Helicopter commander in court for allegedly breaking rules
 

From the Maidenhead Advertiser here

Maybe he was on a long approach to land? :E

Here's a relevant link:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/Prosec...rch%202010.pdf

(See page 2).

The CAA do not remove a pilot's licence for breaking the rules.

If convicted of an offence, a pilot can be punished by the Court - and only by the Court.
The punishments available do not include any orders in relaton to the pilot's licence.

The CAA cannot and should not take licensing action in order to punish the licence holder. (Punishment is for the court to decide.) However, the CAA may take licensing action (revocation, suspension etc) if the conduct of the pilot is such that he/she does not meet the criteria for holding such a licence.

The CAA does not normally take licensing action - for the good and sensible reason that the fact that a pilot has broken an aviation law/regulation does not of itself mean that he/she is unfit to hold a licence.

FL

Prosecutions for low flying are extremely rare. It goes on all the time and you're very very unluckly if someone has accurate measuring equipment, or you do it over a large group of people, then phone up the CAA and confess!

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/272...sy-uk-caa.html

And by removing the "offender"s licence, they would be removing the right to work and the means to pay the fine!

I note that the sub-heading in the thread adds the word "allegedly".



So does the main heading now.
Thanks for pointing out the error.

The headline and content in the news report that started this thread is even more specific but nothing illegal I guess, something to do with freedom of the press - but do we really need to know all the detail this side of a trial? Still stops the speculation about who it is on Pprune I guess!;)

Certainly nothing as iffy as the recent news headlines and finger pointing content relating to the landlord who is the latest 'Christmas Day murder' suspect in Bristol.




Thread title changed.

Anyone know what he is alleged to have done (in more detail....)

Joel



Even if you do, do not post allegations while there is a court case pending.

It is very interesting that the main thrust of opinion about this is that the pilot in question should under no circumstances lose the privileges of his license.

I suppose you should not take licensing action against a driver who drinks and drives or causes death through careless or dangerous driving. Perhaps the courts should have powers to remove the privileges of a licence granted by the CAA. They are after all privileges not rights.

What a strange attitude some pilots have toward the actions of their own kind, no matter what the misdemeanour.

I would not have thought that low-flying is in the same league as causing death by dangerous driving; probably more akin to speeding for which drivers do not lose their licence unless it's habitual or excessive.

Cheers

Whirls

FFF
you are liking a drunk driver that kills to a pilot who flew closer than 500 feet with out permission. That's b@ll@cks. Would it make you happier if the pilot had permission? Would it make it any safer if the pilot paid his fee, got permission then didn't hurt anyone anyway?

That low level weather abort recce for pylons and hazards must be acceptable surely???

I don't see much strange attitude here, only knowledge of the facts from previous cases taken to court.

I kind of agree with FFF. When we are granted a license we all agree to abide by the rules and regs, are we now saying that we can do what we like and still keep that license.
Maybe some sort of points system like driving licenses is called for.

I don't think anyone here has said that, have they? :confused:

That is the implication.

No, that is not the implication just what you have chosen to infer. It can't be beyond the comprehension of any reasonably intelligent person to understand that there are degrees of offence and that a pure low-flying allegation is less severe than flying under the influence for example.

The main point being made here is that it is down to the court to decide punishment, not the CAA.

Cheers

Whirls

Many of you miss my point. I am not judging the case at hand but giving my views on a mind set that appears to be prevalent amongst fellow aviators, and more so the non professional/commercial ones at that.