Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
User avatar
By kanga
#1883044
matspart3 wrote:..

Ironically, we once had a DfT (now CAA) security inspection during race week, .. the dodgy charter pax used the side gate because they’re not subject to security screening.


as a based pilot, I tended to avoid local flying during race weeks, even before the airport (reasonably, in my view) put some restrictions on it, eg on circuit flying. But the side gate pass was very handy for avoiding the crush in the Terminal area, which nevertheless always seemed to be managed with efficient good humour by MP3's Lovely People (TM ? :) ) .. I hung up my headset at about the time the airport management changed, but that was coincidence :wink:

But in ~50y private flying I always let my passengers, especially first time ones, know that I neither expected nor accepted any contributions. Some regular ones were known to buy me (us) the odd cuppa at destination or even pay the landing fee, which it would have been churlish to refuse :roll:
By Joe Dell
#1883256
RisePilot wrote:
Paul_Sengupta wrote:I don't think this "70% of us know about someone doing a grey charter" thing is the case...I've never come across it in 25 years of flying and neither have most people I know


Same here; 15 years of flying and I've never heard of a single instance. If someone is going to do something dodgy, there are many far more lucrative sectors.


https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... g-15981019
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1883470
Paul_Sengupta wrote:Never came across the chap personally let alone knew what he was doing. Only heard of him after he hit the headlines for this crash.


No great secret that some years ago on PPrune and elsewhere I had some serious issues with a fellow posting as "GoldenEaglePilot" and who later turned out to be a serial con-man called Kevin Crellin. The story is long in the past and I won't revisit the main parts again, but...

His contacts with me used the name "David Henderson", which caused me to look under some stones, and I didn't need to look all that hard to conclude that Henderson's activities looked a bit dodgy. And thus I started to treat Crellin/Henderson/GEP with increasing suspicion.

So the reasons I looked into Henderson were as it happens totally unrelated to his actual activities, but it didn't take much deep thought to see him as somebody actively trying to keep his professional activities under the radar.

I do wonder now why Crellin picked that particular alias? - naivety, or calculation? I suspect the latter.

G
By Edward Bellamy
#1883479
Reflecting on Henderson's trial and conviction, this thought strikes me:

I think it's important to remember that he was not convicted for classic illegal commercial air (formerly public) transport, but for endangering. Yes he was also caught on Article 250, but that strikes me as a bit of technicality that was only relevant because it was a foreign registered aircraft.

Leaving aside why the prosecution may have chosen to go down the charge they did, the point is that regardless of the ins and outs of compliance in a particular situation, if a jury can be convinced that actions fell extremely short of safe practice, an endangering conviction is always a possibility.

I don't know if there is an risk/downside of 'endangering' caselaw being broadened, but to those who perhaps think they won't be caught/think that the CAA would never be able to prove a particular rule was broken, it does make the point that detailed compliance points do not necessarily have to be proven, if the general weight of evidence of unsafe behaviour is there.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1883483
A related thought to that.

CAA can institute a criminal prosecution for endangerment, etc. They have to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt of somebody's guilt however.

Even if somebody is then found not guilty, anybody who has suffered injuries is nonetheless able to sue for damages, and they have to convince a court that fault is there on balance of probabilities, which is a much lower standard of proof.

It all gives all of us constant reasons to cover our backs!

G
By Edward Bellamy
#1883484
That was the offence to which he pleaded guilty.


I believe he pleaded guilty to Article 250, which is the prohibition on foreign registered aircraft taking onboard or discharging passengers for remuneration without permission, it's not the same thing as illegal commercial air transport.

Edit to add: There may have been some technical legal reason for using Article 250, rather than Air Operations Regulations for commercial air transport, but the point still stands re the endangering conviction I think.
By BoeingBoy
#1884918
What's the point? He'll probably be out in nine months having spent most of the time at a low security prison. Unless he really has a problem with captivity I'd say it would be easier to suck it up and get on with what's left of his life.

Mind you........... As the old joke goes.

Jesus loves you is a wonderful thing to know.........But not in a Mexican Prison. :lol:
MikeB liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1885124
From the sentencing remarks:

The Pre-Sentence Report obtained in this case notes that you have a very low risk of re-offending, although there are passages in it which suggest that you are struggling to accept your own responsibility for these offences and, as the author of the report puts it, that you continue to believe that in many respects you were not in the wrong.


Poor chap thinks he did nothing wrong! He doesn’t deserve to be locked up with the ‘real’ criminals! :roll:

I wonder whether 273 nights of quiet reflection might offer him an alternative insight into the consequences for others of the deaths he intentionally and recklessly facilitated, purely for money?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7