Fined for carrying fare paying pax in an N reg
Have the CAA "won" or is this yet to be appealed to a higher court for review?
Mi'Lord, my client has a duty to provide safe air transportation...is he remiss not to inquire of his employer the status of each person's status of carriage or does he have only to "trust" his employer in the method of funding each journey? Where in the ANO does the Pilot in Command duties and responsibilities as set forth demand the Pilot in Command seek this information from the operator of an aircraft prior to each flight?
I am sure Flying Lawyer could provide a better argument than that if asked. (For a slight nominal professional fee of course)
Mi'Lord, my client has a duty to provide safe air transportation...is he remiss not to inquire of his employer the status of each person's status of carriage or does he have only to "trust" his employer in the method of funding each journey? Where in the ANO does the Pilot in Command duties and responsibilities as set forth demand the Pilot in Command seek this information from the operator of an aircraft prior to each flight?
I am sure Flying Lawyer could provide a better argument than that if asked. (For a slight nominal professional fee of course)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What where the exact counts. Art. 113 of the ANO is about Traffic Controllers?
The fact that he was flying in an N-Reg without having a FAA license is not permitted so that could be one.
Not having Dft permission could be the second one but as said earlier in my opinion the pilot should have been paid directly by the passengers and he does not have to find out by asking the passengers who or whether they are paying. (I certainly wouldn't do that)
The fact that he was flying in an N-Reg without having a FAA license is not permitted so that could be one.
Not having Dft permission could be the second one but as said earlier in my opinion the pilot should have been paid directly by the passengers and he does not have to find out by asking the passengers who or whether they are paying. (I certainly wouldn't do that)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HillerBee
You're looking at the current ANO.
The flights which led to the CAA prosecuting the pilot must have occurred when the ANO 2000 was in force. Article 113 of that ANO: Restriction on carriage for valuable consideration in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
You'll find the equivalent provision in Article 138 of the ANO 2005.
headsethair
I'm intrigued by that, and would like to understand your thinking.
You consider the CAA was right to prosecute because, in your view, any breach of the law should be prosecuted?
or
You consider the CAA was right to prosecute in this particular case because you know the facts of the case and, in your view, they were sufficiently serious to justify prosecuting the pilot? (As opposed, for example, to warning him?)
old heliman
I don't believe it.
Given your position for several years, you know far better than most that there are people who regularly operate illegal PT flights. The CAA spends vast sums of money when it prosecutes pilots for minor and even completely trivial errors, yet it doesn't use the resources at its disposal to tackle what is regarded in the industry as a more serious problem.
And who writes UK aviation legislation?
The CAA. (It goes through Parliament on the nod - without consideration.)
Do you really consider it's beyond the wit of the five (or is it six) ex-policemen employed in the Enforcement branch to obtain the necessary evidence?
I doubt if it is, but I could tell you how to obtain (a), (b) and a conviction.
I know nothing about the case you posted so can't express an opinion on whether it was reasonable or OTT to prosecute the pilot. Your reluctance to post the facts makes me wonder whether it was a serious example of illegal PT.
I've heard (via the industry) that it was a highly regarded pilot who made a mistake - rather than one of the well-known persistent illegal PT guys. I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Just over a year ago, the CAA prosecuted a well-known and highly respected FI under Article 113 for what no-one could sensibly argue was a serious breach - and was certainly not an example of the sort of illegal PT ops which cause concern within the industry.
FL
You're looking at the current ANO.
The flights which led to the CAA prosecuting the pilot must have occurred when the ANO 2000 was in force. Article 113 of that ANO: Restriction on carriage for valuable consideration in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
You'll find the equivalent provision in Article 138 of the ANO 2005.
headsethair
It's still not within the law and the CAA were right to prosecute.
You consider the CAA was right to prosecute because, in your view, any breach of the law should be prosecuted?
or
You consider the CAA was right to prosecute in this particular case because you know the facts of the case and, in your view, they were sufficiently serious to justify prosecuting the pilot? (As opposed, for example, to warning him?)
old heliman
Believe it or not the CAA does try to do what it can about illegal PT flights whether they are G-reg or other reg.
Given your position for several years, you know far better than most that there are people who regularly operate illegal PT flights. The CAA spends vast sums of money when it prosecutes pilots for minor and even completely trivial errors, yet it doesn't use the resources at its disposal to tackle what is regarded in the industry as a more serious problem.
The problem is the legislation is such that unless (a) you actually catch someone at it and then (b) the pax are willing to help by confirming they paid for a flight, it is nigh on impossible to get a conviction.
The CAA. (It goes through Parliament on the nod - without consideration.)
Do you really consider it's beyond the wit of the five (or is it six) ex-policemen employed in the Enforcement branch to obtain the necessary evidence?
I doubt if it is, but I could tell you how to obtain (a), (b) and a conviction.
I know nothing about the case you posted so can't express an opinion on whether it was reasonable or OTT to prosecute the pilot. Your reluctance to post the facts makes me wonder whether it was a serious example of illegal PT.
I've heard (via the industry) that it was a highly regarded pilot who made a mistake - rather than one of the well-known persistent illegal PT guys. I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Just over a year ago, the CAA prosecuted a well-known and highly respected FI under Article 113 for what no-one could sensibly argue was a serious breach - and was certainly not an example of the sort of illegal PT ops which cause concern within the industry.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 7th Feb 2006 at 01:39.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL: I believe that the CAA was right to prosecute if they had the evidence that an illegal flight had taken place. And it doesn't matter whether the pilot concerned was vastly experienced or newly-qualified : every commercial pilot has to know these rules without exception.
I don't think a warning is correct. It sends the wrong message and would do little to make a dent in what is a large problem.
Let's not forget "duty of care" here - those passengers and that aircraft, its owner and the pilot would all be without recourse if the insurance was invalidated by an illegal flight.
We cannot expect passengers to know the laws - the profession has enough trouble trying to understand them! How would you feel if a relative innocently took one of these flights, there was an incident, your relative is put in a wheelchair for life and has no possibility of getting any insurance money ? And what about innocents on the ground ?
I don't understand why we cannot have more details of this case - it must surely be public domain.
I don't think a warning is correct. It sends the wrong message and would do little to make a dent in what is a large problem.
Let's not forget "duty of care" here - those passengers and that aircraft, its owner and the pilot would all be without recourse if the insurance was invalidated by an illegal flight.
We cannot expect passengers to know the laws - the profession has enough trouble trying to understand them! How would you feel if a relative innocently took one of these flights, there was an incident, your relative is put in a wheelchair for life and has no possibility of getting any insurance money ? And what about innocents on the ground ?
I don't understand why we cannot have more details of this case - it must surely be public domain.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL you might not believe it but it happens to be true that the line in CAA flight ops has consistently been that if an AOC holder can give information to enable a ramp of a 'suspect' aircraft to be arranged in time, that every effort would be made to get somebody there. However they are a limited resource and it would not be practical or cost effective to send them hither and thither based on a slim offchance. It is the AOC holder who picks up the tab!
Insofar as your comment regarding this particular case, yes I do know more but it would not be fair on the pilot concerned to release info too readily and make known his identity (in my personal view). I would be happy to discuss a bit more with you if you wish to pm me. However in essence a well known (non-political) person was carried on a number of flights for which a monetary fee was paid. The last time a well known person was involved in a fatal accident having paid a fare where the flight was not conducted by an AOC operator, the ramifications to the helicopter industry were very significant, as I suggest was the bad publicity for the industry that went along with it.
Please also remember that investigations are conducted by the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept at the behest of the D f T who fund them, not the CAA even though they are employees of the CAA. Who they do or don't prosecute is not for me to comment on.
As for who writes the legislation, yes its the CAA....lawyers
Insofar as your comment regarding this particular case, yes I do know more but it would not be fair on the pilot concerned to release info too readily and make known his identity (in my personal view). I would be happy to discuss a bit more with you if you wish to pm me. However in essence a well known (non-political) person was carried on a number of flights for which a monetary fee was paid. The last time a well known person was involved in a fatal accident having paid a fare where the flight was not conducted by an AOC operator, the ramifications to the helicopter industry were very significant, as I suggest was the bad publicity for the industry that went along with it.
Please also remember that investigations are conducted by the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept at the behest of the D f T who fund them, not the CAA even though they are employees of the CAA. Who they do or don't prosecute is not for me to comment on.
As for who writes the legislation, yes its the CAA....lawyers
SASless
You misunderstood me.
You suggested the difficulty in acertaining the sort of trip if you were flying the 'boss man' - slightly different than a 'freelance' pilot being sourced to fly an aircraft 'hired' for the flight in question.
Have no beef about a salaried pilot flying a company-owned machine - indeed, sounds quite familiar.
You misunderstood me.
You suggested the difficulty in acertaining the sort of trip if you were flying the 'boss man' - slightly different than a 'freelance' pilot being sourced to fly an aircraft 'hired' for the flight in question.
Have no beef about a salaried pilot flying a company-owned machine - indeed, sounds quite familiar.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's irrelevant whether the Captain, on the day, was employed on a full time basis or freelance.
I get the impression that the above posts, are just trying to play 'Devils Advocate' and suggest that the Captain may not always be in possession of all the facts, regarding his passengers and how they have, or have not, paid for the flight.
I don't think we know enough about this particular scenario to assume the pilot knew exactly what had gone on, prior to departure and that in fact, this was a P/T flight?!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old heliman
I believe it of Flt Ops. What you said originally was "Believe it or not the CAA does try to do what it can about illegal PT flights ......" I don't accept that, for the reasons I've given.
You won't find me, in any forum on this website or elsewhere, jumping to the defence of fellow lawyers simply because they are fellow lawyers. 
headsethair
I disagree on the general principle and don't know the facts of the particular case so can't comment.
Again, I disagree. I think someone's history should be taken into account when deciding whether to prosecute, formally Caution or issue a warning, as should whether the incident was deliberate flouting of the law or honest mistake. Neither should be decisive, but IMHO should be taken into account in each particular case.
"Every commercial pilot has to know these rules without exception"
They don’t in my experience.
Questions about public transport and aerial work etc come up regularly in this and other forums on Pprune. Those who ask the questions don’t know or they wouldn’t be asking. The responses range from confident assertions in opposite directions via ‘I don’t know’.
I can well understand why pilots find it difficult. Partly because the legislation is so complicated and partly because a fertile imagination allows "valuable consideration" to extend to a wide range of activities which IMHO are not the sort of activities which the legislation was intended to catch - nor should sensibly be intended to catch.
Do you, as an operator, know the rules?
I don't mean being able to refer to the legislation or a CAA commentary upon it. I mean being able to apply the legislation to given facts and say with certainty whether the flight does or does not constitute a public transport. You didn't seem able to do so in your previous post where you posed a question rather than asserting the position with confidence.
If you can, you have my respect. Sometimes, the best I and other lawyers in the field can manage is: 'It’s difficult to say. In common sense it’s not public transport but, if the meaning of 'valuable consideration' was stretched far enough ………..’
How would react if I was emotionally involved in some incident?
I don't know; I wouldn’t be detached so I suspect my ability to think rationally would at least be impaired and might be suspended completely.
I don't find the introduction of emotion helpful in these discussions. I've been involved in too many cases where distress, understandably, leads people to want to sue when there's no basis for a claim, to demand that 'something should be done', that someone should be 'locked up for years' etc etc.
I’ve also listened to too many daft and wholly unrealistic “danger” and “potentially very dangerous” assertions being made on behalf of the CAA when pilots are prosecuted for some trivial breach of the Regs.
Old heliman has given his reason. Whilst I don't assume I'd necessarily share his views about what is or isn't serious/petty, I respect him for declining to reveal the pilot's name or post facts which would enable the pilot to be identified.
FL
I believe it of Flt Ops. What you said originally was "Believe it or not the CAA does try to do what it can about illegal PT flights ......" I don't accept that, for the reasons I've given.
As for who writes the legislation, yes its the CAA....lawyers
headsethair
I believe that the CAA was right to prosecute if they had the evidence that an illegal flight had taken place.
I disagree on the general principle and don't know the facts of the particular case so can't comment.
And it doesn't matter whether the pilot concerned was vastly experienced or newly-qualified : every commercial pilot has to know these rules without exception.
"Every commercial pilot has to know these rules without exception"
They don’t in my experience.
Questions about public transport and aerial work etc come up regularly in this and other forums on Pprune. Those who ask the questions don’t know or they wouldn’t be asking. The responses range from confident assertions in opposite directions via ‘I don’t know’.
I can well understand why pilots find it difficult. Partly because the legislation is so complicated and partly because a fertile imagination allows "valuable consideration" to extend to a wide range of activities which IMHO are not the sort of activities which the legislation was intended to catch - nor should sensibly be intended to catch.
Do you, as an operator, know the rules?
I don't mean being able to refer to the legislation or a CAA commentary upon it. I mean being able to apply the legislation to given facts and say with certainty whether the flight does or does not constitute a public transport. You didn't seem able to do so in your previous post where you posed a question rather than asserting the position with confidence.
If you can, you have my respect. Sometimes, the best I and other lawyers in the field can manage is: 'It’s difficult to say. In common sense it’s not public transport but, if the meaning of 'valuable consideration' was stretched far enough ………..’
How would react if I was emotionally involved in some incident?
I don't know; I wouldn’t be detached so I suspect my ability to think rationally would at least be impaired and might be suspended completely.
I don't find the introduction of emotion helpful in these discussions. I've been involved in too many cases where distress, understandably, leads people to want to sue when there's no basis for a claim, to demand that 'something should be done', that someone should be 'locked up for years' etc etc.
I’ve also listened to too many daft and wholly unrealistic “danger” and “potentially very dangerous” assertions being made on behalf of the CAA when pilots are prosecuted for some trivial breach of the Regs.
I don't understand why we cannot have more details of this case - it must surely be public domain.
FL
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL: Every time you post we learn. And believe me, I am grateful.
This issue isn't about PT vs Aerial Work : it's about an "N" helicopter operating for money in the UK without the required permissions.
I stand by my assertion that all CPLs and ATPLs must know these rules without exception. Whilst some of the legislation is confusing and badly-drafted, the rules on "N" ops are very clear. The very least a professional pilot should do before embarking on such a job is to ask the owner of the aircraft if DfT permissions have been obtained. This is not an embarassing question to ask.
This issue isn't about PT vs Aerial Work : it's about an "N" helicopter operating for money in the UK without the required permissions.
I stand by my assertion that all CPLs and ATPLs must know these rules without exception. Whilst some of the legislation is confusing and badly-drafted, the rules on "N" ops are very clear. The very least a professional pilot should do before embarking on such a job is to ask the owner of the aircraft if DfT permissions have been obtained. This is not an embarassing question to ask.
I think it is quite clear that tit is the fact that it was a N reg machine. If it had been G reg with a freelance pilot , with no association with the ownner, there would have been no case to answer. It would have been a private flight .
This is a learning process for real....
It is the AOC holder who picks up the tab!
investigations are conducted by the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept at the behest of the D f T who fund them, not the CAA even though they are employees of the CAA.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigelh : I think it is quite clear that tit is the fact that it was a N reg machine. If it had been G reg with a freelance pilot , with no association with the ownner, there would have been no case to answer. It would have been a private flight .
If a passenger pays for a flight, rather than sharing costs, then that makes the flight subject to PT rules and therefore it must be conducted under an AOC. In addition, the helicopter itself must be certified for PT.
A "sharing costs" flight is clearly defined - and the pilot must be a participant in that sharing. (Although, how the hell are you supposed to police this ?)
Look at the Summary pdf.
Surely there are 2 simple questions that a CPL or ATPL must ask before departing with pax: (1) is this flight in compliance with the laws for passenger transport ? and (2) am I doing anything which invaildates the insurance ?
The costs involved in applying for and keeping an AOC are immense for most helicopter operators - because they tend to be small fleets so have limited revenue opportunities to spread the load. I do think if the whole AOC system was simpler and cheaper to run, there would be fewer "pirates". I believe that getting an AOC can cost £20,000 and maintaining it is around £6,000 a year in mainly labour costs. These are big sums to extract from hourly revenues.
Plainly, the AOC system was designed for airlines and other large fleets. Is there a case for an "AOC-lite" for small operators ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS, clearly living in the land of the free(?) has caused your mischief cells to work :>)
It is the AOC holder who picks up the tab!
I report a possible on-going violation of UK Law...rules...and/or regulations....the CAA tears someone away from the Gym...lunch...teabreak...or heaven forbid...a meeting...and the AOC holder providing the "tip" has to pay for the Inspector to do his duty? Is my understanding of that situation correct? Wrong, The CAA is funded by industry, Air Reg Enforcement (ARE) by the DfT. If the CAA flight ops inspector (FOI) goes off to do a check on a dubious flight there is no direct charge for that AT ALL. It is however a fact that his time and so forth are being paid for by the industry and in the case of an FOI that is the AOC Holder.
Quote:
investigations are conducted by the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept at the behest of the D f T who fund them, not the CAA even though they are employees of the CAA.
It isn't a chain of command at all as you try to make it appear. In most cases illegal flights tend to be bubbled by AOC holders to their FOI and a ramp check would be carried out if at all possible. If it apeared there was a question mark over the flight then ARE would be advised as appropriate and an investigation might be started. Flight Ops and ARE are independant of each other.
It is the AOC holder who picks up the tab!
I report a possible on-going violation of UK Law...rules...and/or regulations....the CAA tears someone away from the Gym...lunch...teabreak...or heaven forbid...a meeting...and the AOC holder providing the "tip" has to pay for the Inspector to do his duty? Is my understanding of that situation correct? Wrong, The CAA is funded by industry, Air Reg Enforcement (ARE) by the DfT. If the CAA flight ops inspector (FOI) goes off to do a check on a dubious flight there is no direct charge for that AT ALL. It is however a fact that his time and so forth are being paid for by the industry and in the case of an FOI that is the AOC Holder.
Quote:
investigations are conducted by the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept at the behest of the D f T who fund them, not the CAA even though they are employees of the CAA.
It isn't a chain of command at all as you try to make it appear. In most cases illegal flights tend to be bubbled by AOC holders to their FOI and a ramp check would be carried out if at all possible. If it apeared there was a question mark over the flight then ARE would be advised as appropriate and an investigation might be started. Flight Ops and ARE are independant of each other.
Headsethair
We have been through this before if you look at previous AOC threads. I was pulled off the air by the moderator for mentioning a new company specializing in non aoc flights and booking them on the web. I will not mention its name again , but i am sure you will hear about it soon !! Basically if you lease a helicopter and have a proper lease agreement and then arms length hire a professional pilot then that flying is not P.Transport, so long as you are not selling on any seats. ie you lease helicopter to fly to London and pay pilot seperate you can fly into Battersea in a single without floats, as it is a private flight. Before a load of people disagree, i have had extensive legal advice and the CAA are i am sure well aware of the situation . If they wish to change the law then that is up to them. As i have said before i think the days of the small aoc operator are now over, due to so much bull**it involved and the vast cost. Everyone in the industry should welcome a move that gets more people flying and reduces costs......not every person who wishes to hire/lease an aircraft is loaded !!
We have been through this before if you look at previous AOC threads. I was pulled off the air by the moderator for mentioning a new company specializing in non aoc flights and booking them on the web. I will not mention its name again , but i am sure you will hear about it soon !! Basically if you lease a helicopter and have a proper lease agreement and then arms length hire a professional pilot then that flying is not P.Transport, so long as you are not selling on any seats. ie you lease helicopter to fly to London and pay pilot seperate you can fly into Battersea in a single without floats, as it is a private flight. Before a load of people disagree, i have had extensive legal advice and the CAA are i am sure well aware of the situation . If they wish to change the law then that is up to them. As i have said before i think the days of the small aoc operator are now over, due to so much bull**it involved and the vast cost. Everyone in the industry should welcome a move that gets more people flying and reduces costs......not every person who wishes to hire/lease an aircraft is loaded !!
They're at it again.....
....despite the CAA attempting to 'clamp' down on operators using 'N' aircraft for charters, or any private aircraft for that matter.
Irish company contacts heli company,, based just outside regional airport, and enquires about chartering a 'twin'.
Caller offered to partake in a temporay share of heli-operator's N-reg twin - which would have been flown by FAA PPL (!) - they didn't tell them that though.
Irish company well-versed in the ways of commercial ops and went to a legitimate twin-operating aoc company.
have to hand it to them - ballsy move...............
Have you noticed how few N-reg choppers actually shutdown at special events??????
Irish company contacts heli company,, based just outside regional airport, and enquires about chartering a 'twin'.
Caller offered to partake in a temporay share of heli-operator's N-reg twin - which would have been flown by FAA PPL (!) - they didn't tell them that though.
Irish company well-versed in the ways of commercial ops and went to a legitimate twin-operating aoc company.
have to hand it to them - ballsy move...............
Have you noticed how few N-reg choppers actually shutdown at special events??????
