CAA Prosecution - A lesson to be learnt
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Warwick
MP: Thank you for relaying your tale of woe, it takes a brave man who admits his faults so publicly. Seems to me the tone of your original post wasn't at all "sorrowful" as Bose-X describes, but honest and forthright.
As for the fine and court costs, I agree with EnglishAl, I think it would have been far more productive for them to have mandated further training and possibly revoked your FI rating or reduced privileges until this had been done.
Other than short term financial hardship, I don't think the fine serves any purpose. Given that you admitted fault/guilt unconditionally to the CAA at first interview they could have avoided the costs of preparing and prosecuting the case; and arguably improved safety as well.
Safe flying.
As for the fine and court costs, I agree with EnglishAl, I think it would have been far more productive for them to have mandated further training and possibly revoked your FI rating or reduced privileges until this had been done.
Other than short term financial hardship, I don't think the fine serves any purpose. Given that you admitted fault/guilt unconditionally to the CAA at first interview they could have avoided the costs of preparing and prosecuting the case; and arguably improved safety as well.
Safe flying.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
From: london
I reckon that since getting a PPL at High Wycombe (and thus my 'licence to learn') I have, in one form or another experienced most of the elephant traps that there are out there for private pilots. We're all human and, after all "to err is human".
However, I was just a PPL, as opposed to a CPL FI employed by a flying school, and therein lies the rub; However much of a numpty the chap being checked out was, I think that it is reasonable to expect that a qualified flying instructor, based at a flying school on the edge of the London TMA, shouldn't allow him or herself to end up at Heathrow. Sad to say, but I think the contention by MP that it's all a bit unfair that the book got thrown at him, rather than the pupil (or bloke he was checking out), indicates that a state of denial still exists here, as to whose fault this bust actually was.
If you are P1, you are in charge - end of story. If you are an instructor and P1, there really is no discussion to be had. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, because I'm not, but events like these need to go through a 'truth and reconcilliation' process.
I think that there are also other peripheral elements to this tale which merit further discussion (such as why a training establishment would send out a new instructor with a paying customer, when he was not sufficiently familiar with the local area, to prevent him from ending up over Heathrow?) and maybe someone from Wycombe Air Centre or Cabair would like to comment?
However, I was just a PPL, as opposed to a CPL FI employed by a flying school, and therein lies the rub; However much of a numpty the chap being checked out was, I think that it is reasonable to expect that a qualified flying instructor, based at a flying school on the edge of the London TMA, shouldn't allow him or herself to end up at Heathrow. Sad to say, but I think the contention by MP that it's all a bit unfair that the book got thrown at him, rather than the pupil (or bloke he was checking out), indicates that a state of denial still exists here, as to whose fault this bust actually was.
If you are P1, you are in charge - end of story. If you are an instructor and P1, there really is no discussion to be had. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, because I'm not, but events like these need to go through a 'truth and reconcilliation' process.
I think that there are also other peripheral elements to this tale which merit further discussion (such as why a training establishment would send out a new instructor with a paying customer, when he was not sufficiently familiar with the local area, to prevent him from ending up over Heathrow?) and maybe someone from Wycombe Air Centre or Cabair would like to comment?
Last edited by wsmempson; 24th April 2009 at 09:27. Reason: illiteracy
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 200
Likes: 5
From: London, UK
To agree with heathrow director - you can obtain UK airspace KMZ files for Google Earth and it's a great way of relating permanent ground features to airspace (including ATZ,MATZ,etc)
While no replacement for a current map and NOTAMs, I found it very useful in the preparation of my navigation exercise. Be warned, the "true picture" from the air can vary greatly!
While no replacement for a current map and NOTAMs, I found it very useful in the preparation of my navigation exercise. Be warned, the "true picture" from the air can vary greatly!
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
From: London
4 years ago on my first morning as an instructor at White Waltham the CFI (a top bloke 
) took me for a familiarisation flight in the local area. It was very useful, as whilst I had flown through the area I had never operated out of it. All the local reporting points and landmarks were identified which gave me confidence for my first local lesson that afternoon. Granted I was not a new FI, as I'd been doing it part time for almost 2 years in deepest Essex and Kent, but it was very useful nonetheless.
New instructors need mentoring and guidance which a good school should provide, especially one located near the Heathrow zone or LTMA.
Having said all this, an instructor is a commercial pilot and must know his/her job, privileges and responsibilities. This unfortunate incident was probably caused by weak training of the instructor and/or a lack of assertiveness on his part.
You are the aircraft commander, take control!
) took me for a familiarisation flight in the local area. It was very useful, as whilst I had flown through the area I had never operated out of it. All the local reporting points and landmarks were identified which gave me confidence for my first local lesson that afternoon. Granted I was not a new FI, as I'd been doing it part time for almost 2 years in deepest Essex and Kent, but it was very useful nonetheless. New instructors need mentoring and guidance which a good school should provide, especially one located near the Heathrow zone or LTMA.
Having said all this, an instructor is a commercial pilot and must know his/her job, privileges and responsibilities. This unfortunate incident was probably caused by weak training of the instructor and/or a lack of assertiveness on his part.
You are the aircraft commander, take control!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Seems to me the tone of your original post wasn't at all "sorrowful" as Bose-X describes, but honest and forthright.
telling us all about his sorrowful story
If you want to quote people, don't do it out of context unless your intent was just malicious?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 1
From: England
A salutory tale. I've flown with that guy, or one of his many cousins. Bummer the CAA was so tough on you.
When I got my first job the CFI warned the one that gets you isn't the keen but inaccurate student but the high hour PPL who seems to know what they are doing but then at some point later doesn't. He hads proven himself right again and again.
On the other side of the coin the level of training imposed in this country does mean that of the hundreds of people I have flown with theres only two I recall that I would not get in a plane with and I managed to spot them before I got in. One got a darwin award shortly afterwards. Now compare that to how many people you would prefer not get in a car with and you could conclude someone is doing a pretty job somewhere.
When I got my first job the CFI warned the one that gets you isn't the keen but inaccurate student but the high hour PPL who seems to know what they are doing but then at some point later doesn't. He hads proven himself right again and again.
On the other side of the coin the level of training imposed in this country does mean that of the hundreds of people I have flown with theres only two I recall that I would not get in a plane with and I managed to spot them before I got in. One got a darwin award shortly afterwards. Now compare that to how many people you would prefer not get in a car with and you could conclude someone is doing a pretty job somewhere.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: England
Originally Posted by bose-x
At the risk of pedantry perhaps you might want to refresh your grasp of the English language.
Originally Posted by bose-x
Hours building Instructor. Sometimes their is a price to pay for those hours......
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
It is interesting those who dismiss the responsibilities of a PPL and laud the responsibilities of a CPL. If you are in command you are responsible, I don’t see the category of your licence has anything to do with it.
Following through that theme there are inexperienced PPLs and CPLs. It is more than possible a CPL will not have the breath of experience to consistently avoid making bad calls.
The law allows little discretion of interpretation. As much as there might seem merit in chastising the other pilot, the ANO does not recognise the other pilot as having any authority or responsibility in this scenario. The CAA would therefore be over stepping the mark were they to meat out any penalty on the other pilot. Perhaps there is more of a responsibility on the school to recommend that he avail himself of further training. I wonder if they did so.
In handing down penalties I think there is an argument for weighing up the causes of the incident. In my book a pilot with no instrument training who has read the TAFs and sets off in conditions where instrument flying is likely is negligent and should be dealt with severely. He has knowingly endangered himself and more importantly others. In the alternative, a pilot who properly briefs himself for a flight but becomes lost and is quick to take appropriate action has, in my view, committed a less heinous offence, because he has made a mistake that was not deliberate or caused by avoidable negligence.
It may be the case in this instance that the pre-flight brief fell below acceptable standards. If this were so inevitably you only have yourself to blame. On the other hand, if the pre-flight brief had been adequate and every effort had been made to maintain situational awareness but due to inexperience and inadequate training awareness was lost during the flight the offence in itself would seem less heinous along the lines erst while referred by others that to err is to be human.
The corollary is RTA. If you drive into the back of another car while on your mobile or drunk the penalty will be severe because you knowingly compromised your ability to safely drive the car. If, on the other hand, you were neither drunk or on the ‘phone and for no other reason than an inexplicable lapse in concentration allowed yourself to run into the other car the incident will be treated as an unfortunate accident.
Bose, I think for the reasons I have tried to set out your assessment may be too sweeping. Yes, we should expect a higher standard of flying from the average CPL if only because he has had to pass a more stringent flight test and endured further training. However, if the mistake arose because of a lack of experience and or training perhaps the instructor is less negligent that if he knowingly set off without an adequate pre-flight brief and without making every effort to maintain situational awareness throughout the flight.
Into which camp he fell I am not making any judgement, but I felt it was worth distinguishing between the two camps because whether we be ATPLs, CPLs or mere PPLs each is more than capable of screwing it up, it is just more difficult to excuse screwing it up in consequence of your failing to conduct the flight in a manner than could reasonably be expected of a qualified pilot.
Following through that theme there are inexperienced PPLs and CPLs. It is more than possible a CPL will not have the breath of experience to consistently avoid making bad calls.
The law allows little discretion of interpretation. As much as there might seem merit in chastising the other pilot, the ANO does not recognise the other pilot as having any authority or responsibility in this scenario. The CAA would therefore be over stepping the mark were they to meat out any penalty on the other pilot. Perhaps there is more of a responsibility on the school to recommend that he avail himself of further training. I wonder if they did so.
In handing down penalties I think there is an argument for weighing up the causes of the incident. In my book a pilot with no instrument training who has read the TAFs and sets off in conditions where instrument flying is likely is negligent and should be dealt with severely. He has knowingly endangered himself and more importantly others. In the alternative, a pilot who properly briefs himself for a flight but becomes lost and is quick to take appropriate action has, in my view, committed a less heinous offence, because he has made a mistake that was not deliberate or caused by avoidable negligence.
It may be the case in this instance that the pre-flight brief fell below acceptable standards. If this were so inevitably you only have yourself to blame. On the other hand, if the pre-flight brief had been adequate and every effort had been made to maintain situational awareness but due to inexperience and inadequate training awareness was lost during the flight the offence in itself would seem less heinous along the lines erst while referred by others that to err is to be human.
The corollary is RTA. If you drive into the back of another car while on your mobile or drunk the penalty will be severe because you knowingly compromised your ability to safely drive the car. If, on the other hand, you were neither drunk or on the ‘phone and for no other reason than an inexplicable lapse in concentration allowed yourself to run into the other car the incident will be treated as an unfortunate accident.
Bose, I think for the reasons I have tried to set out your assessment may be too sweeping. Yes, we should expect a higher standard of flying from the average CPL if only because he has had to pass a more stringent flight test and endured further training. However, if the mistake arose because of a lack of experience and or training perhaps the instructor is less negligent that if he knowingly set off without an adequate pre-flight brief and without making every effort to maintain situational awareness throughout the flight.
Into which camp he fell I am not making any judgement, but I felt it was worth distinguishing between the two camps because whether we be ATPLs, CPLs or mere PPLs each is more than capable of screwing it up, it is just more difficult to excuse screwing it up in consequence of your failing to conduct the flight in a manner than could reasonably be expected of a qualified pilot.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Bose, I think for the reasons I have tried to set out your assessment may be too sweeping. Yes, we should expect a higher standard of flying from the average CPL if only because he has had to pass a more stringent flight test and endured further training. However, if the mistake arose because of a lack of experience and or training perhaps the instructor is less negligent that if he knowingly set off without an adequate pre-flight brief and without making every effort to maintain situational awareness throughout the flight.
I have sympathy with his lack of experience but do not feel that he was treated unjustly. I would however question the chain of command that allowed a naive and inexperienced instructor to get into such a situation.
Regardless of the level of licence that an Instructor rating is attached to that Instructor has to operate to the highest professional standard and understand that being in command is not just about getting hours in the log book it is about ensuring the flight is conducted safely and legally. The Instructor has an obligation to ensure that THEY are competent, qualified and experienced enough to undertake any flight they take on as commander. It is an Instructors duty to set the highest examples of professionalism and airmanship at all times. If they are not experienced enough then they must make this clear to the command chain and gain more experience before they attempt to put themselves into such a situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bose
I support your comments 100%.
You get straight to the heart of the matter, but that is fair in the circumstances.
Like you, I was concerned at a tone of injustice in the OPs post, command is absolute and so is the accountability that goes with it.
I support your comments 100%.
You get straight to the heart of the matter, but that is fair in the circumstances.
Like you, I was concerned at a tone of injustice in the OPs post, command is absolute and so is the accountability that goes with it.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Bose
I was of course very careful to point out that I was not making a judgement into which camp this gentleman fell. On the basis of your assessment then clearly his preparation as commander fell well short of the mark. Given the various views expressed on this thread it is a matter for the poster to reflect on the cause of the infrigement, whether the punishment was just and whether any action might have been taken against the PPL.
Examples such as this illustrate some of the potential pitfalls I pointed out of mentoring. One can easily imagine a very similiar situation where an apparently experienced PPL asks his mentor to accompany him to a field in an ATZ with which he is not familiar. Under the mentoring scheme the PPL is Commander but, and this is the rub, legally or otherwise the probability is the PPL will derogate to the experienced mentor because in his mind that is why the mentor is in the right seat. Indeed the mentor may well have said - worry not, I am pretty familiar with that area leave the navigation to me!
Of course the CAA will prosecute the PPL in the left seat and the mentor will shrug his shoulders, but who is at fault?
I was of course very careful to point out that I was not making a judgement into which camp this gentleman fell. On the basis of your assessment then clearly his preparation as commander fell well short of the mark. Given the various views expressed on this thread it is a matter for the poster to reflect on the cause of the infrigement, whether the punishment was just and whether any action might have been taken against the PPL.
Examples such as this illustrate some of the potential pitfalls I pointed out of mentoring. One can easily imagine a very similiar situation where an apparently experienced PPL asks his mentor to accompany him to a field in an ATZ with which he is not familiar. Under the mentoring scheme the PPL is Commander but, and this is the rub, legally or otherwise the probability is the PPL will derogate to the experienced mentor because in his mind that is why the mentor is in the right seat. Indeed the mentor may well have said - worry not, I am pretty familiar with that area leave the navigation to me!
Of course the CAA will prosecute the PPL in the left seat and the mentor will shrug his shoulders, but who is at fault?
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Fuji. This is not the appropriate place to discuss the mentoring scheme especially as you know so very little about it.
We are still setting up the scheme and both the MWG and IC are working together to make sure that Mentors know the limitations of the scheme and how to make sure no such confusion arises.
We are still setting up the scheme and both the MWG and IC are working together to make sure that Mentors know the limitations of the scheme and how to make sure no such confusion arises.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Bose - you can ignore AOPA's scheme as you wish as this is still work in progress but the point is generally valid whether the mentor is an AOPA appointee or just another PPL who reckons he knows what he is doing.
The point is whenever you place yourself in a position of being an instructor or a mentor in its most general context whether or not you are strictly in command there is a good chance the pilot in the left seat has already derogated some responsibility to you - you may not like it, or even be aware of it, but it doesnt make any difference.
I recall being in the middle of Germany with a mate who had done very little touring. When he got lost he was very quick to give me the stick and with a grin - its over to you now. I am sure you have been there.
If there is even a modicum of a chance that the pilot in command is relying on your skills it is well worth doing the job of the commander even if strictly it is not your responsibility.
The point is whenever you place yourself in a position of being an instructor or a mentor in its most general context whether or not you are strictly in command there is a good chance the pilot in the left seat has already derogated some responsibility to you - you may not like it, or even be aware of it, but it doesnt make any difference.
I recall being in the middle of Germany with a mate who had done very little touring. When he got lost he was very quick to give me the stick and with a grin - its over to you now. I am sure you have been there.
If there is even a modicum of a chance that the pilot in command is relying on your skills it is well worth doing the job of the commander even if strictly it is not your responsibility.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
From: Ireland
Must be great to be perfect boys
Takes more balls to admit you have made a mistake than to moan at the person concerned
The OP referred to a mistake HE made, took it on the knuckles and learned, was BRAVE enough to tell us about it.......... we reward him with our excellent advice, what he SHOULD have done WHERE he should have done it, the reason WHY it should not have happened .... facts
it did, he got reprimanded, learned from the episode, informed us the great unwashed.....
what does he get?
A pile of !!!!e from folk with time on their hands to live on pPrune and offer great fireside advice.
He doesn't need it, the fact he has spoken about it reinforces that, maybe glass houses and stones should be reflected upon.......
"but for the grace of God go I"
Takes more balls to admit you have made a mistake than to moan at the person concerned
The OP referred to a mistake HE made, took it on the knuckles and learned, was BRAVE enough to tell us about it.......... we reward him with our excellent advice, what he SHOULD have done WHERE he should have done it, the reason WHY it should not have happened .... facts
it did, he got reprimanded, learned from the episode, informed us the great unwashed.....
what does he get?
A pile of !!!!e from folk with time on their hands to live on pPrune and offer great fireside advice.
He doesn't need it, the fact he has spoken about it reinforces that, maybe glass houses and stones should be reflected upon.......
"but for the grace of God go I"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
He doesn't need it, the fact he has spoken about it reinforces that, maybe glass houses and stones should be reflected upon.......
Thanks for clearing that up Jonkil!!
