CAA UK prosecutions
Thread Starter
CAA UK prosecutions
"On 25 July 2011, at about 5.45pm, a man walking his dog along the foreshore at Bracklesham Bay heard an engine noise and, looking along the beach, he saw what he described as a microlight aircraft coming towards him at 10 feet a.g.l."
11 pages of successful prosecutions, fixed, flex & rotary.Right here
11 pages of successful prosecutions, fixed, flex & rotary.Right here
So 16 prosecutions in 12 months. 6 of these were people trying it on - no licence or documentation. Leaving just 10 offences resulting from incompetance. Am I the only one to think this demonstrates a high standard of airmanship / compliance / training??
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anecdotal evidence tells me that there is a lot of dodgy charter on rotary dressed up as "private flights", but as I understand it you have to go to the CAA with the evidence rather than them look for it, I guess it comes down to staffing levels
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is quite a list of people trying it on, without a care for a licencing system.
I think I will get myself a micro light and just fly that around, only have to cough up 500 quid if I get caught !
As for cowboy charter at the weekend they never get caught unless they have a little incident.
My opinion is that if someone has knowingly falsified, or deliberately omitted any documentation then quite simply they should be electronically tagged and not allowed to touch an aircraft for a very long time.
Fluffy
I think I will get myself a micro light and just fly that around, only have to cough up 500 quid if I get caught !
As for cowboy charter at the weekend they never get caught unless they have a little incident.
My opinion is that if someone has knowingly falsified, or deliberately omitted any documentation then quite simply they should be electronically tagged and not allowed to touch an aircraft for a very long time.
Fluffy
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Close to the hangar, UK.
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew in to Ascot a few years back on an AOC charter. The company I was contracted to believed that another one of their machines was liable to be used for an illegal charter to Ascot by a self-fly hirer. They had informed the CAA who were there as a matter of course.
Sure enough the heli arrived and 3 pax got out in their Ascot finery. They were asked how they knew the pilot and they said they were all friends and all paying their own way.
The pilot (dressed in a white shirt and black trousers) was interviewed after he'd parked and gave the same story.
He then sat in the pilot area all day chatting to those he knew whilst his "friends" enjoyed their day. The man from the CAA joined us at lunchtime and didn't ask a single probing question.
Later he took his PAX, sorry friends, back to their house in the country before returning the machine.
IMHO if you're an honest individual / company that inadvertently breaks the rules you're much more likely to face a grilling from the authority than those that systematically flaunt the laws.
Unless you're willing to hand the CAA a smoking gun with a fingerprint on the trigger they know they might not win in court and so nothing will happen.
Sure enough the heli arrived and 3 pax got out in their Ascot finery. They were asked how they knew the pilot and they said they were all friends and all paying their own way.
The pilot (dressed in a white shirt and black trousers) was interviewed after he'd parked and gave the same story.
He then sat in the pilot area all day chatting to those he knew whilst his "friends" enjoyed their day. The man from the CAA joined us at lunchtime and didn't ask a single probing question.
Later he took his PAX, sorry friends, back to their house in the country before returning the machine.
IMHO if you're an honest individual / company that inadvertently breaks the rules you're much more likely to face a grilling from the authority than those that systematically flaunt the laws.
Unless you're willing to hand the CAA a smoking gun with a fingerprint on the trigger they know they might not win in court and so nothing will happen.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So long as he apparently followed the rules, and they appear to have been followed, and he was safe, whats the problem?
I'm amazed this idiot has not attracted more attention here?
He wrote about what an idiot he was. Then repeated it on film a few years later. How can any pilot be happy that lunatics like this are allowed into the sky, legally.
I'm amazed this idiot has not attracted more attention here?
He wrote about what an idiot he was. Then repeated it on film a few years later. How can any pilot be happy that lunatics like this are allowed into the sky, legally.
If the AOC system was not such a ridiculous rip off more people would operate legally . There are many people who have operated carrying passengers for many many years perfectly safely without an AOC , often using exactly the same aircraft and the same pilot as a company with an AOC . I know it must be irritating but it certainly doesn't mean there is a compromise on safety . I think it is time for the CAA to operate an AOC "light " for small operator/owners that would not saddle them with high overheads . I for one would certainly never get an AOC as the system works at present .
The CAA fined a total of £20,550 over 2 years at a cost of £625,000
The CAA fined a total of £20,550 over 2 years at a cost of £625,000
Nigel there is such an AOC!
Charge for Restricted A-B AOC
When an application is made for the grant of a Restricted A-B AOC, the applicant shall
pay a charge that is the greater of:
a) £606; or
b) £202 for each month of validity applied for.
For the purposes of this paragraph a Restricted A-B AOC is one which is subject to
restrictions which include:
• Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only;
• Only single-engine piston aircraft to operate under the AOC;
• All aircraft MTWA on the AOC fleet is less than 2,000 kg;
• A-B operations restricted to points within mainland UK.
You just have to be able to afford the AVGAS for the Robinson R44!
Charge for Restricted A-B AOC
When an application is made for the grant of a Restricted A-B AOC, the applicant shall
pay a charge that is the greater of:
a) £606; or
b) £202 for each month of validity applied for.
For the purposes of this paragraph a Restricted A-B AOC is one which is subject to
restrictions which include:
• Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only;
• Only single-engine piston aircraft to operate under the AOC;
• All aircraft MTWA on the AOC fleet is less than 2,000 kg;
• A-B operations restricted to points within mainland UK.
You just have to be able to afford the AVGAS for the Robinson R44!
So your saying i have to go back to flying a piston to be legal 
I,d rather carry on with a turbine and take my chances .
ps what is the difference between a piston and a turbine that makes the CAA make it piston only ??????????
I,d rather carry on with a turbine and take my chances .ps what is the difference between a piston and a turbine that makes the CAA make it piston only ??????????
CampFreddie - as long as you don't speed after you've picked up some random people and taken them home then I think you'll be ok 
Driven closer than 500ft to a house and it might be a different matter though...
Driven closer than 500ft to a house and it might be a different matter though...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Posts: 272
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in Australia a simple charter AOC costs about $8k to set up initially in CASA manhours and no per annum fees.
Sympathy to those in the UK. Glad I left.
OOW
What does it cost to set up and keep a day/night VFR A - B charter AOC in UK?
Sympathy to those in the UK. Glad I left.
OOW
What does it cost to set up and keep a day/night VFR A - B charter AOC in UK?
Last edited by outofwhack; 2nd Sep 2012 at 13:42.
Out of Whack
i have an AOC for single vfr turbines here are the costs
1. CAA yearly costs £ 10050.00 generously in 10 month interest free repayments. Then £ 1500 for each extra reg on the aoc
2. Independent maintenence audit £ 500
3. Independent operations audit £ 500
The above obviously does not include all the form 4 post holders ie Chief pilot. accountable manager, ground operations manager, head of Training.
Plus SMS manager, audit manager
the the expenses of keeping records etc etc
the biggest joke is not being able to use a helicopter vertically.
We fly MD 500's we have to have 231 metres infront of us ( accleration distance to 60 kts and 100ft ) of which the first 1/3 must have no obstacles the remaining 2/3 obstacles must be frangible and no more than 7 degrees slope
Now if that was an R44 that distance is 470m ( might be wrong) and the EC120 is over 500m . it is difficult to explain to a customer why you cant use a helicopter for what it was invented for
Oh well
i have an AOC for single vfr turbines here are the costs
1. CAA yearly costs £ 10050.00 generously in 10 month interest free repayments. Then £ 1500 for each extra reg on the aoc
2. Independent maintenence audit £ 500
3. Independent operations audit £ 500
The above obviously does not include all the form 4 post holders ie Chief pilot. accountable manager, ground operations manager, head of Training.
Plus SMS manager, audit manager
the the expenses of keeping records etc etc
the biggest joke is not being able to use a helicopter vertically.
We fly MD 500's we have to have 231 metres infront of us ( accleration distance to 60 kts and 100ft ) of which the first 1/3 must have no obstacles the remaining 2/3 obstacles must be frangible and no more than 7 degrees slope
Now if that was an R44 that distance is 470m ( might be wrong) and the EC120 is over 500m . it is difficult to explain to a customer why you cant use a helicopter for what it was invented for
Oh well
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Close to the hangar, UK.
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes500. It's 427m for the R44.
I guess it's because they can show all of the accidents where single engine AOC aircraft have crashed on a vertical approach / departure due to engine failure.
It could only be because there were at least 2 or 3 examples of serious incidents that they could show, surely?? Otherwise it would seem excessively restrictive.
I heard there's a rumour that the CAA will bar anyone under 5'10" from flying the 44 unless they wear platform shoes that bring them up to that height. Otherwise, you can't see the new (pointless) sticker on top of the fuel cap that shows you you've closed it 'cos it aligns with the white marks (which you wouldn't be able to see either).
I guess it's because they can show all of the accidents where single engine AOC aircraft have crashed on a vertical approach / departure due to engine failure.
It could only be because there were at least 2 or 3 examples of serious incidents that they could show, surely?? Otherwise it would seem excessively restrictive.
I heard there's a rumour that the CAA will bar anyone under 5'10" from flying the 44 unless they wear platform shoes that bring them up to that height. Otherwise, you can't see the new (pointless) sticker on top of the fuel cap that shows you you've closed it 'cos it aligns with the white marks (which you wouldn't be able to see either).
Last edited by firebird_uk; 2nd Sep 2012 at 20:10.
And the biggest joke of all is that the guys who DO pay say £50,000 pa to keep an AOC ( all the fees , plus manpower to do ...whatever ) have to say no to picking someone up from their garden ....even a REALLY BIG garden , Have to say NO to flying into Battersea in a single without floats , have to say NO to night VFR ..............and the guys who dont pay for an AOC can do ALL of the above legally on a lease deal I know i sound like a stuck record, but would love to know why they put up with it ?? I understand if your business is loads of weddings etc , which make very little money , but if you have some good regular clients why not fly them privately and get rid of all the nonsense ? In a few years there will be just a handful of bigger operators charging a fortune and a handful of lease companies and that will create a market for the ppl cowboys to fill , and people will use them as they will be a lot cheaper.
I say the CAA should deny this easy market for the cowboys and get the operators ( ALL of the good ones who have operated for 20 years or more usually without a blemish ) to all come into a workable AOC system that actually WORKS . That maybe , perish the thought , allowed you to lift up to a 10ft hovver and cross a fence before t/o
And maybe allowed you to plan your flight without having to employ 5 other people to file it in triplicate ..... No , that could never happen as its just TOO sensible and would allow people to charge less , do much more flying and even make a profit .
I know i sound like a stuck record, but would love to know why they put up with it ?? I understand if your business is loads of weddings etc , which make very little money , but if you have some good regular clients why not fly them privately and get rid of all the nonsense ? In a few years there will be just a handful of bigger operators charging a fortune and a handful of lease companies and that will create a market for the ppl cowboys to fill , and people will use them as they will be a lot cheaper.I say the CAA should deny this easy market for the cowboys and get the operators ( ALL of the good ones who have operated for 20 years or more usually without a blemish ) to all come into a workable AOC system that actually WORKS . That maybe , perish the thought , allowed you to lift up to a 10ft hovver and cross a fence before t/o
And maybe allowed you to plan your flight without having to employ 5 other people to file it in triplicate ..... No , that could never happen as its just TOO sensible and would allow people to charge less , do much more flying and even make a profit .
Last edited by nigelh; 3rd Sep 2012 at 18:43.
OK, let's be clear as this seems to be verging on conundrums or mud slinging or both.....
What, if anything, is wrong with the following scenario of two separate transactions to get me from A to B within the UK.
OK, so I'd need to know someone who would rent me the helicopter, and I'd need to know a pilot, but assume that I do...
Would it make any difference if the two transactions were with the same company?
What, if anything, is wrong with the following scenario of two separate transactions to get me from A to B within the UK.
- I rent an airworthy helicopter - G reg or otherwise
- I employ the services of a pilot rated on said helicopter
OK, so I'd need to know someone who would rent me the helicopter, and I'd need to know a pilot, but assume that I do...
Would it make any difference if the two transactions were with the same company?