Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Video on UK CAA infringement enforcement procedures

alioth wrote:

The document is absolutely crying out for a decent copy editor, too. It would get its message across so much better with someone in charge of editing it for style and content.

Isn’t that how all legal documents are written? I think they do it on purpose.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I wish them well, and hope they win (‘cos if they don’t, the CAA has expensive legal costs..)

Yes, the UK CAA has that reputation and uses the threat/risk of their disproportionate costs to procure guilty pleas in circumstances where there would be a viable defence.

As for the few cases which do go to court, the CAA does not publish information as to the proportion of contested cases which it loses after issuing a summons, but when I analysed this a few years ago they were losing about three out of four of such cases.

This adds weight to the argument that the CAA pursues “no hope” cases in contravention of the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Why has it taken so long to come up with some “defense” in this matter ? I mean the whole thing seems very odd (to put it mildly) for anyone outside the UK, and even for most of the natives it seems odd. I would also think fighter pilots, red arrow pilots and professional instructors would carry some (unofficial) weight in aviation circles.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving

Three reasons I suspect.

1. You need to recall that here in the UK our airspace is largely managed by a private organisation after it was sold off (NATS), and inevitably their motivation is profit. They have leant very heavily on the CAA and the Government who have caved in. COVID has hit their profits hard and the outcome of this crisis is they will be even more entrenched when traffic levels recover to manage UK airpspace with the absolute minimium of cost, and they will resistant any move to provide any more controllers to managing UK airspace, other than as is absolutely required by CAT. Their argument is we havent got the resources to deal with GA, so the CAA had better keep GA in its box, which translates into zero infringement tolerance,
2. The CAA department that is now responsible, has inevtiably been filled with a large number of people that have an entirely biased agenda and are now in complete denial that this policy is a disaster, and is so often the case when this happens, see any change as a threat to be resisted at all cost. It will take someone of considerable courage and stature to reel them in now, and, we dont have anyone currently to do that. We also have a pilot community that is fragmented and often more interested in pursueing their own interests and therefore with no wish to rock the boat. For example, AOPA UK, which you might think would represent UK pilots, has their CEO on the main board of the charity that dispenses the regulatory penalty, and in his capacity as CEO of AOPA UK isnt even prepared to take a position on this, other than for enitrely obvious reasons, toe the line. It was just the same when it came to the very long standing IMC rating, which it eventually took the weight of pilot opinion to ensure this was immediiately abolished, after AOPA abandoned the pilots, and eventually had to do a complete about turn when their members eventually gave them a kicking. Such is life that they werent even then prepared to admit they had it wrong all along. Martin has been a disaster for AOPA UK, is way past his sell by date, but hangs on to a very nice salary and pension and we have to put up with someone who may have done a good job once, but is now devoid of fresh ideas, energy or enthusiasm.
3. As Peter pointed out Timothy erstwhile of this parish is a good example of those involved with this policy. I think it is fair to say he has been banned from just about every flying forum for various reasons. Quite obviously this isnt the person you would want to be involved in this type of matter simply because these people arent diplomats and arent willing to listen and understand the opinions of others who are often a great deal more experienced than they.

This combination makes it very difficult to bring about change. The CAA know full well that any legal challenge is costly, and they will undoubtedly throw considerable resources defending their position for all the reasons outlined, so the guarantees of success are not weighted in GA’s favour. The CAA have demonstrated already they have zero interest in engaging with the GA community and they will certainly resist every effort to produce data which would either support or challenge their claims this is an effective policy. Of course, you can all but guarantee when the data doesnt support your arguments, if you can, and if you have no intergriity, this is exactly what you would do. It is as poisonous a concoction as would bring more than a cackle to conven of witches in Macbeth Scene 1, and it is proving very difficult to find an antidote.

Why has it taken so long to come up with some “defense” in this matter ?

Because you need to find somebody who is

  • rich enough, and
  • angry enough, and
  • sufficiently fussy about seeing justice done

and those people are rare. You need a budget of 10k-20k just to get started. This is hard to justify unless your license has been permanently removed, but the CAA doesn’t do that; they merely suspend it, pending you complying with some process, and if you don’t comply with it then you remain suspended for ever, but your license was never actually removed

In GA, most people are so scared of the CAA (which as we know has the power to terminate your license with a phone call in which you have not shown the “correct attitude”) that all the time they can still fly afterwards they carry on and keep their mouth shut.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Of my 4 near-misses of airspace infringement,
3 of them were undeniably going to be my fault under a ‘black or white decision process’ but were created by poor ATC.

I.e. 1. late notification of no clearance (due to poor earlier RT phraseology from ATC. Even confused the highly current IR pilot who was with me) -Very hard turn to avoid a letter.
2. One more weighted on me i agree, but I had been vectored around in Class D then at the boundary told you’ll need to loose 3000ft as the next sector won’t grant to a clearance. Very hard diving turn to avoid a letter
3. Asking controller ‘a’ for LARS, giving full intentions, working them until a mile from the boundary to their actual airspace, being handed to controller ‘b’ sitting next to her. Then directly being refused entry and chastised on frequency for not calling miles previously!! Very hard dive while commencing a hard turn all in IMC.
I should have reported that one!
On another occasion I was distracted flew close to class ‘D’ , noticed and turned just as the controller called to warn me ( he would have saved my bacon that day )
The avoiding action required for the 3 situations was Dangerous and if it was with unfamiliar pax would have downright terrifying.

This is unnecessary (obviously it was from the current CAA standpoint) but in the good old days I would have acknowledged the situation on the radio, made a sensible turn/descent and heard no more.
I’m convinced his has all come about due to pressure from Airlines, lobbying that a go-around or diversion costs them money which they are no longer prepared to build into their operating costs.
Everything done by our CAA can be justified for an infringement that scatters a dozen airliners as it bumbles around the CTR like a bee looking for nectar, but not for those clipping a random corner by 300m or 200ft.

United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

In GA, most people are so scared of the CAA (which as we know has the power to terminate your license with a phone call in which you have not shown the “correct attitude”) that all the time they can still fly afterwards they carry on and keep their mouth shut.

Sounds like the CAA is a rogue terror regime. Sure there isn’t some middle ground here where the truth is?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Well, yes, it isn’t the whole CAA. Most people there are normal decent people, trying to do a good job, and occassionally succeeding The problems described are contained in factions within the company, which for some inexplicable reason the management (which has received all this material some time ago) feels unable to do anything about. There are rumours of suspensions and subsequent re-instatement and nothing changing.

I am sure every national CAA is a bit like that. There will be the usual ex national air force crowd, which tends to have a certain POV, and you get various others. For example you have the medical department which in the UK is fighting a rearguard action to protect the AME industry. Etc. This is a clear case of somebody whose wheels came off more or less completely and who got “court martialled” pretty fast.

EDIT: This is the next installment from the Dutch lawyer…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

GA_Pete wrote:

2. One more weighted on me i agree, but I had been vectored around in Class D then at the boundary told you’ll need to loose 3000ft as the next sector won’t grant to a clearance. Very hard diving turn to avoid a letter
3. Asking controller ‘a’ for LARS, giving full intentions, working them until a mile from the boundary to their actual airspace, being handed to controller ‘b’ sitting next to her. Then directly being refused entry and chastised on frequency for not calling miles previously!! Very hard dive while commencing a hard turn all in IMC.

These two are disgraceful – I think pilots should be encouraged to file MORs when these happen. Especially when the airspace structure is so disjointed that you can be actually in controlled airspace with a clearance then refused a clearance for the directly abutting airspace.

Andreas IOM

Peter wrote:

EDIT: This is the next instalment from the Dutch lawyer…

He’s not quite correct with his interpretation of a CAA ‘investigator’

There are those who are employed by the CAA Investigation & Enforcement Team (IET) who are generally retired Police Officers/Detectives, mainly from the Met. They know the law, and I believe they can caution you under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act when taking statements for use in a court. Just like the old boys network, It’s alleged that they might rely on their previous Police contacts to provide information that wasn’t in the public domain. They have a canny way of getting information…

Then there are the CAA ‘Investigators’ I believe the Dutch Lawyer refers to. These are CAA staff who deal with MORs & Alleged Breaches of Air Navigation Legislation, or cases where it wasn’t deemed worthy of prosecution. No such legal training or experience.

That’s how it was when I last was involved.

EGKH, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top