Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705748
@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
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705750
@IMCR

So might I, but that isnt my point. Can you think of any other area where the evidence is tested behind closed doors with a consequence that is then handed down without any effective right of appeal or hearing?


But you do have a right of appeal or hearing - you can elect to fight what the panel decide in Court. Also, people say here that they wouldn’t be able to afford that - well that is exactly what Legal Aid was set up for from the Legal Services Commission.

During the initial review process you are also allowed to put forward any aggravating or mitigating circumstances - obviously “I was just having a bad day” or the ”cat ate my PLOG the night before” probably won’t cut it!

:thumright:
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705752
@cockney steve

A professional investigation has deemed that the current biased and draconian system is unfit for purpose.


What investigation is that then? If you are referring to the Kirkhope Report then the comments about being ‘unfit for purpose’ were laid upon the Airspace Design Legislation and not the policy for dealing with infringements - there is a big difference. :thumright:

The Lord Kirkhope Inquiry into Lower Airspace has called for the Government to scrap and replace the legislation that sets the direction for UK lower airspace design.

The current Airspace Design Process, the Inquiry found, is unfit for purpose at ‘every level’ from Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000 to the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) interpretation of the legislation.
User avatar
By defcribed
#1705753
gaznav wrote:But you do have a right of appeal or hearing - you can elect to fight what the panel decide in Court. Also, people say here that they wouldn’t be able to afford that - well that is exactly what Legal Aid was set up for from the Legal Services Commission.


No-one with any sort of professional-level income or assets of any kind is eligible for Legal Aid. It is largely restricted to those with below-average incomes and no assets at all. If you're accused of a criminal offence you are expected to sell your house to pay for your defence.

If you fight it and win, you can't claim more than an insignificant token amount towards your costs.

So fighting something like this makes no sense at all for anyone unless money doesn't matter and you're just doing it as a point of principle. Even best case, you are far more out of pocket than if you just accepted the decision and punishment. One can expand this to suggest that actually, in the UK these days, unless you are super-wealthy or destitute it is not worth your while fighting any criminal charge levelled at you unless the likely sentence upon conviction is imprisonment or something else life-changing. For anything that would just result in a fine,it is hard to argue that it is worth fighting vs pleading guilty. The fine is unlikely to be more than the cost of getting yourself acquitted, so save yourself paying a lawyer and just plead guilty and do your best humble pie act.

A right of appeal which will always cost you more than accepting the decision, no matter what the outcome, is no right of appeal at all.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705756
@defcribed

If you feel that aggrieved at being wronged, and your case is clear cut, then you could ask to take it to Magistrates Court to be heard. The costs involved are normally only a few hundred quid if you are really that convinced that the panel have got it wrong - you would also be entitled to costs incurred if the Authority were found to be in the wrong.

I am not suggesting that you keep appealing to take it to the Old Bailey as that would be plain stupid (excuse the pun!). But if the panel did get it wrong and you are 99.9% convinced they are wrong then ask for it to be Judged by a Magistrate.

Gaz :thumright:
By IMCR
#1705759
Quick Question IMCR have you been at the receiving end yourself, of an infringement and the management thereof by 'the system'?

I.e. have you infringed yourself?


No.

But probably dancing on the head of a pin like everyone else. :D

and FWIW I am happy to say I dont sit in my arm chair, I have been flying for about 30 years, and am well into the thousands of hours.

I have a question.

Should the CAA conisder seeking a legal opionion on the current process and publish the reply? It would cost very little, and would clearly put some minds to rest.

Indeed, perhaps they have already done so, in which case it would only need to be placed in the public domain, so all could be satisfied of some external scrutiny.


As to one pilot feeling wronged - I think that is wide of the point. As has been said before, i dont think anyway is saying there shouldnt be a response, what is being said is that the way the response is constructed may be legally unsafe, and it may be disproportionate, which is an entirely different matter. Inevitably some pilots will have been treated "fairly", and some pilots who have been treated fairly will think they havent.

My only offence in a miss spent youth was bad driving, at the time I thought it was so terribly unfair, now I think it was exactly right.

Alternatively at this rate someone is going to suggest a judicial review (I think they already have) which is crowd (pilot) funded. :D It wouldnt need many pilots to contribute a few bob.

Peter, it is clear that your 2 infringements and the subsequent management of the process has affected you badly and made you super bitter.


I must be honest, and say I dont think that is fair. Peter may be bitter, and he might not, that is for him to answer. I dont know how it is possible to judge? I do know he has been prepared to come forward in a very full and frank way and talk about his experience, for which credit should be given. If nothing else, even if some might say it is a biased account, it does gives us a useful insight into the process for which I think we should be grateful
By profchrisreed
#1705768
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


All that the system (this is probably not in the panel's control) would need to do is:

(a) tell us that individual pilots receive reasons. From what is published I suspect, although I don't 100% know for sure, is that all the pilot receives is a notification of what the sanction is, probably referring them to the published criteria.

(b) explain the basic principles or factors which the panel considers when making these decisions. Again, just from the published data it looks to me as if the panel don't consider this, they just look at whether ATC action was necessary to mitigate the infringement. If all that happens is that, then I think the policy reasons for not considering other circumstances need to be explained and justified.

If no reasons are given, and it's a tick-box decision, then that doesn't seem fair and just to me. If that's not what happens, it's not asking much to be told what (in general, not individual cases) does in fact happen.

From the published summaries from January 2019, which is all that is disclosed, it does appear as if the role of the panel is confined to deciding whether there was a transponder failure which justifies no penalty, or whether the infringer was a student so no penalty should be applied. The other cases are simply allocated to letter or course depending on whether ATC mitigation action was taken.

If that impression is correct, then I think the policy reasons for not assessing individual circumstances need justifying (not by the panel but by the CAA) - if they can be justified, we will (or most of us will) be satisfied. If they can't, the system needs to be changed.
By IMCR
#1705772
I would be interested to know how foreign regs. are dealt with please?

I only ask because they dont seem to appear in the stats.

I assume any European regs. are referred to their countries CAA equivalent, but do they first go through the same process?

What happens with N reg where the pilot is under FAA papers?
User avatar
By defcribed
#1705773
@gaznav

There is no way I would want any vaguely technical matter like this in front of a Magistrates Court. Their critical reasoning skills are pretty poor and their appetite for delving into anything even vaguely technical is almost zilch.

They would approach something like this with the simplistic attitude of state authority vs stroppy b*stard = take the side of the authority.

In any case, one is likely wishing to appeal the appropriateness of the penalty rather than dispute that the infringement happened, and the Magistrates are very quickly going to decide that the matter is beyond their competence and thus defer to the CAA decision.

There is no reasonable avenue of appeal or due process that anyone could realistically explore.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705781
defcribed wrote:@gaznav

There is no way I would want any vaguely technical matter like this in front of a Magistrates Court. Their critical reasoning skills are pretty poor and their appetite for delving into anything even vaguely technical is almost zilch.

They would approach something like this with the simplistic attitude of state authority vs stroppy b*stard = take the side of the authority.

In any case, one is likely wishing to appeal the appropriateness of the penalty rather than dispute that the infringement happened, and the Magistrates are very quickly going to decide that the matter is beyond their competence and thus defer to the CAA decision.

There is no reasonable avenue of appeal or due process that anyone could realistically explore.


Well you either live by the Law and the Judicial System of the State, you lobby your MP to get the Law changed or you move to a different State where the Laws/Judicial System are more favourable to your beliefs. If you do not trust the Magistrate and the UK Legal system then there is no other choice really is there?

Personally, I have no significant issue with UK Law and I trust the system. Also, I have to abide by more Laws than most by being subject to UK Military Law too! :thumright:
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705783
IMCR wrote:I would be interested to know how foreign regs. are dealt with please?

I only ask because they dont seem to appear in the stats.

I assume any European regs. are referred to their countries CAA equivalent, but do they first go through the same process?

What happens with N reg where the pilot is under FAA papers?


@IMCR

Why are you asking on a bulletin board Forum? Surely, if you want to know then you write to the CAA or DfT?

Details here:

https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/Informat ... formation/

https://forms.dft.gov.uk/foi-dft-and-dft-agencies/

Please don’t keep asking questions on here that no-one is qualified, authorised or able to answer.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705784
profchrisreed wrote:
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


All that the system (this is probably not in the panel's control) would need to do is:

(a) tell us that individual pilots receive reasons. From what is published I suspect, although I don't 100% know for sure, is that all the pilot receives is a notification of what the sanction is, probably referring them to the published criteria.

(b) explain the basic principles or factors which the panel considers when making these decisions. Again, just from the published data it looks to me as if the panel don't consider this, they just look at whether ATC action was necessary to mitigate the infringement. If all that happens is that, then I think the policy reasons for not considering other circumstances need to be explained and justified.

If no reasons are given, and it's a tick-box decision, then that doesn't seem fair and just to me. If that's not what happens, it's not asking much to be told what (in general, not individual cases) does in fact happen.

From the published summaries from January 2019, which is all that is disclosed, it does appear as if the role of the panel is confined to deciding whether there was a transponder failure which justifies no penalty, or whether the infringer was a student so no penalty should be applied. The other cases are simply allocated to letter or course depending on whether ATC mitigation action was taken.

If that impression is correct, then I think the policy reasons for not assessing individual circumstances need justifying (not by the panel but by the CAA) - if they can be justified, we will (or most of us will) be satisfied. If they can't, the system needs to be changed.


Hi Chris, that sounds like a set of FOI requests too? If you get an answer then please post them here if able.

Please see links above...

Thanks :thumright:
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705787
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!
By IMCR
#1705788
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?
By IMCR
#1705792
@IMCR

Why are you asking on a bulletin board Forum? Surely, if you want to know then you write to the CAA or DfT?


Very fair comment.

I suppose we have these discussions because someone involved usually knows / and / or is prepared to say.

That is a good thing because the forum is great at getting everyone on board.

I totally agree, if the answers arent known / cant be disclosed that is fair enough.

At least in this way we are reaching some sort of agreement on the information that possibly should be in the public domain, but isnt, for whatever reason. That can then be pursued by other means if people wish.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19