Latest CAA prosecutions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest CAA prosecutions
Some of the stuff here is pretty amazing. This is a lot worse a collection than the reports I have read previously.
I notice they are now naming the defendants. I think, on balance, that's a good thing, because the names are in the PD anyway if you happen to read the local rags.
A real gem.
I notice they are now naming the defendants. I think, on balance, that's a good thing, because the names are in the PD anyway if you happen to read the local rags.
Mr Turton had issued a total of 492 EASA Form 1s
Last edited by peterh337; 29th Aug 2012 at 14:19.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South-East, United Kingdom
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see one guy was fined in total, just under £7,000 for what was essentially a very simple radio frequency selection error, which the pilot then assumed to be a radio malfunction. OK, it was a IFR non-precision approach procedure and involved a potential conflict with an airline sitting on the runway so the cost in lives or other damage could have been extremely high.
The pilot should have double-checked and then triple-checked his frequency selection once it was apparent he was not in contact with the tower controller, and I dont know what the loss of radio contact procedure is at Birmingham airport, but it shows that something so simple can be very costly to in the pocket, and ultimately very dangerous.
These reports remind us how little room there is for any error.
The pilot should have double-checked and then triple-checked his frequency selection once it was apparent he was not in contact with the tower controller, and I dont know what the loss of radio contact procedure is at Birmingham airport, but it shows that something so simple can be very costly to in the pocket, and ultimately very dangerous.
These reports remind us how little room there is for any error.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Peter
As you say some eye openers.
Is it only me who thinks some of the punishments are laughable, and there is no consistency between them.
The first one, Powell. No licence, CofA or insurance. £1000. Fairly pathetic. I've had a speeding fine approaching this.
£470 for dodgy form !'s. How much did they make on them?!
The worst in my opinion may be the examiner jackson. Committed the ultimate failure in the whole examining system, may have contributed to the death of two people and he gets costs!!
There are a few where the punishment seems reasonable, but again zero consistency, with people getting fines from £800-£2000 for more or less the same offence.
The other lesson to take from this, don't be a naughty pilot when there are Chief Pilots eager to stick you in watching, or people with camera phones!!!!!
Just seen your post Archer. I disagree. This could have been catastrophic. The guy didn't even see the 80 seat 25 odd Tonne airliner lined up on the runway. Started by a simple mistake but not remedied in the way an instrument rated pilot should have done so. Personally I think he got off lightly.
As you say some eye openers.
Is it only me who thinks some of the punishments are laughable, and there is no consistency between them.
The first one, Powell. No licence, CofA or insurance. £1000. Fairly pathetic. I've had a speeding fine approaching this.
£470 for dodgy form !'s. How much did they make on them?!
The worst in my opinion may be the examiner jackson. Committed the ultimate failure in the whole examining system, may have contributed to the death of two people and he gets costs!!
There are a few where the punishment seems reasonable, but again zero consistency, with people getting fines from £800-£2000 for more or less the same offence.
The other lesson to take from this, don't be a naughty pilot when there are Chief Pilots eager to stick you in watching, or people with camera phones!!!!!
Just seen your post Archer. I disagree. This could have been catastrophic. The guy didn't even see the 80 seat 25 odd Tonne airliner lined up on the runway. Started by a simple mistake but not remedied in the way an instrument rated pilot should have done so. Personally I think he got off lightly.
Last edited by silverknapper; 29th Aug 2012 at 15:46.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA vs. Barke is blatantly unfair. It was a declared emergency and the Sukhoi could have had structural damage, fuel leaks, control problems or anything. Things only a pilot could know and that would not be visible from the chase plane. Or even a radio malfunction. The emergency authority of the pilot overrules any kind of traffic clearance. Besides it was an A/G aerodrome, fer chrissakes.
Or do they want him to potentially burn in the air to satisfy their silly clearance-that-isn't-really-a-clearance-because-it's-not-a real-tower?
Or do they want him to potentially burn in the air to satisfy their silly clearance-that-isn't-really-a-clearance-because-it's-not-a real-tower?
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 29th Aug 2012 at 15:59.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
The worst in my opinion may be the examiner jackson. Committed the ultimate failure in the whole examining system, may have contributed to the death of two people and he gets costs!!
NS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The list does read a bit like a muppet parade 
Re consistency, I suppose that we have very little detail so this is bound to happen. A good lawyer is going to make a big difference, as will circumstances such as cocky attitude (or the opposite).
Re that TBM non-radio landing, I am in two minds on that one. There are two parts to it.
One is the lost comms, and under IFR there are international procedures for that and, in brief, they allow you to continue the flight and land at the filed time. It is a matter of debate whether you should, on losing comms on the final approach, go around, set 7600, return to the filed IAF, and faff around flying the IAP at a time not as filed and with ATC guessing your intentions, or just land which is IMHO the right thing. You do not get this under VFR. I am very suprised the CAA prosecuted this part; airliners are going "lost comms" all the time (ask any IFR sector ATCO privately) and it is invariably due to flying off out of range (easy at 150kt never mind 500kt) or mis-setting the radio.
The other is the runway conflict. We don't know what the pilot actually saw. He said he didn't see the other aircraft, so presumably there were witnesses saying he should have seen it.
Re consistency, I suppose that we have very little detail so this is bound to happen. A good lawyer is going to make a big difference, as will circumstances such as cocky attitude (or the opposite).
Re that TBM non-radio landing, I am in two minds on that one. There are two parts to it.
One is the lost comms, and under IFR there are international procedures for that and, in brief, they allow you to continue the flight and land at the filed time. It is a matter of debate whether you should, on losing comms on the final approach, go around, set 7600, return to the filed IAF, and faff around flying the IAP at a time not as filed and with ATC guessing your intentions, or just land which is IMHO the right thing. You do not get this under VFR. I am very suprised the CAA prosecuted this part; airliners are going "lost comms" all the time (ask any IFR sector ATCO privately) and it is invariably due to flying off out of range (easy at 150kt never mind 500kt) or mis-setting the radio.
The other is the runway conflict. We don't know what the pilot actually saw. He said he didn't see the other aircraft, so presumably there were witnesses saying he should have seen it.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly it appears there is unfairness, but all we see are the summaries, in some cases there may be mitigating circumstances, in others there may be things that aggravate the offence, unless you attend the separate hearings or read the full transcripts I would suggest it is not fair to judge!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given some of these fines not sure how effective this will be as a deterrent. I mean given what the chap who hauled pax without an AOC got you might be tempted to take a calculated risk 
Golf-Sierra
Golf-Sierra
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting post Peter, many thanks.
This vid seems to be from one of those prosecuted ;
On 25 July 2011, at about 5.45pm, a man walking his dog along the foreshore at Bracklesham Bay heard an engine noise and, looking along the beach, he saw what he described as a microlight aircraft coming towards him at 10 feet a.g.l. The dog-walker took three photographs with this digital camera. The photographs showed a powered paraglider at a very low height, close to people on the beach and a building. A YouTube clip entitled ‘X3medel’ was found which recorded the powered paraglider flying low over the area behind the beach, in particular a windmill in the village and houses close to the shore. The incident created a furore in the local paragliding community. On 2 September 2011, a man came into the Foreshore office and identified himself as the person about whom there had been complaints. He gave his name as Peter Tadial. In interview under caution, Mr Tadial said that he thought he could fly as low as he liked in the UK as European rules did not apply.
On 28 February 2012, at Worthing Magistrates’ Court, Mr Tadial pleaded guilty to flying closer than 500 feet to a person, vessel, vehicle or structure (Rule 5(3)(b), Rules of the Air Regulations 2007). He was fined £500 and ordered to pay costs of £500.
I realise that this is a great fun to do, if only I were younger ;-)
But read your air law guys !!
This vid seems to be from one of those prosecuted ;
On 25 July 2011, at about 5.45pm, a man walking his dog along the foreshore at Bracklesham Bay heard an engine noise and, looking along the beach, he saw what he described as a microlight aircraft coming towards him at 10 feet a.g.l. The dog-walker took three photographs with this digital camera. The photographs showed a powered paraglider at a very low height, close to people on the beach and a building. A YouTube clip entitled ‘X3medel’ was found which recorded the powered paraglider flying low over the area behind the beach, in particular a windmill in the village and houses close to the shore. The incident created a furore in the local paragliding community. On 2 September 2011, a man came into the Foreshore office and identified himself as the person about whom there had been complaints. He gave his name as Peter Tadial. In interview under caution, Mr Tadial said that he thought he could fly as low as he liked in the UK as European rules did not apply.
On 28 February 2012, at Worthing Magistrates’ Court, Mr Tadial pleaded guilty to flying closer than 500 feet to a person, vessel, vehicle or structure (Rule 5(3)(b), Rules of the Air Regulations 2007). He was fined £500 and ordered to pay costs of £500.
I realise that this is a great fun to do, if only I were younger ;-)
But read your air law guys !!
Last edited by coldair; 29th Aug 2012 at 16:03.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Barke was him getting done for flying like a **** before the emergency actions and him landing after being asked to hold off
Personally if I had a suspected structural issue I would be landing ASAP anyway and if that cost me 3k I would be more than happy to pay it.
But then again I wouldn't have been flying across parked aircraft and the crowd line which was the endangering persons bit. So I reckon I would have a pretty good chance of pleading not guilty to the flying side of things. Maybe not so though of the verbal assault charge when I told the AG operator what I though of thier idea of keeping a potentially damaged aircraft in the air while we waited for the firebrigade to turn up.
Personally if I had a suspected structural issue I would be landing ASAP anyway and if that cost me 3k I would be more than happy to pay it.
But then again I wouldn't have been flying across parked aircraft and the crowd line which was the endangering persons bit. So I reckon I would have a pretty good chance of pleading not guilty to the flying side of things. Maybe not so though of the verbal assault charge when I told the AG operator what I though of thier idea of keeping a potentially damaged aircraft in the air while we waited for the firebrigade to turn up.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the AAIB Report, I'm guessing Mr Barke was prosecuted for the botched takeoff rather than the landing. Edit - mj puts it much better...
How did the second Mr Jeffries manage to infringe the TMZ with a functioning Mode S?
Why is no mention made of licenses (when held...) being revoked etc? Is this done by the CAA outside of the courts?
Agreed though - mostly a bunch of muppets that got off lightly - with the possible exception of the no radio pilot.
How did the second Mr Jeffries manage to infringe the TMZ with a functioning Mode S?
Why is no mention made of licenses (when held...) being revoked etc? Is this done by the CAA outside of the courts?
Agreed though - mostly a bunch of muppets that got off lightly - with the possible exception of the no radio pilot.
Last edited by ppl_fresher; 29th Aug 2012 at 16:21.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its very rare the CAA pulls a ticket or even suspends them.
Its actually quite nice to see the courts banning them from flying in UK airspace.
Also in quite a few instances its either another NAA who the license is with if they have one at all.
And the word that got **** out wasn't the obvious one which certainly fits the bill.
Its actually quite nice to see the courts banning them from flying in UK airspace.
Also in quite a few instances its either another NAA who the license is with if they have one at all.
And the word that got **** out wasn't the obvious one which certainly fits the bill.
Last edited by mad_jock; 29th Aug 2012 at 16:30.
@piperarcher: even if I do realise it is easy to judge from a distance, and with plenty of time available for thought, still I think the main issue was the landing at a runway with an aeroplane on it. Radio or not, that is a grave offense; and rightly so imo.
On top of that, not receiving any kind of comm's on the supposed tower frequency ought to have raised some kind of questions, and switching back to the approach frequency would surely have brought a degree of improvement. Why wasn't that done? The radio excuse seems feeble, sorry if that sounds harsh.
But I admit it is easy to judge from a distance - I won't, but I do wonder.
BTW the report doesn't mention the use of light signals - aren't tower staff supposed to clear the dust from their Aldis lamps in this kind of situation? Aldis lights are (or at least were at some time) mandatory equipment, ISTR?
On top of that, not receiving any kind of comm's on the supposed tower frequency ought to have raised some kind of questions, and switching back to the approach frequency would surely have brought a degree of improvement. Why wasn't that done? The radio excuse seems feeble, sorry if that sounds harsh.
But I admit it is easy to judge from a distance - I won't, but I do wonder.
BTW the report doesn't mention the use of light signals - aren't tower staff supposed to clear the dust from their Aldis lamps in this kind of situation? Aldis lights are (or at least were at some time) mandatory equipment, ISTR?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There might be a change of CAA attitude after Ian Weston, the former CAA head of prosecutions (who was actually on the DfT payroll) retired a couple of years ago or so.
The foreign reg aerial work policy is "owned" by the DfT, not the CAA.
In the past, the prosecutions had rather more "missing AOC" cases.
Light signals are long gone from most UK airports.
The foreign reg aerial work policy is "owned" by the DfT, not the CAA.
In the past, the prosecutions had rather more "missing AOC" cases.
Light signals are long gone from most UK airports.
Last edited by peterh337; 29th Aug 2012 at 17:22.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the Birmingham incident...
I don't think fining the guy was the right thing to do, yes he should have checked back with the last frequency but considering the suspected radio failure I can imagine a lot of pilots doing the same as he did under the pressure of the moment.
As for not seeing the Q400 the AAIB actually stated in their report that it would have been likely that the pilot would not see the aircraft considering the colour of the runway surface in that area and the likely focus point for viewing the runway from the approach path.
It was a poor display of airmanship perhaps but I fail to see the point in fining guy.
I don't think fining the guy was the right thing to do, yes he should have checked back with the last frequency but considering the suspected radio failure I can imagine a lot of pilots doing the same as he did under the pressure of the moment.
As for not seeing the Q400 the AAIB actually stated in their report that it would have been likely that the pilot would not see the aircraft considering the colour of the runway surface in that area and the likely focus point for viewing the runway from the approach path.
It was a poor display of airmanship perhaps but I fail to see the point in fining guy.
Last edited by Contacttower; 29th Aug 2012 at 17:58.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did the second Mr Jeffries manage to infringe the TMZ with a functioning Mode S?
I think I have read somewhere that Mode-S transponders may respond to a certain special interrogation signal, even if they're in STBY mode. But I am by no means sure about that.
With regard to the paramotor pilot...
I still cannot believe that no licence whatsoever is req to operate these things...or even anything in the way of an air law exam...the mind boggles,
Just the kind of behaviour one would expect with such unregulated system.
I still cannot believe that no licence whatsoever is req to operate these things...or even anything in the way of an air law exam...the mind boggles,
Just the kind of behaviour one would expect with such unregulated system.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, as a licensed pilot in an aircraft costing well upwards of 100.000 euros (new), doing 100 knots or more behind a 160 HP or more engine, would you rather have those paramotors together with you up in the 1000 to 3000 feet altitude band?
I personally would rather see them at 50 feet over the sea, lakes, rivers and such. For some reason that seems a lot less dangerous.
I personally would rather see them at 50 feet over the sea, lakes, rivers and such. For some reason that seems a lot less dangerous.