Friday 25 April 2014 00:46 UTC

Latest FLYER headlines:
TAG Farnborough Airspace Consultation extended  -  First Tecnam P2008JC ordered in the UK  -  LAA releases results of Change Challenge   
More news

CAA prosecutions

This forum is for anything to do with light aviation
User avatar
AlanB
Lost Cause
 
Posts: 6495
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:56 pm
Location: Coatzacoalcos

CAA prosecutions

Postby AlanB » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:53 pm

Eh?

On 17 April 2011, the Essex Radar Air Traffic Controller observed on radar an unknown aircraft tracking northwest through Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zone 2. Two passenger aircraft inbound to Stansted and one outbound passenger flight were in potential conflict with the unknown aircraft. Mode S interrogation showed that the aircraft registration was
010000000010001000100010

User avatar
Talkdownman
Final Approach Track Man
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:45 pm

Postby Talkdownman » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:13 pm

Eh?

Isn't that how SSR works?
Interrogate/Respond...?

User avatar
Irv Lee
Beyond Hope
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 3:10 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: CAA prosecutions

Postby Irv Lee » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:16 pm

presumably pressed ON not ALT?
Irv Lee -EASA/UK/SA Approvals (R/T & Flight)
Confused? http://tinyurl.com/easachecklist
UK GA Twittering not Tw@ering: @irvleeuk

UV
Forumite
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: North Weald

Postby UV » Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:19 pm

presumably pressed ON not ALT?

Suspect not!
All here
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/CAA%20Pro ... elease.pdf

User avatar
PaulB
Beyond Hope
 
Posts: 7711
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:34 pm
Location: Midlands

Postby PaulB » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:15 am

The entry above is the same aircraft 3 months earlier for the same offence by a pilot with the same surname.

OK, I'll be thick.... He was in the TMZ and had a transponder which seemed to be switched on. What did he do wrong?
Paul

I do wish that the forum didn't keep logging me out. Perhaps they're trying to tell me something!

User avatar
Peter Mundy
Senior Forumite
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:18 am
Location: PAM066/17.6

Postby Peter Mundy » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:27 am

"On 20 January 2011, an unknown aircraft was observed on radar within Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zone – 2. A passenger aircraft inbound to Stansted had to be vectored clear."

You only get hung if they have to re- route traffic .
Peter Mundy
EHLE

Due to recent budget cuts the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

Skype : pilotshop.nl
http://www.skywaysdirect.com

PortAndCheese
Forumite
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:24 am

Postby PortAndCheese » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:51 am

The two events appear slightly different. The earlier event (Mark) had to be traced without the use of SSR, so that appears that the Transponder was either off or completely broken. By the way, is this the well-known aerobatic pilot? The later event (John) seems to have at least a partially functioning transponder (aircraft reg found through Mode S) but possibly without the Alt Reporting function working.

I do find some of the fines odd. Particularly the one on Page 5. The pilot appears to have made a genuine mistake, and (perhaps mistakenly) taken what he thought was the best course of action, and landed right in the lap of the CAA, resulting in total almost £7k.

In comparison, the first two on Page 1 and both on Page 4 involve cases of deliberately flying without insurance, CofA (or equivalent) and in contravention of a "no-fly" instruction from the CAA. Yet it takes these four cases, found by CAA investigations, in total to reach the same fees as the one pilot on Page 5.

I'm sure Timothy will correct my understanding of the legal system, but if the fees covered go to the CAA, why not punish the deceiptful a little harsher and save the rest of us a few pennies?

User avatar
PaulB
Beyond Hope
 
Posts: 7711
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:34 pm
Location: Midlands

Postby PaulB » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:03 am

Peter Mundy wrote:"On 20 January 2011, an unknown aircraft was observed on radar within Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zone – 2. A passenger aircraft inbound to Stansted had to be vectored clear."

You only get hung if they have to re- route traffic .


Indeed, but he was in class G (albeit a TMZ), why would CAT need to be vectored?
Paul

I do wish that the forum didn't keep logging me out. Perhaps they're trying to tell me something!

User avatar
Dave Phillips
Nice wife...
 
Posts: 11163
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:52 pm
Location: EGIEZXAA

Postby Dave Phillips » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:18 am

PaulB wrote:
Peter Mundy wrote:"On 20 January 2011, an unknown aircraft was observed on radar within Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zone – 2. A passenger aircraft inbound to Stansted had to be vectored clear."

You only get hung if they have to re- route traffic .


Indeed, but he was in class G (albeit a TMZ), why would CAT need to be vectored?


Because the controllers wouldn't have know the aircraft was outside of CAS.
Fly Safely

FE(A), PPL(H)

User avatar
TractorBoy
Forumite
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:46 pm
Location: North Weald

Postby TractorBoy » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:20 am

PaulB wrote:
Peter Mundy wrote:"On 20 January 2011, an unknown aircraft was observed on radar within Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zone – 2. A passenger aircraft inbound to Stansted had to be vectored clear."

You only get hung if they have to re- route traffic .


Indeed, but he was in class G (albeit a TMZ), why would CAT need to be vectored?


At a guess, because he didn't have Mode C selected, so as far as the controller knew he could have been inside the class D. That's the whole point of the TMZ - Mode C is mandatory ( unless in communication with or permission obtained from Essex Radar)

User avatar
PaulB
Beyond Hope
 
Posts: 7711
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:34 pm
Location: Midlands

Postby PaulB » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:28 am

Dave Phillips wrote:
PaulB wrote:
Peter Mundy wrote:"On 20 January 2011, an unknown aircraft was observed on radar within Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zone – 2. A passenger aircraft inbound to Stansted had to be vectored clear."

You only get hung if they have to re- route traffic .


Indeed, but he was in class G (albeit a TMZ), why would CAT need to be vectored?


Because the controllers wouldn't have know the aircraft was outside of CAS.


This is sort of what's confusing me. The TMZ seems to have turned things on their heads. Prior to the TMZ, a (for sake of argument) mode A squawking aircraft would have been assumed to be in class G (below 1500') unless the controller knew otherwise. This is like the 1500' stubs that surround a number of airports. Now, with the TMZ, it appears that the assumption is reversed and that it's assumed the aircraft is in CAS unless proven otherwise.

Have to say, I've always found this assumption not to be in CAS hard to fathom, but I've been told that that was the case on more than one occasion.

The solution seems to be to have working mode C.

When will mode S in these areas become compulsory? The AIC mentions an exemption.
Paul

I do wish that the forum didn't keep logging me out. Perhaps they're trying to tell me something!

ac11flyer
Forumite
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:21 pm

Postby ac11flyer » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:33 am

It can be a genuine mistake.
The difference between Alt and On is 1 click. If you turn the knob not far enough, you are in trouble, even if you don't infringe an airspace.

ac11flyer
Forumite
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:21 pm

Re: CAA prosecutions

Postby ac11flyer » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:41 am

I looked into last years prosecutions:
'Causing to be delivered for carriage on an aircraft a chain saw containing petrol'
(conditional discharge in this case, but costs)

I wonder how much difference that makes in an aircraft filled with petrol.
Do I need to search passengers for petrol filled lighters?
Is there a threshold?

peterh337
.
 
Posts: 7398
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:11 pm
Location: Sussex

Postby peterh337 » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:50 am

Have to say, I've always found this assumption not to be in CAS hard to fathom


It's a tough one, and few people outside aviation would be comfortable with it.

The only "solution" is mandatory Mode C/S, or a ban on "uncontrolled" traffic.

The reason Europe has not (yet) had a GA-CAT midair is through luck, assisted by a number of factors

- when gawd made the sky, he made lots of it
- most GA does not bust CAS
- ATC keeps a watch (effectiveness limited to participating traffic)
- most GA flying at "hotspots" (like the Stansted/Luton gap) is doing short burger runs and knows the area
- most of Europe has virtually no GA
- most GA flies very low and won't bust most CAS even if no navigation is taking place
- CAT climbs steeply and rapidly reaches levels at which ~99% of GA pilots never fly (not so true for descents though)
- enroute, CAT flies far too high for GA to reach it

The TMZ is IMHO an excellent way forward. They have them all over the place in the USA, following a GA-CAT midair (or few).

BTW, does anybody know what caused MikeT (the senior NATS ATCO) to suddenly and comprehensively leave?
www.euroga.org
FAA CPL/IR
JAA PPL/IR

User avatar
Timothy
CLEAR PROPS!!!
 
Posts: 32323
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:41 pm
Location: The best of all possible worlds

Postby Timothy » Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:01 am

PortAndCheese wrote:I'm sure Timothy will correct my understanding of the legal system, but if the fees covered go to the CAA, why not punish the deceiptful a little harsher and save the rest of us a few pennies?

Setting of fines, costs and compensation is more complicated than just equating the seriousness of the offence with a financial penalty; it also takes into account the impact on the defendant and his ability to pay.

If someone is on benefits of £60 per week, fining him £150 and having him pay at £5 per week will have a greater impact than making a CEO pay £150, which he will not even notice leaving his credit card. Thus the CEO gets a higher fine for the same offence, trying to equalise the impact. Fines go to Central Funds.

Costs go to the prosecutor, and have to be justified as reasonably incurred, though, where the prosecutor is the CPS there is a scale of charges so that time is not wasted accounting for the minutes spent by prosecutor on each case file. Once the prosecutor submits their costs, the court will determine (a) if they are reasonably incurred and proportionate and (b) whether the defendant has the means to pay. The costs are not a punishment, but simply to reimburse the prosecutor for some or all of the costs disbursed. The court can order that none, some or all of the costs are paid by the defendant, depending on means and circumstances.

Compensation goes to the loser or victim. They can be for actual loss (cost of replacing the window, or insurance excess) or for injury or distress. In the case of loss, the court likes to see evidence (invoice from the glazier) but can make a judgement call. In the case of injury or distress there is a recommended scale, which is used as a starting point in setting the level of compensation. Again, compensation is only set to a level that the defendant can pay, so someone on benefits who has knocked down a railway bridge would not be expected to pay hundreds of thousands.

For completeness, there is also something called the Victim Surcharge, which, despite its name, goes to Central Funds. It has been a flat £15 for all fines raised, but is about to be massively expanded to cover all disposals.

Does that help?
Timothy
Not sent from my iPad.

Next

Return to GA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arrow4, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Remosflyer and 19 guests

click here Login / Register