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.

misterbonkers
I suppose the fact you work for a competitor that does aerial filming is just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

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. :ugh:

Yes you do still need the expensive CAA piece of paper in your sticky hand. And a record of all the times it applies has to be kept.

(I do not work for a rival film company).

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

Not sure exactly what you mean here because your statement is ambiguous, but if responsible pilots make the necessary application and pay the money for a Rule 5 permission, why should another not do so? The cost should be included in the price paid by the client.

nimbyThe 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.

How naive!! The penalty imposed by the court may be slight (all things are relative), but I suspect this is the bit that is causing some sleepless nights:

I wouldn't describe losing one's livelihood as a 'slight' penalty. :=

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!!:bored:

misterbonkers
Ironically that could explain quite a few of the comments. ( :ugh: )

Heliport - that's what I was pointing out to Bronx!

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!!

Does anyone know what the CAA decided to do?

I don't think the CAA has decided what to do yet

I am told he CAA have a page on their website where they record action taken against a pilot's licence. Never seen it myself though.

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

Typically speedy CAA then. :D

Maybe that was the last action against a licence holder?

Except for the last one.