The view that a pilot is not permitted to endanger an aircraft he flies alone is well backed up. Any real danger to the aircraft can in turn endanger others, and would be more than an inconvenience to the emergency services digging through the wreckage.
That the pilot actually endangered the aircraft would be for the authority to prove, the presence of a danger area alone would not be sufficient. In practice, it might put more of a burden on the shoulders of the pilot to prove otherwise…
The French airforce low flying routes being inactive doesn’t mean there isn’t any low flying taking place, only that the the military aircraft will assure separation (when active, they can’t guarantee separation).
An American instructor told me there has never been a collision between GA and defence aircraft in a military operating area, probably because the air force has both ground and airborne radar.
I’ve been looking for this for weeks, and finally found it. A Maule deliberately flew through an active MOA to remain VMC, then sued the USAF when the ensuing near-miss with four F-16s damaged his aeroplane. I don’t believe any action was taken against him.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/959/1537/2367015/
Summed up:
“79. Therefore, a plaintiff is barred from recovering damages when the plaintiff’s negligence is the sole legal cause of damages”
In the US, you are permitted to fly through active MOAs when VFR (you won’t get an IFR clearance through an active MOA). If the USAF needs to guarantee an area free of civilian traffic they have to get a restricted area.
In practice, it might put more of a burden on the shoulders of the pilot to prove otherwise…
That is not how the burden of proof works.
The prosecution must make the case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence only has to raise reasonable doubts, not to prove anything.
alioth wrote:
have to get a restricted area
Sorry, I didn’t word that very well. It actually was a restricted area, R-2901
Yes, but the CAA will simply argue that “there is a firing range, and the danger area is there because of the firing range, so obviously there is danger, DUH!”.
In that case, a response of “that is not enough, prove it some more!” is not a strategy I would want to bet on – in effect, my case would imply that the CAA created these danger areas without a good reason, and any judge not familiar with the abundance of badly justified overregulation in aviation would find that hard to believe.
Hence, in practice, the very least I would have to do (well, my barrister would have to do) is ask very probing questions about
which almost amounts to proving that that particular DA is silly.
You endanger yourself flying in a Danger Area while there is an active shooting, putting legality aside, this guy managed to shoot himself 
All went fine for him, except shattered leg and broken vertebrae !
http://datagenetics.com/blog/august22017/index.html
I am talking about a ground firing range, not aircraft-to-aircraft firing. Even in that case, I would be more worried about banging into a fast jet than I would be about being hit by a bullet.
Personally, I just stay out of these things, but I also don’t skim lochs.
Of course flying above a ground firing range, and skimming lochs, is “less safe” than flying at FL100 well clear of anything. But that does not mean either should be prohibited. The CAA lost their case on loch skimming, fortunately.
Some pertinent snippets from DfT’s consultation paper on proposed aviation strategy for GA.
Aviation 2050: The future of UK aviation. Cm9714, Dec 2018. Page 158. (link)
7.34 The UK must safely accommodate an increasing number of users in some of the world’s
most congested airspace. As set out in Chapter 6, the government proposes that
there should be mandatory identification of all aircraft in UK airspace.
7.35 Electronic conspicuity devices allow an aircraft to determine its own position and then
broadcast that information to other aircraft in its vicinity, and receiving stations on the
ground, providing greater situational awareness. Mandating such technology would
mitigate the significant risks of mid-air collisions, and increase the ability to regrade
airspace to enable greater sharing of airspace.
7.36 In addition, the government proposes to:
• introduce civil sanctions for Air Navigation Order offences
7.37 Expanded options would widen the CAA’s powers to include directions to rectify the
situation; require binding undertakings or to fine offenders. At present the CAA has no
enforcement options between a warning letter on the one hand and court action or the
removal of licenses and permissions on the other. This proposal would provide a more
proportionate focus on corrective responses rather than punitive measures for more
minor offences. The government will look for an appropriate legislative opportunity to
take this proposal forward.
Isn’t the IAC just that?
