Presumed Guilty!
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: London UK
I am almost certain that the call was symbolic of some sort of official slap on the wrists. I have absolutely no doubt that the Man From The Ministry was who he proclaimed to be. I take an experience such as that as a positive thing; maybe it will make me think harder about the environmental effect of my aircraft. It might have even given me a 'check' on the leash and will lead to an improvement in personal standards.
I will turn it into a positive learning experience for myself. For that I thank Mr CAA Man.
The fact remains, however, that the allegation was ludicrous in the extreme. Nice weather coaxed lots of people into the air that day - Perhaps I was just the one that got singled out? Whatever lay behind it, there was clearly very little objective investigation made.
I will turn it into a positive learning experience for myself. For that I thank Mr CAA Man.
The fact remains, however, that the allegation was ludicrous in the extreme. Nice weather coaxed lots of people into the air that day - Perhaps I was just the one that got singled out? Whatever lay behind it, there was clearly very little objective investigation made.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Under the duvet
Just to clear a little detail up, the CAA do sometimes telephone first. They called me once re a Stansted airspace infringement. As it turned out a mate was flying my Yak that day; I gave them his phone number and they just had a little chat, NFA.
I think that perhaps they follow these things up because they have to, as an earlier poster mentioned, and a phone call is their informal way of seeing what substance there is to it. Sort of fits what you said, M14P.
I think that perhaps they follow these things up because they have to, as an earlier poster mentioned, and a phone call is their informal way of seeing what substance there is to it. Sort of fits what you said, M14P.
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: UK
M14
I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone from the CAA Enforcement section.
Yes, the CAA does presume pilots are guilty when they get a complaint.
Yes they do give more weight to the estimates/word of complainers than the word of the pilot who as an altimeter. The case mentioned by A&C is a good illustration.
Yes the CAA is heavy-handed with pilots, particularly GA pilots.
No, they aren't fair in the way they deal with complaints against pilots.
Put it down to experience. You've learnt some things lots of people don't realise, and it sounds as though you didn't till this happened.
I think you're very wise not to risk stirring up a can of worms by making a complaint to the CAA, just in case it was a genuine call. It sounds as if they realise the evidence they have isn't strong enough to prosecute - but why take the risk of being prosecuted.
The CAA can make your life a lot more difficult than you can make theirs.
Niknak
What did you mean by 'misleading advice'?
edit
Just noticed Westwind's comments.
" ..... unless there is definite proof, it ends up word against word and the complaint gets filed away because there is just no positive proof."
That is part of the CAA party line, and it's not true.
What is "definite proof"? In the BA Instructor case mentioned by A&C, they prosecuted even though they knew their witnesses were troublemakers who had a long history of protest against Wycombe and wanted the circuit moved from their houses.
Ken Lilley the head of Enforcement personally authorised the prosecution - which the CAA lost because BA supported the FI and got him represented by FL.
Welcome to Prune, Westwind.
I see it's your first post.
Which department of the CAA do you work in?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone from the CAA Enforcement section.
Yes, the CAA does presume pilots are guilty when they get a complaint.
Yes they do give more weight to the estimates/word of complainers than the word of the pilot who as an altimeter. The case mentioned by A&C is a good illustration.
Yes the CAA is heavy-handed with pilots, particularly GA pilots.
No, they aren't fair in the way they deal with complaints against pilots.
Put it down to experience. You've learnt some things lots of people don't realise, and it sounds as though you didn't till this happened.
I think you're very wise not to risk stirring up a can of worms by making a complaint to the CAA, just in case it was a genuine call. It sounds as if they realise the evidence they have isn't strong enough to prosecute - but why take the risk of being prosecuted.
The CAA can make your life a lot more difficult than you can make theirs.
Niknak
What did you mean by 'misleading advice'?
edit
Just noticed Westwind's comments.
" ..... unless there is definite proof, it ends up word against word and the complaint gets filed away because there is just no positive proof."
That is part of the CAA party line, and it's not true.
What is "definite proof"? In the BA Instructor case mentioned by A&C, they prosecuted even though they knew their witnesses were troublemakers who had a long history of protest against Wycombe and wanted the circuit moved from their houses.
Ken Lilley the head of Enforcement personally authorised the prosecution - which the CAA lost because BA supported the FI and got him represented by FL.
Welcome to Prune, Westwind.
I see it's your first post.
Which department of the CAA do you work in?
Last edited by virgin; 16th April 2002 at 23:11.
