ISTR that in the US they have a system where you are encouraged to report screw-ups so you do NOT get punitive action taken against you.
I dont know if it still operates this way.
Regards, SD..
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.
Is that really the case in the UK? In Norway the picture taken has to include an identifiable face, or it is dismissed there and then.
LeSving wrote:
Is that really the case in the UK
Yes, and in several other West European countries, like France and Luxembourg.
In Luxembourg, additionally, you can only go see the picture in person at the office of the unit responsible for it, they come out in the entrance hallway of the building with a print thereof, they show it to you, and you cannot take it with you nor make a copy.
One should also be realistic: The cases in which an owner of a privately operated car really doesn’t know who drove at a certain point in time are extremely rare and it should never at all happen, that an owner/operator of a plane does not know who is flying!
lionel wrote:
Yes, and in several other West European countries, like France and Luxembourg.
It’s the same thing in Sweden as in Norway. No identifiable face, no enforcement.
To be fair, if you have infringed the honest thing to do is fess up if asked.
Unfortuantely the CAA appear to have forgotten that at least in aviation the concept has always been that there is a two way relationship with the regulator, air safety and the willingness to discloe transgressions and errors.
Both the CAA and GASCo would doubtless argue that they seek to foster safety in the air, whereas in fact the current policy has exactly the opposit effect. We have seen pilot’s resort to turning off transponders, and now, doubtless, for some, an unwillingness to engage with the CAA or NATS. I suspect the CAA are the only regulator in the world that has gone out on this limb and every member of GASCo should be appalled that they have abandoned the very essenence of their founders intentions with this venerable charity.
I dont especially take issue with NATS, but the CAA have simply become a pawn to NATS who they are unwilling to stand up to.
Personally, I would be happy to see the lot of them gone for dereliction of duty. I am afraid they have no interest in aviation safety, they are just inconvenient words and God forbid there is an accident as a consequence of this policy, but I wonder if they will still sleep well – I guess they will. It is a very sad day for aviation safety indeed.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Sometimes it is still wise to respond – but that is depending on the individual case.
I think this is indeed a wise response. Stuff like this can be complicated, and dependent on the actual case. In Norway the general rule is; you will not be prosecuted if you file a report, but can be prosecuted if you don’t. With prosecuted I mean taking actions against. A criminal offense is something different, but the CAA is not the police nor the court in any case.
There is also a thing called judicial assessment (I think the English term is, although I’m not sure if it is exactly the same as the Norwegian word, “skjønn”, in this context). In some cases, or circumstances, the CAA has to follow the text in the law or regulations. In other cases and circumstances they are required (by law) to do a “judicial assessment” case by case. It is my experience that errors done by the CAA have been they have not done a proper “judicial assessment” in cases where they are required by law, rather than doing a wrong “judicial assessment”. Instead of doing a “judicial assessment” they have simply adopted the same tabloid approach for all cases. AFAIK grounding a pilot cannot be done without a “judicial assessment” for instance, unless it is way too obvious. There is no requirement to break the law to be grounded. Not “playing by the rules” is perhaps enough?
I don’t know, maybe it is more useful to look at this as some kind of game or sport, at least for some of the aspects. If you don’t follow the rules, you can be expelled from the game. There is no criminal offense implicit in this. It’s very similar to regulations about performance enhancing drugs in sports. There are no requirements for intent either way, the only thing that counts is positive detection of use. Conditions about action taken if detection is positive requires a “judicial assessment”, on a case by case basis. Here, things like “what is best for the sport” may count. It’s not a legal court.
Very well said, Fuji_Abound! It goes without question that this policy contradicts everything we know about “safety culture”, where operators (in this case pilots) are encouraged to report problems and complications for the benefit of the entire system, and with no fear of repercussions unless “gross negligence” was at play. In most infringement cases, there is no indication of “gross negligence” unless you are flying straight through the Heathrow CTR for its entire diameter without talking to anyone…
skydriller wrote:
in the US they have a system where you are encouraged to report screw-ups
However, they do say, “Accidents and criminal activities are not included in the ASRS program and should not be submitted to NASA”. Depends on the definition of ‘criminal’ 
A long time ago in this thread someone used the analogy of running a red light. I did this in the US a couple of years ago: lights about to change and a split-second decision whether to stamp on the brake or the gas. A couple of weeks later a letter arrived by mail for a ‘moving violation’: $158.00. I called the phone number, and the lady who answered was initially defensive, but very helpful after my Hugh Grant smile (yes, you can hear a smile on the phone). Details inputted into violationinfo.com, which showed a damning video of lights changing, car shooting through, and close-up of my license plate.
It’s a good system, with video cameras on the junction, automated letter-sending, the evidence provided on a website, and card payment. It’s been streamlined to make it as easy as possible for both the government and the driver. The fine is also small enough to be paid without disputing, but large enough to have an effect. The equivalent would be a UK CAA letter saying, “you have infringed xyz, put the reference number into this website to see the radar track, which includes a link to pay £100”. Could be a nice revenue stream.
MedEwok wrote:
Very well said, Fuji_Abound! It goes without question that this policy contradicts everything we know about “safety culture”, where operators (in this case pilots) are encouraged to report problems and complications for the benefit of the entire system, and with no fear of repercussions unless “gross negligence” was at play. In most infringement cases, there is no indication of “gross negligence” unless you are flying straight through the Heathrow CTR for its entire diameter without talking to anyone…
Thank you
