Gyrocopter involved in murder charge
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: England
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ludicrous! Do you really believe that? Try telling that to the judge.
What's the difference (in the eyes of the law) of a hunt supporter trying to stop and aircraft/get to the pilot and a dark skinned man from the Middle East doing the same?
Its hijacking, plane and simple. I would put good money on the pilot that the murder charge will never stick.
Last edited by Cabin doors 2 manual; 11th Mar 2009 at 22:09.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Warwick
Age: 42
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot has now been charged with the murder.
Warwickshire Police Media Portal - Man charged following death at Long Marston airfield
Warwickshire Police Media Portal - Man charged following death at Long Marston airfield
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: England
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For reference, the 'Aviation and Martime Security Act'
Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31)
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, this applies anyone who enters an aerodrom.
Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31)
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, this applies anyone who enters an aerodrom.
I notice that "another man has been released on police bail pending further enquiries".
Passenger, or a contact on the ground?
Either way difficult to see what crime he could have committed given that he wasn't at the controls.
Mind you, have they said anywhere that it was the pilot who was charged with murder?
Passenger, or a contact on the ground?
Either way difficult to see what crime he could have committed given that he wasn't at the controls.
Mind you, have they said anywhere that it was the pilot who was charged with murder?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I am no legal eagle, reading the ANO clause 73 states that no one should act in such a way to endanger safety of an aircraft, but 74 states that no one should permit an aircraft to endanger life or property.
So whilst the deceased might be considered (depending of course on what actually happened) to have contravened 73, the pilot has certainly contravened 74. Whether he could have actually done anything will depend on the circumstances.
Talk of hijack is poppycock since it does't appear in the ANO and I would have thought hijack implies taking over an aircraft/vehicle/vessel to actually use it unlawfully, not merely to stop it.
So whilst the deceased might be considered (depending of course on what actually happened) to have contravened 73, the pilot has certainly contravened 74. Whether he could have actually done anything will depend on the circumstances.
Talk of hijack is poppycock since it does't appear in the ANO and I would have thought hijack implies taking over an aircraft/vehicle/vessel to actually use it unlawfully, not merely to stop it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definition of 'Aerodrome'
Section 105 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982:
Means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft and includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically.
Means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft and includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabin doors 2 manual
I've often found it frustrating that I'm no longer able to contribute to 'legal' topics, but never more so than when reading your interpretation of the law in your various posts in this thread.
FL
I've often found it frustrating that I'm no longer able to contribute to 'legal' topics, but never more so than when reading your interpretation of the law in your various posts in this thread.
FL
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
FL, I agree, your input is sadly missed - but how about "illegal topics"?
Thread Starter
Coldair ....i love the fact that an article that says this intimidation by the gyrocopter was an accident waiting to happen , in your book was complete rubbish !!!! Was she wrong ?? I would always assume that if a pilot is daft enough to fly low level buzzing horses trying to save the planet something bad is going to happen ....it may be a horse bolting an killing somebody or a confrontation like this . She was SO right .
Frustrated flie ...read above . Of course it was a factor . If you turned up on a hunt day and spent all day trying to ruin their sport and at the end of the day got a flat tyre and a punch in the face i have a feeling there may be some connection !!
CabinDoors You are just to daft to reason with . yea of course in gaga land you can run people down in your plane if they walk towards you ....they may be that well known group of "hunting hijackers " we have all heard of .... From the photos it is quite clear that he is well below 500ft and playing at being robocop . What a twit . Lets hope he goes down for a good time . ( not as in good time ....)
Frustrated flie ...read above . Of course it was a factor . If you turned up on a hunt day and spent all day trying to ruin their sport and at the end of the day got a flat tyre and a punch in the face i have a feeling there may be some connection !!
CabinDoors You are just to daft to reason with . yea of course in gaga land you can run people down in your plane if they walk towards you ....they may be that well known group of "hunting hijackers " we have all heard of ....
From the photos it is quite clear that he is well below 500ft and playing at being robocop . What a twit . Lets hope he goes down for a good time . ( not as in good time ....)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CD2M
Flying Lawyer has said it so much better and with so much more expert authority than I could.
You are effectively saying that if some lost rambler or dog walker steps into a taxyway, that you are entitled to kill them by running them down with your propeller because they are effectively hijackers.
Barking mad. You'd be laughed out of the dock and into the cells with a defence like that. I can't believe you're serious.
Flying Lawyer has said it so much better and with so much more expert authority than I could.
You are effectively saying that if some lost rambler or dog walker steps into a taxyway, that you are entitled to kill them by running them down with your propeller because they are effectively hijackers.
Barking mad. You'd be laughed out of the dock and into the cells with a defence like that. I can't believe you're serious.
From the photos it is quite clear that he is well below 500ft and playing at being robocop . What a twit .
I'm not for one moment supporting the actions of the pilot in flying around over a hunt, he may well have been within the letter of the law, but was hardly acting within it's spirit, or in the interest of not disturbing others.
Interestingly, the hunt have privately indicated that Mr Morse went to the airfield to resolve an issue with the pilot regarding a young girl who fell off her pony a week or so earlier. Some members of the hunt have alleged that the girl's fall was caused by the actions of the gyro pilot. Although not badly hurt, the girl's riding confidence has apparently been affected.
Obviously feelings were running high, most probably on both sides. The hunt followers felt aggrieved by the anti-social actions of the gyro pilot. The gyro pilot probably felt strongly that the actions of the hunt were abhorrent - after all, he had been sufficiently motivated to chase the hunt several times over the past few weeks. All told, a recipe for a nasty confrontation, no matter where it may have taken place.
I find it curious that the deceased was reported (in the Times on-line article) as filming the gyro at the time of the incident, as this seems at odds with the account from the person at Long Marston who supposedly saw what happened.
VP
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviatio and Maritime Security Act 1990
Obviously the words "an aerodrome serving international civil aviation " in section 1 escaped your notice 
Murder is not charged lightly. A senoir CPS lawyer will have looked at this in considerable detail before advising such a charge. It is fair to assume that there is therefore some evidece to support such a charge. Whether it is sufficient to convice a jury beyond reasonable doubt, only time will tell.
Murder is not charged lightly. A senoir CPS lawyer will have looked at this in considerable detail before advising such a charge. It is fair to assume that there is therefore some evidece to support such a charge. Whether it is sufficient to convice a jury beyond reasonable doubt, only time will tell.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is fair to assume that there is therefore some evidece to support such a charge.
I still wonder if the murder charge is not just a way to get the defendent to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
Thread Starter
VP i accept your point that the photo ,in itself ,is not proof of low flying over the hunt . I am aware that he in fact did fly low on many occasions with witnesses . I think we can all see that this was always going to end in tears .....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an attitude that is easy to fall into, one that leads us to think of ourselves in some way as Sky Gods in our Chariots. Just let something happen, though, as here, and we come back down to earth with a thump!
When we are out there doing our aerial stuff we are usually in a very controlled environment with trained professionals around us. Everyone on a ramp has usually had basic safety training so that they know not to stick their heads into a prop or rotor, for instance, when the risks are not as obvious as falling under a vehicle. That said, how often do people fall under vehicles?
Every so often we find ourselves confronted with someone who probably has no business being out there on the ramp. I always take that as my cue to shut down as the first order of business. (Here I am writing as a fixed-wing pilot but I do know my way around helicopters in a very basic way.) That means that I have removed most of the risk from the situation.
From a selfish, self-interested point of view that risk is to my machine and to my licence. A prop strike is going to ruin the machinery and leave me forced to try and escape the stigma and trauma of having injured or killed someone.
There's a far higher risk to the person out there on the ramp, of course. People end up maimed or dead and often very suddenly, when it is then too late to do anything. You may only have seconds to react, when you need to be thinking about protecting the life of that idiot out there wandering around someplace he may have no business being. You are not set there in that cockpit to teach him the hard way the rules for being on a ramp, say.
Citing some rule against "illegal interference" as justifying having an incident might really mean sitting down and having a "reality check."
Aviation is just part of life and not the highest part, so that we have to subordinate it to the higher goal of preserving life. Otherwise you may find yourself in court having this explained to you by the judge or at least having someone from the CAA teach you the error of your ways by grounding you for a while or even forever. Shutting down must be the preferred option whenever there is any doubt, I think.
When we are out there doing our aerial stuff we are usually in a very controlled environment with trained professionals around us. Everyone on a ramp has usually had basic safety training so that they know not to stick their heads into a prop or rotor, for instance, when the risks are not as obvious as falling under a vehicle. That said, how often do people fall under vehicles?
Every so often we find ourselves confronted with someone who probably has no business being out there on the ramp. I always take that as my cue to shut down as the first order of business. (Here I am writing as a fixed-wing pilot but I do know my way around helicopters in a very basic way.) That means that I have removed most of the risk from the situation.
From a selfish, self-interested point of view that risk is to my machine and to my licence. A prop strike is going to ruin the machinery and leave me forced to try and escape the stigma and trauma of having injured or killed someone.
There's a far higher risk to the person out there on the ramp, of course. People end up maimed or dead and often very suddenly, when it is then too late to do anything. You may only have seconds to react, when you need to be thinking about protecting the life of that idiot out there wandering around someplace he may have no business being. You are not set there in that cockpit to teach him the hard way the rules for being on a ramp, say.
Citing some rule against "illegal interference" as justifying having an incident might really mean sitting down and having a "reality check."
Aviation is just part of life and not the highest part, so that we have to subordinate it to the higher goal of preserving life. Otherwise you may find yourself in court having this explained to you by the judge or at least having someone from the CAA teach you the error of your ways by grounding you for a while or even forever. Shutting down must be the preferred option whenever there is any doubt, I think.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: France
Age: 83
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gyroplanes
I am a gyroplane pilot (UK PPL(G))
1. There are two words in English to describe this type of aircraft .. "gyroplane" and "autogyro". "Gyrocopter" is the name for a particular brand of gyroplane. The MT03 is not of that brand, so it is not a gyrocopter.
2. In the UK the custom is to taxi with the rotors turning at around 50-80rpm, thereby using rotor lift to relieve the loads on the rotor-head arising from taxi-ing on the generally rough surfaces where gyroplanes operate. (Take-off is around 250-280rpm depending on take-off weight.) In France, where I live and fly, gyroplanes taxi to the holding point with stationery rotors. The French accept the rotor loads, but prefer the increased safety of stationery rotors while taxi-ing.
3. It's beginning to look as though the MT03 was stationery in this incident. However, when taxi-ing the control column is held fully forward, to minimise the possibility of striking the fin. Even so, the rotor disk is still angled rearwards somewhat making a collision between a person in front and the turning rotors highly unlikely.
4. With a pusher gyroplane, like the MT03, the main wheels are generally roughly in line with the prop gear-box, with engine in front and the propellor behind the main wheels .. for C of G reasons.
5. As someone else has noted, a Rotax stops very quickly .. usually just a few blades. The main rotor takes ages to stop even with the use of a rotor brake.
1. There are two words in English to describe this type of aircraft .. "gyroplane" and "autogyro". "Gyrocopter" is the name for a particular brand of gyroplane. The MT03 is not of that brand, so it is not a gyrocopter.
2. In the UK the custom is to taxi with the rotors turning at around 50-80rpm, thereby using rotor lift to relieve the loads on the rotor-head arising from taxi-ing on the generally rough surfaces where gyroplanes operate. (Take-off is around 250-280rpm depending on take-off weight.) In France, where I live and fly, gyroplanes taxi to the holding point with stationery rotors. The French accept the rotor loads, but prefer the increased safety of stationery rotors while taxi-ing.
3. It's beginning to look as though the MT03 was stationery in this incident. However, when taxi-ing the control column is held fully forward, to minimise the possibility of striking the fin. Even so, the rotor disk is still angled rearwards somewhat making a collision between a person in front and the turning rotors highly unlikely.
4. With a pusher gyroplane, like the MT03, the main wheels are generally roughly in line with the prop gear-box, with engine in front and the propellor behind the main wheels .. for C of G reasons.
5. As someone else has noted, a Rotax stops very quickly .. usually just a few blades. The main rotor takes ages to stop even with the use of a rotor brake.
vanHorck,
I'm taking the liberty of posting the following from The Horse & Hound website.
It is already in the public domain.
I'm taking the liberty of posting the following from The Horse & Hound website.
It is already in the public domain.
First of all I'd like to start off by saying I'm a family member of Trevor and thank you to all the kind messages and support that the family have received from people from all walks of life, it is a huge comfort.
I'd just like to point out a few things that have been mentioned in the press and on this forum and others on the internet.
Long Marston air strip isnt an active airfield as such and is used mainly as a strip for a car boot sale at weekends and in the summer for music festivals etc and is the site for where the proposed new eco town is to be built which will be known as Middle Quinton.
The gyrocopter that landed didnt have permission to land and refuel, and Trevor wasnt just walking across the strip at the time. For obvious reasons I cant go into any detail.
In the press its been stated that Trevors wife Caroline was present at Long Marston when he was Murdered and that he leaves Two children. Trevor wasnt even married, he didnt have any children and Caroline ( his long time partner ) wasnt there at the time and was actually at work unaware of what was happening.
The one thing they did get right in the press though was that Trevor really was a gentle giant and the countryside was his life, and the countryside will be a sadder place without Trev.
I'd just like to point out a few things that have been mentioned in the press and on this forum and others on the internet.
Long Marston air strip isnt an active airfield as such and is used mainly as a strip for a car boot sale at weekends and in the summer for music festivals etc and is the site for where the proposed new eco town is to be built which will be known as Middle Quinton.
The gyrocopter that landed didnt have permission to land and refuel, and Trevor wasnt just walking across the strip at the time. For obvious reasons I cant go into any detail.
In the press its been stated that Trevors wife Caroline was present at Long Marston when he was Murdered and that he leaves Two children. Trevor wasnt even married, he didnt have any children and Caroline ( his long time partner ) wasnt there at the time and was actually at work unaware of what was happening.
The one thing they did get right in the press though was that Trevor really was a gentle giant and the countryside was his life, and the countryside will be a sadder place without Trev.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Basil.
Too much speculation and not enough facts so far. The Copter was a means of transport and possibly a weapon in something between two parties. That is not good for our flying community.
Let s hope the truth comes out in due course.
Too much speculation and not enough facts so far. The Copter was a means of transport and possibly a weapon in something between two parties. That is not good for our flying community.
Let s hope the truth comes out in due course.