[Sir Morley Steven]

He said he was refused sight of the MOR following his infringement.

I understand this is unlawful. Am I wrong?

[johnm]

It's a murky area, he's not strictly in a legal conversation but a regulatory one, so things like disclosure and rules of evidence don't apply.

The just culture policy falls into disrepute the moment transparency is compromised though and the lame excuse that material was the property of NATS is just that; lame.....

[patowalker]

If you are caught by a speed trap, aren't they obliged to provide photo evidence?

[stevelup]

Only if you take it to court.

[ChrisRowland]

I picked up a speeding ticket a couple of years ago and got chapter and verse about where and when it was and how fast I was going. That was plenty for me to mentally review what i'd been doing and realise i was late slowing down for a village. Didn't need a photo.

Do people who infringe not get enough data for them to review their own data and see if the allegation is correct?

[SpeedBrake]

My understanding is that, unlike speeding, pilots are encouraged to self-report so usually there isnt a dispute as to whether there was an infringement.

Radar data is available but difficult and time consuming to export - and normally the controller who reports doesn’t have the ability to do so.

So generally they’ll only bother to do it if the MOR is disputed by the pilot.

[PeteSpencer]

When I got caught by a speed trap in the car last year I was sent unsolicited a photo of my car: Not only that I guess to pre-empt a protest they sent reams of documentation confirming the certification and accuracy calibration bof the equipment used to nail me .I opted for the awareness course - the upshot of which is I use cruise control everywhere set to the speed reported on my Tom Tom.

Sadly this has the effect of shed loads of morons driving right up my chuff (well who wouldn’t if they saw a large Mercedes with a silver haired oldie at the wheel maintaining the legal limit) especially on roads where the speed limit seems daft.

But hey ho I don’t intend to get nailed again.

But back to the thread Shirley if you’re accused of an offence and are to be prosecuted your team should legally be entitled to see any evidence.

Can anybody summarise the article please- I binned Flyer mag for various reasons several years ago and only take the other one.

Peter

[Flyin'Dutch']

But back to the thread Shirley if you’re accused of an offence and are to be prosecuted your team should legally be entitled to see any evidence.

This is the pre-prosecution phase

[ChrisRowland]

But if there's a MOR then somebody else reported it and the pilot may be unaware of what they did.

Are you really told that you have infringed and nothing more? No location, time, or what airspace?

They don't ask you to pay in Bitcoins do they?

[patowalker]

So generally they’ll only bother to do it if the MOR is disputed by the pilot.

So how come I got a radar picture from NATS the day after infringing London City CTA? I didn't ask for it, or dispute what they told me on the phone.

[Dave W]

This is the pre-prosecution phase

On occasion it's not the pre-punishment phase, though.

[Talkdownman]

Do people who infringe not get enough data for them to review their own data and see if the allegation is correct?

Most certainly.

[ChrisRowland]

If they don't get enough data to be able to see that they have infringed then that's a problem.

[Talkdownman]

If they don't get enough data to be able to see that they have infringed then that's a problem.

I requested from the CAA details of my alleged infringement in the form of a copy of the MOR, relevant screenshots of the radar recording, and the relevant section of the RTF recording transcript. It was refused on all three counts citing 'data-protection'. Privately sourced data from an 'insider' contact described it as nothing much more than a 'pixel jump' picked up by CAIT. Neither my 'student' (a multi-thousand hour FI) nor I (a multi-thousand hour FI, but not as many as him) could believe we had infringed. It took the CAA four weeks to inform me about it in the first place. The Nats ATCO said nothing about it on the R/T at the time, so it was all a bit of a shock. I felt it was all rather unreasonable.

[map5623]

... described it as nothing much more than a 'pixel jump' picked up by CAIT.

The trouble is that with software that works most of the time, situations like this can occur.
I spent a good part of my working life sorting out such issues, so they do exist and were referred to as undocumented features.
Organisations sometimes try to ignore them because of the embarrassment caused.
The 700 odd infringements at White Waltham last year before the OHJ was reduced to 1200' QFE seemed to have disappeared into the long grass and both the CAA and NATS have not made any public comment to it, to my knowledge.