" 20 feet or 6 inches?"
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot in question, has a duty of care, not just to his fellow passenger(s) and his Helicopter, but to any human or animal on the ground, he had with him a "professional", who it is said also didn't spot the hazard, was this "professional" taken for a reason, and if so, was it in any way to be in control of the craft for license obligations, could it have been therfore that person who should have been prosecuted!. . Irrespective of whatever has happened, all must surely agree that this pilot(who ever was in P1) has showed Pi$$ poor judgement and has given other pilots a little bit of a problem when next landing at any venue, where Mary Poppins, or great Aunty Gerty is taking tiffin! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise there was a wink message icon, but I believe this instance has helped the rest of us, not hindered. I, for one, will be much more vigilant when teaching and flying confined areas now, particularly when reviewing the hotel/restaurant table layouts (I'm even going to check whether they have cheap plastic tables/chairs or the more study metal versions when I phone ahead).... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Not sure about looking for another 'scapegoat' - hasn't enough damage been done...
[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: balance_trim ]</p>
Not sure about looking for another 'scapegoat' - hasn't enough damage been done...
[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: balance_trim ]</p>
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balance,. .I was not really looking for a scapegoat more asking , What the hell the other person was there for, was the second pilot blind? or just along for the ride, whilst I am not blessed with many hours, I for one would have to question why the need to land so close to any humans at all, let alone any furniture, its all very well saying that we have all learnt from this, Yes we have,(or should have) I would suggest, if you cannot land safely( and that covers fancy fixtures and fitting at a Hotel or eatery) land elsewere, and if you cannot do that, why go there in the first place, just because we can land on a postage stamp, dont mean we have too at all costs, or am I missing somthing? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Vfrpilotpb ]</p>
[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Vfrpilotpb ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John E. .The following doesn't breach client confidentiality because it was said in open Court: . .My firm instructions were not to prolong the proceedings any further by challenging the CAA to justify their enormous claim for costs. The pilot was hounded daily by photographers/cameramen as he arrived/left Court and, by the third day, he'd had enough. He is a rather shy, very private man and found the enormous daily media coverage unbearable.. .When the CAA agreed to drop the allegation of reckless flying, and accept his guilty plea to the less serious charge, he just wanted to accept whatever punishment the Court considered he deserved, and put the matter behind him as speedily as possible.
I made it clear (again in open Court) that I would have preferred to challenge the costs claim but was bound by my client's instructions.
Vfrpilotpb. .Yes, with respect, you are 'missing something' - two things: . .You don't know all the facts/circumstances.. .You don't know anythig about the pilot.. .Don't forget that only the Prosecution version of the facts was reported - the case settled before it reached the Defence case.. .The Defence version (summarised in mitigation) was less dramatic, less sensational, and less attractive to the media. In other words, that wasn't reported.
Nor was the fact that a distinguished professional pilot with almost 40 years helicopter experience, whose CV included being a Chief Instructor in the Royal Navy, Chief Pilot and Chief Training Captain for major operators, and Captain of numerous Royal Flights described the defendant as "one of the most conscientious and careful pilots with whom I've ever flown", and "the most professional private pilot with whom I've ever flown.". .I'd be extremely proud if someone described me in those terms - I'll dream on!!. .Several other professionals with shorter, but no less impressive, CV's were available to say the same thing, if required.
This defendant had more than 1000 hours, without a complaint or blemish on his record, and the vast majority of his flying was in and out of private sites.
Don't forget the old adage: "There but for the grace of God." . .or, given your very bold comments, perhaps more appropriately. ."Pride comes before a ......"
Hope we never need to meet professionally!!. .Safe, legal and complaint-free flying. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]</p>
I made it clear (again in open Court) that I would have preferred to challenge the costs claim but was bound by my client's instructions.
Vfrpilotpb. .Yes, with respect, you are 'missing something' - two things: . .You don't know all the facts/circumstances.. .You don't know anythig about the pilot.. .Don't forget that only the Prosecution version of the facts was reported - the case settled before it reached the Defence case.. .The Defence version (summarised in mitigation) was less dramatic, less sensational, and less attractive to the media. In other words, that wasn't reported.
Nor was the fact that a distinguished professional pilot with almost 40 years helicopter experience, whose CV included being a Chief Instructor in the Royal Navy, Chief Pilot and Chief Training Captain for major operators, and Captain of numerous Royal Flights described the defendant as "one of the most conscientious and careful pilots with whom I've ever flown", and "the most professional private pilot with whom I've ever flown.". .I'd be extremely proud if someone described me in those terms - I'll dream on!!. .Several other professionals with shorter, but no less impressive, CV's were available to say the same thing, if required.
This defendant had more than 1000 hours, without a complaint or blemish on his record, and the vast majority of his flying was in and out of private sites.
Don't forget the old adage: "There but for the grace of God." . .or, given your very bold comments, perhaps more appropriately. ."Pride comes before a ......"
Hope we never need to meet professionally!!. .Safe, legal and complaint-free flying. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]</p>
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two separate topics here. . .The first - whether the guy got a bum rap - is now academic.. .The second, however, concerns us all. The CAA is, it seems, in a position to mount a win-win prosecution (recklessness with a negligence fallback) and EVEN WHEN THE PILOT HAD OFFERED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO NEGLIGENCE, still claim its full costs for a recklnessness prosecution when it failed.. .Surely this question of CAA costs needs to be revisited. Why is the CAA a prosecuting authority, when even the police aren't?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL. .Is the defence version that you mention you raised during mitigation, in the public domain?. .Instruction is often best when we can give clear examples of what can happen and the difficulty in assessing confined areas and the obscure. If it were possible to use this case as part of the instruction process, it might help someone in the future. Rgds balance
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t'aint natural. .For the reasons explained in my earlier post, the costs aspect wasn't argued in this case. However, I entirely agree with you that the costs issue, and others, deserve important and urgent consideration.. .Personally, I think it is very undesirable that a body which investigates should also prosecute. Usually they are separate, but the CAA is not the only exception.. .I think the separation of the Police and Crown Prosecution Service is better. The relationship between the two bodies is not always as friendly as might be thought. The Police often think the CPS reject too many prosecutions, and the CPS often think the Police are too anxious to prosecute when the evidence is weak, or where there is no public interest to be served by prosecuting. I think it results in a fairer system.
balance_trim. .The defence account was given in the public domain, but is not readily available. . .I'm only a PPL, so I don't feel qualified to give advice to professionals/instructors. It would take up too much space to try to describe exactly what happened in this case but, in brief summary, the pilot changed his planned approach to avoid some horses in a field in the undershoot. Good airmanship – but, concentrating on avoiding the horses, he didn’t realise that one area (containing the hazard) was then blocked from view until it was too late. It was an IFR Twin Squirrel, so not the best vis forards and downwards.. .It was a stark reminder to me, and to each of the professional pilots who were part of the defence team, is that however conscientious a pilot is in checking the landing site using the accepted procedures, it is still possible to miss something.. .If you miss something, your apologies and explanation may not be enough. They, or someone else (as in this case) may still report you. . .For what it's worth, the best advice I can offer in relation to landing safely and legally at private sites is to check, check and check again.. .The harsh fact is that doing your best is no defence. If you make a mistake, however understandable, it may turn out to be an extremely expensive one.. . . .Thomas coupling. .The ex-mil man I mentioned was Ian Thomson. He'd flown extensively with the pilot and spoke very highly of him. Ian was not in the helicopter at the time of the incident.. .BTW, good to see you on Rotorheads again - I thought you'd abandoned us since Police pilots got their private forum. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
balance_trim. .The defence account was given in the public domain, but is not readily available. . .I'm only a PPL, so I don't feel qualified to give advice to professionals/instructors. It would take up too much space to try to describe exactly what happened in this case but, in brief summary, the pilot changed his planned approach to avoid some horses in a field in the undershoot. Good airmanship – but, concentrating on avoiding the horses, he didn’t realise that one area (containing the hazard) was then blocked from view until it was too late. It was an IFR Twin Squirrel, so not the best vis forards and downwards.. .It was a stark reminder to me, and to each of the professional pilots who were part of the defence team, is that however conscientious a pilot is in checking the landing site using the accepted procedures, it is still possible to miss something.. .If you miss something, your apologies and explanation may not be enough. They, or someone else (as in this case) may still report you. . .For what it's worth, the best advice I can offer in relation to landing safely and legally at private sites is to check, check and check again.. .The harsh fact is that doing your best is no defence. If you make a mistake, however understandable, it may turn out to be an extremely expensive one.. . . .Thomas coupling. .The ex-mil man I mentioned was Ian Thomson. He'd flown extensively with the pilot and spoke very highly of him. Ian was not in the helicopter at the time of the incident.. .BTW, good to see you on Rotorheads again - I thought you'd abandoned us since Police pilots got their private forum. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL . .Thanks for the info. I will continue to emphasise and re-emphasise the importance of checking then re-checking each situation. This case will serve to remind all student (and qualified) pilots that things aren't always as straightforawrd as they seem in the classroom.
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,. .Sorry if my post irked you a little, but I was trying to be as gentle as possible, as I did not have the full facts, I made a wrong assumption, for that I make my apology's, both to you and your client! you are quite right we are all capable of making mistakes!
Just one little question however, who reported this occurence in the first place, was it the Mary Poppins lady?
Just one little question however, who reported this occurence in the first place, was it the Mary Poppins lady?
Just a thought to avoid the problem phone the hotel first and ask if they are a POSH place and can afford nice wrought iron furniture !
Mind you the landing fee might go up <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Mind you the landing fee might go up <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Eacott
A fuller answer to your question about costs. By a strange co-incidence I have just had to deal with this point twice this weekin two different cases, one in the Court of Appeal.
In the UK section 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act allows a court to make "such order as to the costs to be paid by the accused (convicted of an offence) to the prosecutor as it considers just and reasonable".
As far as precedent is concerned (without considering the degree to which a Commonwealth authority might be used in Aus) the two principal cases decided in the UK which said that the costs of an investigation by a prosecutor can be included in the application are Neville -v- Gardner Merchant Ltd 5 Cr App R (S.) 349 and R -v- Associated Octel Ltd [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 435.
Whether your CAA could use these as an authority would depend upon the legislation allowing an application for/award of costs.
Personally I continue to feel that this is an iniquitous position in the UK because 'normal' prosecuting authorities ie the police/CPS do not ask for the costs of the investigation. Further, there is legislation (section 17 of the PoOA) that provides for an award of costs to a private prosecutor from central funds ie the state re-imbursing a prosecutor. This section specifically excludes a prosecutor that is a public authority or is acting on behalf of a public authority. This means that an unsuccessful defendant who is prosecuted by a public authority will have an application for costs made against them whilst a defendant prosecuted by a private prosecutor, such as a shop for theft, will not, because the prosecutor is more likely to ask for an order from central funds. This suggests that the legislature intended public authority prosecutors to far more readilly bear the costs of their own prosecutions. I have successfully used this argument against the CAA and against similar bodies; that being said many courts are very ready to award heavy costs in favour of such prosecutors.
I know that FL and his client were in an invidious position in this case and again there is more to what happened than is in the public domain.
JE I hope this goes some way to answering your question and I apologise to other ppruners for a very 'anorak' post.
. .That will be 50 guineas please.
A fuller answer to your question about costs. By a strange co-incidence I have just had to deal with this point twice this weekin two different cases, one in the Court of Appeal.
In the UK section 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act allows a court to make "such order as to the costs to be paid by the accused (convicted of an offence) to the prosecutor as it considers just and reasonable".
As far as precedent is concerned (without considering the degree to which a Commonwealth authority might be used in Aus) the two principal cases decided in the UK which said that the costs of an investigation by a prosecutor can be included in the application are Neville -v- Gardner Merchant Ltd 5 Cr App R (S.) 349 and R -v- Associated Octel Ltd [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 435.
Whether your CAA could use these as an authority would depend upon the legislation allowing an application for/award of costs.
Personally I continue to feel that this is an iniquitous position in the UK because 'normal' prosecuting authorities ie the police/CPS do not ask for the costs of the investigation. Further, there is legislation (section 17 of the PoOA) that provides for an award of costs to a private prosecutor from central funds ie the state re-imbursing a prosecutor. This section specifically excludes a prosecutor that is a public authority or is acting on behalf of a public authority. This means that an unsuccessful defendant who is prosecuted by a public authority will have an application for costs made against them whilst a defendant prosecuted by a private prosecutor, such as a shop for theft, will not, because the prosecutor is more likely to ask for an order from central funds. This suggests that the legislature intended public authority prosecutors to far more readilly bear the costs of their own prosecutions. I have successfully used this argument against the CAA and against similar bodies; that being said many courts are very ready to award heavy costs in favour of such prosecutors.
I know that FL and his client were in an invidious position in this case and again there is more to what happened than is in the public domain.
JE I hope this goes some way to answering your question and I apologise to other ppruners for a very 'anorak' post.
. .That will be 50 guineas please.
Guineas? How about South Pacific Pesos <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate your help.
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate your help.
Legalapproach and Flying Lawyer both, these are not "anorak" post's, they are extremely informative and illuminating, and I thank both of you for taking the time to explain the process and actions that are happening here.
There will be many here, that have (I'm sure) been involved at various levels in lawsuits, and many more will be!!
To actually witness from an informed position what might occur, and at the very least, that there are lawyers that understand and have an interest in aviation, should be a reassurance to us all. As litigation becomes a solution (sic) to an increasing number of occurences, the likelihood of being exposed to the legal process is increased considered.
I think you can judge by the number of posts on the thread and the interest at all levels, that this topic is of considerable interest here. Thanks..
There will be many here, that have (I'm sure) been involved at various levels in lawsuits, and many more will be!!
To actually witness from an informed position what might occur, and at the very least, that there are lawyers that understand and have an interest in aviation, should be a reassurance to us all. As litigation becomes a solution (sic) to an increasing number of occurences, the likelihood of being exposed to the legal process is increased considered.
I think you can judge by the number of posts on the thread and the interest at all levels, that this topic is of considerable interest here. Thanks..
