Helicopter commander in court for allegedly breaking rules
I thought FTV used Heliairs AOC. If they had their own then they would be obliged to carry out all flights as PT and not AW.
Generally just AOC holders get permanent Es & Ps from things such as Rule5 because they have procedures in place to monitor and record usage of them.
In my opinion if rule 5 is deliberately broken in a high profile situation as a filming flight by a non-AOC holder then the pilot deserves to be prosecuted, the idea of giving them a 'warning' is not acceptable.
Generally just AOC holders get permanent Es & Ps from things such as Rule5 because they have procedures in place to monitor and record usage of them.
In my opinion if rule 5 is deliberately broken in a high profile situation as a filming flight by a non-AOC holder then the pilot deserves to be prosecuted, the idea of giving them a 'warning' is not acceptable.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misterbonkers
I suppose the fact you work for a competitor that does aerial filming is just a coincidence. 
In my opinion if rule 5 is deliberately broken in a high profile situation as a filming flight by a non-AOC holder then the pilot deserves to be prosecuted, the idea of giving them a 'warning' is not acceptable.
Flying closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure needs a CAA filming exemption.
If you have permission of the owner of the building and of any person who will be closer than 500ft, is a 500ft exemption still required??
Reference to causing a distraction to motorists has always been a legal curiosity to me because of the instances when this could happen where the location of helipads dictate flying closer than 500ft to public roads.
Mickjoebill
Bronx;
No coincidence - in fact I have worked for several competitors of FlyingTV and have a lot of experience in aerial filming/survey and operating under a wide range of permissions (one-offs and blanket); hence I stated my opinion.
Ironically you'll find quite a few pilots on here work for competitors of FlyingTV.
No coincidence - in fact I have worked for several competitors of FlyingTV and have a lot of experience in aerial filming/survey and operating under a wide range of permissions (one-offs and blanket); hence I stated my opinion.
Ironically you'll find quite a few pilots on here work for competitors of FlyingTV.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
If you have permission of the owner of the building and of any person who will be closer than 500ft, is a 500ft exemption still required??
(I do not work for a rival film company).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why Nimby?
Whilst those of you with very long memories (or PP search) will know why I picked NIMBY ...
... my concern is always whether the pilot was flying responsibly, i.e. was able to survive unexpeced failures, avoid any obstacles, not cause by-standers (or livestock) to be unduly disconcerted, etc. All of these risks are completely different from the motoring/speedign risks mentioned earlier, there's less time to react, mother nature is less forgiving, fewer options are open to you and bystanders generally know very little about helicopters other than they make a frightening noise up close.
It isn't clear to me from the reporting whether the court (or indeed the CAA officers) considered whether margins were below reasonable levels. Defence claimed a 'technical' infringement. What is clear is that sanctions are slight, perhaps a few hours costs, even for serious breaches.
What is slightly more worrying is the "should he get away with it?" flavour of the discussion here, when I'd have thought "is the pilot being properly responsible" is rather more important.
N
... my concern is always whether the pilot was flying responsibly, i.e. was able to survive unexpeced failures, avoid any obstacles, not cause by-standers (or livestock) to be unduly disconcerted, etc. All of these risks are completely different from the motoring/speedign risks mentioned earlier, there's less time to react, mother nature is less forgiving, fewer options are open to you and bystanders generally know very little about helicopters other than they make a frightening noise up close.
It isn't clear to me from the reporting whether the court (or indeed the CAA officers) considered whether margins were below reasonable levels. Defence claimed a 'technical' infringement. What is clear is that sanctions are slight, perhaps a few hours costs, even for serious breaches.
What is slightly more worrying is the "should he get away with it?" flavour of the discussion here, when I'd have thought "is the pilot being properly responsible" is rather more important.
N
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
What is slightly more worrying is the "should he get away with it?" flavour of the discussion here, when I'd have thought "is the pilot being properly responsible" is rather more important.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nimby
The pilot admitted, by his Guilty plea, that the 'margin' was less than the law permits (in the absence of dispensation).
It is important to understand that a breach of Rule 5 does not necessarily mean the flying was dangerous. Pilots can be, and often have been, successfully prosecuted for breaching Rule 5 even where there was no danger whatsoever. The issue is distance; absence of danger is no defence.
In contrast, where the CAA considers (rightly or wrongly) that a pilot's action was dangerous, he/she would be prosecuted for a completely different offence or offences. If disputed, it is then for a court to decide the issue - after hearing the evidence and arguments advanced by each side.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
I assume the defence advocate, during the course of his plea in mitigation before sentence, properly and sensibly reminded the court that, although the pilot infringed Rule 5, there was no evidence of danger being caused. According to the Daily Telegraph report (above), the court appears to have accepted that point. When imposing the penalty the presiding magistrate said:“We have heard no expression of any recklessness in your flying."
Penalties are not "slight" in my (considerable) experience.
Unless you know all the relevant facts of a particular case, the pilot's record and his/her financial circumstances, you are not in a position to make a sensible judgment about whether the sanction was 'slight', entirely appropriate or harsh.
It isn't clear to me from the reporting whether the court (or indeed the CAA officers) considered whether margins were below reasonable levels.
It is important to understand that a breach of Rule 5 does not necessarily mean the flying was dangerous. Pilots can be, and often have been, successfully prosecuted for breaching Rule 5 even where there was no danger whatsoever. The issue is distance; absence of danger is no defence.
In contrast, where the CAA considers (rightly or wrongly) that a pilot's action was dangerous, he/she would be prosecuted for a completely different offence or offences. If disputed, it is then for a court to decide the issue - after hearing the evidence and arguments advanced by each side.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Defence claimed a 'technical' infringement.
What is clear is that sanctions are slight, perhaps a few hours costs, even for serious breaches.
Unless you know all the relevant facts of a particular case, the pilot's record and his/her financial circumstances, you are not in a position to make a sensible judgment about whether the sanction was 'slight', entirely appropriate or harsh.
What is clear is that sanctions are slight, perhaps a few hours costs, even for serious breaches.
The CAA said it would be reviewing Campion’s license.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed by the amount of discussion over this particular case and am surprised by the high profile particularly as it was reported in the broadsheets......seems a bit odd...like there may be a hidden agenda from somewhere.....
The court said that he was not reckless, therefore a misjudgement at worst, a mistake, we are all capable of that. If the Pilot was just wazzing around buzzing anything that moved I could understand it but in this instance it is just not correct. It seems like a sledge hammer has been used to crack the Pilots walnuts!!
The court said that he was not reckless, therefore a misjudgement at worst, a mistake, we are all capable of that. If the Pilot was just wazzing around buzzing anything that moved I could understand it but in this instance it is just not correct. It seems like a sledge hammer has been used to crack the Pilots walnuts!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Far from home, but not far from here
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Darracott, Presiding magistrate, said: “We have heard no expression of any recklessness in your flying. On the other hand you are an experienced pilot and you should have been aware you were flying below 500ft for some considerable distance."
It seems even the Magistrate didn't have an understanding of the law, what has flying below 500ft got to do with it?
I've seen Kim at work filming the Welsh Rally and he is safe and professional.
I guess the lessons for us all here are:
1. Never assume those onboard whatever you are filming have been advised you will be filming them, make sure they are.
2. Never assume those you are working for have obtained the necessary exemptions or approvals, sight them yourself.
As they say assumation is the root of most f ups.
Oh and remember everyone (well the only ones that don't still have those old Nokia bricks) now has a camera at hand at all time!!
It seems even the Magistrate didn't have an understanding of the law, what has flying below 500ft got to do with it?
I've seen Kim at work filming the Welsh Rally and he is safe and professional.
I guess the lessons for us all here are:
1. Never assume those onboard whatever you are filming have been advised you will be filming them, make sure they are.
2. Never assume those you are working for have obtained the necessary exemptions or approvals, sight them yourself.
As they say assumation is the root of most f ups.
Oh and remember everyone (well the only ones that don't still have those old Nokia bricks) now has a camera at hand at all time!!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the CAA link is this one, although the latest entry in April 2010.
List of Official Record Series 8 - Decisions by the CAA Following a Regulatory Review | Publications | CAA
List of Official Record Series 8 - Decisions by the CAA Following a Regulatory Review | Publications | CAA
Typically speedy CAA then
