8k fine for landing without a clearance

Peter wrote:

I wonder how many UK pilots would land at a “proper airport” (like Coventry)

Not in a lifetime, but this is Coventry we’re talking about. At the time they were dickying about with ATC, A/G, Fiso etc seemingly every day. Every call to them seemed to incur a bolshy correction, eg “Coventry Approach” when I’d called Information as Notam’d and so on. I took to giving them fullsome apologies over the air for my ‘mistakes’.

I wonder if this chap (Who I know nothing of) really called on an ‘incorrect’ frequency as stated in the press release, or actually on a published frequency that they just chose not to use that day because of their internal management difficulties. And I also wonder if indeed he was on a published but ‘incorrect’ frequency whether his calls really went unheard? Did they actually have the radio turned off to save electricity? Or.. (you can see where this leads…)

I’m no fan of Coventry’s management style, basically since I went there for an ‘interview’ about keeping a plane there and was told that a real USP was that they’d just ‘arrested’ a pilot for walking across the apron without a yellow jacket. That attitude filters down to everything they do, like their stupid ‘booking out’ proceedure. I wonder if this chap was bullied into silence when in reality there might have contributory culpability elsewhere.

Timothy wrote:

Fines in mags court are reduced by 33% if the defendant pleads guilty at the first opportunity. Reductions for late guilty pleas are subject to the discretion of the bench.

Doesn’t that give innocent people an unhealthy incentive to plead guilty for “risk reduction” in cases where the outcome of a trial is not a given?

Costs for trials are considerably greater than for guilty pleas for obvious reasons. If the reasons are not obvious, let me know.

Surely fines are not intended to cover trial costs!?

Aveling wrote:

I’m no fan of Coventry’s management style, basically since I went there for an ‘interview’ about keeping a plane there and was told that a real USP was that they’d just ‘arrested’ a pilot for walking across the apron without a yellow jacket. That attitude filters down to everything they do, like their stupid ‘booking out’ proceedure. I wonder if this chap was bullied into silence when in reality there might have contributory culpability elsewhere.

And some people here still wonder, why continental pilots don’t want to fly to the UK?

Back to the NOTAMs: I think the NOTAM awareness in the GA population has vastly increased with the advent of EFBs like SD, ForeFlight, etc. I only know FF, but a route briefing here gives you all the relevant NOTAMs (and then some…). Certainly a huge improvement over the days of yore when you had to wade through reams of paper – and, of course, in a GA context hardly ever did.

What I don’t quite understand about this chap is – why didn’t he just go back on the previous frequency and ask? I’ve had to do that a couple of times, on one occasion (in Spain), the previous controller actually called the next unit which I couldn’t raise on a landline – they were military and were, ahem, snoozing…. or is the wonderful (not) UK ATC system not capable / willing to do that?

172driver wrote:

or is the wonderful (not) UK ATC system not capable / willing to do that?

The UK system, although not especially wonderful, certainly does do that provided that you get a controller in the right frame of mind (much like Dutch Mil..). I’m not seeking to justify the chap’s 19 unsuccessful calls and then landing anyway, but he might have formed the opinion that Coventry had been messing about so much recently that they’d finally chucked it all in completely. But personally, I would have been more cautious and would not go to Coventry without a phone call due to their stupid PPR rules. You have to bear in mind that at the reported time of the incident, most other diversionary places would have been ‘closed’, another almost unique attribute of UK airfields.

Despite all that, dear visitor, please come to UK. Just be sure to come up on here first to get some practical advice on Basic Service = what was that?, Class ‘D’ = Class ‘B’, closing FPLs and other quirkiness that make the British so loveable. Really. And welcome!

I also wonder how many UK airfields can give the ICAO light signals we all learned as PPLs.

We were talking about this over lunch yesterday. One of the club instructors recently asked a controller, and the reply was something along the lines of, “oh, those things we learnt about in school? Not sure if everyone knows how to use them. And we don’t have one in our tower.”

Not sure if everyone knows how to use them. And we don’t have one in our tower.”

On my check ride for PPL in 1992, the examiner said my radio was dead and would not work again before I landed. I proceeded with the correct dead radio precedure, but no signals came from the tower. My examiner called up the tower, and they said the lights “didn’t bwork”.

We discussed this afterward. What to do if no light signal came from the tower in a real situation. Just land at first opportunity was reply from the examiner, and I agree.

172driver wrote:

why didn’t he just go back on the previous frequency and ask?

Or simply ask London Info. They don’t bite. They’ll phone airfields and ask stuff if necessary.

Fines in mags court are reduced by 33% if the defendant pleads guilty at the first opportunity. Reductions for late guilty pleas are subject to the discretion of the bench.

Doesn’t that give innocent people an unhealthy incentive to plead guilty for “risk reduction” in cases where the outcome of a trial is not a given?

The outcome of a trial is always slanted in favour of the defence, as the prosecution has to prove the case, whereas the defence only has to raise doubts in the mind of the tribunal. The idea of the reduction for a guilty plea is to encourage people to avoid trial if they are unlikely to raise those doubts. A number of hurdles have to be jumped before a case even reaches court.

Costs for trials are considerably greater than for guilty pleas for obvious reasons. If the reasons are not obvious, let me know.

Surely fines are not intended to cover trial costs!?

Yes, they are two different things.

Timothy wrote:

The idea of the reduction for a guilty plea is to encourage people to avoid trial if they are unlikely to raise those doubts.

I understand that, but it also means that people who know that they are innocent but feel that — for whatever reason — they have difficulty raising those doubts may plead guilty just to reduce their risk. It does happen that innocent people are convicted and more often than we would care to admit.