Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853467
Interesting difference between TC and the CAA.
In one year TC lost every case it brought against pilots, and they are terribly worried when pilots threaten to sue them!
I have seen infractions that should have resulted in a TC response.

The CAA inherits much of the European attitudes... Over the centuries such attitudes caused many to flee Europe for the relative freedom of England.
CAA is represented perhaps in the “nobody expects...” sketch.

I have been ramp checked twice at Beauvais in France...
First time I was naughty in poor weather flying up from Cannes. Second time I was flying one of those N reg planes, always very suspect flying that flag of convenience.
Ramp checked at Chilliwack BC, the TC inspector was instructing a new recruit, all was mostly in order for the Chipmunk and me.

Good point about the Flight Interception Procedures, I’ve copied them to my iPad.
Flyingfemme liked this
User avatar
By Dodo
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853474
Isn't there, or wasn't there at one time an exception to the rules for the carriage of documents for both private A to A flights and also private A to B flights that were entirely within the UK?

Or am I imagining things.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853482
There still is for A to A.
ANO 2016 Part 9 para. 229(4) wrote: If a flight is intended to begin and end at the same aerodrome and does not include passage over the territory of any country other than the United Kingdom, the documents may be kept at that aerodrome instead of being carried in the aircraft.


Also from the ANO and referenced in the SkyWay Code (v3 at p23):
> For non-Part-21 aircraft flying within
the UK, there are no document
carriage requirements other
than charts for navigation.
Ibra, Dodo liked this
User avatar
By HedgeSparrow
#1853529
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
HedgeSparrow wrote:I look forward to further education.


A breach of the ANO is a criminal offence resulting in a criminal record.

The interviews are done under caution.

The text of the caution is in the paper you referred to.

There is voluntary and voluntary.

Surely a criminal record comes as a result of a conviction.

I was questioning the right of the CAA's IET to delay someone's departure by flashing a "warrant card". Do the CAA IET chappies have the power of arrest beyond the powers of citizen's arrest that we all have? Even the police are supposed to tell you why they want to stop you going about your own business.

Not yet feeling educated - sorry.
User avatar
By F70100
#1853548
I have been ramp checked a few times whilst flying CAT, most often in Germany. The inspectors were always courteous and always stated that they were aware of our schedule, and would endeavour to ensure we weren’t delayed because of them. They were always thorough though.

Only had one ramp check in the UK and it was an engineering ramp check; they did a walk round of the aircraft checking that defects tallied with the tech log. Again, inspectors courteous, and thorough.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853559
I think people are getting a little too concerned about what is actually likely to happen.

A multidisciplinary team of people from the CAA are likely to be present looking at various aspects of the operation. People would clearly identify themselves with their warrant card and will be polite and courteous. At that point the ramp check is just that, a check and not an investigation. Providing everything is in order then the check remains just that, no need for cautions or formal interviews. Even if something is found to be lacking, the team are likely to record the fact and simply offer remedial advise, letting you get on with your activity. It is only in extreme circumstances when a discrepancy is identified, which if not immediately corrected, that would result in a clear safety risk to you or your passengers, that things might get more formal. This may result in a formal investigation being initiated involving cautions and interviews under caution etc. but again that is unlikely to commence there and then.

Ultimately, I believe that team members would have the power to prevent flight under the ANO and non-cooperation in the extreme, as described above, might result in someone electing to invoke that power and a subsequent breach of that direction would obviously result in a formal investigation.

I am not a member of the IET but have worked on the peripheries of investigations over many years and know many of the people involved, who are always polite, courteous and professional.

I may well of got some of the information above incorrect in the detail/terminology but probably worth dispelling some of the more dramatic myths based on my personal experience.
Andrew Sinclair liked this
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853562
Dave W wrote:
...who should be always polite, courteous and professional.


My amendment.

Cub wrote:...myths based on my personal experience.


Others' experience show them not always to be myths. :(


I suspect you are not referring to members of IET.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853565
Dave W wrote:Well, it was supposedly an "Investigation" and Enforcement was threatened.


I still suspect you are not referring to anyone you are ever going to encounter during a ramp check.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853568
I still suspect the subtle distinction will be lost on 99% of the GA population.

When the CAA loses trust, especially in investigation and enforcement, it is lost everywhere.
bookworm, A le Ron liked this
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853576
Dave W wrote:I still suspect the subtle distinction will be lost on 99% of the GA population.

When the CAA loses trust, especially in investigation and enforcement, it is lost everywhere.


It is not a subtle distinction. Your personal experience of one individual has little influence over 99% of the GA population and that individual has nothing to do with Ramp Checks AFAIK.

I don’t believe the CAA or the vast majority of the GA population have lost faith in the Investigation and Enforcement Team, and that you are confusing a conversation with an individual in relation to an alleged infringement with a proper investigation led by IET.

You feel aggrieved - I resigned over it!!! (As you well know)
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853579
And I respect that decision very much.

But - to the average pilot - it IS indeed a subtle distinction: "It's all the CAA, innit?"

Frankly it is not a single individual; it is also all the management structure that allowed that to happen - both at all, and for so long despite the growing complaints.

If the IET staff are indeed snow-white yet distrusted because of that, then that is unfortunate collatoral damage from that poor management and shocking process handling by rogue personnel.

To somehow suggest that the average pilot is somehow failing by not understanding the minutiae of the CAA internal department structure is missing the critical point - why trust is lost - by a very large margin indeed.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1853583
Dave W wrote:
To somehow suggest that the average pilot is somehow failing by not understanding the minutiae of the CAA internal department structure is missing the critical point - why trust is lost - by a very large margin indeed.


The average pilot (99% of GA pilots) will never have encountered either an investigator from IET or the individual I suspect we are referring to and for that reason the only reason that trust maybe lost is via third party relay of the alleged actions of an individual.

The reason I clarified my perception of what a Ramp Check is likely to involve and how the people conducting it are likely to behave, is because it is a million miles away from the alleged behaviours of one individual which, to the best of my knowledge, would not be encountered during a Ramp Check.

Whilst, you and I may be aggrieved by the behaviour of an individual and acknowledge completely the reputational damage that behaviour brings to the rest of the Authority, I do believe it is now unfair to suggest that a Ramp Check may result in similar behaviours when, to the best of my knowledge, it will not.
By JodelDavo
#1853586
2Donkeys wrote:Resources at the CAA are sufficiently limited that for two inspectors to be at Gloucester, the most reasonable explanation is that the check was targeted. If not on you, then on a flight at roughly that time and place.


Maybe it's because the rules & regs are now so bliddy complicated that they're guaranteed a bust.. :roll:
2Donkeys liked this