Helicopter commander in court for allegedly breaking rules
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
I think you nay have hit a nerve!
God forbid that a person holding a pilots licence may get it wrong (not that we know anything wrong has been done). We should all jump up and down to defend anyone who may possibly enjoy flying who may (or may not) in the eyes of the CAA have committed a misdemeanor!
I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Shame there may be a victim(or not) involved.
I think you nay have hit a nerve!
God forbid that a person holding a pilots licence may get it wrong (not that we know anything wrong has been done). We should all jump up and down to defend anyone who may possibly enjoy flying who may (or may not) in the eyes of the CAA have committed a misdemeanor!
I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Shame there may be a victim(or not) involved.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer - falls into the category of "unprosecuted by concession". Something that is required to make law work in practice.
The first bit (Rule 5) required no research as I learned the rules to get my license. The rest took no research - off the top of my head, due to my day job (I am a PPL and owner, not a commercial pilot)
Whether or not anyone has (or ever will) be prosecuted for flying too close to a fence does not change the legal definition.
The first bit (Rule 5) required no research as I learned the rules to get my license. The rest took no research - off the top of my head, due to my day job (I am a PPL and owner, not a commercial pilot)
Whether or not anyone has (or ever will) be prosecuted for flying too close to a fence does not change the legal definition.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
This has nothing to do with mil or civ, ppl or atpl, etc etc. It is MY view that some who have posted give ME the impression of, "rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of fools", and of course we are all very, very wise
. The gentleman in question may or may not be guilty of anything, this is of no relevance as I am giving MY views as to the impression I have of some posters on this thread as well as others, not just ppl's. In fact, I know some very professional PPL holders and some questionable ATPL holders.
In any case how nice the chap is should have no baring on action taken against an individual accused of a misdemeanour. I am sure there are some very nice chaps in Parkhurst. And no, I would not like to see him join them, before you ask.
This has nothing to do with mil or civ, ppl or atpl, etc etc. It is MY view that some who have posted give ME the impression of, "rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of fools", and of course we are all very, very wise
. The gentleman in question may or may not be guilty of anything, this is of no relevance as I am giving MY views as to the impression I have of some posters on this thread as well as others, not just ppl's. In fact, I know some very professional PPL holders and some questionable ATPL holders.
Waltham St. Lawrence is less than 2 miles from me and I know 'Vincent' well - top instructor and first class human!! I may even offer my services as a character reference on Friday
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Can any of you tell me what Rule 5(3)(a)(ii) is? I'm having trouble finding it.
The latest version (2010) is downloadable as a .pdf file from the CAA website.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Reading
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
What is real?
'As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.'
But in this case, yes, hello it's me and I still can't find Rule 5(3)(a)(ii).
'As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.'
But in this case, yes, hello it's me and I still can't find Rule 5(3)(a)(ii).
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hands_on123
It has been amended since and is likely to be amended again in the near future - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2072/20101...nsultation.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John R81
Your attempts to state the law place me in an invidious position: I would like to correct your various errors - in order to avoid anyone being misled - but unfortunately (in this context) I'm now very limited in what I'm permitted to say about legal matters.
Just one example, taken from your posts -
In response to Parabellum saying:
you asserted:
You are wrong.
The law can be an ass at times, but it's not in this instance.
ANO 2009
NB: The above is not a comment re the pending prosecution, about which I know nothing and, even if I did, would make no comment.
FL
Rule "5(3)(a)(ii)" is not not in your link.
John R81 Ditto.
The Low Flying section of the Rules of the Air Regulations was changed almost 4 years ago. It has been amended since and is likely to be amended again in the near future - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2072/20101...nsultation.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John R81
The first bit (Rule 5) required no research as I learned the rules to get my license. The rest took no research - off the top of my head, due to my day job (I am a PPL and owner, not a commercial pilot)
Just one example, taken from your posts -
In response to Parabellum saying:
Now we have to wait and see if this pilots actions were ........not in any way influenced by a safety issue that could override the standing laws.
Parabellum - not so ..............
The only defences are that you are within one (or more) of the exemptions to the prohibition created by Rule 5(2)(b) contained in 5(3) (such as being in the process of take-off / landing (5(3)(a)(ii))).
The only defences are that you are within one (or more) of the exemptions to the prohibition created by Rule 5(2)(b) contained in 5(3) (such as being in the process of take-off / landing (5(3)(a)(ii))).
The law can be an ass at times, but it's not in this instance.
ANO 2009
Article 160
(3) It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
(3) It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
NB: The above is not a comment re the pending prosecution, about which I know nothing and, even if I did, would make no comment.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 6th Jan 2011 at 22:38.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, maybe it's somewhere here
The Air Navigation Order 2005
The Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 1110) - Statute Law Database
No wonder people break these rules if they are so hard to find and understand.
The Air Navigation Order 2005
The Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 1110) - Statute Law Database
No wonder people break these rules if they are so hard to find and understand.
Last edited by hands_on123; 7th Jan 2011 at 06:36.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawer, You say
Are you at liberty to describe any broad-brush criteria and the process involved for the CAA to initiate such a course of action?
Under the existing procedure, the CAA revokes or suspends a licence/certificate if a pilot's conduct demonstrates that he/she does not meet the necessary criteria to hold it.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colchester
Age: 82
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The late news: Helicopter pilot with clean record fined £1,250 + £360 costs for breach of Rule 5 (500ft Rule). He pleaded guilty at Maidenhead Magistrates Court to flying closer than 500ft to a steam train carrying 300 pax, while undertaking aerial filming sortie. Max. fine which could be imposed was £2,500. End.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
A permission to do this sort of job within the law should have been applied for (paperwork plus £108 to CAA).
I can't, for the life of me, understand why some pilots risk being taken to court and fined heavily for this sort of thing. Another example is making a landing in a congested area without gaining a permission.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why some pilots risk being taken to court and fined heavily for this sort of thing. Another example is making a landing in a congested area without gaining a permission.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cows getting bigger - I suspect any offence concerning drugs wouldn't go down well with the CAA, trafficking especially. FL will have a longer list.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyT
Perhaps because some of us have to pay our own CAA fees. Would the flight be any safer if a fee was paid I wonder?
I can't, for the life of me, understand why some pilots risk being taken to court and fined heavily for this sort of thing.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Safer? Possibly. The CAA always impose conditions as part of the permission.
You saying you break the law because you don't like paying?
You saying you break the law because you don't like paying?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safer? Possibly. The CAA always impose conditions as part of the permission.
You saying you break the law because you don't like paying?