[Old Pilot]

[quote="Hairyplane"]Spot the 150 used for aerial photography? Easy! Its the one whose registration you cant read from 100ft away due to the non-contrasting colours of fuz v lettering.

Anybody out there know the machine to which I refer? Often seen around the Midlands a couple of years back. Is it still going? If so, I'm amazed the CAA havent got involved.

quote]

I wonder if this was the aircraft flying over Oswestry taking photo's?

[Tudor Owen]

I'm amazed the CAA havent got involved

There could be many reasons. A few of the more obvious ones ......

Most people have enough interesting things in their own lives without having to poke their noses into other people's affairs?
Most people have limited spare time and more useful/enjoyable things to do with it than calling the CAA to make a report?
The sort of people who derive pleasure from causing trouble for others either haven't seen the aircraft or haven't yet managed to get the reg - or regs if they aren't the same Cessna?
The CAA Enforcement branch is busy doing more important things?

(Okay, before anyone says it, I concede the last one may be unlikely but I included it for balance. )

[Old Pilot]

I'm amazed the CAA havent got involved

There could be many reasons. A few of the more obvious ones ......

Most people have enough interesting things in their own lives without having to poke their noses into other people's affairs?
Most people have limited spare time and more useful/enjoyable things to do with it than calling the CAA to make a report?
The sort of people who derive pleasure from causing trouble for others either haven't seen the aircraft or haven't yet managed to get the reg - or regs if they aren't the same Cessna?
The CAA Enforcement branch is busy doing more important things?

(Okay, before anyone says it, I concede the last one may be unlikely but I included it for balance. )

I'm wise enough to know I could never win an argument with you Tudor.
Good job the CAA have not signed you up

Explain to me how they can claim costs of 40,000 for the South Walsham incident.

Why did they have to go to court with Dennis Kenyon?

And why target Russell Harrison?

All helicopter pilots and all minor breaches of the ANO.

Warning letters would have done the job.(and cost a lot less)

[Tudor Owen]

Old Pilot

All good fun.

Explain to me how they can claim costs of £40,000 for the South Walsham incident.

In its attempts to try to ensure pilots it prosecutes are convicted, the CAA runs up both investigating and prosecuting costs without any restraint or any regard for what is reasonable.
If there's a conviction, the CAA seeks to recover the costs from the pilot. If the court orders the pilot to pay a contribution rather than the full amount sought by the CAA, the balance is reimbursed by the DfT. If the CAA loses, the DfT reimburses the entire cost. ie Either way, the CAA doesn't foot the bill.
After a couple of days in the Crown Court, the CAA agreed to accept a guilty plea to negligently endangering and drop the more serious recklessly endangering provided the pilot agreed to pay the CAA's costs. The pilot agreed to do so - contrary to my advice, but for reasons I entirely understood.
How on earth even the CAA managed to run up such a staggering amount in that case is beyond my understanding. (As the pilot agreed to pay the sum demanded, we didn't see a breakdown.) We were told that, if he insisted on a full breakdown, the total would be more!!

Why did they have to go to court with Dennis Kenyon?

IMHO, it was a completely unnecessary prosecution. Some people are convinced that the fact that DK had been publicly campaigning and criticising the CAA for refusing to implement AAIB safety recommendations following the H300 accident in which his son was killed was more than coincidence.
The CAA claimed £6000 costs in that case. The JPs ordered DK to pay £2000 - still a ridiculous amount in my view.

And why target Russell Harrison?

There were complaints by some members of the public, and the CAA seems to be very influenced by such things.

Warning letters would have done the job.(and cost a lot less)

I agree. I don't think prosecuting pilots does much (if anything) to improve flight safety and, in many cases, a criminal investigation where everyone involved watches their backs instead of being able to speak freely means that opportunities for lessons to be learned are lost. (The CAA isn't bothered about costs, for the reasons given above.)

[The Mauler]

Manonthefence said - Its the fact that the Cessna was there in the first place at a height known to be used by low flying military aircraft in that area that is plain dumb.

I find that to be a very RAF attitude. The open FIR is open to use by everybody equally. The Mod spend a lot of money on buying an aircraft to find intruders who have not filed a flight plan, then spen far more than it costs to get an ALTP to train a pilot to fly it and on a regular basis the RAF fail to find a G- registered aircraft until it is too late.

I am very happy that nobody has tried to invade in the past 60 years as I have little faith in our military pilots.

[Old Pilot]

Old Pilot

All good fun.

Explain to me how they can claim costs of £40,000 for the South Walsham incident.

In its attempts to try to ensure pilots it prosecutes are convicted, the CAA runs up both investigating and prosecuting costs without any restraint or any regard for what is reasonable.
If there's a conviction, the CAA seeks to recover the costs from the pilot. If the court orders the pilot to pay a contribution rather than the full amount sought by the CAA, the balance is reimbursed by the DfT. If the CAA loses, the DfT reimburses the entire cost. ie Either way, the CAA doesn't foot the bill.
After a couple of days in the Crown Court, the CAA agreed to accept a guilty plea to negligently endangering and drop the more serious recklessly endangering provided the pilot agreed to pay the CAA's costs. The pilot agreed to do so - contrary to my advice, but for reasons I entirely understood.
How on earth even the CAA managed to run up such a staggering amount in that case is beyond my understanding. (As the pilot agreed to pay the sum demanded, we didn't see a breakdown.) We were told that, if he insisted on a full breakdown, the total would be more!!

Why did they have to go to court with Dennis Kenyon?

IMHO, it was a completely unnecessary prosecution. Some people are convinced that the fact that DK had been publicly campaigning and criticising the CAA for refusing to implement AAIB safety recommendations following the H300 accident in which his son was killed was more than coincidence.
The CAA claimed £6000 costs in that case. The JPs ordered DK to pay £2000 - still a ridiculous amount in my view.

And why target Russell Harrison?

There were complaints by some members of the public, and the CAA seems to be very influenced by such things.

Warning letters would have done the job.(and cost a lot less)

I agree. I don't think prosecuting pilots does much (if anything) to improve flight safety and, in many cases, a criminal investigation where everyone involved watches their backs instead of being able to speak freely means that opportunities for lessons to be learned are lost. (The CAA isn't bothered about costs, for the reasons given above.)

But this attitude of justice seems to apply only to aviation Tudor.
Complicated fraud cases involving huges sums of money leave the public purse picking up huge costs. Lottery winners who feature in regular ASBO cases in Norfolk walk away with a meagre contribution in costs.

[Dave Phillips]

Mauler, this is not about 'RAF attitude'. If, as an aviator, one intentionally puts oneself in a position that may affect other aviators, then one should accept the consequences of one's actions. The legalities, whilst important, will not stop pilots from failing to see each other.

You have 'little faith' in our military pilots. Personally, I find that offensive and ill-informed. IMHO, you don't know what you are talking about.

[AlanM]

As an ATCO I would prefer to talk to a military pilot than a stumbling PPL.

There have been Jags and F16s in and out of Biggin for a week. Very few asked for a RIS, but I had numerous traffic Calling me East of LAM going to Southend asking for a RAS!

A most unfair comment Maule.

[Keef]

When I think Mil, I think also of Flyguy and his buddies. I don't know any PPL or CPL who comes even close to those guys in terms of skill, ability, and nous.

I'd rather have those guys flying the fast jets that defend me from Osama's loonies, than anyone else I can think of.

I remember a young lad (son of a good friend at work) who came for a ride with me in G-BDKV about 12 years ago. He poled it from 500 feet out of Southend all the way to Elstree and set it up on final approach, not having held the controls of an aeroplane before. A born natural pilot.

He's now a fast jet instructor with the RAF, having done some "interesting" things in the meantime.

[eharding]

As an ATCO I would prefer to talk to a military pilot than a stumbling PPL.

Tart!

If you're holding out for nylons and spare parachute silk, I suspect you may be bang out of luck.......

[Manonthefence]

Mauler

With an attitude like that I have little faith in you as a GA pilot. You clearly have no idea how difficult it is for two pilots in differing aircraft types to see each other at that height and speed.

Or you are just stirring.

I hope its the latter because the former worries me.

[Squadgy]

If, as an aviator, one intentionally puts oneself in a position that may affect other aviators, then one should accept the consequences of one's actions.

Dave, surely to some extent though we do that every time we operate in the 'see and avoid' environment that is Class G

[Dave Phillips]

Absolutely. The point is that there are some 'areas' where the risk increases. One of these, whether we like it or not, is the 250-2000ft height band. Another is 2400ft underneath the London TMA.

[Propwash]

You have 'little faith' in our military pilots. Personally, I find that offensive and ill-informed. IMHO, you don't know what you are talking about.

PW

[MichaelJP59]

While I appreciate that the RAF boys are extremely skilled, and I enjoy seeing a fast jet shoot by as much as anyone, is there really any need for them to be doing low level work outside of clearly defined areas such as Mach loop and Cumbria?

Particularly as there's less and less use now for low level attacks in real warfighting. Most ordnance in Iraq 2003 was precision guided and dropped from medium or high altitude. The low level runway denial strikes in 1991 resulted in most of the allied air losses in the war ISTR.

After all, it doesn't matter how good you are - if you are 3 or 4 seconds head-down at 400kts you've covered half a mile before you look up again.