Ullswater Lake Maule pilot not guilty
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 do wonder about some decisions made in the enforcement branch of the CAA.
As a chief pilot of a helicopter operation I was asked to respond to a quite threatening letter from them following accusations by a local resident of multiple, daily breaches of the "Low flying" rules, by all of our pilots, myself included, when flying in and out of our base.
I pointed out that we were limited by a number of factors when taking off and landing at our base, but our operations complied with all of the low flying regulations. Even though, as a police operation, we were actually exempt from them.
I seemed to be having to tell the CAA what their own rules were. They should already have known that the 500 foot rule doesn't apply to aircraft taking off or landing and because our newly commissioned (and CAA approved) base wasn't in a congested area, the 1,000 foot rule was never a factor.
As a chief pilot of a helicopter operation I was asked to respond to a quite threatening letter from them following accusations by a local resident of multiple, daily breaches of the "Low flying" rules, by all of our pilots, myself included, when flying in and out of our base.
I pointed out that we were limited by a number of factors when taking off and landing at our base, but our operations complied with all of the low flying regulations. Even though, as a police operation, we were actually exempt from them.
I seemed to be having to tell the CAA what their own rules were. They should already have known that the 500 foot rule doesn't apply to aircraft taking off or landing and because our newly commissioned (and CAA approved) base wasn't in a congested area, the 1,000 foot rule was never a factor.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really do recognize that I have a differing viewpoint to others here. My viewpoint includes looking at such an event from "other" sides, for better or worse...
Perhaps the onlooker was startled by an event very unfamiliar to them, and played up by the hype of the media in other aviation events - maybe their 999 call was placed and received before the pilot applied power, and went around. Up until that point, it could have looked like an impending accident to most citizens.
In my 25 years as a firefighter, I have had a number of occasions to interview a 911 (=999) caller, and every time they thought they were doing the better thing, in good conscience, to help a stranger. Is there a line at which that good will should stop? Shall we teach the public at large all the unusual things a plane can do, which should not worry them? Our fire department has spent tens of thousands seeking out non events, called in with good will, ans sometimes, it has been a person actually doing something which alarmed an uninformed citizen.
Though heavy CAA prosecution is heavy handed in this event, I still find some form of official "gee, we'd rather that you don't do that please" reasonable. Now the CAA goes off feeling a bit unsuccessful, but still believing that they represented the larger public interest, and who's to say they are not? If you ask a broad cross section of society if wheel plane touch and goes on public bodies of water are desirable, I bet the median answer would be negative - we pilots are the minority! In the mean time, the CAA has made a note to self that perhaps a new regulation about this is needed - that won't help us!
Decades ago, I stopped buzzing people, running the prop full fine when it did not need to be, doing aerobatics within sight of communities, and landing in places where the public could see, and could reasonably think I should not be landing. I choose this as a part of my effort on behalf of those pilots yet to come, so I was not a cause for more regulation, nor disdain for general aviation. I want to continue to earn either acceptance, or at least tolerance, of non fliers - who greatly out number me. They have the power to regulate, and I would have to apply great effort to resist.
So sorry we don't agree here, but my desire to be often harmonious with the public is not wrong either.
And... I've paid a silly amount for hotel internet, while I await an important email, so I may as well use it for something in the mean time!
One can only wonder at the irresponsibility of the onlookers who watched an aeroplane flying away intact from a non event and called 999 to report a crash. It is they who should be prosecuted.
How stupid can the public be?
How stupid can the public be?
In my 25 years as a firefighter, I have had a number of occasions to interview a 911 (=999) caller, and every time they thought they were doing the better thing, in good conscience, to help a stranger. Is there a line at which that good will should stop? Shall we teach the public at large all the unusual things a plane can do, which should not worry them? Our fire department has spent tens of thousands seeking out non events, called in with good will, ans sometimes, it has been a person actually doing something which alarmed an uninformed citizen.
Though heavy CAA prosecution is heavy handed in this event, I still find some form of official "gee, we'd rather that you don't do that please" reasonable. Now the CAA goes off feeling a bit unsuccessful, but still believing that they represented the larger public interest, and who's to say they are not? If you ask a broad cross section of society if wheel plane touch and goes on public bodies of water are desirable, I bet the median answer would be negative - we pilots are the minority! In the mean time, the CAA has made a note to self that perhaps a new regulation about this is needed - that won't help us!
Decades ago, I stopped buzzing people, running the prop full fine when it did not need to be, doing aerobatics within sight of communities, and landing in places where the public could see, and could reasonably think I should not be landing. I choose this as a part of my effort on behalf of those pilots yet to come, so I was not a cause for more regulation, nor disdain for general aviation. I want to continue to earn either acceptance, or at least tolerance, of non fliers - who greatly out number me. They have the power to regulate, and I would have to apply great effort to resist.
So sorry we don't agree here, but my desire to be often harmonious with the public is not wrong either.
And... I've paid a silly amount for hotel internet, while I await an important email, so I may as well use it for something in the mean time!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot faced two charges of being reckless and negligent in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft and any person on board.
The offence of endangering may be committed either recklessly or negligently, the former being more serious than the latter.
Both forms of the offence require the Prosecution to prove endangering.
The Defence argued that there was no endangering.
From the report:
The District Judge (Magistrates Court) dismissed the case, saying: “I am not satisfied that there is any evidence that this aircraft was in any danger.”
Well done barrister Stephen Spence.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step Turn
I'm puzzled by your use of "heavy handed".
That term would be appropriate, and is commonly used, when someone has committed an offence but prosecuting them for it is harsh - OTT in colloquial language. Or where there are two (or more) offences for which someone could be prosecuted and the prosecution choose the most serious.
The circumstances here were very different.
The judge considered the prosecution's allegation and the expert evidence they adduced in support of their allegation - more accurately, what was left of it after it had been probed/tested under cross-examination - and concluded there was no evidence that the pilot had endangered the aircraft.
That exercise should have been undertaken by the CAA before they elected to prosecute. ie A critical analysis by the prosecution of its own evidence and arguments.
Perhaps more appropriate descriptions might be ill-founded, ill-conceived or misguided.
A bit?
Unless I have misunderstood (I invited correction if I have), this wasn't a case where the judge heard evidence from both sides and ultimately found in favour of the defence.
He stopped the case at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence because they failed to show, even on their account, that an offence had been committed. In colloquial language, he stopped the case at half-time.
Though heavy CAA prosecution is heavy handed in this event
That term would be appropriate, and is commonly used, when someone has committed an offence but prosecuting them for it is harsh - OTT in colloquial language. Or where there are two (or more) offences for which someone could be prosecuted and the prosecution choose the most serious.
The circumstances here were very different.
The judge considered the prosecution's allegation and the expert evidence they adduced in support of their allegation - more accurately, what was left of it after it had been probed/tested under cross-examination - and concluded there was no evidence that the pilot had endangered the aircraft.
That exercise should have been undertaken by the CAA before they elected to prosecute. ie A critical analysis by the prosecution of its own evidence and arguments.
Perhaps more appropriate descriptions might be ill-founded, ill-conceived or misguided.
Now the CAA goes off feeling a bit unsuccessful
Unless I have misunderstood (I invited correction if I have), this wasn't a case where the judge heard evidence from both sides and ultimately found in favour of the defence.
He stopped the case at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence because they failed to show, even on their account, that an offence had been committed. In colloquial language, he stopped the case at half-time.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You gotta hand it to Peter for putting his money where his mouth is, he probably could have accepted a slap on the wrist at the beginning, but stuck to his guns because he believed he was right with all the financial risk that entailed including paying his lawyer and CAA costs if it had went against him. Takes balls to take on "the man" and win.
Again well done Peter, you've done us all a favour.
Again well done Peter, you've done us all a favour.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that I'm still curious as to how it was possible to persuade a judge that flying an aeroplane with its wheels (rather than floats) dipped in the water, can be done without endangering an aircraft or its occupants.
A well publicised event, by a now deceased pilot, resulting in an upturned aircraft in a river some years ago, may have fuelled the CAA's reasoning in the matter, although I understand that the "official" circumstances surrounding the latter case were not "clear" and presumably in any event not admissible in evidence.
A well publicised event, by a now deceased pilot, resulting in an upturned aircraft in a river some years ago, may have fuelled the CAA's reasoning in the matter, although I understand that the "official" circumstances surrounding the latter case were not "clear" and presumably in any event not admissible in evidence.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much do you know about hydro-planing aka aquaplaning in an aircraft? NB. Know, not think.
(Water-skiing was originally called aquaplaning.)
Or about doing so intentionally in this aircraft type when equipped with wide low-inflated tyres?
Or what the aircraft manufacturer (Maule) says about doing so?
NB: It was not for the defence to persuade the judge that the flying did not constitute endangering but for the prosecution to persuade him that it did.
Innocent unless proved guilty.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and concluded there was no evidence that the pilot had endangered the aircraft.
How much do you know about hydro-planing aka aquaplaning in an aircraft? NB. Know, not think.
(Water-skiing was originally called aquaplaning.)
Or about doing so intentionally in this aircraft type when equipped with wide low-inflated tyres?
(Water-skiing was originally called aquaplaning.)
Or about doing so intentionally in this aircraft type when equipped with wide low-inflated tyres?
As I have previously discussed, I have done this in a 180 and 185 - at night, to save them from certain hull loss. A risk which worked, but a risk none the less.
More to the point, twice this year, I have responded as a fire fighter - more specifically, an ice rescue specialist, to rescue snow mobiliers who had chosen to operate their snowmobiles across known unsafe ice, or indeed open water deliberately. I personally pulled a very cold an wet fellow out of icy water, and walked him a few hundred yards to dry ground, and a warm ambulance. Cost to society for that.
the pilot had endangered the aircraft
I have no idea in this event, but I suspect it is possible that the aircraft was not equipped as a vessel, and the pilot not prepared for emergency water entry. (I am prepared to eat my words, if it turns out that all marine emergency equipment was carried, in order, and accessible). "Dangerous operation of an aircraft" is heavy handed - I know that it can be done safely - I've done it. But, the pilot elected to become a marine operator, did he assure compliance with those safety based requirements?
Many PPRuNe posts present recoil in horror with the notion that aerobactics might be flown without the pilot wearing a parachute and having training with it. Fine. Was this pilot wearing a life jacket or immersion suit if cold water? Had they received underwater egress training? (I do, and have). Maybe not? Where's the standard PPRuNe horror now?
Yeah, prosecution was heavy handed, and if 70,000 in lawyers, wasteful. But that waste, does not in my eyes, swing the whole thing around to the pilot being a hero right off either. Did the pilot assure that his actions were executed safely, and with consideration of society's norms? I remain unconvinced, and am not yet celebrating the pilot's flying decisions.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step Turn
Correct. It wasn't.
How predictable.
Regaling us with your anecdotes obviously gives you a great deal of pleasure, whether you are prepared to admit it or not.
I have yet to see you celebrating the acquittal of any pilot prosecuted by a regulator.
I acknowledge this was not directed to me,
but I'll take it anyway.
Regaling us with your anecdotes obviously gives you a great deal of pleasure, whether you are prepared to admit it or not.
am not yet celebrating the pilot's flying decisions.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regaling us with your anecdotes obviously gives you a great deal of pleasure, whether you are prepared to admit it or not
My participation here is entirely voluntary. It's only perceivable reward is my pleasure - why else would I bother?
It gives me pleasure to think that what I write might influence the decision making of impressionable pilots, and inspire them to consider flying with greater safety. I am eternally indebted to those pilots who have impressed me with mature piloting, and have, in doing so, most certainly saved my life!
I do know that some pilots are beyond impression - so be it!
I regale with anecdotes to assure that readers may know my first hand point of view in some cases - sort of the intended opposite of the "armchair" perspective some are accused of. Decide for yourself if it is relevant, I'm just stating what I know....
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From your previous account I doubt that. I doubt, for instance, that you had calculated and taken steps to optimise the aircraft's minimum hydroplaning speed or even its reserve buoyancy (if any). I'm not even sure that you had optimised the aircraft's centre of mass (within the permitted envelope) for the purpose of hydroplaning. If you did, fair play to you.
If not, I'm not criticising, but I submit that these are simple actions/precautions which only take a couple of minutes and yet contribute greatly to the safety of the procedure.
If not, I'm not criticising, but I submit that these are simple actions/precautions which only take a couple of minutes and yet contribute greatly to the safety of the procedure.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much do you know about hydro-planing aka aquaplaning in an aircraft? NB. Know, not think.
(Water-skiing was originally called aquaplaning.)
Or about doing so intentionally in this aircraft type when equipped with wide low-inflated tyres?
Or what the aircraft manufacturer (Maule) says about doing so?
(Water-skiing was originally called aquaplaning.)
Or about doing so intentionally in this aircraft type when equipped with wide low-inflated tyres?
Or what the aircraft manufacturer (Maule) says about doing so?
That is precisely why I said (quite genuinely) that I was curious. Please don't assume that my curiosity implies that I disagree with the judgment. It merely implies that I'm curious.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
Understood.
I thought that might be the case - my questions were also genuine.
I have never done it but I know it can be done safely - as demonstrated by the Ullswater pilot.
I have an long-standing invitation to ride with the leader of the South African Harvard team but have not yet had an opportunity to take up his very kind offer.
I co-owned a Harvard for some years but was never tempted to try.
Partly because I don't think I had sufficient skill, certainly not the confidence.
Step Turn
Everyone here participates for pleasure.
The fact remains that you have yet to celebrate the acquittal of a fellow pilot prosecuted by a regulator.
I can only assume that 'heavy handed' means something different in Canada.
I have already explained what it means here.
FL
Understood.
I thought that might be the case - my questions were also genuine.
I have never done it but I know it can be done safely - as demonstrated by the Ullswater pilot.
I have an long-standing invitation to ride with the leader of the South African Harvard team but have not yet had an opportunity to take up his very kind offer.
I co-owned a Harvard for some years but was never tempted to try.
Partly because I don't think I had sufficient skill, certainly not the confidence.
Step Turn
Everyone here participates for pleasure.
The fact remains that you have yet to celebrate the acquittal of a fellow pilot prosecuted by a regulator.
Yeah, prosecution was heavy handed
I have already explained what it means here.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 20th Mar 2016 at 10:22.
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
My participation here is entirely voluntary. It's only perceivable reward is my pleasure - why else would I bother?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time we step into an aircraft there is risk and to a great extent flying if you want to live is about risk management
We have a thread running in flying over water in a SEP.Some are not happy to do that others will ferry across the North Atlantic in mid winter!
It's about the level of risk you are prepared to take
A lot of aviation laws sit in a grey area as it is difficult without admittance to prove something!
An example is a pilot who flies below minima on an ILS if he says he was visual with the approach lights at 200 feet and the airport were reporting 100 feet overcast no one can prove there wasn't a hole in that cloud
Not so with RVR minima which can be proven
A lot of CAA prosecutions will be on a weak basis
I am torn as the free spirit pioneering side of me loves to see anti mummy state gestures by pilots and I am very pleased with the outcome of this case with a caveat!
Like in all risk management the pilot has to know his or her limits and fly within those limits and to do this stunt by an experienced pilot is great as are all stunts where pilots push the limits
I saw an amazing video where a pilot rolled his aircraft down a steep mountain slope engine off
Achieving flying speed he rotated and glided all the way to a landing strip in the valley all without engine
Great I admired his skills and courage
The danger is pilots emulating that who don't have the skills and there are far too many accidents with pilots flying out of their limits
But well done with this one ))
Pace
We have a thread running in flying over water in a SEP.Some are not happy to do that others will ferry across the North Atlantic in mid winter!
It's about the level of risk you are prepared to take
A lot of aviation laws sit in a grey area as it is difficult without admittance to prove something!
An example is a pilot who flies below minima on an ILS if he says he was visual with the approach lights at 200 feet and the airport were reporting 100 feet overcast no one can prove there wasn't a hole in that cloud
Not so with RVR minima which can be proven
A lot of CAA prosecutions will be on a weak basis
I am torn as the free spirit pioneering side of me loves to see anti mummy state gestures by pilots and I am very pleased with the outcome of this case with a caveat!
Like in all risk management the pilot has to know his or her limits and fly within those limits and to do this stunt by an experienced pilot is great as are all stunts where pilots push the limits
I saw an amazing video where a pilot rolled his aircraft down a steep mountain slope engine off
Achieving flying speed he rotated and glided all the way to a landing strip in the valley all without engine
Great I admired his skills and courage
The danger is pilots emulating that who don't have the skills and there are far too many accidents with pilots flying out of their limits
But well done with this one ))
Pace
I think there is an acceptance among the public, or those outwith an area of expertise to sometimes assume that because something initially appears 'wrong' or possibly reckless or dangerous then that is how they perceive it.
However, once the incident is examined in detail and knowledgable persons have explained that what at face value appears reckless is actually not, then people may change their view.
I will admit, initially I would have considered the incident reckless behaviour, but having read the comments on here accept that it was not.
Whether it was wise is not relevant to the prosecution.
However, once the incident is examined in detail and knowledgable persons have explained that what at face value appears reckless is actually not, then people may change their view.
I will admit, initially I would have considered the incident reckless behaviour, but having read the comments on here accept that it was not.
Whether it was wise is not relevant to the prosecution.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The procedure is pretty well documented by now (see for instance the articles and links at Glenswinton airfield data sheet), and in principle it's no more difficult than any other landing.
At this stage I don't want to say more about the trial, other than to thank my Counsel and others who gave help and advice and to underline how rare it is these days for English courts to award costs against a prosecutor.
I have written to CAA Chief Executive Andrew Haines to ask how he proposes to pay for this fiasco without penalising holidaymakers and private pilots. A more suitable source of funds might the board's or the General Counsel's bonus and benefits pot.
Of longer-term concern is whether Mr Haines's assurances in the context of the GA Red Tape Challenge and GA Policy Framework can be taken at face value. To my mind there was a conflict between this prosecution and his assurance that GA participants are to be allowed ownership of our personal risks. He has promised me that he will provide clarification on this issue.
Kind regards to all,
Peter.
At this stage I don't want to say more about the trial, other than to thank my Counsel and others who gave help and advice and to underline how rare it is these days for English courts to award costs against a prosecutor.
I have written to CAA Chief Executive Andrew Haines to ask how he proposes to pay for this fiasco without penalising holidaymakers and private pilots. A more suitable source of funds might the board's or the General Counsel's bonus and benefits pot.
Of longer-term concern is whether Mr Haines's assurances in the context of the GA Red Tape Challenge and GA Policy Framework can be taken at face value. To my mind there was a conflict between this prosecution and his assurance that GA participants are to be allowed ownership of our personal risks. He has promised me that he will provide clarification on this issue.
Kind regards to all,
Peter.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my mind there was a conflict between this prosecution and his assurance that GA participants are to be allowed ownership of our personal risks. He has promised me that he will provide clarification on this issue.
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
Firstly, I'm glad to hear that common sense prevailed at the trial.
Unfortunately, the general public tend to be very poor at understanding aviation. A few years ago I landed a helicopter on a field, private property, with the full permission of the landowner (a totally routine flight for us, we do so almost every working day).
Ten minutes later there were four police cars and an ambulance in attendance. Someone had seen us land and wrongly assumed because we weren't at an airport we shouldn't have been landing and called 999.
Two questions from the police woman:
1. "Is this your vehicle, sir?
(She then added, with a nice smile and a wink: "I've always wanted to say that to a helicopter pilot!").
Answer: "Well sort of, it belongs to my employer".
2. "Have you crashed, sir?"
Answer: "No, I always land like that!"
(Landing away from airfields? It's what helicopters are for, dear.... )
Unfortunately, the general public tend to be very poor at understanding aviation. A few years ago I landed a helicopter on a field, private property, with the full permission of the landowner (a totally routine flight for us, we do so almost every working day).
Ten minutes later there were four police cars and an ambulance in attendance. Someone had seen us land and wrongly assumed because we weren't at an airport we shouldn't have been landing and called 999.
Two questions from the police woman:
1. "Is this your vehicle, sir?
(She then added, with a nice smile and a wink: "I've always wanted to say that to a helicopter pilot!").
Answer: "Well sort of, it belongs to my employer".
2. "Have you crashed, sir?"
Answer: "No, I always land like that!"
(Landing away from airfields? It's what helicopters are for, dear.... )