Could a teacher lose his job via speeding?
That’s a similar scenario IMHO.
Many legal people hold a view that the CAA procedure has various illegal aspects. I am not going to post a list because of ongoing actions, however.
Certainly doctors have to report driving offences to the GMC. You wouldn’t normally lose your career over mild to moderate speeding, but drink-driving would put it in jeopardy.
kwlf wrote:
Certainly doctors have to report driving offences to the GMC. You wouldn’t normally lose your career over mild to moderate speeding, but drink-driving would put it in jeopardy.
Similar here in Germany. A small offense, usually settled with a fine, is of no relevance to the Physicians Chamber (Medical Council). Any offense which can land you in jail however, is, and can get your license revoked.
Note that you can be put in jail for (very severe) airspace infringements in Germany in theory, though I don’t think this has happened before.
kwlf wrote:
Certainly doctors have to report driving offences to the GMC. You wouldn’t normally lose your career over mild to moderate speeding, but drink-driving would put it in jeopardy.
I dont doubt you, but are you indicating any driving offence must be reported to the GMC?
I appreciate you may need to report drink driving to your employer as it is a criminal offence and if nothing else has CP issues. Interestingly, any motor offence that results in a court prosecution is strictly a criminal offence I undestand so in theory when you fly to the States (when) it should be disclosed, but I wonder how many actually do.
I have never heard of anyone that has lost their job even for drink driving unless the ban from driving actually impacts on them doing their job especially if it is actually part of their job.
In terms of just culture the consequence for a commercial pilot of a level bust in CAS are very different. The treatment of GA pilot’s is patently discriminatory and disproportionate and I doubt if scrutinised by the Courts would stand up.
You’re right… I’ve just looked up the guidance and fixed penalty notices don’t have to be reported.
How are commercial pilots managed, out of interest? I assume the divide is between commercial and noncommercial rather than GA versus non-GA as some of the conversations here have mentioned infringements by air-ambulance pilots who would be GA.
kwlf wrote:
You’re right… I’ve just looked up the guidance and fixed penalty notices don’t have to be reported.
But they are reported to immigration authorities duting the application for permanent residence / citizenship in the UK…
I assume if you are a migrant – don’t fly under TMA. And don’t drive! :)
MedEwok wrote:
Any offense which can land you in jail however, is, and can get your license revoked.
In theory yes. But part of the truth is also, that this almost never happens! Even physicians that actually spent time in Jail (e.g. for massive tax fraud) were allowed to practice again afterwards. (Not saying that they should not because for decision about the right punishment should be up to courts and only courts and not to some obscure GMCs or equivalents)
Peter wrote:
More importantly IMHO it discourages people flying to the UK.
Really? Don’t think so! If people are discouraged to fly to the UK it is because there is water to cross and it’s always some way to get there. It’s an island in the end. And perhaps they are afraid that they have to fly on the wrong side of the airway ;-)
But fear of fines for airspace infringements? Not really. The problem in the UK does not so much seem to be the CAA (which does its job) but more the dysfunctional legal system. If pilots rather visit a course than fighting against an unjustified ticket in front of a court the system is rotten.
In Germany we have a well working legal system. If the German CAA (technically not the CAA because we have a separate agency responsible for the fines) would send me a ticket baes on an asserted infringement that is insight the tolerance of Mode-S altitude measurement, it wouldn’t be more than one call to a lawyer (paid by legal expense insurance) to get rid of it.
https://t.email.archant.co.uk/r/?id=h353d7c9,3135952,313599d&p1=1.6822243&p2=DM30292
Independent Online survey on the CAA.
Is this Bo!!@($??
Once the UK has withdrawn completely from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on 1 January 2021, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will need to fulfil all regulatory functions for the aviation sector
The UK Government has been clear that as the UK exits the EU, its aim is to ensure continued transport connectivity in support of economic and social ties.
It is also clear that the responsibility for aircraft and technology certification and maintenance will fall solely onto the shoulders of the CAA.
In response, an independent online survey has been launched by new pressure group Sky Lovers, with the express aim of obtaining views from everyone in aviation, ‘from drone operators to senior airline captains’.
This survey will provide ‘stakeholders’ with an opportunity to influence some of the legislation and governance surrounding the operation of the CAA. ‘Now is the time for everyone to have their say,’ urges Sky Lovers
The last review of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 by Sir Joseph Pilling was challenged by the House of Commons Transport Select Committee in 2012.
The evidence given by several MPs questioned accountability, transparency and the efficiency at the CAA. ‘It also raised a crucial point,’ claims Sky Lovers ‘that the organisation is not subject to any audits by the National Audit Office, in contrast to similar organisations’.
Those interested in taking part in the survey are invited to visit the web page: https://surveyhero.com/c/caacomplaints
The problem in the UK does not so much seem to be the CAA (which does its job) but more the dysfunctional legal system
The UK has a very robust legal system, developed over centuries, and at least as good as the best anywhere in the world.
The problem here is that the CAA is allowed to freelance, and do it behind closed doors. And the process where they suspend your license right away if you want to go court, and then you are grounded for a long time even if you win, prevents most people taking that route.
In Germany we have a well working legal system. If the German CAA (technically not the CAA because we have a separate agency responsible for the fines) would send me a ticket baes on an asserted infringement that is insight the tolerance of Mode-S altitude measurement, it wouldn’t be more than one call to a lawyer (paid by legal expense insurance) to get rid of it.
It’s not because your legal system is working; it is because your CAA has not been allowed to freelance outside of it 
But fear of fines for airspace infringements? Not really.
Here you go – straight from a senior NATS/CAA official (he is now working for Uavionix).
Peter wrote:
It’s not because your legal system is working; it is because your CAA has not been allowed to freelance outside of it
Well, I am not entirely sure I agree.
One of the problems is taking just about anything to Court these days has become extraordinarly costly for the private individual, and, to some extent always was.
The small claims track is the only route for many, but is not available for this type of action.
The danger is that if, for example, someone were to take on the CAA, and lost the case, it would prove a costly excercise. It is unlikely you would want to go DIY, and even if you did, the other parties expenses would be unpleasant assumning you sort to really have your case examined. The other issue is that probably your case would rely on various procedural arguments, but if the evidence is that you busted CAS even by 200 feet for 2 minutes, the fact remains the offence was committed.
This is where, if AOPA had any teeth, the case would be put forward funded by the membership for juducial review which would examine the whole principle of current policy which would be found wanting.
To this extent I am not sure our legal system is at fault any more or less than it already discriminates against any situation where the costs are prohibitive to anything other than a successful outcome, and even then the cost reward payback is often not attractive.
