Helicopter commander in court for allegedly breaking rules
Except for the last one
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kim Campion
Just come across this thread as I am searching for contact details for Kim. I hope he still has his livelihood. He is without doubt the best helicopter instructor I have ever come across. I want him to teach my son to fly and I hope the CAA can maintain a sense of perspective on this issue. Seems to me its a procedural oversight and nothing more.
Reply via PM, please.
SP
Reply via PM, please.
SP
Very much still flying and instructing.
One day I'll put my thoughts down in writing about this ludicrous prosecution which used everything about the law to persecute a pilot for no real reason. And the evidence was enhanced. The CAA legal dept used the threat of a criminal record like a baseball bat and forced the plea.
Low life.
One day I'll put my thoughts down in writing about this ludicrous prosecution which used everything about the law to persecute a pilot for no real reason. And the evidence was enhanced. The CAA legal dept used the threat of a criminal record like a baseball bat and forced the plea.
Low life.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB,
You really don't want FAR 91.13. It is the most abused regulation the FAA has. Several years ago it was not so bad when FAA inspectors had some real experience. Unfortunately now, many have very little real experience and they look at an event and judge it on if they personally would do that or not. If not then you were operating in a manner that was careless and reckless and file a violation.
Fortunately, the FAA Chief Counsel's Office looks at things a little differently. One of the criteria they use is 'were your actions, reasonable and prudent?' If they were and you can show that, that is the end of it.
You really don't want FAR 91.13. It is the most abused regulation the FAA has. Several years ago it was not so bad when FAA inspectors had some real experience. Unfortunately now, many have very little real experience and they look at an event and judge it on if they personally would do that or not. If not then you were operating in a manner that was careless and reckless and file a violation.
Fortunately, the FAA Chief Counsel's Office looks at things a little differently. One of the criteria they use is 'were your actions, reasonable and prudent?' If they were and you can show that, that is the end of it.
Pilots can be, and often have been, successfully prosecuted for breaching Rule 5 even where there was no danger whatsoever.
Just why must one be "Prosecuted" for an act that creates no hazard...presented no recklessness....and did no harm....and was absent any intent to do harm or cause damage and the vile perpetrator cooperates with the investigation?
Does the Crown treat all miscreants that way for other such similar heinous "Crimes against Humanity"?
The FAA is far more realistic in their approach to the Rule 5 silliness of the CAA.....
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
top
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
[Docket No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]
top
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
[Docket No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]
Yes all States have the equivalent of our FAR Part 91.13.
Sec. 91.13
Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
The question extant is not about the existence of the Rule....but rather the enforcement attitude and general appearance of high handedness of the enforcement of the Rule. It would appear Rule 5 is being used as a different avenue to achieving the same intent of the UK equivalent of 91.13. The key being the "prosecution" of an inidividual for what was not a reckless or dangerous act in and of itself.
Our German friends have a saying about "Orders are Orders!"....is this a case of "Rules are Rules!"?
Under the UK system...who gets the money paid by the violator....the "Costs" and "Fine/Penalty"? The CAA or the Exchequer? If the CAA gets the money...I can see a vested interest for them in aggressively enforcing each violation or assumed violation and doing so purely for monetary gain rather than ensuring the Public Safety.
Last edited by SASless; 29th Dec 2011 at 08:09.
Here is a good example of how the FAA (and other guvmint agencies) make themselves so popular with people in the real world.
How much investigation and how long should it take to make a decision in this matter?
Is there not both the "Letter of the Law" and the "Spirit of the Law" that enters into the consideration of things?
Will the Feds now having stuck their beaks into this....drag their feet until the whole intent of the Conservation Project is rendered useless? I know one cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs but damn....where is the commonsense in this?
News from The Associated Press
How much investigation and how long should it take to make a decision in this matter?
Is there not both the "Letter of the Law" and the "Spirit of the Law" that enters into the consideration of things?
Will the Feds now having stuck their beaks into this....drag their feet until the whole intent of the Conservation Project is rendered useless? I know one cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs but damn....where is the commonsense in this?
News from The Associated Press
This is so clear cut, I don't know what the fuss is about.
Has anyone spoken to Vincent (since it seems so many know him anyway) and asked this 4500hr guy, why he infringed the rule?
Strange how so many pilots are ringing every last drop out of this issue
Has anyone spoken to Vincent (since it seems so many know him anyway) and asked this 4500hr guy, why he infringed the rule?
Strange how so many pilots are ringing every last drop out of this issue
'Vincent' maintains that he didn't break the rule [5]. In fact, in the summing up, the somewhat confused judge described Vincent as guilty of flying closer than 500' to the ground...
This is so clear cut, I don't know what the fuss is about. Has anyone spoken to Vincent (since it seems so many know him anyway) and asked this 4500hr guy, why he infringed the rule? Strange how so many pilots are ringing every last drop out of this issue
)
In fact, in the summing up, the somewhat confused judge described Vincent as guilty of flying closer than 500' to the ground ...
This thread has been a curious read, that I'll grant you.
