Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 19
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1705692
peterh337 wrote: The other day I got cleared for an ILS using very nonstandard terminology...


Did you refuse the clearance? Did you MOR them?

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

However to suggest that the system automatically adds extra feet and miles to the infringement to make it extra bad is non-sense.

What matters whether the infringement was just that or whether as a result of the infringement other action had to be taken and that is a matter of chance after the infringement as the infringing pilot does not know if there is traffic nearby.

Whether action needs to be taken by the controller does indeed depend on what the rules are for managing infringing aircraft and as long as they are 'unknown' the additional miles and feet are added - that this is different in the UK to the rest of Europe is neither here nor there, it is what it is.

What is not good is that an infringement where there was no risk is dealt with as a criminal offence, that is clearly not proportionate. That should get changed and the likes of AOPA should be lobbying for that. To go back to the analogy of the traffic offences, a minor speeding offence does not attract a criminal conviction….
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705701
@IMCR

Gaznav - do you not think there may be the problem?


No, because I trust a panel of experts rather than a Kangaroo Court on a bulletin board forum. :thumright:
User avatar
By flybymike
#1705703
as long as they are 'unknown' the additional miles and feet are added - that this is different in the UK to the rest of Europe is neither here nor there, it is what it is.


Frank that is crazy.

What is the greater risk which requires greater separation in the UK but not elsewhere in Europe ?

It’s like the proud mother watching her son on parade;

“Ooh look! All the soldiers are out of step except my Johnny!”
User avatar
By flybymike
#1705704
No, because I trust a panel of experts rather than a Kangaroo Court on a bulletin board forum.


Which of the two sides is the Kangaroo court?
By IMCR
#1705712
"No, because I trust a panel of experts rather than a Kangaroo Court on a bulletin board forum. :thumright:"

GAZNAV

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?

It doesnt happen with speed awareness, it doesnt happen with professional disciplinary hearings (of a multitude of professions), it doesnt happen in the judicial system, I genuinely cant think of another example?

(I know you might say take it to Court, but we all know that isnt practical for a host of reasons, so that course of appeal is really available).

I know it is a little pointed, but also I would say again it would be useful to have a mature discussion. You know as well as I, that no one is suggesting the evidence should be tested by a forum - or any other Kangaroo Court. That is just devaluing our discussion surely?

What is being said to be implicit, is the panel of experts hears the evidence, but it is impossible for the evidence to be tested. The pilot puts in his written report and I guess so does the Controller, and thats it. We know that process is dangerous, and not because it has anything to do with whether or not we trust the panel - I am sure they are performing their duties as well as they are able.

It becomes even more dangerous when they "hand down" the consequence as well, for which their is very limited guidance in the public domain. I appreciate you suggested earlier they may have more detailed guidance than we see in the public domain, but surely you would agree that is also unsafe.

All of this might matter a lot less, but lest we forget it is a criminal offence that is being discussed.

I just find it odd that yes of course you can dismiss a lot of contributors but when I think a barrister and Professor on here says this whole process is unsafe, those comments cant so easily be dismissed. I was always told when a barrister expresses an opinion it may well ulitmaely be proven to be incorrect, but you damn well had better take notice, especially as also n my experience having been to barristers many times, they tend to want to be somewhere over 70% certain before they will give a particualr opinion.
Last edited by IMCR on Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1705713
flybymike wrote:
as long as they are 'unknown' the additional miles and feet are added - that this is different in the UK to the rest of Europe is neither here nor there, it is what it is.


Frank that is crazy.

What is the greater risk which requires greater separation in the UK but not elsewhere in Europe ?

It’s like the proud mother watching her son on parade;

“Ooh look! All the soldiers are out of step except my Johnny!”


:roll:

The Speed Limit on dual carriage in the UK is 70 mph in France it is 130 km/h in Germany there is none-unless signed out.

Same difference?
By IMCR
#1705716
"The Speed Limit on dual carriage in the UK is 70 mph in France it is 130 km/h in Germany there is none-unless signed out.

Same difference?"

I think you are forgetting EASA? I thought we all thought that this was something to do with one standard throughout Europe, or did I miss something? (and yes I know we retain certain powers as this shows, but i though the object was any pilot in Europe can essentially expect conformity through the system).

You might not agee with EASA, but as someone else said, its where we are so we had better suck it up.
User avatar
By James Chan
#1705718
because they will lose and pay out something like 5k


As far as I'm aware, it's supposed to depend on the ability to pay, of which weekly income is taken into account.

Magistrates have a guide in applying fines for traffic offences, but I cannot see any for aviation offences.
User avatar
By skydriller
#1705722
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:The Speed Limit on dual carriage in the UK is 70 mph in France it is 130 km/h in Germany there is none-unless signed out.
Same difference?

Same yes, difference no...
The speed limit on a dual carriageway in both France and Germany is 110km/hr = 70mph. Actually, Some Are 120km/hr in Germany...and you are thinking Motorways.

Just sayin'....(insert pedant icon) SD.. :clown:
By profchrisreed
#1705724
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
profchrisreed wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Going back to what was written before, I would not expect for infringements due to a moment of inattention to be dealt with any different as a speeding offence due to a similar moment of inattention, ie a speed awareness course.


There is a difference though, as the analysis I posted before shows.

Infringements which don't cause loss of separation just get a warning letter (repeat infringements etc aside).

Infringements which do cause loss of separation etc get the course.

I've already said that I'm not comfortable with a system where the outcome of a breach of the law differs according to factors outside the infringer's control or knowledge. If it's OK, I'd like those running the system to explain why, in order to convince the regulated (that's us) that it's not a purely arbitrary choice.


The Notion that the judicial process comes to a different outcome for the defendant despite the same input is entirely normal.

If in an Argument it comes to a fist fight and one party gets knocked down and gets up again after a blow to the head the charge will be GBH/ABH but if during the same going down the hit party cracks their head open on the curb and subsequently die a much more serious charge and punishment will follow.


Not as simplistically as that.

First, if different outcomes are available, the person judging explains why one was chosen over the other. This explanation is a fundamental element of natural justice.

Second, in your example the difference between ABH and manslaughter or murder is not just the outcome - it requires proof of a different element of intention than is required for ABH (I accept the level of intention for GBH might be enough to secure a conviction for murder, but this is the only instance in the criminal law I know of and it is still justified by explanation in numerous higher court decisions, too off the point to explain fully here unless someone really thinks it needs to be).

I should stress again that I'm not saying the differences in outcome are necessarily unjust - I'm saying that natural justice requires differences in outcome to be justified by explanation, rather than being arbitrary, and that we currently are given no such justification.
By profchrisreed
#1705729
gaznav wrote:
profchrisreed wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Going back to what was written before, I would not expect for infringements due to a moment of inattention to be dealt with any different as a speeding offence due to a similar moment of inattention, ie a speed awareness course.


There is a difference though, as the analysis I posted before shows.

Infringements which don't cause loss of separation just get a warning letter (repeat infringements etc aside).

Infringements which do cause loss of separation etc get the course.

I've already said that I'm not comfortable with a system where the outcome of a breach of the law differs according to factors outside the infringer's control or knowledge. If it's OK, I'd like those running the system to explain why, in order to convince the regulated (that's us) that it's not a purely arbitrary choice.


Chris

I am surprised that as a legal expert that you ask this. Surely this is covered by Section 143 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: “Determining the seriousness of an offence”? Where specific attention should be paid to the consequences of the crime?

“In considering the seriousness of any offence, the court must consider the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and any harm which the offence caused, was intended to cause or might foreseeably have caused.”


Is it not the final 4 words that would apply in this instance?

Then you have the 4 tests for levels of Culpability for sentencing purposes:

Where the offender;

1. Has the intention to offend, with the highest culpability when an offence is planned. The worse the harm intended, the greater the seriousness.

2. Is reckless as to whether an offence is caused, that is, where the offender appreciates at least some offence would be caused but proceeds giving no thought to the consequences even though the extent of the risk would be obvious to most people.

3. Has knowledge of the specific risks entailed by his actions even though he does not intend to cause the offence that results.

4. Is guilty of negligence.

Then a whole bunch of aggravating or mitigating factors to take into account.

I thought all of this was normal practice in UK Law??

Best, Gaz


All that is indeed normal practice.

But the person imposing the penalty is required to explain (using these factors) why the choice was made.

No explanation is given here, and the published information suggests that none of these factors are considered - it's just a tick-box choice.

But as I keep saying, this is just what it looks like - what actually happens might be something quite different, which is fair and just. The point is that justice must be seen to be done, which requires explanation.

If a judge imposed a sentence without giving any reasons, that would be an automatic ground for overturning the sentence on appeal and requiring it to be considered again, properly.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1705737
IMCR wrote:"
The Speed Limit on dual carriage in the UK is 70 mph in France it is 130 km/h in Germany there is none-unless signed out.

Same difference?"


I think you are forgetting EASA? I thought we all thought that this was something to do with one standard throughout Europe, or did I miss something? (and yes I know we retain certain powers as this shows, but i though the object was any pilot in Europe can essentially expect conformity through the system).

You might not agee with EASA, but as someone else said, its where we are so we had better suck it up.


:roll:

Yup you are correct - alas the countries of the EU have as yet not devolved their judiciary Systems to the EU and hence we are stuck with the ANO and the way it is managed in the UK.

But are we not splitting hairs here? Are we really saying that infringers would all be better off if the lower separation criteria, which are used in the rest of the EU would be applied in the UK too?

:?:

I don't know but think that those who infringe are likely to hit the gong even if the lower criteria are applied, it certainly would not make either the infringement or the consequences go away.

You only have to look at some ATS replays to see that CAS, which may over all be large in the UK, but not generously supplied in busy areas such as the UK's SE, is commonly used right up to the boundary by ATS and CAT.

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?
User avatar
By defcribed
#1705739
James Chan wrote:
because they will lose and pay out something like 5k


As far as I'm aware, it's supposed to depend on the ability to pay, of which weekly income is taken into account.

Magistrates have a guide in applying fines for traffic offences, but I cannot see any for aviation offences.


The biggest problem is costs.

Historically if you were accused of a criminal offence and subsequently acquitted then you could claim your costs in full. The justice system recognised that as you weren't guilty and hadn't chosen to be prosecuted then you shouldn't have to pay anything for the (rather unpleasant) experience.

In 2012 things changed. Assuming you don't qualify for legal aid (and even if you did, do you really want a legal aid solicitor & barrister defending you?) then you have to pay privately for your defence, in full, and even if you're acquitted you can claim back only a small token sum from the state based on legal aid rates per hour and a ludicrously low assessment of hours required for the job.

The practical upshot of this is that no-one is going to invite the CAA to take them to court over a matter like this. Even if you win you're going to be far more out of pocket than you would be if you just accepted their punishment. From a philosophical point of view I am wholly against the concept of fixed penalties being offered as an alternative to justice while that same process of justice is made expensive and/or inaccessible.

The thing to be really scared about is being falsely accused of a serious crime. Say a child runs out in front of you and you're accused of and then charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. You know you did nothing wrong, the child ran out and you stood no chance, but the grieving mother is being economical with the truth, as are her school-run friends who were also witnesses. You now have a choice - lay out a sum which will be well into six figures to hire a good defence team and if you're acquitted (which given the facts, you probably should be) then you'll be able to claim a small, almost insignificant fraction of this outlay back. Or you can defend yourself, place your faith in natural justice and risk the maximum prison sentence for the offence of 14 years.
By cockney steve
#1705742
A professional investigation has deemed that the current biased and draconian system is unfit for purpose.

As an outsider, I see vast chunks of "controlled" empty airspace, some of it regularly used, most appears to be used once in a blue moon, when the wind -direction makes that direction of approach justifiable. - so a 365 /24/7 embargo on parts that are used at most, 1 day a month, every year.

The navigation tools for all aircraft ,have improved dramatically in the last 20 years. AIUI, some recognition was given to the vastly greater stability of most CAT, and separation margins were actually reduced.

The argument that an infringement automatically increases separation requirements by ( 200 feet ?) is totally illogical and smacks of entrapment. -others, more knowledgeable than I , have already commented on this.
Actual risk of collision? We hear all this pious claptrap self-justification about "we don't know what an infringer is doing, where he's going or what his intentions are" Well, Boss in the Belgrano (should that be Ivory Tower? )
You have Radar, you have the ability to commission some computer software that not only tracks an infringer, but shows that it is highly unlikely that any said infringer can get much closer than visual- distance from a jocking great airliner (yes, yes, I know that "little " twins and private-jets can be trundling around in this "protected "environment, as well).....but are you seriously telling me that the average SEP can chase and collide with that traffic....remind me , how far is it from point of infringement , to the nearest point an "authorised" aircraft is likely to be - A geriatric lap-dog chasing a racehorse would stand a better chance of a close encounter. (This assumes the infringer has left his white stick and Labrador at home and therefore has not realised that a much bigger, faster, heavier tin tube is bearing down upon him :twisted: )

I realise that some separation is desirable and the statistics seem to suggest that the risks are, indeed , more the product of of vivid imaginary doomsday scenarios, than actual reality.

When was the last time an infringer was on a collision-course with a CAT ?

(Genuinely, not the hysterical "Whatiffery" and "Whatabouttery" )
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705746
James Chan wrote:
because they will lose and pay out something like 5k


As far as I'm aware, it's supposed to depend on the ability to pay, of which weekly income is taken into account.

Magistrates have a guide in applying fines for traffic offences, but I cannot see any for aviation offences.


The fines aren’t exactly laid down but the imprisonment terms are - Article 265 of the UK ANO and Schedule 13. However, there have been lots of fines previously to set precedent for consideration by the Judge awarding the fine.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 19