12 o'clock

There's a good thread about that Spitfire flight and the answer to your question here --

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1173701

B.

I don't think it helps to fuse criminal and civil law in that way. If the commercial operators suffer loss because of the negligence of an aircraft operator or pilot, they have the usual remedies available, don't they?

Fines are fines. There's an argument to suggest that they should be linked to real safety risk, but not to commercial loss.

I'd take a guess it's legal because the photo is a still from a film (1980's?) and was hence almost certainly filmed with the luxury of a rule 5 exemption from the CAA. You can get those, you know...

I wonder how many small claims actions a GA pilot can have against them at once :)

The £6000 fine might seem paltry if everyone who suffers a loss due to an infringement sues the infringing pilot :(

bronx

many thanks and an interesting thread

Just thought a photo of the Medway Bridge in question might be appropriate!

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/pro...ages/46_51.jpg

I'd imagine that once the CAA is equipped with the ability to detect and identify airspace busts then they'll be able to prosecute offenders more easily. Guess that's a 'benefit' of all aircraft having Mode-S and 24-bit idents built-in. Rather like speed cameras, it'll provide a great revenue opportunity and will avoid the need for pilots to be retrained or learn from their mistakes - doesn't matter why you busted airspace (e.g. genuine mistake), fact is you did. Just like doesn't matter that you broke the speed limit because you thought you were in a 40 zone when it was actually a 30.

The chap flying under the Medway bridge was actually photographed by a woman on a passing boat. I remember seeing it in a boating mag. It's not the best place to do it and get away with it:=

Ray Hanna had a Rule 5 Exemption to fly under the Bridge in the Spitfire. The CAA does occasionally give them out to those it thinks are up to the job (special occasions only:E)

prosecutions?
 

If you have a 'caution' from the CAA is this the same as a 'caution' from the met police? What about a prosecution, does this mean you will have a criminal record? Just curious.

WR

The short answer to your good question is that when the CPS was created, Parliament allowed the CAA (and some other bodies) to conduct their own prosecutions.
It means the investigator and prosecutor are the same body, which many regard as not being in the interests of justice.


chrisbl In theory, that is correct and the CAA would claim that, in practice, those criteria are properly applied.

However, problems can arise where the body which investigates is the same body which decides whether to prosecute. ie Where there is no independent/objective assessment. eg Police investigate and gather evidence. The CPS (which is independent of the police) then decides if there should be a prosecution. ie Whether the two criteria are met.
Many would say the problem is far greater where it is not only the same body but the same department which considers the first of those two criteria.

FL

A friend of mine busted Heathrow by 6nm, delayed arrivals and departures for 30 mins and had the police heli scrambled all on his first hour after gaining his ppl!

He got a telling off and a tour round D&D!!

Makes me wonder what would happen if you did a touch and go at Heathrow?

Bar of gold, Knighthood?

In all seriousness though, I wonder why some peopleget fined £6000 and others get a slap on the wrist!

And also how do they find the culprits in the cases of the bridge incident, or the dangerous goods case?

“Mode-S and 24-bit idents”

Firstly, there are no plans to make mode s compulsory

Secondly, on most mode s units you can change the code and adjust the height on the front panel

Thirdly, the radar coverage to receive mode s is not in place

Rod1

Mmmm.. No plans to make Mode S compulsory?

The present proposals would allow you to use uncontrolled airspace in the UK without one and the French will allow you to use much of their airspace without one. However, the CAA proposals would not allow you to cross the FIR boundary without one!

I also heard it said that at the moment there is no such thing as a Mode S transponder, only composite mode A,C and S ones. If that is the case, I wonder how much cheaper a mode S only one would be.