Sick of Illegal practices
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
Seems to me that the greater issue here is safety.
Helicopters have always had a reputation, not always deserved, for poor safety. We are all victims and we will all lose something if this isn't stopped.
If con-men like these (and that is what they are) are making money at the expense of the safety of an unsuspecting public, then they need to be grounded asap. Seems to me it is certainly a criminal offence. Fraud, contrary to Health and Safety, Duty of Care, call it what you will.
They need ramp-checking. The CAA do this at the larger public events already. I suggest you contact the CAA and suggest where they might find it convenient to carry out a ramp check on these cowboy operators. The legislation is already in place as I understand it.
MD.
Do it, please. Soon. Before the limbs are in the fields.
Helicopters have always had a reputation, not always deserved, for poor safety. We are all victims and we will all lose something if this isn't stopped.
If con-men like these (and that is what they are) are making money at the expense of the safety of an unsuspecting public, then they need to be grounded asap. Seems to me it is certainly a criminal offence. Fraud, contrary to Health and Safety, Duty of Care, call it what you will.
They need ramp-checking. The CAA do this at the larger public events already. I suggest you contact the CAA and suggest where they might find it convenient to carry out a ramp check on these cowboy operators. The legislation is already in place as I understand it.
MD.
Do it, please. Soon. Before the limbs are in the fields.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal Issues...
Perhaps Flying Lawyer will hazard an opinion, but it seems to me that you are pretty much obligated to do something at this point. If you are knowledgable of potential safety issues and fail to report it to the authorities, isn't is possible that after a crash a family member sue you for not taking appropriate action? Besides, scammers need to be caught and punished. If they are ligitimate, then Tallguy's points are well taken and no harm done.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RD,
No doubt FL will respond himself, if he sees your post, but I cannot see that someone unconnected with the "illegal" operation has any obligation that is actionable in law - a moral one certainly but you can't (yet) get sued for that.
If this was not the case, then the consequences would be never ending.
Incidentally, my experience is very similar to VFR's that unless the matter is given to the CAA on a plate, they can't be bothered to do a decent investigation.
In response to Shawn, insurance companies have a great "let out" clause. They do not need to bother investigating before an accident - they just do not pay up afterwards if they can find any way in which the flight was illegal. That way they too can save a lot of effort, if an accident does not occur........
No doubt FL will respond himself, if he sees your post, but I cannot see that someone unconnected with the "illegal" operation has any obligation that is actionable in law - a moral one certainly but you can't (yet) get sued for that.
If this was not the case, then the consequences would be never ending.
Incidentally, my experience is very similar to VFR's that unless the matter is given to the CAA on a plate, they can't be bothered to do a decent investigation.
In response to Shawn, insurance companies have a great "let out" clause. They do not need to bother investigating before an accident - they just do not pay up afterwards if they can find any way in which the flight was illegal. That way they too can save a lot of effort, if an accident does not occur........
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. Law / U.K. Law...
Well, I'm not an attorney. It seems in the U.S. people sue at the drop of a hat... it's really ridiculous. However, I'll give you an example of what prompted my post above. A retired EMS worker was driving along and noticed an accident in front of him. The EMS worker had one of those little blue medical cadeuses stickers on his bumper.
Anyway, as he passed the accident scene he could tell that somebody was hurt. However, he felt his skills weren't quite up to the task since he had been out of the healthcare game... even though his certification was still current. So, he called dispatch from his cell phone to send an ambulance and kept driving.
The injured party sued AND WON a lawsuit against the retired EMS worker. Why? The retired EMS guy showed "intent" when he put his foot on the brake and he had a medical insignia on his bumper... showing that he was trained in the field and did nothing (he was sued for abandonment). If he had driven by without putting his foot on the brake, he would have been okay.
My point is, the issue has been raised in a very public way and something needs to be done. I don't know about U.K. law, and I'm sure FL will set me straight, but I'd be worried about covering you own tail at this point. People can be really petty at times... especially when they are angry or hurt. I guess it's a mute point, as 902 already indicated he was going to do what he thought was the right thing (most of us are in agreement).
Anyway, as he passed the accident scene he could tell that somebody was hurt. However, he felt his skills weren't quite up to the task since he had been out of the healthcare game... even though his certification was still current. So, he called dispatch from his cell phone to send an ambulance and kept driving.
The injured party sued AND WON a lawsuit against the retired EMS worker. Why? The retired EMS guy showed "intent" when he put his foot on the brake and he had a medical insignia on his bumper... showing that he was trained in the field and did nothing (he was sued for abandonment). If he had driven by without putting his foot on the brake, he would have been okay.
My point is, the issue has been raised in a very public way and something needs to be done. I don't know about U.K. law, and I'm sure FL will set me straight, but I'd be worried about covering you own tail at this point. People can be really petty at times... especially when they are angry or hurt. I guess it's a mute point, as 902 already indicated he was going to do what he thought was the right thing (most of us are in agreement).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RDR,
Wow what a story - since we seem to follow 20ish years behind you, we have lots of goodies to come then! Mind you, unwittingly I may be right though, it does look never ending.
Wow what a story - since we seem to follow 20ish years behind you, we have lots of goodies to come then! Mind you, unwittingly I may be right though, it does look never ending.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rick
I don't know about America but, in the UK, there is no legal obligation to report someone for committing an offence, and failing to do so would not give rise to a cause of action in civil proceedings.
paco
If 'most of the legislation is possibly invalid', nobody's noticed yet. Please don't say this again on a public forum - if it turns out you're right, I'll be out of work.
Allocation of funds or not, the CAA spends truly fantastic amounts of money investigating and prosecuting people, often for trivial offences which would be better not prosecuted. When investigating/prosecuting, the CAA acts in a care-free 'money no object' manner and (in stark contrast to any other law enforcement agencies/prosecuting authorities I've experienced in my career) doesn't appear to pay the slightest regard to the cost involved or proportionality of response.
The frequent criticism in the industry is that the Authority seems very enthusiastic about prosecuting trivia whilst allowing more serious matters to escape their attention. I think there's much force in that criticism.
Most of us in or associated with the industry know the illegal public transport and 'bent charter' offenders so it seems very unlikely the CAA is unaware of them. I've never understood why they pursue trivia/minor infringements with such enthusiasm and don't take action against the well-known offenders. Evidence would be very easy to obtain if they went about it the right way.
(On a completely separate point - did you work at the now defunct Wessex Helicopters in the mid 90's? I flew a Bell47 there once years ago and think we may have met.)
I don't know about America but, in the UK, there is no legal obligation to report someone for committing an offence, and failing to do so would not give rise to a cause of action in civil proceedings.
paco
If 'most of the legislation is possibly invalid', nobody's noticed yet. Please don't say this again on a public forum - if it turns out you're right, I'll be out of work.
Allocation of funds or not, the CAA spends truly fantastic amounts of money investigating and prosecuting people, often for trivial offences which would be better not prosecuted. When investigating/prosecuting, the CAA acts in a care-free 'money no object' manner and (in stark contrast to any other law enforcement agencies/prosecuting authorities I've experienced in my career) doesn't appear to pay the slightest regard to the cost involved or proportionality of response.
The frequent criticism in the industry is that the Authority seems very enthusiastic about prosecuting trivia whilst allowing more serious matters to escape their attention. I think there's much force in that criticism.
Most of us in or associated with the industry know the illegal public transport and 'bent charter' offenders so it seems very unlikely the CAA is unaware of them. I've never understood why they pursue trivia/minor infringements with such enthusiasm and don't take action against the well-known offenders. Evidence would be very easy to obtain if they went about it the right way.
(On a completely separate point - did you work at the now defunct Wessex Helicopters in the mid 90's? I flew a Bell47 there once years ago and think we may have met.)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the bump
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As CP for an AOC company I can only point out that legitimate companies suffer for the misgivings of not so legitimate operators.
Without going too deep a few years ago a high profile passenger lost his life in an accident that if normal commercial air transport procedures were to be applied the aircraft would not of been able to take off in the first place.
The aftermath was that the law abiding operators got well a truly kicked in the knadgers!
My view is stop thinking about it and get it stopped now. Your not grassing up anyone who doesn’t deserve it, your protecting us.
Without going too deep a few years ago a high profile passenger lost his life in an accident that if normal commercial air transport procedures were to be applied the aircraft would not of been able to take off in the first place.
The aftermath was that the law abiding operators got well a truly kicked in the knadgers!
My view is stop thinking about it and get it stopped now. Your not grassing up anyone who doesn’t deserve it, your protecting us.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Age: 56
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all of the views here. Nice to know we can have these type of discussions/posts. As for the type of helicopter being used, it's not a 902, believe me. More like a piston 4 seater and jet ranger. Two different operators, both UK. They know who they are and the camera/scanner will now be running at the first opportunity. I don't like causing grief for people but I think this is important. If they want to run an AOC operation, I suggest they get an AOC, oh, and licenced pilots!
Y'all have a nice day!
Y'all have a nice day!
That was a late fast ball, MD902!! mentioning no AOC and/or licenced pilots
If that is the case - do your worst.
Personally, I think Bandit in the Sun is hiding something
Are you involved perhaps?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick Lappos wrote:
"In the US we call that "dropping a dime" as in using a pay phone. just ask yourself what your motives are - You sound angry about the prospective employment opportunity lost because someone is a private pilot doing commercial pilot work.
No Champion of Justice would use that motive! The worst shellackings I got as a kid were "for my own good" and I'm not sure to this day that was true.
Are they unsafe? Is it a public endangerment? Those are the questions you might ask yourself, I think. If the answer is yes, then march on, and be right."
I see nothing unsound with Nick's opinion. If someone is flying without appropriate certification or in a manner that would endanger the safety of others those of us within the helicopter industry have an ethical responsibility to pursue appropriate remedial measures. Nick only asked that true motives be considered and I agree.
Anyone who has been in this industry more than a few years has seen pilots report other pilots to authorities for purely personal gain or retribution using safety, or violation of regulation as a cloak to obscure true intentions. I do not mean to suggest this is the basis or motive of the matter being discussed. Quite the contrary. Rather it is a note of general caution. The helicopter guild remains a small, loose alliance with a long memory. The ability to trust those with whom you work is an important discriminator used when one is considered for employment. When intent is pure, trust remains intact. When intent is diluted by personal motives, the bond of trust becomes diluted.
"In the US we call that "dropping a dime" as in using a pay phone. just ask yourself what your motives are - You sound angry about the prospective employment opportunity lost because someone is a private pilot doing commercial pilot work.
No Champion of Justice would use that motive! The worst shellackings I got as a kid were "for my own good" and I'm not sure to this day that was true.
Are they unsafe? Is it a public endangerment? Those are the questions you might ask yourself, I think. If the answer is yes, then march on, and be right."
I see nothing unsound with Nick's opinion. If someone is flying without appropriate certification or in a manner that would endanger the safety of others those of us within the helicopter industry have an ethical responsibility to pursue appropriate remedial measures. Nick only asked that true motives be considered and I agree.
Anyone who has been in this industry more than a few years has seen pilots report other pilots to authorities for purely personal gain or retribution using safety, or violation of regulation as a cloak to obscure true intentions. I do not mean to suggest this is the basis or motive of the matter being discussed. Quite the contrary. Rather it is a note of general caution. The helicopter guild remains a small, loose alliance with a long memory. The ability to trust those with whom you work is an important discriminator used when one is considered for employment. When intent is pure, trust remains intact. When intent is diluted by personal motives, the bond of trust becomes diluted.
