Pilot prosecuted for irritating rival football fans
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot prosecuted for irritating rival football fans
The court was told one person in the crowd also thought the aircraft was so low it was going to crash into the stadium. 
The prosecution was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority after a complaint from someone within the ground.
The prosecution was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority after a complaint from someone within the ground.
Pilot made blues fans see red
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I don't see how, in the lack of evidence of the actual altitude flown, this accusation can be upheld.
If the report is correct, the pivotal evidence appears to be a complaint by a member of the public.
If the report is correct, the pivotal evidence appears to be a complaint by a member of the public.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Daventry
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glide clear
He said he did not believe the aircraft could have glided to an emergency landing site at Newton Heath.
.MM
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Manchester CTR is Class D airspace so Mode C is not mandatory. Nor is a transponder, for that matter.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Daventry
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glide clear
The clue is there:glide clear which by suggestion is clear of any potential hazards which includes people,there is no requirement to make it to an emergency landing site ( whatever one of those is).
MM
MM
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The overriding factor is to not put anybody or anything on the ground in harm.
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
Angelina Jolie did her flying in N939RJ, Red and White Archer III. It is the one they are stood infront of in the picture - and the one I did my IR in
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Warwick
Age: 42
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It strikes me that without a definite height the CAA surely can't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. Does "reasonable doubt" remain the standard for this type of conviction?
And the suggestion by the CAA that the transponder " had not been switched to the correct mode" is ludicrous. They should know better - while we all should use Mode C if it is available, it isn't a legal requirement then he shouldn't be accused of using it incorrectly in a court. I hope that either there is some severe journalistic licence being used here, or that the defending solicitor rips this statement to pieces.
Of course, within the flying fraternity I would like to ask why Mode C wasn't selected if he had nothing to hide? Was it just inop, no Alt Encoder perhaps? Who knows, but one expects the CAA to be at least accurate!
And the suggestion by the CAA that the transponder " had not been switched to the correct mode" is ludicrous. They should know better - while we all should use Mode C if it is available, it isn't a legal requirement then he shouldn't be accused of using it incorrectly in a court. I hope that either there is some severe journalistic licence being used here, or that the defending solicitor rips this statement to pieces.
Of course, within the flying fraternity I would like to ask why Mode C wasn't selected if he had nothing to hide? Was it just inop, no Alt Encoder perhaps? Who knows, but one expects the CAA to be at least accurate!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aunty Betty’s fun police won’t let me open the link. Probably totally irrelevant but was he flying SVFR? I suspect he would be.
Rules of The Air and Air Traffic Control Rule 5 (3) (c)
Special VFR clearance and notified routes
Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made at other than a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.
Special VFR clearance and notified routes
Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made at other than a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
It was more likely to be a VFR flight in Class D airspace unless the weather or time of day (night!) made the zone otherwise IFR.
But the 1,000 ft rule probably isn't the main concern [or the 1,500 ft rule (!) incorrectly mentioned in the press report].
But the 1,000 ft rule probably isn't the main concern [or the 1,500 ft rule (!) incorrectly mentioned in the press report].
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SVFR only gives you exemption from the 1000ft rule, Rule 5(3)(c). It does not exempt your from the 'Land Clear' rule, Rule 5(3)(d)
I guess you can't really get the accurate story unless you were sitting in the courtroom, I'm amazed that posters here rely on what a journalist writes as an accurate record of fact.......
I guess you can't really get the accurate story unless you were sitting in the courtroom, I'm amazed that posters here rely on what a journalist writes as an accurate record of fact.......
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
What ho, Chuffer. Who does?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Like I said in my post earlier.
"Presumably the CAA must feel they have a case."...
"Presumably the CAA must feel they have a case."...
Ask Flying Lawyer about some of his defence successes...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: EGTT
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends what is classed as gliding clear or congested area.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said in my post earlier.
"Presumably the CAA must feel they have a case."...
"Presumably the CAA must feel they have a case."...
having a case can mean nothing and often prosecutions appear to be made more to set a clarification or precedance for future prosecutions.
There appears to be no evidence on the altitude flown only that which is admitted by the pilot himself ie 1300 on the QNH which nicely by coincidence keeps him in the 1000 ft rule.
That leaves the piece of scrubland for a landing which the prosecution claim had some houses close by if he got the landing wrong so it didnt count.
What a load of rubbish! you could get it wrong landing a 150 at Heathrow, You could get it wrong landing an airline in the Hudson. They are still landing sites. Finally it is up to the pilot to go for a smooth touchdown or wreck the plane to avoid hitting houses.
The CAA are their own worst enemy as they could legislate that aircraft having mode C must have it on at all times. It is common practice for pilots who are doing what they shouldnt be doing to turn mode C off.
Pace