CAA prosecutions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA prosecutions
I noticed from the CAA website that for 2006 there were a few prosecutions for infringements. Clearly the exact details are not disclosed, but under what conditions generally is a procecution sought.
I would have thought that no one would intentionally enter without clearance and given that assumption then if the below infringements were accidental, under what circumstances will the CAA prosecute.
I would have thought that no one would intentionally enter without clearance and given that assumption then if the below infringements were accidental, under what circumstances will the CAA prosecute.
Class A infringement Guilty plea Fine £600
Class A infringement Guilty plea Fine £500
Class D infringement Guilty plea Fine £750
Aerodrome Air Traffic Zone Infringement Guilty plea £250
Aerodrome Air Traffic Zone Infringement Guilty plea Fine £800
Class A infringement Guilty plea Fine £500
Class D infringement Guilty plea Fine £750
Aerodrome Air Traffic Zone Infringement Guilty plea £250
Aerodrome Air Traffic Zone Infringement Guilty plea Fine £800
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably in the same way that a not guilty plea to speeding wouldn't cut the mustard if you covered the speedo?There has to be another reason like a map misprint or being vectored under radar control.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
???
...sorry
there are numerous infringements on a yearly basis, I'm sure someone could give an approximate number, a 1000? ( 3 a day)
Approximately 4 seem to have resulted in prosecution. If accidental infringement is prosecuted why isn't this number higher?
there are numerous infringements on a yearly basis, I'm sure someone could give an approximate number, a 1000? ( 3 a day)
Approximately 4 seem to have resulted in prosecution. If accidental infringement is prosecuted why isn't this number higher?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Infringements of CA are quite obviously to be taken seriously and the pilots in charge of artcraft need to be at the very least taught the error of their ways. If it is deemed a prosecution is appropriate then so be it when all the circumstances have been taken into account. We hear so much about infringements and it is always assumed it is GA. This is just not so. The military produce quite a number and considering the few aircraft they have compared to GA it seems out of proportion. I do not have the latest figures but obtained them a couple of years ago and was very surprised. It should also be noted that the Commercial types have quite a few level busts which by some may be likened to an infringement by GA or Military. Can anyone point me in the direction of a prosecution? In other words let us keep a sense of proportion. If the full time professionals get it wrong sometimes then quite obviously the amateurs will.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
infringements
Hello all,
I believe that in the LTMA there were over three hundred infringements in 2006. The vast majority were by GA pilots, be they PPL, SPLs or profesionals such as flying instructors.
There were less than 10 infringements by military aircraft of the LTMA in that time. I think but can't be sure that it was actually significantly less than 10
The CAA only look in to prosecuting pilots if a CA939 (breach of air navigation regulations) has been filed. 9 times out of 10 when they have investigated they decide that some retraining is appropriate or a caution is issued.
When a pilot has been prosecuted there is normally an overwhelming reason for it. I know that this year a pilot flew around Heathrow for almst an hour causing enormous disruption. The pilot was recently taken to court and a substantial fine was leaved.
The controllers at LTCC generally do not file CA939 unless significant disruption has occurred or a serious loss of separation resulted from the Unauthorised penetration of CAS.
I believe that in the LTMA there were over three hundred infringements in 2006. The vast majority were by GA pilots, be they PPL, SPLs or profesionals such as flying instructors.
There were less than 10 infringements by military aircraft of the LTMA in that time. I think but can't be sure that it was actually significantly less than 10
The CAA only look in to prosecuting pilots if a CA939 (breach of air navigation regulations) has been filed. 9 times out of 10 when they have investigated they decide that some retraining is appropriate or a caution is issued.
When a pilot has been prosecuted there is normally an overwhelming reason for it. I know that this year a pilot flew around Heathrow for almst an hour causing enormous disruption. The pilot was recently taken to court and a substantial fine was leaved.
The controllers at LTCC generally do not file CA939 unless significant disruption has occurred or a serious loss of separation resulted from the Unauthorised penetration of CAS.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is conflicting data on what the CAA use to decide.
A well known lawyer has often said they go after people seemingly randomly. This may be true but from the published details (nearly all being successful cases) they either rarely do it, or they bungle most of them.
The CAA themselves (and I have spoken to their head of enforcement a while ago, on a different but related subject) claim they prosecute only the most serious cases. Again, the published data either supports this, or they prosecute loads and bungle most of them...
Personally I think the latter is the case (they rarely prosecute). According to the Ontrack survey, there are several hundred serious CAS busts every year; big ones where jet transport traffic is stopped from departing / diverted / etc. I don't know how many get away but clearly only a tiny percentage get done for it.
I would guess that most of these would be equally serious, in that none will be deliberate, all will be navigation errors, and the main variable will be the degree to which the pilot contributed to the error. Speculating... not carrying charts is going to make you look a right d1ck.
Rumour has it that the CAA go especially after people with a bit of an attitude, or history of winding them up. This is exactly what the police has always done, and it makes sense since the CAA dept is made up of former police officers.
There will always be CAS busts - the PPL training procedure is too useless for today's airspace. AFAIK nobody ever has a word with the school or the instructor. This climate makes it easy for a decent lawyer to get you off the hook for most things.
A well known lawyer has often said they go after people seemingly randomly. This may be true but from the published details (nearly all being successful cases) they either rarely do it, or they bungle most of them.
The CAA themselves (and I have spoken to their head of enforcement a while ago, on a different but related subject) claim they prosecute only the most serious cases. Again, the published data either supports this, or they prosecute loads and bungle most of them...
Personally I think the latter is the case (they rarely prosecute). According to the Ontrack survey, there are several hundred serious CAS busts every year; big ones where jet transport traffic is stopped from departing / diverted / etc. I don't know how many get away but clearly only a tiny percentage get done for it.
I would guess that most of these would be equally serious, in that none will be deliberate, all will be navigation errors, and the main variable will be the degree to which the pilot contributed to the error. Speculating... not carrying charts is going to make you look a right d1ck.
Rumour has it that the CAA go especially after people with a bit of an attitude, or history of winding them up. This is exactly what the police has always done, and it makes sense since the CAA dept is made up of former police officers.
There will always be CAS busts - the PPL training procedure is too useless for today's airspace. AFAIK nobody ever has a word with the school or the instructor. This climate makes it easy for a decent lawyer to get you off the hook for most things.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540What is interesting is that I know that LTCC attempts to trace all infirngers that have not been the subject of a CA939. Most times they are successful in identifying the aircraft. They go out of their way to try to contact the flying school CFI to attempt to find out why the infringement occurred and the vast majority of times the flying school advises on action that they have taken to lessen the chance of the infringemt recurring.
Knowing how many replies that the unit has recieved from CFI and pilots, it seems strange that no pilots who read this thread have written of their experience, what subsequently happened or why they ended up in CAS.
Sort of I learnt about flying from that!
Guest
Posts: n/a
IO540, as zkdli (that's a bit of a mouthful) says, LTCC trace the vast majority of London area infringers and will attempt to open a dialogue with them. If student pilots are involved that dialogue will include the instructors.
A selection of such feedback reports should appear on Fly on Track in the not too distant future, always a good first stop for any questions relating to infringements.
A selection of such feedback reports should appear on Fly on Track in the not too distant future, always a good first stop for any questions relating to infringements.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They go out of their way to try to contact the flying school CFI to attempt to find out why the infringement occurred and the vast majority of times the flying school advises on action that they have taken to lessen the chance of the infringemt recurring
What does the school say? That the student was correctly taught dead reckoning? I have to admit that's about all they can say.
However, Warped Factor suggests that only a student pilot bust gives rise to a contact with the school.
it seems strange that no pilots who read this thread have written of their experience, what subsequently happened or why they ended up in CAS.
I don't think anybody wants to advertise that sort of thing I did once bust a French nuclear power station TRA - knew nothing about it at the time (back then, they didn't come up in the notams, and weren't shown correctly on the IGN charts), didn't hear for about 5-6 months and then got a letter from the CAA, saying the DGAC wants to know who the pilot was, etc. It was resolved OK, with a stiff letter from the CAA signed by some Captain with a 2mm wide fountain pen. So, my experience of the CAA remains entirely positive, but I would say the DGAC are complete a***holes for taking so long. They had the radar tracks (I saw them).
What does the school say? That the student was correctly taught dead reckoning? I have to admit that's about all they can say.
However, Warped Factor suggests that only a student pilot bust gives rise to a contact with the school.
it seems strange that no pilots who read this thread have written of their experience, what subsequently happened or why they ended up in CAS.
I don't think anybody wants to advertise that sort of thing
I did once bust a French nuclear power station TRA - knew nothing about it at the time (back then, they didn't come up in the notams, and weren't shown correctly on the IGN charts), didn't hear for about 5-6 months and then got a letter from the CAA, saying the DGAC wants to know who the pilot was, etc. It was resolved OK, with a stiff letter from the CAA signed by some Captain with a 2mm wide fountain pen. So, my experience of the CAA remains entirely positive, but I would say the DGAC are complete a***holes for taking so long. They had the radar tracks (I saw them).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello IO540!
We have a culture in aviaton of lesson learning. Part of that, you would like to think, is that when a pilot has infringed and gone through the process of re-training or what ever that happens, you would hope that they would pass on their experience. I learnt about flying is doing just that. How many pilots have learnt about no no's on their aircraft from other pilots who found out before them and passed on the tale?
We have a culture in aviaton of lesson learning. Part of that, you would like to think, is that when a pilot has infringed and gone through the process of re-training or what ever that happens, you would hope that they would pass on their experience. I learnt about flying is doing just that. How many pilots have learnt about no no's on their aircraft from other pilots who found out before them and passed on the tale?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zkdli
I can tell you why I have never done that. A long time ago I said I would NEVER mention in this forum that I was learning to fly because I wasn't prepared to put up with all the sarcasm, criticism and general nastiness towards those who asked genuine questions which some decided were ridiculous, not worth answering sensibly, or to which they gave a sarcastic, unhelpful reply.
I am still not prepared to say what happened as there will always be those who know better than NATS - who were both helpful and supportive, my CFI and the other FIs involved from whom I also received great support and the Airfield manager at my destination airfield who described my actions as "exemplary". Suffice to say the incident didn't even appear in the CAA's publication of that month's misdemeanours.
it seems strange that no pilots who read this thread have written of their experience, what subsequently happened or why they ended up in CAS.
I am still not prepared to say what happened as there will always be those who know better than NATS - who were both helpful and supportive, my CFI and the other FIs involved from whom I also received great support and the Airfield manager at my destination airfield who described my actions as "exemplary". Suffice to say the incident didn't even appear in the CAA's publication of that month's misdemeanours.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once listened to some german guy on London Info who was right at the Dutch/UK boundary at FL105 (well inside the airways) asking for a direct Jersey through 'his' airspace, VFR. Even before London Info could reply he was well into UK awys.
London was very polite but this prat was extremely reluctant to descend out of the airways, and seemed to be of the opinion he had a god given right to fly where he pleased.
I really hoped he got the book thrown at him.
NATS get very frustrated by people who turn off their transponders or to just Mode A when they think they are getting close to airspace, and this too could evoke a less than sypathetic approach by the enforcement branch in the event of an infringement.
London was very polite but this prat was extremely reluctant to descend out of the airways, and seemed to be of the opinion he had a god given right to fly where he pleased.
I really hoped he got the book thrown at him.
NATS get very frustrated by people who turn off their transponders or to just Mode A when they think they are getting close to airspace, and this too could evoke a less than sypathetic approach by the enforcement branch in the event of an infringement.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/
go to the above, then click radar replay, see how a single ga can disrupt
a whole days commercial flights.
Re prosecutions, I was told, its all about the Attitude of the offending pilot
if you know why / where you went wrong and hold your hands up, fine
start arguing that the charts wrong or it wasn't your fault, Big mistake
go to the above, then click radar replay, see how a single ga can disrupt
a whole days commercial flights.
Re prosecutions, I was told, its all about the Attitude of the offending pilot
if you know why / where you went wrong and hold your hands up, fine
start arguing that the charts wrong or it wasn't your fault, Big mistake
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Deepest, Surrey
Age: 14
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Infringing CAS
In response to the question :-
"it seems strange that no pilots who read this thread have written of their experience, what subsequently happened or why they ended up in CAS.
Sort of I learnt about flying from that!"
I suppose I could mention a hypothetical pilot, out having a bimple on a Sunday afternoon a couple of years ago, who was around near Billingshurst heading south ish at 2,500 feet in the sort of weather we have had of late, sunny periods and scattered showers, who altered course to the east, to avoid one of the showers, not wanting to go IMC and get bumped about, without realising just how close he / she (the hypothetical pilot) was to Gatwick's zone.
As said hypothetical pilot was in receipt of a FIS from Farnborough, the FIS controller (may all his lottery tickets be winners) asked our "hero" if he realised he was infringing Gatwick's zone and politely suggested that he might like to make his heading 270 degrees, before the situation became any worse, preferably fairly promptly.
Said hypothetical pilot very smartly did so, feeling exceptionally foolish and extremely chastened and vowed never to make such a damn fool mistake ever, ever, ever again.
And as far as we al know he / she never has (if of course the episode ever happened at all).
A license to fly is a license to learn and learn that pilot most certainly did - about that terrible pair of killers, for whom there is no excuse, inattention and distraction.
TMF
"it seems strange that no pilots who read this thread have written of their experience, what subsequently happened or why they ended up in CAS.
Sort of I learnt about flying from that!"
I suppose I could mention a hypothetical pilot, out having a bimple on a Sunday afternoon a couple of years ago, who was around near Billingshurst heading south ish at 2,500 feet in the sort of weather we have had of late, sunny periods and scattered showers, who altered course to the east, to avoid one of the showers, not wanting to go IMC and get bumped about, without realising just how close he / she (the hypothetical pilot) was to Gatwick's zone.
As said hypothetical pilot was in receipt of a FIS from Farnborough, the FIS controller (may all his lottery tickets be winners) asked our "hero" if he realised he was infringing Gatwick's zone and politely suggested that he might like to make his heading 270 degrees, before the situation became any worse, preferably fairly promptly.
Said hypothetical pilot very smartly did so, feeling exceptionally foolish and extremely chastened and vowed never to make such a damn fool mistake ever, ever, ever again.
And as far as we al know he / she never has (if of course the episode ever happened at all).
A license to fly is a license to learn and learn that pilot most certainly did - about that terrible pair of killers, for whom there is no excuse, inattention and distraction.
TMF
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well here goes simply for the sake of I learnt about flying from that .
In the recent past somewhere in the uk .I was flying to an airfield I was relatively new too. I had not approached it from the route I was taking before. I usually fly a G1000 equipped aircraft however this was an analogue aircraft of a different type . I misidentified a mway jct and headed down the wrong one . I fell into the trap of making the features fit the map and not using a gross error check which would have told me that I should have been heading east not south. As a result I ended up well inside a major airports zone at 2000. Had I continued I would have flown straight across the final approach . AS it happened I became concerned and immediately turned north away from the zone , unfortuntely I had already done the damage causing an inbound airliner to take up a hold . The airport in question got me home . This is a somewhat abbreviated version but the meat is there . On landing I went to ATC and went over what had happened and why and contacted the duty atco at the airport .We had a lengthy conversation but there was no blame , sarcasm , chastisment just an informative debrief of what had gone wrong and how it affected the airport ops. Ppaerwork for the caa was raised . I submitted a chirp report and immediately booked a flight with an instructor and went over the route with specific references to local landmarks etc etc .
I also went and visited , at their invitation the atc unit in question to see my track and what actually occured . I have yet to hear from the CAA .I was told that I had done everything correctly , by a friend in the industry.Admitted what I had done debriefed it doen some refreshment training and publicised it for others to learn from ?
Yes not happy with what happened , im not really a low hours ppl and it shoudnt have happened , but it did and I learned from it . Maybe my attitude went someway to explain the caa's reponse , who knows
Jackals have your go Im ready for you, but please only criticise if you have never made a mistake
In the recent past somewhere in the uk .I was flying to an airfield I was relatively new too. I had not approached it from the route I was taking before. I usually fly a G1000 equipped aircraft however this was an analogue aircraft of a different type . I misidentified a mway jct and headed down the wrong one . I fell into the trap of making the features fit the map and not using a gross error check which would have told me that I should have been heading east not south. As a result I ended up well inside a major airports zone at 2000. Had I continued I would have flown straight across the final approach . AS it happened I became concerned and immediately turned north away from the zone , unfortuntely I had already done the damage causing an inbound airliner to take up a hold . The airport in question got me home . This is a somewhat abbreviated version but the meat is there . On landing I went to ATC and went over what had happened and why and contacted the duty atco at the airport .We had a lengthy conversation but there was no blame , sarcasm , chastisment just an informative debrief of what had gone wrong and how it affected the airport ops. Ppaerwork for the caa was raised . I submitted a chirp report and immediately booked a flight with an instructor and went over the route with specific references to local landmarks etc etc .
I also went and visited , at their invitation the atc unit in question to see my track and what actually occured . I have yet to hear from the CAA .I was told that I had done everything correctly , by a friend in the industry.Admitted what I had done debriefed it doen some refreshment training and publicised it for others to learn from ?
Yes not happy with what happened , im not really a low hours ppl and it shoudnt have happened , but it did and I learned from it . Maybe my attitude went someway to explain the caa's reponse , who knows
Jackals have your go Im ready for you, but please only criticise if you have never made a mistake
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As said hypothetical pilot was in receipt of a FIS from Farnborough, the FIS controller (may all his lottery tickets be winners) asked our "hero" if he realised he was infringing Gatwick's zone and politely suggested that he might like to make his heading 270 degrees, before the situation became any worse, preferably fairly promptly.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maxdrypower, if you get prosecuted after that then there is something wrong with the world.
As an FI who's been around for a couple of years.. then I'll just say that I wish I had met more pilots with your attitude to making a mistake. Sh*t happens and how you deal with it marks you out far more than the actual first mistake.
There will always be some egotistical a**e who'll tell you that you should have done this or that, but just ignore them. You knew you did wrong and made amends. End of story.
As an FI who's been around for a couple of years.. then I'll just say that I wish I had met more pilots with your attitude to making a mistake. Sh*t happens and how you deal with it marks you out far more than the actual first mistake.
There will always be some egotistical a**e who'll tell you that you should have done this or that, but just ignore them. You knew you did wrong and made amends. End of story.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maxdrypowder, thank you for your honesty, 
as I already mentioned, speaking to someone in authority on this very subject, the CAA are interested in saftey and education, you have shown you understand why / where you went wrong, Its the arogant types that won't admit a mistake, ( & don't we all make them ! ) that won't accept blame or be educated, that the CAA finally have to prosecute
as I already mentioned, speaking to someone in authority on this very subject, the CAA are interested in saftey and education, you have shown you understand why / where you went wrong, Its the arogant types that won't admit a mistake, ( & don't we all make them ! ) that won't accept blame or be educated, that the CAA finally have to prosecute