Help needed with legal scenario...

[Jev Flyer]

I'm merely an LLB student who regrettably opted for an Aviation module. We haven't been taught anything in relation to the scenario, as it's more of a self-study research type assignment.

Legal research is about researching the law not posting the question on a forum. Is that how you intend to practice when you qualify?

Get off the internet and into some legal research tools.

[englishal]

There is not enough information an too many variables in the original post and the only thing Peter is guilty of is busting Luton's airspace. The IR is an irrelevant red herring.

With regards to flying in the airways, that is a highly unlikely UK scenario due to the nature of their CAS as one cannot be VFR in a UK airway. If he was then it was illegal, but I think the question is written with other classes of airway in mind where VFR is possible.

In the USA or France, then possibly I could see this scenario happening....But despite having a lapsed IR, he probably had an IMC rating (doesn't an IR revert to an IMC when it time expires?), and therefore if the weather became IMC nothing changes or matters.

Besides Peter may have held a CAA CPL which allows for life time IMC privileges. Or he may also have held a foreign IR which allows for IMC outside CAS without formality....who knows.

[IO540]

Get off the internet and into some legal research tools.

I think you need to visit a modern university...

My other half is a university teacher, and does MA and PhD supervision.

The stuff I see her bring home is absolutely staggering. Nowadays most postgrad students are foreign and are sent here to get educated because in their home country they are nobody without a "management degree", the majority of them can barely write in English, and totally in-your-face plagiarism (I mean copy/paste of whole essays from the internet, even leaving the page numbers within the text) is the norm. Most "humanities" Masters degrees are basically bogus nowadays, and PhD work is not a lot better, with the students getting a huge amount of help in return for their massive fees. It's a business!

What this chap is doing is not bad but he is asking a simple question to which there is a huge long answer. I suspect the assignment was written by some clue-less person to start with. Pointing him to the ANO itself is not going to help much because the ANO is virtually unreadable.

Legal databases are good for precedents but there are very few of those in this game. The UK CAA prefers to not have too many grey areas clarified so they prosecute only obvious cases (like beating up a stewardess, or politically visible CAS busts) and do various deals.

[mad_jock]

Current Jar license CPL/ATPL have no IMC rights for life.

If you wish an IMC you have to pay for it off the back of your SPA-IR.

Once your IR has lapsed you have no rights to fly in IMC.

Orginally they said that your IMC rating was kept valid by holding a MPA-IR but they changed that and now you have to do the test like any other holder.

Myself I don't actually mind doing the test as I fly SPA imc very rarely the test is more of a training exercise in partial panel work than anything else as my work machine is EFIS.

Apparently you can keep your SPA-IR valid by experence if you hold a MPA-IR on some type. I don't know the ins and outs of it but personally the partial panel work needs to be done and I get the whole lot signed off at mates rates with the examiner.

[Fuji Abound]

Of course I dont mind everyone discussing it, and in any event what does it matter what I think.

For me it is just not of interest because the question is far too general, not very realistic, and it is doubtful the poster will be able to understand or produce a meaningful paper with so little apparent understanding of the issues.

However, it is a jolly good thing that some of you want to help him out and give him a steer in the "right" direction - after all I guess there are less interesting things to discuss like should we be saying "Roger" or "visual".

[Vizsla]

Presumably Peter & Liz are now dead so who cares

[The Old Fat One]

Legal research is about researching the law not posting the question on a forum. Is that how you intend to practice when you qualify?

Get off the internet and into some legal research tools

Jev Flyer,

Your post reminds me of the old adage...

In every group there is always one, and if you don't know who it is, it is probably you.

There is not enough information an too many variables in the original post and the only thing Peter is guilty of is busting Luton's airspace.

Only?

[wsmempson]

Aviationunenthusiast, it sounds to me as if you need an hour or so in front of a 1/500,000 chart with someone who is a pilot, in order to make sense of the questions that you've asked.

PM me and, if you buy the beer somewhere in west london, I'll do just that!

[Nibbler]

wsmempson - great idea!

I was going to suggest was for our young law student to go visit an airfield on a wet and windy day and buy a bored looking FI a nice cup of coffee...

[Trinity 09L]

Aviationunenthusitwotsit

I am somewhat puzzled why you have an aviation module. There is a very limited need for this legal advice in this area, and already plenty of Counsel. It would be better to concentrate on contractual aviation law (more profitable & busier + rewarding). Is your lecturer familiar with this area? how will they check your answers - post here?

[Jev Flyer]

Jev Flyer,

Your post reminds me of the old adage...

In every group there is always one, and if you don't know who it is, it is probably you.

The Old Fat One - I think you must be right since I don't understand what you are trying to say. I can only presume that its an insult so thanks for your friendly welcome. Or perhaps the 'one' is you since you are the only one who has chosen gratuitously to insult another poster (assuming that is what you have intended to do - if not my apologies).

The legal training of the original poster seems a long way away from the establishments at which I teach. He (or she) needs a wake up call if they intend to practice law in the future. If a student is set a legal question, they should be researching the answer not asking on an internet forum.

My 2p worth is that everyone here is being misguidedly helpful to a person who describes themselves as someone who 'regrettably opted' for an aviation module and is an Aviation Unenthusiast. If they want a hint, try volume 2 of Halsbury's (Air Law).

[Whopity]

We haven't been taught anything in relation to the scenario, as it's more of a self-study research type assignment.

Probably explains why the average lawyer makes such an arse of himself in aviation cases whilst the few that fly run rings around them.

[LH2]

The legal training of the original poster seems a long way away from the establishments at which I teach

That is a big compliment to the original poster, in light of the following comment:

they should be researching the answer not asking on an internet forum

and your previous, which probably ticked a few people the wrong way as well:

Get off the internet and into some legal research tools.

I'm not sure in which cave you teach, but modern, reputable, and efficient training establishments will expect you to use the internet as one of your first stops (and let me give you a hint why you should). If it's good enough for MIT and Stanford, both of which encourage it, I don't see why it shouldn't be good enough for you.

With that said, you are told "here's a scenario for you to research", you are given no help, and you have no clue whatsoever about the subject matter... turning to a relevant internet forum seems like a pretty good first stop. He's reached a bigger audience than by driving to an airfield and came up with a few good leads. Also, some of the most knowledgeable people in aviation law in the UK contribute to this forum regularly and have in the past offered invaluable insights.

My 2p worth

No, it isn't worth nowhere near that much.

is that everyone here is being misguidedly helpful

Since when is being helpful "misguided"? Again, in your cave maybe.

to a person who describes themselves as someone who 'regrettably opted' for an aviation module and is an Aviation Unenthusiast

So you've never been in a position where you thought "this course seems like a really good idea", only to then find out that no it wasn't at all, when it's too late to turn back? It could also be that the course is in fact good, but it's being taught by one of those incompetent gits of which there always has been such an abundance, that like making everyone's lives miserable.

If they want a hint, try volume 2 of Halsbury's (Air Law).

Ah, very good. So our esteemed fellow will come out of the library being able to recite the ANO by heart, while still not knowing what controlled airspace or an instrument rating are, or what an aeroplane looks like for that matter. Very clever indeed.

Btw, all questions are rhetoric. I feel a bit guilty every time a new three-poster takes up residence in my killfile. Oh well, it's just an extra four bytes of storage (plus overhead)

[Jev Flyer]

LH2 thanks for your comments. Let's agree to disagree on some things without my needing to take up residence in your killfile!

I think you have misunderstood my comment on the internet. I agree its a useful (indeed now vital) research tool but that wasn't what I was trying to say. Its how you use it which matters.

There are basically 2 types of legal education (indeed any education). So called 'chalk & talk' and 'learning by doing'. The former is somebody lecturing others as to what the law is. This can be done in a classroom, over the internet or many other ways. The latter is setting the student an assignment, case study or the like and the learn by solving it. 'Learning by doing' is what I do where I 'teach' (actually they tend to prefer to describe it as facilitate learning). I consider this much more progressive - its the chalk and talk that is for cavemen.

The OP has been to lectures and so should have been taught the basic legal framework (if he hasn't he simply needs to get his head down & teach himself it). He has now been set some learning by doing. If we do it for him, he learns nothing.

The key skill in being a lawyer is how you move from merely knowing the law to applying it to the facts and so giving the client good practical advice. By telling the OP what we think that advice should be we are depriving him of learning that key skill.

I would therefore suggest the following for the OP, looking the first part of the question (from memory)

1. Revise lecture notes as to classes of airspace.
2. If lectures no good, or to supplement (1) obtain at least one of the three below
(a) student text on air law.
(b) practitioners work on air law.
(c) Halsbury's vol 2.
I would use (c) because I have it to hand but you will probably be better with (a).
3. Educate oneself as to airspace classification in the UK.
4. Now move to the facts, check chart to determine the classification (and any other characteristics) of the airspace above Luton at relevant altitude.
5. Back to the law - having identified airspace research rights and obligations for that class of airspace. This should give you the 'answer' as to what laws have been broken.
6. Check provisions setting out penalties for breaking laws identified in step 5.
7. Preferably double check everything with source material (easily found over internet).
8. Possibly search for secondary material - precedents and/or any CAA material as to practical consequences of busting the airspace (again the internet is invaluable).

Our OP won't come away knowing the ANO - he'll have come away having used the source material to discover the answer and learnt both the law and the skills to be a real lawyer in the process.

I think thats worth at least 2p

Final comment - I'm trying to teach him how to do his homework. I think I am qualified to do that. I believe it would be wrong to do it for him (and note IO540 experience which I am trying to avoid). Besides with my PPL law I can't do his homework without myself following steps 1 to 8 above!

[BackPacker]

5. Back to the law - having identified airspace research rights and obligations for that class of airspace. This should give you the 'answer' as to what laws have been broken.

You jump to conclusions too early here. Wandering into controlled airspace without a clearance is not the only law that got broken in this scenario.

He could conceivably also be "done" for:
- Failing to plan his flight properly, or failing to fly the plan.
- Failing to adhere to his license restrictions (VMC only).
That's just from the limited description of the scenario. And we haven't discussed generic laws like "endangering goods or people" yet.

What might be a good next step before you jump to the "airspace bust" conclusion is to pull a few AAIB reports of similar incidents, and see what sort of things the AAIB checks by default (things like license/currency/experience of the pilot, maintenance history/airworthiness of the aircraft, flight preparation including fuel planning, weather) before they go into the description of the incident/accident.

In aviation there's too much redundancy built into the system for an incident/accident to have a single cause. We occasionally compare aviation safety to a few slices of swiss cheese. An incident/accident only occurs if multiple holes line up simultaneously. It's important to identify all the holes that lined up before you jump to a conclusion.

[englishal]

- Failing to adhere to his license restrictions (VMC only).

Objection !!!

Supposition.

He could hold a CAA CPL which DOES entitle one to IMC privileges. Besides only the pilot can report in flight visibility, for the CAA to prove this would be impossible.

Perhaps he could argue he had some sort of emergency or potential emergency which distracted him, which then allows for him to break any and every ANO rule....(like flying under Skye bridge )....

The CAA would need to prove he endangered people by showing radar traces of near misses to support that last one.

I guess this is why the CAA doesn't prosecute that often.....too technical, too difficult to prove anything.

[BackPacker]

Well, if he admits that he actually flew in cloud, and that his IMC/IR had lapsed (as was written in the scenario) then what further proof does the CAA need?

Obviously any lawyer worth his salt will prevent such an admission from being given in the first place and then indeed it becomes a matter of not what laws have been breached, but what laws can be proven to have been breached.

All I'm saying is that the airspace bust, although a breach of law in itself, may have several causes, some of which may also be breaches of the law. So the paper should not focus on the airspace bust exclusively, but also look at the events that preceded it. And AAIB reports always follow a very good structure for determining this sequence of events.

[SpeedbirdXK8]

I would have thought a law student learnt about laws and how to apply them not the "what ifs". Most lawyers I know answer the "what if" question by saying "lets cross that bridge if you get there!". I agree with an earlier post; reading that scenario dear old Peter doesn't have a PPL or IMC and both he and Liz would be dead and Liz's family would be suing Peters' for negligence.

[IO540]

Incidentally, can you get done for illegal IFR if you state (e.g. in writing) that you flew in cloud while "VFR"?

I thought this was impossible to prosecute, because a self-implication like that can always be retracted. The writer can say "I was only kidding" and bang goes the prosecution evidence.

There have been loads of cases of pilots writing about having done illegal stuff. Some in the UK mags too - I recall one bloke writing about flying in IMC in France, on his IMCR.

I am sure there is case law on this...

[24Carrot]

I believe you can get done for "wasting police time", though I don't know if that would apply to a CAA investigation.
So best retract pretty quick!