Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705794
IMCR wrote:Hang on - are we actually talking about the law? None of this is directly enshrinded in law that has been passed by Parliament, other than the general notion (as far as I am aware) that the response to infringements will be determined by the CAA - in other words the CAA will be trusted to come up with a satisfactory response. Isnt that a bit different and possibly why some are say a higher standard of scrutiny is required?


The UK ANO is UK Law and the Authority vested in the CAA and the Secretary of State for Transport is enshrined within it. So if you infringe then you are deemed to have broken the UK ANO and so, with the powers given to the CAA/SofS within the ANO, they can act as authorised. Article 253 of the ANO details the powers of the CAA.
User avatar
By dublinpilot
#1705795
There is a lot of clouded issues here.

But when you distil it all down, all that is being asked for is enough information to allay the impression that justice is not being done and GA pilots are being harshly treated for minor innocent mistakes.

The impression may be incorrect and come from a pilot's personal bias, or it may be correct. The CAA were told on these very forums 2 years ago that GA pilots were uncomfortable with the system and wanted to see sufficient information published to show that it's being operated fairly. The CAA accepted that, but has only recently published very limited info (which seems confirm the initial point that the online course is all but gone now). So it should come as little surprise to the CAA that those fears have not gone away.

All that is being asked is for the system to be open, transparent and accountable so that it can not just be fair, but also seen to be fair.

When that is being resisted so strongly, it just reinforces the belief that something untoward is going on.
By IMCR
#1705796
Yes, I know, that is almost what I said.

The ANO is law, but the response to an infringement comes from the "discretionary" powers vested by Parliament in the CAA - does it not? In other words if the CAA decided that every infringer would receive a pink pair of knickers in the post for a first offence to be worn at all times when P1, that would be within their powers (I joke of course). My point was therefore that when the CAA alone decide on the response to an infringement (how, why and were) the response needs to be especially carefully considered, which I am sure it is, as it hasnt been subject to any other scrutiny other than that undertaken by the CAA - hence why the CAA might request a legal opinion that their response was legally safe?

As others have said, we trust and we want to trust the CAA absolutely in all such matters, but our trust must be earned, and shouldnt that mean when it comes to disciplinary oversight transaprency and due process is of paramount importance? That trust is perhaps not surprisingly tarnished when it seems so difficult to get at the data, and when, even a Freedom of Information refusal must be reversed.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705799
IMCR wrote:Yes, I know, that is almost what I said.

The ANO is law, but the response to an infringement comes from the "discretionary" powers vested by Parliament in the CAA - does it not? In other words if the CAA decided that every infringer would receive a pink pair of knickers in the post for a first offence to be worn at all times when P1, that would be within their powers (I joke of course). My point was therefore that when the CAA alone decide on the response to an infringement (how, why and were) the response needs to be especially carefully considered, which I am sure it is, as it hasnt been subject to any other scrutiny other than that undertaken by the CAA - hence why the CAA might request a legal opinion that their response was legally safe?


But it can be subject to other scrutiny, by asking to take it to the Courts? Also, the Military Aviation Authority sit on the ICG Panel and they work to a different Secretary of State - so there is some shared oversight. Plus, the CAA’s Investigations and Enforcement Team sit on that panel - they are very UK Law savvy (as they have to be to get safe prosecutions for various ANO offences). Further, there is no evidence that the CAA are acting outside of their powers as set out in the UK ANO.

Honestly, enough now please. You do the wider GA community no favours with this and it’s all getting a bit silly in my opinion. If you want official and formal responses to your questions then please use the FOI links that I posted or at least have that chat that @Cub kindly offered. Or would you rather sit behind the anonymity of your IMCR name and just keep throwing peanuts in the fan?? :cyclopsani:

I’m pretty much done on this subject for now :thumright:
By IMCR
#1705800
Fair enough, if you are done, you are done and I thank you for at least being willing to engage and discuss.

I fully appreciate there are other courses available. The only point I would reiterate is I dont suppose anyone wants to take those courses or should need to feel they are necessary?

I have had some PMs with Cub, and another that he "deferred" to. I will not say what the outcome has been, but you would be wrong to assume by inference that either the offer has not been discussed, or that it is a solution or otherwise. I will not say any more on that matter.
User avatar
By Cub
#1705801
gaznav wrote:Alternatively, for all of you, please take up Cub on his kind offer to brief you face-to-face with the questions that you have. You can’t be fairer than that!


Just to be clear, although I have been involved in the handling of infringement events for very many years, the offer was not to spend time with me (you would opt for the Infringements Course in lieu of that, every time!) the offer was to facilitate a discussion between IMCR and the person who is leading in this area. I believe they are talking to each other which is why I find it surprising that many pages on from the offer IMCR continues to ask questions and make assertions when nobody who is suitably qualified or actually knows is prepared to contribute, having been shouted down or subject to derision and left, ages ago.
By IMCR
#1705804
Cub - thank you. I am sure I would much rather have a beer with you, than go on the course!! :D You might not with me, after all this mind you!!

As I said, I am not willing to say anything more, but we shall see what comes of that.
User avatar
By AlanM
#1705808
IMCR wrote:As I said, I am not willing to say anything more, but we shall see what comes of that.


PROGRESS!!

(Only joking)
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
#1705836
gaznav wrote:@profchrisreed

Hi Chris

I suspect, although I don’t 100% know for sure, that the individual Pilot receives details of why the panel sought to award the various sanctions - be it a letter, test, course, retraining or further action. I would also suggest that it is right that the details are not shared with everyone as they would be trying to protect the individual’s reputation by not publicising it? Surely, at this level it is a private matter between the individual and the Authority? Only if and when it goes to Court, should it be a public matter?

Best, Gaz


My thoughts are that it should not be hidden, but that the details of pilot and plane be anonymised, the instance then shared for all because otherwise 'There but for the grace of God go I'.

I thought exactly the same when the occurrences, which previously were published by the CAA monthly, suddenly were only allowed to be viewed by those with 'a legitimate need to see them'. I used to read the transcripts if only to allow myself the foresight to avoid being involved in such an occurrence myself.
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
#1705859
kanga wrote:.. but if it comes to a prosecution, successful or not, the pilot's name will be public ..

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=112833


Colour me skeptical but I thought we should be working towards avoiding infringements, a prosecution is all well and good but for the sake of learning from the mistakes of others, shouldn’t the infringements be shared rather than the punishments „pour encourager les autres.“


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
By Cub
#1705885
Full Metal Jackass wrote:
kanga wrote:.. but if it comes to a prosecution, successful or not, the pilot's name will be public ..

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=112833


Colour me skeptical but I thought we should be working towards avoiding infringements, a prosecution is all well and good but for the sake of learning from the mistakes of others, shouldn’t the infringements be shared rather than the punishments „pour encourager les autres.“


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Perhaps in lieu of prosecuting the more serious or repeat infringing pilots, we should consider delivering some form of educational course, based around the causal factors that lead to infringements?

Perhaps we could get a highly respective aviation safety charity to deliver the course on a cost covering basis in order to ensure the focus is on lesson learning, safety and a ‘Just Culture’?

FFS

Tim was correct. This really is the Dementor thread. Sucking the will to live out of GA.
User avatar
By defcribed
#1705900
Well, you're welcome to go flying rather than read it or post on it...

The range of fines in those prosecutions is surprising. I guess they must be multiple of income. Fairly big fines for false medical declarations but some very small ones for serious airspace busts.

I love the titles - CAA Successful Prosecutions. Would love to read about the unsuccessful ones - do we think there are many?
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19