Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

In a recent case of a pilot who was accused of infringing, some interesting stuff was discovered:

1) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response to the initial letter from NATS
2) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response to the initial letter from CAA
3) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response stating who the pilot was

The result was that the case was dropped.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

What does that mean, Peter? CAA/NATS cannot actually force you to reply to their letters or force the aircraft owner to disclose who flew the aircraft that allegedly infringed?

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

Peter wrote:

1) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response to the initial letter from NATS
2) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response to the initial letter from CAA

That is quite normal in civilized countries: No government agency can actually force you to do something – even more so if you would risk to incriminate yourself.
That is the job of the police (which is technically not a government agency) and of the courts.
Sometimes it is still wise to respond – but that is depending on the individual case.

Peter wrote:

3) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response stating who the pilot was

That is a more tricky one: Does this only hold true towards the CAA (which would again be quite normal) or also against a court?

Unfortunately in many countries there is some loopholes on this: CAA could dot a ramp check, looking into the records of the plane and your personal flight log (if they suspect pilot was you) and either get you for this flight or for not properly keeping your records…

Germany

I don’t have any more info, which I am authorised to post, but may have in the future.

I agree 3) is more tricky than 1) and 2) but basically I would not be surprised if the whole system was based on “illegal” intimidation. It’s a well established method which works just fine in aviation.

Items 1) and 2) are pure self incrimination. However, the key aspect is that once the CAA has been told who the pilot was, the guy there will simply suspend that license without further process (he has the power to do that and has even done so based on a phone conversation with the pilot) and they can just leave the matter there as a permanent solution because they have achieved their objective.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

1) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response to the initial letter from NATS
2) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response to the initial letter from CAA
3) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response stating who the pilot was

These were the original ‘loopholes’ in the early days of speed cameras and fixed penalties for speeding.

In the beginning there was no law saying you had to tell them who the driver was, so one could avoid it by simply not responding.

Then the law was changed to say you had to complete the form they sent you under threat of prosecution for that particular new offence (failure to provide details of driver). So people completed the form but didn’t sign it, then declined the fixed penalty (i.e. invited prosecution). The prosecution would fail because the unsigned statement was inadmissible in court.

Then the law was changed to say you had to complete the form and sign it.

Finally they closed off any escape by changing the law to say that in the event of a genuine inability to determine who the driver was, the registered keeper (which is distinct from the legal owner) bears strict liability and gets the penalty.

EGLM & EGTN

Peter wrote:

3) There is no law enabling the enforcement of a response stating who the pilot was

What is to stop the CAA guy just checking the named owner of the aeroplane vs the licensing database, and (assuming it looks quite likely to be an owner-pilot) ringing up the owner and asking him a few questions. If he doesn’t like the response then he just suspends that person’s licence….

EGLM & EGTN

Graham wrote:

Finally they closed off any escape by changing the law to say that in the event of a genuine inability to determine who the driver was, the registered keeper (which is distinct from the legal owner) bears strict liability and gets the penalty.

So in the case of the police vehicle which then triggered a camera and the appropriate police force could not specify who took the said vehicle, should the chief constable have taken the “hit”? Needless to say the case was “no further action”

UK, United Kingdom

Traffic regs are (obviously) not directly comparable, not least because they get probed by millions of people and successive governments eventually plug the loopholes. Also the supporting legislation has been through the normal proper process, and UK legislation is normally pretty clear by the time it has been though that. Covid regs are one big exception but that’s because that stuff was done in a hurry.

Whereas the CAA regs are partly based on the ANO, which itself derives from the Civil Aviation Act, and most of what the CAA actually does is under its own delegated powers. The people running the infringements dept are not legally qualified and use intimidation to get most pilots to comply with the information requests.

Most pilots sh*t themselves when contacted by the CAA… and when offered the option to (a) have the balls cut off or (b) have a leg cut off, they will enthusiastically choose (a), remind the CAA a month later to do it, and then post on the forums how great and fair the CAA is to only cut off the balls as a punishment for the heinous act of infringing airspace I actually saw a post just like that the other day.

It is absolutely no surprise to me that there is no law requiring you to reply to the NATS “request to self incriminate”, and I can well believe the same re the CAA version which you get a few days later.

Regarding 3) I am not sure, but “basic justice” would mean the CAA man can’t just dig out your phone number from somewhere (he, and prob99 the entire part-time infringements committee, have access to the CAA pilot database, so he can get one off one of the many application forms there) and make a call to it and invite you to self incriminate that way. That procedure would not comply with the rules for criminal evidence (confessions etc). You could at that point just say you don’t know who the pilot was. Even if he “knows” nobody else flies the plane (as he probably would in say my case) that doesn’t mean somebody else wasn’t. Or it could be a flight with an FI in which case the CAA busts the FI.

It’s interesting… time will tell.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

It is absolutely no surprise to me that there is no law requiring you to reply to the NATS “request to self incriminate”, and I can well believe the same re the CAA version which you get a few days later.

I guess because NATS is just a company that, for their own reasons, decides to write someone a letter. It would be bizarre if a law compelled people to engage in correspondence with a business entity that they have no relationship with.

For the CAA it is conceivable (even reasonable?) that the law ought to be set up such that, as a qualified pilot, one is required to cooperate with their investigations.

What is the position in the US? If the FAA want to talk to a pilot and the pilot doesn’t want to talk, what happens?

EGLM & EGTN

Why doesnt this surprise me – something beginning with in and ending with competence comes to mind, but we all knew that already.

I have always suspected GASCo are infringing the GDPR regulations as well, and understand this is currently being tested with a formal complaint to the Regulator and it is doubtful their activities qualify as charitable, which I suspect will also be tested in due course.

It really is quite appalling that the CAA are involved in what appear to be such under hand practices.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top