Pilot Fined Following Serious Infringement
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just doesn't add up, and so I'm less likely to believe to that CAA didn't contact the pilot before prosecuting. I didn't think evidence could be used in court that was not disclosed to the defendant beforehand, so there must have been some communication before the case got to the magistrates court.
As for your last point the prosecution are not obliged to serve all of their evidence in the magistrates court however they did on this occasion (the CAA always do). Yes, there was communication before the day in court, the CAA sent him the evidence when they sent him the summons.
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Read my earlier post. The CAA never spoke to him, they never interviewed him, they never got his side of the story, he never displayed an attitude to them because he never got the chance. Possibly because they were running up against the 6 month time limit in which to bring a summons they simply went ahead and prosecuted.
I am not saying this to be critical of the CAA but because you seem to have (are convinced of) a pre-determined view of the pilot as an individual without knowing the facts.
Read my earlier post. The CAA never spoke to him, they never interviewed him, they never got his side of the story, he never displayed an attitude to them because he never got the chance. Possibly because they were running up against the 6 month time limit in which to bring a summons they simply went ahead and prosecuted.
I am not saying this to be critical of the CAA but because you seem to have (are convinced of) a pre-determined view of the pilot as an individual without knowing the facts.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally incorrect? I would agree that "they never spoke to him" might give the impression that there was no communication when and was poor drafting on my part. The point I was answering was whether he had given his explanation and had thereby failed the attitude test. As I said in my initial post, the CAA had asked for his documentation, he was aware they were investigating the infringement and thus they had been in contact with him. However, he was not interviewed and did not give his side of the story to the CAA. A point I believe that he made in court - hence his statement that the decision to prosecute him was "harsh."
Last edited by Legalapproach; 22nd Apr 2013 at 13:52.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did indeed read that post Peter. Before I posted. He still tried to bull**** his way out of it. I don't see what difference the post you refer to makes. See and avoid and ANC. All fairly weak arguments given his obvious lack of SA.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they are the prosecuting party are they even allowed to interview him and discuss matters without screwing with the case?
They would have to caution him and if they didn't that would cause issues. And if they did caution him that would have seemed heavy handed and would have limited what he could discuss.
So it seems to me that they have to decide if the prosecution is going ahead before that initial contact.
The fact that the dept that deals with this sort of thing is staffed with ex policemen and lawyers and not pilots. It would seem that even if there was a discussion it would be a bit limited with either party understanding each other.
If it was the pilot side of things do they even have anyone that would be able to talk constructively with him without making a prosecution impossible?
They would have to caution him and if they didn't that would cause issues. And if they did caution him that would have seemed heavy handed and would have limited what he could discuss.
So it seems to me that they have to decide if the prosecution is going ahead before that initial contact.
The fact that the dept that deals with this sort of thing is staffed with ex policemen and lawyers and not pilots. It would seem that even if there was a discussion it would be a bit limited with either party understanding each other.
If it was the pilot side of things do they even have anyone that would be able to talk constructively with him without making a prosecution impossible?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: lONDON
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal approach
I find your comments interesting. I find it very hard to believe that the CAA would have gone ahead with a prosecution without speaking to the pilot. Without knowing his side of the story, the chances of a successful prosecution would be unknown. I can think of no legal examples when a decision to prosecute would not have included a statement from the "defendant".
Could you please tell us what your involvement has been with this case? You've seen the radar traces, know the CAA didn't interview him and other info not widely in the public domain.
Lastly, the article mentions that the pilot considered the decision "harsh" because it was a technical breach and not a flagrant one! So that's ok then!
Totally incorrect? I would agree that "they never spoke to him" might give the impression that there was no communication when and was poor drafting on my part. The point I was answering was whether he had given his explanation and had thereby failed the attitude test. As I said in my initial post, the CAA had asked for his documentation, he was aware they were investigating the infringement and thus they had been in contact with him. However, he was not interviewed and did not give his side of the story to the CAA. A point I believe that he made in court - hence his statement that the decision to prosecute him was "harsh."
Could you please tell us what your involvement has been with this case? You've seen the radar traces, know the CAA didn't interview him and other info not widely in the public domain.
Lastly, the article mentions that the pilot considered the decision "harsh" because it was a technical breach and not a flagrant one! So that's ok then!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the newspaper reports are right, the CAA's approach seems reasonable. On the other hand, if LegalApproach is correct, it does seem an unusually strong response from the CAA. Specifically, in a case with minimal collision risk (given he was visible on Radar and ATC shut down arrivals and departures ) the CAA appear to have chosen not to ask any questions but go direct to prosecution, which is not in keeping with past practice. If true, does this have implication for a general move to prosecution vs education or is there some additional background information that provides context.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zorax
You do seem to find an awful lot hard to believe. I know of plenty of legal examples where a decision to prosecute is taken without a statement from the defendant largely because defendants decline to say anything or it is unnecessary. Speeding is a good example, if you get a speeding notice through the post the only information they want is whether or not you were the driver. You are never asked for an explanation as to why you were speeding.
In fact I did a case today where the defendant, charged with robbery, refused to be interviewed and so we had no statement from him. We were still confident in the chances of a successful prosecution and we were right - he's now doing 7 years.
In this case the CAA did not need to know what the pilot's explanation was in order to assess the chances of a successful prosecution. Provided they had enough evidence to show that he was the pilot of the relevant aircraft and it entered the Stansted Zone and Luton Zone without the permission of the relevant air traffic control unit they had enough of a case.
All I have tried to do with regard to this case is inject some factual accuracy because of the wild speculation that some posters were mistakenly involving themselves in. You can take the information or leave it.
My involvement in this matter is irrelevant. If I told you what it was, on current form, you probably wouldn't believe me.
I find it very hard to believe that the CAA would have gone ahead with a prosecution without speaking to the pilot. Without knowing his side of the story, the chances of a successful prosecution would be unknown. I can think of no legal examples when a decision to prosecute would not have included a statement from the "defendant".
In fact I did a case today where the defendant, charged with robbery, refused to be interviewed and so we had no statement from him. We were still confident in the chances of a successful prosecution and we were right - he's now doing 7 years.
In this case the CAA did not need to know what the pilot's explanation was in order to assess the chances of a successful prosecution. Provided they had enough evidence to show that he was the pilot of the relevant aircraft and it entered the Stansted Zone and Luton Zone without the permission of the relevant air traffic control unit they had enough of a case.
All I have tried to do with regard to this case is inject some factual accuracy because of the wild speculation that some posters were mistakenly involving themselves in. You can take the information or leave it.
My involvement in this matter is irrelevant. If I told you what it was, on current form, you probably wouldn't believe me.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm_flynn
Stansted infringements are a sensitive issue. I am not going to criticise the CAA. They do not in fact conduct that many prosecutions but if you look at their lists of prosecutions you will find that Stansted Zone incursions feature a fair few times compared with other airspace infringements. That's not to say there are a lot but they are taken seriously.
Stansted infringements are a sensitive issue. I am not going to criticise the CAA. They do not in fact conduct that many prosecutions but if you look at their lists of prosecutions you will find that Stansted Zone incursions feature a fair few times compared with other airspace infringements. That's not to say there are a lot but they are taken seriously.
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legalapproach your involvement with pilot in this case fascinates me. Either you have chosen to spin a yarn about the pilot not being interviewed and not given the opportunity to explain his side of the story or perhaps the pilot has relayed a different version of events to you?
Either way, you are sadly misinformed as to the events surrounding this case and the safety significance of this particular infringement.
Either way, you are sadly misinformed as to the events surrounding this case and the safety significance of this particular infringement.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears we have two separate parties here, each with a direct personal involvement, and each of whom totally disagree with the other's version of events.
Last edited by flybymike; 22nd Apr 2013 at 22:43.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zorax
You clearly have limited or no experience of criminal proceedings.
TC_LTN
I have known Legalapproach, professionally and personally, for about 30 years. He would not 'spin a yarn'. He is also very experienced and very able; he would not make assertions without ensuring that they are correct.
Surely it must obvious by now that he is in a position to say with certainty that the pilot was not interviewed, and equally obvious why he is in a position to say so.
When I did aviation cases, in my former professional life, it was unusual for the CAA not to interview a pilot (or offer the opportunity to be interviewed) but it did happen from time to time.
flybymike
Only one of them is in a position to know whether the pilot was interviewed.
He says the pilot wasn't.
Legalapproach
Good informative and balanced posts.
I know, from years' of reading and posting on PPRuNe, that there will always be people who continue to believe that a pilot's 'attitude' when interviewed by the CAA influences whether there will be a prosecution. You and I know that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't but, however hard you try, there will be those who remain unconvinced.
Some even believe it is the determining factor, and adamantly refuse to allow the facts to interfere with their theory.
That's a pity.
FL
I find it very hard to believe that the CAA would have gone ahead with a prosecution without speaking to the pilot. Without knowing his side of the story, the chances of a successful prosecution would be unknown. I can think of no legal examples when a decision to prosecute would not have included a statement from the "defendant".
TC_LTN
Either you have chosen to spin a yarn about the pilot not being interviewed and not given the opportunity to explain his side of the story or perhaps the pilot has relayed a different version of events to you?
Surely it must obvious by now that he is in a position to say with certainty that the pilot was not interviewed, and equally obvious why he is in a position to say so.
When I did aviation cases, in my former professional life, it was unusual for the CAA not to interview a pilot (or offer the opportunity to be interviewed) but it did happen from time to time.
flybymike
It appears we have two separate parties here, each with a direct personal involvement, and each of whom totally disagree with the other's version of events.
He says the pilot wasn't.
Legalapproach
Good informative and balanced posts.
I know, from years' of reading and posting on PPRuNe, that there will always be people who continue to believe that a pilot's 'attitude' when interviewed by the CAA influences whether there will be a prosecution. You and I know that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't but, however hard you try, there will be those who remain unconvinced.
Some even believe it is the determining factor, and adamantly refuse to allow the facts to interfere with their theory.
There was a time when the CAA often dealt with offences (particularly airspace infringements) with a conditional caution, i.e. that they would not prosecute if the pilot concerned undertook a similar flight with a CAA examiner to prove his competence. This seems to happen less now.
FL
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An awful lot of people have, over the years, spouted an awful lot of rubbish on PPRuNe when it comes to legal matters.
Given that most of us don't know Legalapproach from Adam, it's not unreasonable to be wary of statements posted as fact with no explanation as to why the poster is in a position to comment authoritatively.
It's human nature, and we'd be in a far worse position if no-one did ask questions.
Given that most of us don't know Legalapproach from Adam, it's not unreasonable to be wary of statements posted as fact with no explanation as to why the poster is in a position to comment authoritatively.
It's human nature, and we'd be in a far worse position if no-one did ask questions.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An awful lot of people have, over the years, spouted an awful lot of rubbish on PPRuNe when it comes to legal matters.
There are examples on this thread.
it's not unreasonable to be wary of statements posted as fact with no explanation as to why the poster is in a position to comment authoritatively.
However, it's usually possible to sort the wheat from the chaff and, in this instance, not difficult to work out why Legalapproach (an experienced barrister) is in a position to comment authoritatively.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 23rd Apr 2013 at 07:00.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I agree.
However, it's usually possible to sort the wheat from the chaff and, in this instance, not difficult to work out why Legalapproach (an experienced barrister) is in a position to comment authoritatively.
However, it's usually possible to sort the wheat from the chaff and, in this instance, not difficult to work out why Legalapproach (an experienced barrister) is in a position to comment authoritatively.
He was not the lawyer representing the defendant as the pilot defended himself.He was not the prosecutor as he defends the defendant in this thread.
So ???
But yes as he has now been convicted so nothing said is subjudice I cannot see the secrecy of laying out the facts which we are unaware of?
All we can go on are the reported facts stated in the journalistic report
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Apr 2013 at 08:41.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but this type of cost must be built into their contingencies
If say 5 737 sized aircraft were held on the ground after start for 15 mins. That's 10kg * 5 * 15 which is 750kg which is 1000 ltrs so about 800 quid worth.
And 5 have to stay in the air for an extra 15 mins at 2700kg/hour
So that's 3409kgs or 4430ltrs or 3541 quid.
That's only taking into account fuel not maint or engine depreciation.
So the fine is about right for the fuel wasted.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I obviously do not know all the facts other than the pilot got lost and ended up in Stansted and Luton airspace!
That in itself is a mistake which we all can make at one point or other!
Having made that mistake I am pretty sure had his priority been to make contact with either Stansted, the emergency frequency or London info then there would not have been a prosecution!
Even air traffic make mistakes or miss something and the combination of the two mistakes could have lead to a collision with an airline carrying 200 pax hence my guess on the severity of the fine!
Pace
That in itself is a mistake which we all can make at one point or other!
Having made that mistake I am pretty sure had his priority been to make contact with either Stansted, the emergency frequency or London info then there would not have been a prosecution!
Even air traffic make mistakes or miss something and the combination of the two mistakes could have lead to a collision with an airline carrying 200 pax hence my guess on the severity of the fine!
Pace
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Ah! Now I understand your stance. 'If it's in the papers it must be true.'
It's not actually all we can go on.
Information has been provided by a barrister with much experience of aviation cases.
When I was in his position, I often had information that I could reveal but could not reveal my source.
FL
All we can go on are the reported facts stated in the journalistic report
It's not actually all we can go on.
Information has been provided by a barrister with much experience of aviation cases.
When I was in his position, I often had information that I could reveal but could not reveal my source.
FL
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the fact that you both post here and add legal knowledge and advice to these threads.
The biggest crime ( for sake of a better word ) was the failure of the pilot to communicate the fact that he was lost and in CAS!
He was not a solo student on a qualifying cross country!
If you have facts that his radios failed meaning he had no ability to communicate then that is a different matter
If this has been a miscarriage of justice then we need to know why? As then I am sure everyone would be shouting to have it put right
Pace
I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the fact that you both post here and add legal knowledge and advice to these threads.
The biggest crime ( for sake of a better word ) was the failure of the pilot to communicate the fact that he was lost and in CAS!
He was not a solo student on a qualifying cross country!
If you have facts that his radios failed meaning he had no ability to communicate then that is a different matter
If this has been a miscarriage of justice then we need to know why? As then I am sure everyone would be shouting to have it put right
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Apr 2013 at 10:27.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately it is the attitude of some "sky gods" that the usual rules don't apply to him. A Piper Super Cub flying from a farm strip may enjoy beetling around the countryside without the nuisance of having his radio turned on AND USING IT WHEN UNCERTAIN OF HIS POSITION. But as I mentioned before someplace, the visibility from a supercub cruising at 60 mph is far from perfect.
Even a glider has better visibility, and as they spend a lot of time circling, usually notice large jet planes in the vicinity.
I had to get located by a US Coast Guard Helicopter once, and it took a Coast Guard cutter to tow the sailboat into harbour through a nasty storm; must have cost them a packet in petrol, etc, but because it was a genuine emergency, they kindly did not charge expenses. The fine levied in this case is truly a slap on the wrist compared with the cost of delays due to the inappropriate location of the small aircraft. Will he learn the lesson?
Even a glider has better visibility, and as they spend a lot of time circling, usually notice large jet planes in the vicinity.
I had to get located by a US Coast Guard Helicopter once, and it took a Coast Guard cutter to tow the sailboat into harbour through a nasty storm; must have cost them a packet in petrol, etc, but because it was a genuine emergency, they kindly did not charge expenses. The fine levied in this case is truly a slap on the wrist compared with the cost of delays due to the inappropriate location of the small aircraft. Will he learn the lesson?