Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

CAA Prosecution (updated)

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

CAA Prosecution (updated)

Old 17th Nov 2003, 05:06
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 445
If the authority has to make a profit how is it they are not subject to the monopolies comission? If a profit is made, who benefits from the return. As far as I am aware they are a Govt agency which is a bit of a get out clause.

We are the customers, not them. The services they provide are not cheap. No problem with that but are they value for money? The companies we work for would be asking the same question of our activities.

The last time I looked, I didn't receive subsidised meals or the equivalent govt rate for mileage. Who audits the authority? Someone has to carry out this regulatory work and it is not as straight forward as we might think, but when petty minded individuals destroy any relationship of trust, questions will always be asked.

Most commercial pilots are responsible individuals trying to pay the mortgage in one of the most regulated industries in the world. If some other "professions" were subject to the same regulation and monitoring there would be an outcry. This makes me proud to be part of such and industry, but I also expect fair and value treatment from the agencies that WE employ - no aviation, no beaurocrats!
cyclic is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2003, 02:08
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Perhaps someone with knowledge of the CAA's legal procedures could enlighten me here...
If the CAA wins costs in court, are those costs, or any portion of them, rebated to the government, or are they trousered by the Authority?
t'aint natural is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2003, 04:33
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
For those who queried my earlier post here is a quote from the DLTR (now DfT) annual report 2002.

10.56 We also contract the CAA to undertake various tasks, including the investigation and prosecution of breaches of aviation safety legislation, work to ensure the safety of foreign registered aircraft and advice on aviation safety to the UKís overseas territories.

I don't know what happens to any costs that the CAA receive but my guess is that it is "reinvested" in further enforcement activity.
Cathar is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2003, 16:05
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,684
Extract from their 'corporate' page:

In addition, the CAA advises the Government on aviation issues, represents consumer interests, conducts economic and scientific research, produces statistical data and provides specialist services. The UK Government requires that the CAAís costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many countries, including the other JAA member states, there is no direct Government funding of the CAAís work.
I suppose when it suits them they are government linked, and at other times.............

I suspect they are in an invidious position overall. Trying to appease the government as the ONLY safety regulatory group in the country, whilst still trying to make a profit out of the people they serve.

Their legal strategy, however, does leave a lot to be desired. There seems to be a common thread with all their prosecutions and that is to prove a point, rather than support and protect aviation.

Perhaps now with EASA in the driving seat, things might change for the better
In theory atleast, one would assume that modernisation should be a good thing - a breath of fresh air; a dose of salts to a constipated bureaucracy
Sorry...was I hallucinating then?
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2003, 18:06
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 79
Thumbs down

Bottom line.

Did the pilot make any effort to call the telephone number on the AIC? No he didn't!

Did the pilot make any attempt to call either Bristol or Lyneham ATC? No he didn't! They had details of the restricted area.

If he had done either of the above it perhaps wouldn't have got to this stage.
Marco is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2003, 18:20
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,684
Marco: He knew he was going to infringe the zone. No contest. Game over....for him.

Read the earlier threads.
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2003, 02:55
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
What a curious post, Marco .
He did speak to Bristol ATC. They gave him the contact number for the Glastonbury pad.
He called Glastonbury and couldn't get through.

There's no doubt he infringed the zone and he never denied it, but whether that's the 'bottom line' is obviously a matter of opinion.
People have raised interesting questions about CAA prosecutions policy and about ATC at Glastonbury doing nothing about it at the time except taking his reg and reporting him.

Any views on those issues?
Heliport is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2003, 13:52
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Going back to the CAA situation, remember they have a corporate website address ending in .co.uk and not a Government address ending in .gov.uk
ppheli is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2003, 02:25
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Perhaps those operating the TFR should have had their arses tanned for not being available on the phone number they supplied. Maybe the CAA should be more careful about giving this crowd a TFR in the future.
Crashondeck is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2003, 16:06
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 79
Thumbs down


The Restriction in Flying Regulations was given to the police. The pilot concerned did not phone the number on the AIC. End of story.
Marco is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2003, 22:54
  #31 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
I don't understand what the problem is here. The pilot knowingly flew into a restricted area. He blatantly ignored the rules and got his butt kicked for it. He won't do it again and I doubt if anyone else who reads this thread will. End of story.

Old 20th Nov 2003, 23:27
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Did you forget you already said that last week, Chopperman?

Do you think all breaches of the regs should be prosecuted?
Do you think the ATC guys taking his registration, making no attempt to speak to him even though they had plenty of opportunity, and then reporting him is good practice in your view?
Heliport is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2003, 03:16
  #33 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
No I hadn't forgotten, just thought I would re-emphasise my point of view. Contrary to what people may think, I don't believe that all breaches of regulations should be prosecuted and I don't always agree with the way the authority go about their business. However, I still maintain the argument that if you break the rules/law, (knowingly or otherwise), you must be prepared for the consequences. If you can't do the time...etc.
Maybe ATC should have spoken to him, but for reasons known only to them they chose not to, perhaps someone from that unit would wish to comment? Iím not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen though.
Truthfully, I donít feel sorry for the pilot involved, I would have done if he had inadvertently entered the area, but that wasnít the case, by his own admission he did know about it and chose to ignore it. That was his crime and Iím afraid itís unprofessional and inexcusable.

Iíll be flying safely wearing my flak jacket,

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.