CAA prosecutions
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
From: New York City
12 o'clock
There's a good thread about that Spitfire flight and the answer to your question here --
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1173701
B.
There's a good thread about that Spitfire flight and the answer to your question here --
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1173701
B.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Perhaps a nominal fine closer in value to those motorists might have to pay, plus the pilot paying the costs resulting from their actions might be more effective. These costs might rightly include those incurred by commercial operators having to break off their approaches.
Fines are fines. There's an argument to suggest that they should be linked to real safety risk, but not to commercial loss.
Upto The Buffers
Joined: Apr 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
From: Leeds/Bradford
I'd take a guess it's legal because the photo is a still from a film (1980's?) and was hence almost certainly filmed with the luxury of a rule 5 exemption from the CAA. You can get those, you know...
Moderator
Joined: Jul 1997
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 3,231
Likes: 21
From: Europe
If the commercial operators suffer loss because of the negligence of an aircraft operator or pilot, they have the usual remedies available, don't they?
The £6000 fine might seem paltry if everyone who suffers a loss due to an infringement sues the infringing pilot
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: UK
I'd imagine that once the CAA is equipped with the ability to detect and identify airspace busts then they'll be able to prosecute offenders more easily. Guess that's a 'benefit' of all aircraft having Mode-S and 24-bit idents built-in. Rather like speed cameras, it'll provide a great revenue opportunity and will avoid the need for pilots to be retrained or learn from their mistakes - doesn't matter why you busted airspace (e.g. genuine mistake), fact is you did. Just like doesn't matter that you broke the speed limit because you thought you were in a 40 zone when it was actually a 30.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: ...back of the drag curve
The chap flying under the Medway bridge was actually photographed by a woman on a passing boat. I remember seeing it in a boating mag. It's not the best place to do it and get away with it
Ray Hanna had a Rule 5 Exemption to fly under the Bridge in the Spitfire. The CAA does occasionally give them out to those it thinks are up to the job (special occasions only
)
Ray Hanna had a Rule 5 Exemption to fly under the Bridge in the Spitfire. The CAA does occasionally give them out to those it thinks are up to the job (special occasions only
)
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: London
WR
The short answer to your good question is that when the CPS was created, Parliament allowed the CAA (and some other bodies) to conduct their own prosecutions.
It means the investigator and prosecutor are the same body, which many regard as not being in the interests of justice.
chrisbl
In theory, that is correct and the CAA would claim that, in practice, those criteria are properly applied.
However, problems can arise where the body which investigates is the same body which decides whether to prosecute. ie Where there is no independent/objective assessment. eg Police investigate and gather evidence. The CPS (which is independent of the police) then decides if there should be a prosecution. ie Whether the two criteria are met.
Many would say the problem is far greater where it is not only the same body but the same department which considers the first of those two criteria.
FL
The short answer to your good question is that when the CPS was created, Parliament allowed the CAA (and some other bodies) to conduct their own prosecutions.
It means the investigator and prosecutor are the same body, which many regard as not being in the interests of justice.
chrisbl
They (CAA) still have to operate on the basis of a) is the prosecution in the public interest and b) the likelihood of securing a conviction.
However, problems can arise where the body which investigates is the same body which decides whether to prosecute. ie Where there is no independent/objective assessment. eg Police investigate and gather evidence. The CPS (which is independent of the police) then decides if there should be a prosecution. ie Whether the two criteria are met.
Many would say the problem is far greater where it is not only the same body but the same department which considers the first of those two criteria.
FL
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: ...
A friend of mine busted Heathrow by 6nm, delayed arrivals and departures for 30 mins and had the police heli scrambled all on his first hour after gaining his ppl!
He got a telling off and a tour round D&D!!
Makes me wonder what would happen if you did a touch and go at Heathrow?
Bar of gold, Knighthood?
In all seriousness though, I wonder why some peopleget fined £6000 and others get a slap on the wrist!
And also how do they find the culprits in the cases of the bridge incident, or the dangerous goods case?
He got a telling off and a tour round D&D!!
Makes me wonder what would happen if you did a touch and go at Heathrow?
Bar of gold, Knighthood?
In all seriousness though, I wonder why some peopleget fined £6000 and others get a slap on the wrist!
And also how do they find the culprits in the cases of the bridge incident, or the dangerous goods case?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“Mode-S and 24-bit idents”
Firstly, there are no plans to make mode s compulsory
Secondly, on most mode s units you can change the code and adjust the height on the front panel
Thirdly, the radar coverage to receive mode s is not in place
Rod1
Firstly, there are no plans to make mode s compulsory
Secondly, on most mode s units you can change the code and adjust the height on the front panel
Thirdly, the radar coverage to receive mode s is not in place
Rod1
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: kent
Mmmm.. No plans to make Mode S compulsory?
The present proposals would allow you to use uncontrolled airspace in the UK without one and the French will allow you to use much of their airspace without one. However, the CAA proposals would not allow you to cross the FIR boundary without one!
I also heard it said that at the moment there is no such thing as a Mode S transponder, only composite mode A,C and S ones. If that is the case, I wonder how much cheaper a mode S only one would be.
The present proposals would allow you to use uncontrolled airspace in the UK without one and the French will allow you to use much of their airspace without one. However, the CAA proposals would not allow you to cross the FIR boundary without one!
I also heard it said that at the moment there is no such thing as a Mode S transponder, only composite mode A,C and S ones. If that is the case, I wonder how much cheaper a mode S only one would be.
