CAA Civil Penalties Proposal and Consultation
 

Link copied from STNRamprat on Rumours and News.


CAA Consultation on introducing Civil Penalties. Some of the items are applicable to private flying including permit and glider aircraft. The LAA are among the organisations that have been notified. I wonder if there would be any differences under Scottish Law.

The documents do not indicate the size of financial penalties that would be imposed.



https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...tion-authority

Surprised nobody's responded. Looking at the GA Occurrence Reports, there are a lot of airspace infringements recorded. These could be treated in the same way as road speeding offences. The cash collected will go into the Government fund.
"Dear Stakeholder, as the registered owner of G-#&$£, which was detected infringing xxx airspace at 10.01Z on 1/1/2017, you have been charged the civil penalty of £400. This will be doubled if not payed within 10 days.
You may opt for a court trial, in which case the maximum penalty will be £xxxx, and possible loss of your licence, if found guilty."
Below are some of the many offences buried in the linked documents, with the list position number:
187 Failing to maintain radio equipment in aserviceable condition in a UK-registered aircraft.
161 Failing to affix an Occupant Warning placard Aircraft flying in accordance with a national permit to fly
202 Failing to inform the CAA in writing ofinjury, illness or pregnancy
299 Not attaching the glider to the towing aircraft by means of a tow rope before the towing aircraft takes-off.
458 Permitting an aircraft to take-off or land at an unlicensed aerodrome without being satisfied on reasonable grounds that the aerodrome has adequate facilities for the safe conduct of the flight. Operator of unlicensed aerodrome.

The only reason I haven't responded thus far is that this simply regularises what already happens in practice.

Already the CAA investigates and prosecutes alleged offenders, intimidating them into pleading guilty by pointing out the life changing financial consequences of contesting the case.

When a case is contested, the whole process is massively weighted in the CAA's favour, in that they can pursue the case with practically unlimited funds, supply the most 'credible' expert witnesses from their own staff, and when they inevitably win, advise the hapless Magistrates of a suitable penalty.

Then, on top of that, have the Magistrates present the looser with a whacking bill to cover the entire absurd cost of the prosecution.

Hardly any point in the Magistrates being there at all.

This new proposal just gives the CAA carte blanche to normalise the practice, and spread it across a whole new range of more trivial cases of their choosing or creation, thereby creating a lucrative new revenue stream for themselves.

If it were possible for the CAA to sink even lower in the eyes of the aviation community, this would do it.


MJ:ok:

MJ
Second that, having been subjected to the CAA's investigative process the normal 5/8" is inevitably on a beaten docket as we say.

Just to take one:

458 Permitting an aircraft to take-off or land at an unlicensed aerodrome without being satisfied on reasonable grounds that the aerodrome has adequate facilities for the safe conduct of the flight.

How is a pilot meant to "be satisfied on reasonable grounds"?

And another question:

How many of the 500-or so items have ever seen even a letter raised about them in the past 10 years?

Surely some scope for the Red Tape Challenge here!

Not just the pilot, the aircraft owner, flying school, landowner, airfield operator/manager, etc.

In fact, practically anyone who was aware that the aircraft was going to use the unlicenced airfield. :eek:


MJ:ok:

458 is applicable to the aerodrome operator, not the pilot, for a breach of Art 208A (1), which was introduced when the requirement for training to be at a licensed aerodrome was alleviated. 208A (2) addresses the PiC.

208A (1) The operator of an aerodrome which is aerodrome must not permit an aircraft flying or intended to fly for [training and testing for licences] to take off from or land at the
aerodrome unless satisfied on reasonable grounds that the aerodrome has adequate facilities for the safe conduct of such flights.

At the moment, the CAA's only sanction would be to take the offender to court, where they would face a fine of up to £2500. This proposal appears to give it more options.

On one level, it's a matter of national shame that our Department of Transport is proposing to bypass British courts of law in this 800th year of Magna Carta.

Absent from the consultation document is the fact that half of the CAA prosecutions tried last year resulted in acquittals. That dismal record, and the refusal of courts to award even a tenth of their eye-watering costs, are the "problems" which this obscene proposal is intended to address.

It is inconceivable that the CAA's Board of Directors is unaware of this, and yet, mired as they seem to be in institutional mendacity, they have published a document which does its best to conceal and mislead.

It's not too late for Andrew Haines to get a grip - to withdraw this flawed consultation, to dismiss whichever members of his Board are responsible for it, and to apologise.

Quote: 'When a case is contested, the whole process is massively weighted in the CAA's favour, in that they can pursue the case with practically unlimited funds, supply the most 'credible' expert witnesses from their own staff, and when they inevitably win, advise the hapless Magistrates of a suitable penalty.

Then, on top of that, have the Magistrates present the looser with a whacking bill to cover the entire absurd cost of the prosecution.

Hardly any point in the Magistrates being there at all.'

I fly regularly and own my own aeroplane. As a magistrate, I always view court costs very carefully. I have the ability to reduce or waive them completely if I have good reason to. Certainly, costs asked for by non CPS agencies are often astronomic, partly due to their inefficiency in their investigations that can take months or even years.

Electing to go to court can be very costly and thus often defendants choose to pay up front rather than risk losing a trial. However, if they win, they can ask for costs themselves and I often award them if I think it justified. However, I do advise defendants to pay the fixed cost rather than waste court time and, more importantly, their own finances, if they are guilty!

771 ways to raise revenue!

In the context of the Gold plating initiative what are these people on?

I have often wondered if his infamous success in winning cases against the C.A.A. was one of the reasons that our "Flying Lawyer" was made a judge!

P.P.

Just a wee "bump" to remind that this consultation closes at noon tomorrow (12 November).

If you wnat to have your say, even if it is to agree that the answer to CAA-IET's eye-watering cost of £7,819 for a simple warning letter is to recover the whole of that cost from an alleged offender, now's the time.

Another view is that faced with such a prospect, people will "lawyer-up" at the first opportunity and that the insurance industry will provide cover for that eventuality as it already does for airmen in the USA.

The popularity of GA, both in this country and America, evidenced by numbers participating, is in decline and has been so for a number of years.

This proposed action by the CAA, if adopted, will steepen that decline, all of which flies in the face of current attempts by the LAA, AOPA and other concerns to make GA more accessible and attainable.

What are they thinking of ?

It might be opportune for those of us at risk - which is most - to consider obtaining legal expenses insurance cover. I'll enquire with my insurers.

It could be more efficient like Australia....here is a typical extract from the Australian CARs:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 252A

Emergency locator transmitters
(1) The pilot in command of an Australian aircraft that is not an exempted aircraft may begin a flight only if the aircraft:

(a) is fitted with an approved ELT:

(i) that is in working order; and

(ii) whose switch is set to the position marked 'armed', if that switch has a position so marked; or

(b) carries, in a place readily accessible to the operating crew, an approved portable ELT that is in working order.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

Note: For the maintenance requirements for emergency locator transmitters, see Part 4A. See also subsection 20AA(4) of the Act.

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

The use of a Penaly Unit (1 PU = ca. 17AUD) means the fined can be adjusted just by updating the PU value...

Also note in the above example that Strict Liability applied, as it does for nearly all CARs...in other words being unaware of a problem with the ELT is not a defence....if it is not working and you fly you are guilty...

In addition there is a demerit system, just like for driving.... www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_...ulate/enf/009r10.pdf

Australia was also one of the first states to bring in random breath testing for pilots...just like on the roads...

So just remember when complaining about the CAA or EASA it's usually much worse in Australia!

Well that about sums up how much they are interested in "consulting" / the contempt "they" feel for anyone who might express an interest ...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1...nsultSmall.jpg
(Full size version at: http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1...re/Consult.jpg)

Just looked at: civil-sanctions-for-the-civil-aviation-authority and found that it's a "Closed consultation" which ran from "3 September 2015 9:30am to
12 November 2015 12:00am" - which is puzzling, since it's only 07:55am now.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


OC619

12am is right - that's midnight. 12pm is midday.

(Avoiding thread drift into the definition of am/pm) the CAA have used a completely ambiguous deadline.
They've not even used their own definition of 'time'.

What is wrong with "will close at 2359 GMT on 11th Nov", or "0001 on 12th Nov"? Or even Z?

Since their ambiguity has prevented full comments, they should surely allow a further, well-defined, well-publicised 24hr extension.

SD

SD any ambiguity in time by your measure is an hour either way, not 12 hours.

I think an argument that they should allow for people not being able to tell the time is a little much!:p

Talk about spoon feeding! :E

Yet another good reason to join AOPA

Toothless tiger. No bite !