon which the sentence was to be based. By the sound of the report the District Judge found against him. I am a little surprised that he fought this issue since the rule for a responsible pilot must be that unless you have the piece of paper in your hand you dont fly.
"Private" prosecutions, such as the CAA, trading standards, Health and Safety etc always generate substantial costs because those prosecuting authorities have to recover the full cost of the prosecution. Expert evidence is often involved, which adds to the prosecution costs. In this case he pleaded guilty, then argued that he was just mistaken. The judge found him reckless, perhaps not surprisingly. I cant see anything in the report to suggest that the prosecution was not fully justified. Would anyone here want to have been his passenger that day
"Private" prosecutions, such as the CAA, trading standards, Health and Safety etc always generate substantial costs because those prosecuting authorities have to recover the full cost of the prosecution. Expert evidence is often involved, which adds to the prosecution costs. In this case he pleaded guilty, then argued that he was just mistaken. The judge found him reckless, perhaps not surprisingly. I cant see anything in the report to suggest that the prosecution was not fully justified. Would anyone here want to have been his passenger that day
It would be interesting to know the amount of the fine and the amount of costs, rather than the whole amount.
And why should a private individual pay costs for his prosecution, when it's a Government agency prosecuting ? Criminals don't have to pay.
And why should a private individual pay costs for his prosecution, when it's a Government agency prosecuting ? Criminals don't have to pay.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why should a private individual pay costs for his prosecution
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=The Nr Fairy]It would be interesting to know the amount of the fine and the amount of costs, rather than the whole amount.
£5k fine,the rest costs plus he has to pay for his own defence etc.
Well that didn't work out too well then ,did it?
£5k fine,the rest costs plus he has to pay for his own defence etc.
Well that didn't work out too well then ,did it?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hearsay
The account of the happenings which I heard first hand from a third party non-aligned engineer working on a Tiger Moth in the hangar seem to stack up pretty accurately with the charges!
The bit about the four "heavies" was recounted in great detail - as was was the level of fear and intimidation. IIRC the chain was on the aircraft not the hangar door as Scanrho had been told by the defendant that he'd be back tomorrow to take his aeroplane away. Actually he probably said 'plane
IO540:
No dear boy - you are wrong! Going away on a school trip with your sister and coming back a virgin very definetely constitutes the offence hearabouts!
Stik
The bit about the four "heavies" was recounted in great detail - as was was the level of fear and intimidation. IIRC the chain was on the aircraft not the hangar door as Scanrho had been told by the defendant that he'd be back tomorrow to take his aeroplane away. Actually he probably said 'plane
IO540:
I wonder, counts as a serious offence in Norfolk
Coming back from an 18-30 Club holiday and still a virgin.
Coming back from an 18-30 Club holiday and still a virgin.
Stik
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justiciar says
IMHO those of us who work in the legal system should be a little wary before we defend everything done by the courts.
On the basis of the limited facts reported in the press report, I'm sympathetic to the opinion expressed by Ye Olde Pilot and disagree with virtually everything said by Justiciar.
FL
We should be a little wary before we defend every bit of idiocy when it happens to be a pilot being the idiot.
On the basis of the limited facts reported in the press report, I'm sympathetic to the opinion expressed by Ye Olde Pilot and disagree with virtually everything said by Justiciar.
FL
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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 428 Likes
on
226 Posts
Originally Posted by Spitoon
But won't that be because the CAA does not regulate microlites?
http://www.galleries.com/minerals/ox...t/microlit.htm
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
disagree with virtually everything said by Justiciar
He was reckless as to whether the documents were in order. He should have checked and satisfied himself.
