That depends what you mean by performance 
A comment made on another forum suggests that a ‘test case’ may well be in the early stages.
As has been said before this is not an issue with the legal system.
This is an issue with an authoritative department that has gotten over zealous with persuing an agenda that now appears wholly driven by influence of the commercial sector.
The legal system may prove to be good bad or indifferent regarding this matter, in the future if the rumours are correct, as mention by Graham.
In a legal system that is really “as good as the best anywhere in the world”, there is an established process that an agency decision can only have negative consequences for the citizen if a final four ruling finds him guilty
It is hard to disagree with this principle, but there’s a grey area where it can be argued that the citizen’s exercise of his licence privileges poses an unacceptable present risk to third parties.
Examples where we might expect a licensing agency to act without waiting for a court decision might include suicidal airline pilots or religious/political fanatics.
In the UK, for better or worse, the CAA might compare its duty to protect third parties to that of a Chief Constable under the Firearms Act 1968, as amended.
Sure, but it is for the CAA to show that this risk exists. They can’t just assume that every pilot who infringed airspace twice within past 4 years is going to do a suicide mission.
You can kill a dozen people by driving into a bus stop queue at 70mph, yet we have a defined system for dealing with traffic offences; not one where one man working at the DVLA can just phone you up for a “phone interview” and in the course of that “interview” he removes your license (actual scenario being reported; has to be said we don’t know what the subject pilot said to the CAA man, though one can probably guess ).
The problem here seems to be that the pilot population is just too small for a fair (at an acceptable level for all involved) process of prosecution to have developed. There are often similar situations with one government agency making the rules and do the prosecution at the same time. For offences in road traffic most countries have developed a system that is acceptable for most of the population over the past 100 years. But more than half of the population is affected by these systems and this creates massive incentives in a democracy to develop an ok system.
To base the prosecution on the offender’s own measurement systems (avionics) is a huge no-go in the first place because there is no way the for the prosecuting party to prove its integrity. Speed cameras have to be set up and documented very thoroughly otherwise a judge will quickly dismiss any speeding offence. But in case of airspace infringements the pilot is supposed to dig his own grave. This should just not happen in a first world country.
As Malibuflyer has rightly intimated, the underlying British problem is that, unlike the Firearms Act, the UK ANO contains no provision for quick, effective and affordable appeal of licensing activity to a Sheriff or Magistrate.
The result is that some staff of the CAA are burdened with a degree of power for which they are ill-equipped and unsuited.
This lack of an appeal process would be easy to fix, if the Secretary of State was minded to do so.
actual scenario being reported; has to be said we don’t know what the subject pilot said to the CAA man, though one can probably guess ).
What report are you referring to?
The real problem is this type of unregulated activity attracts a certain type of person. I know three of those involved and I can say with absolute certainty you would not want any of them involved in this type of process.
Jacko wrote:
It is hard to disagree with this principle, but there’s a grey area where it can be argued that the citizen’s exercise of his licence privileges poses an unacceptable present risk to third parties.Examples where we might expect a licensing agency to act without waiting for a court decision might include suicidal airline pilots or religious/political fanatics.
Don’t know details about the British system – but in well working legal systems there are provisions for that as well. They are different from country to country but the basic principle is always that in case of imminent danger the acting authority (most often some kind of police) can always take actions. There is, however, a defined period of time (in many cases something in the ballpark of 24 hrs) until a judge needs to decide whether the action will be upheld or not. Obviously these judicial systems also have provisions that there is always a judge “on call” so that the timing requirements can be met.
In addition, I’m not sure if these cases would affect the licensing agency at all: If there is really an “unacceptable present risk” it is typically not the licensing agency which is at the scene and can prevent that risk. I would assume that in all cases we are talking about it takes the CAA at least a week from the infringement to the actual notice of license action – in all judicial systems I know it would be extremely hard to argue, that even after these 7 days the risk of the pilot flying again is so imminent, that there is no 24 more hours to have that checked by a judge.
