[AlanM]

Save for the good advice above, My only advice is to tell the truth.

There is a lot of accurate radar data source that can be gathered in such cases - and if you have had your Mode C verified by a radar unit that day during the said flight it is going to be hard to disprove if you are low.

As for the person who has reported you - I can only assume it was either an ATCO or someone on the ground with lots of documented evidence for the CAA to prosecute.

Fingers crossed it will all be an error and there is no case.

[MercianMarcus]

Ah yes, the well known and widespread people hiding in hedges phenomenon.

I think pheasant-murderers might do it. They are usually well camouflaged too.

[Gertie]

I'm going to go dig out my air law. I've only ever flown under 1000' feet once, and that was out over the sea whilst training*. (We went down to 200', and I ain't doing that again!)

I've been quite happy flying 100' above water. But with floats on, not wheels, of course.

(recently I noticed I start to get jumpy above 3500', am I the only person who wants to go up and practise some "high flying" !

I'm more likely to get jumpy below 3,500' - there's loads of other aeroplanes down there to worry about.

[cockney steve]

@flybymike said

Ah yes, the well known and widespread people hiding in hedges phenomenon. 

AIUI, well known species, among the "dogging" fraternity.
No personal confirmation, sorry.

[rf3flyer]

An unenviable situation to be in for sure.

Regarding what people have said about possible radar evidence, and Papilot makes no mention that there is any in his case or even whether he was squawking, here's the thing. If there was radar evidence, and assuming it came from a civil source, ie an airfield radar unit, how reliable would that evidence be on height?

My understanding is that even if squawking mode C an ATC unit cannot accept that height return for the purposes of traffic deconfliction as reliable without confirmation from the pilot. How then could an unconfirmed mode C return be reasonably used as evidence against a low flyer?

[flybymike]

@flybymike said

Ah yes, the well known and widespread people hiding in hedges phenomenon. 

AIUI, well known species, among the "dogging" fraternity.
No personal confirmation, sorry.

Prickly business.

[Nomad63]

I know we all know this but hasn't been mentioned yet...., not only can you NOT break the 500ft rule when less than 500ft agl in certain places, but you also CAN break it at higher than 500ft agl somewhere else

[Sooty25]

As for the person who has reported you - I can only assume it was either an ATCO or someone on the ground with lots of documented evidence for the CAA to prosecute.

lets not use the word "prosecute", they are only "investigating an allegation" at this stage.

[AlanM]

Sooty - a fair point and the P word was not used deliberately to scare the OP.

That said, they (CAA investigation branch) seem fairly well advanced in their investigation. (From my experience of being interviewed by them a few times)

But as I said above - I hope that there is no case to answer.

[pullup]

That said, they (CAA investigation branch) seem fairly well advanced in their investigation. (From my experience of being interviewed by them a few times.

Correct. The CAA will not contact the pilot until they have interviewed all witnesses, taken their statements and done all their homework.

Even though the guy you see from the CAA may be called an Investigor he is little more that a statement collector. The real people who investigate it and decide whether a prosecution will take place are the senior officials in the Legal Branch.

The investigator has very little or no say in that process.

[Chilli Monster]

As for the person who has reported you - I can only assume it was either an ATCO or someone on the ground with lots of documented evidence for the CAA to prosecute.

I think we both know that ATC have more important things to do than reporting unverified Mode 'C' responses for low flying when they could be practicing PFL's or acting quite within their legal rights.

[Sooty25]

That said, they (CAA investigation branch) seem fairly well advanced in their investigation. (From my experience of being interviewed by them a few times.

Correct. The CAA will not contact the pilot until they have interviewed all witnesses, taken their statements and done all their homework.

Even though the guy you see from the CAA may be called an Investigor he is little more that a statement collector. The real people who investigate it and decide whether a prosecution will take place are the senior officials in the Legal Branch.

The investigator has very little or no say in that process.

If that is how they work, all the more reason to not offer any statement until the evidence has been disclosed.

[Mike Tango]

I'm keen to know whether this allegation was made by someone on the ground in the area in question, or whether your transponder got you busted via LARS.
.

Sorry, but where did LARS/ATC come into the narrative?

[flyingeeza]

I'm keen to know whether this allegation was made by someone on the ground in the area in question, or whether your transponder got you busted via LARS.
.

Sorry, but where did LARS/ATC come into the narrative?

Ok let me rephrase...
Did some little self-appointed enforcer of the law tattle-tale tell on him, or was it an aviation authority of some sort that reported him?
And what's the allegation based on anyway?
Visual estimate, or radar trace?

[AlanM]

I find it almost impossible to believe that a controller would have reported this unless it was following a call from a member of the public and the ANSP felt compelled to do so.

Ultimately, I only get excited about infringements if I have to take avoiding action against an infringer. With regards to SERA/ANO - keep me out of it, guv'nor!