[Joff]

CAA decision process: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... 4_V2.6.pdf

[UpThere]

It comes back to one thing.

How much would you be prepared to pay to establish and maintain a UK FIR-wide wall-to-wall radar service, both inside and outside CAS, with all participants reporting to the same organisation - because the government isn't.

I don't believe you pay for this in France

That's exactly my point - the taxpayer does, something which is no longer acceptable to all UK flavours of government.

In my experience, you can fly huge distances in France under the same controller, perhaps changing frequency as you go. Given how much smaller the UK is, I wonder how many controllers would have to be employed to offer us a similar service?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Clearly the CAA thinks not.

And whilst I share that view, I am not comfortable with people's privileges being curtailed before due process has taken place.

Innocent until proven and all that*

*we don't know all details of the case of course.

But, but, but, Just Culture....


Okay, I'll get my coat.

G

[Flyin'Dutch']

CAA decision process: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... 4_V2.6.pdf

Thanks for the link, but the flow chart just has the decision process as a black box:

Case reviewed
■ Consider the need for provisional suspension of licence

What is the process there?

[ratman]

CAA decision process: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... 4_V2.6.pdf

Thanks for the link, but the flow chart just has the decision process as a black box:

Case reviewed
■ Consider the need for provisional suspension of licence

What is the process there?

The full process (the pages beyond the flow chart) includes the assessment criteria and decision process (page 3 onwards).

[Flyin'Dutch']

The full process (the pages beyond the flow chart) includes the assessment criteria and decision process (page 3 onwards).

Those are examples - not the process, nor does it explain why the usual adage of innocent until proven guilty, is not applied here.

Is this same process also used for other ABANL

How does this process compare to that applied to alleged driving offences.

[nkt2000]

Check out the Human Rights Act-innocent until proven guilty. Based on the International Convention on Human rights and EU equivalent - innocent until proven guilty. Seems pretty clear to me

However, suspension does not necessarily imply guilty as charged

[PaulB]

Is a pilot’s licence a right?

[Dave W]

"Presumed innocence" is the right, not the licence.

[PaulB]

"Presumed innocence" is the right, not the licence.

... but licences can be taken away for all sorts of reasons. There's probably not a lot that can be done about it. It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some small print somewhere stating that the CAA could withdraw the privileges of a licence or ratings within a licence for any reason as they see fit.

I agree wholeheartedly with the general thrust of the presumption of innocence posts but no-one is saying (s)he is guilty..... yet!

I'm assuming that none of us knows the detailed circumstance that lead up to this?

[Talkdownman]

The full process (the pages beyond the flow chart) includes the assessment criteria and decision process (page 3 onwards).

Those are examples - not the process, nor does it explain why the usual adage of innocent until proven guilty, is not applied here.

Is this same process also used for other ABANL

How does this process compare to that applied to alleged driving offences.

I was involved in an infringement (albeit minor) last year. Ironically this occurred whilst I was teaching use of frequency monitoring codes in order to prevent and mitigate the consequences of airspace infringement. We had the correct code selected and were listening on the promulgated frequency. ATC called us, addressing us as 'aircraft squawking xxxx'. ATC allocated a discrete code, identified us, requested our flight details, verified our altitude, and offered a Basic service. ATC did not, at any time, issue any warning of any CAS infringement, nor report any infringement or any requirement for avoiding action. I was not informed of any action taken by ATC to prevent and mitigate the consequences of any airspace infringement. At no time during the subsequent 40 minutes contact with that ATC agency were we informed that an infringement had taken place and that an MOR would be filed. The first I heard of it was several weeks later. Without being informed of any details of the alleged infringement I had to take an online infringement test (I passed with 20 out of 20, probably because I have to teach the stuff). I wrote to the CAA asking the Principal Airspace Regulator for event evidence in the form of a copy of the MOR, relevant screenshots of the radar recording, and the relevant section of the RTF recording transcript. None were forthcoming. I subsequently received a letter informing me that the matter would be placed on my licensing record and may be referred to if any further reports are received in the future.

The result of being deemed guilty without any tangible evidence means that not only have I lost faith in the CAA to deal with such events in a reasonable manner, I have also lost all faith in the use of frequency monitoring codes. Not only will I cease to use them, I shall cease to teach them and, indeed, actively discourage their use. As far as I am concerned ATC will have to make do with 7000 with altitude reporting.

[Dave W]

Ouch, that hurts - coming as it does from a pilot with such an extensive ATCO background.

As a partial re-balance, an anecdote on a positive use of a Listening Squawk from this evening. I was operating SW of Frome in Class G, well clear of CAS, practising steep turns and accelerated stalls etc whilst monitoring Bristol and squawking (Mode C & S) 5077.

Bristol called me by callsign, asking if I was aware of the police helicopter operating in my vicinity. As it happens, I had seen him during my clearing turn, passing me well clear and heading away to the North.

However, the call was certainly appreciated; I might not have seen him, and I might have been operating much closer to where he was. Obviously this is a quite unusual example, and I am grateful for the Bristol controller for taking the time; my point is that without the Listening Squawk concept he would not have known it likely I was on frequency so would not have called.

I can quite see why TDM now has a different take from his own experience, though. Very unfortunate use of the process.

[riverrock]

I wrote to the CAA asking the Principal Airspace Regulator for event evidence in the form of a copy of the MOR, relevant screenshots of the radar recording, and the relevant section of the RTF recording transcript. None were forthcoming.

Technically, even though you didn't say it, you made a data access request to the CAA. As such, they legally had to provide the information. You can therefore go through the various procedures to complain.
Might be quicker though to do a Data Access Request, quoting GDPR at them, although it could be too late now, as they may not have kept the data.

If the information they have is incorrect, they must correct it.

[flybymike]

TDM’s story is horrendous, and is the third case of alleged inappropriate CAA behaviour regarding infringements which I can recall discussed on here in the last month or two.

[T67M]

TDM's tale is truly horrendous and reminds me of the Red Arrows infringement many years ago when the only one of several (three?) infringers on the same day who was prosecuted was the one who didn't turn off his transponder. That prosecution resulted in a widespread culture of "transponder off" even among instructors and examiners which has only recently started to reverse, mainly as a result of new legislation from EASA.

Hopefully the Bossman will be able to follow up this story (and the others) with the CAA, pen an article on how listening squawks, infringements, the Infringement Awareness Course and the licence suspension process should work, why they didn't in this case, and what steps are being taken to restore trust in the whole scheme.