While serious villains are treated softly it appears Norfolk magistrates like to hit pilots where it hurts.A couple of years ago a helicopter pilot was given fines and costs of around £40,000 after he blew over a couple of tables landing at a hotel in South Walsham. Now the yokels have done it again.
This story is from the Eastern Daily Press
‘Cavalier’ Norfolk pilot fined £17,500
07 April 2006 07:10
A Norfolk pilot branded “reckless and cavalier” by a district judge was yesterday landed with a bill of £17,500 in fines and costs.
Laurie Taylor, 61, had previously pleaded guilty to flying his Piper PA28 without its MOT.
The a two-day hearing which finished yesterday at Swaffham Magistrates Court was held to determine if he had purposely flouted the law, or mistakenly believed the certificate had been issued.
District Judge Philip Browning said: “He was reckless as to whether the documents were in order. He should have checked and satisfied himself.”
The court heard Taylor took his plane from Old Buckenham airfield, near Attleborough, on August 2 last year, where it had undergone maintenance work for its airworthiness certificate.
Engineers at the airfield said Taylor had been warned that while the maintenance work had been done, the paperwork for the certificate was not completed.
They said two men had broken the chains to the hangar’s door with bolt croppers before Taylor had started the plane’s engine in the hangar and flown off in a dangerous manner.
Taylor, of Smallsworth Common, Garboldisham, near Diss, who has been a pilot for 44 years, said “it was the lowest point in my life” when he found out that enforcement action was being taking because of his flight.
He argued that he was never told the plane did not yet have a certificate of airworthiness and that he had received a note on an invoice suggesting that the plane was ready.
He said that he removed his plane from the airfield to Lopham because he wanted an independent engineer to have a look at the plane and settle a dispute between himself and Scanrho Aviation, based at Old Buckenham Airfield.
He said: “I would like to apologise profusely to the court for my unwitting mistake and for the tremendous nuisance I have been to the CAA.”
He denies that four ‘heavies’ accompanied him to the airfield and that they intimidated the airfield’s engineers. He said he took his wife, son and friend who he wanted to act as witnesses.
He said he told Scanrho maintenance manager James Gropp, “I have come to collect the aeroplane. I hope you are not going to make that difficult for me.”
He said: “I could see we were going to get into a long conversation so I immediately moved to open the doors. There was no chains on the doors.”
Taylor admitted that it was normal practice to start the plane’s engine in the hangar but he said it was the easiest thing to do because there was nobody around and the plane did not have the tow bar to pull it out of the hangar.
He said that while he did not make all the usual safety checks, he had checked the plane the day before and did all of the internal checks while in the cockpit. He said he drove cautiously out of the hangar.
District Judge Browning said Taylor took off in a “reckless and cavalier manner, carrying out no safety checks”.
He said: “What is clear is that Mr Taylor intended to take the plane by force if necessary.”
He added: “It may have been that the plane was safe but it did not have a have the certificate of airworthiness.”
By: Moggy C - 17th April 2006 at 22:53
I was just thinking it would have been nice to see both sides of the argument.
Indeed, but unfortunately we can’t subpoena the M3 to appear and give their account
Moggy
By: bloodnok - 17th April 2006 at 11:55
i was not reffering to the court case, but to the various threads running on this subject. so far a lot of contributors are basing their opinions on the ‘facts’ that the pilot has put across, because these are the only details that are being posted.
the pilot is posting his side of things, and saying that some of the allegations are totaly false, yet there are posts on other forums that back up some of the initial allegations against him.
i was just thinking it would have been nice to see both sides of the argument.
By: Propstrike - 17th April 2006 at 11:14
This matter has been the subject of at least two court hearings, so I do not think that any party can claim that they have been unable to put forward their case. What is said, or not said on the forums is of little consequence, being no more than ‘chatter in the bazaars’.
All that can be done here is to elicit a general, collective responce, and give us ,the contributors an opportunity to express opinions, and perhaps to a tiny degree affect a wider consciousness.
As has been stated many times now, it is the nature of the punishment which has attracted comment, not the more tangled details of the case itself. I have no doubt that the engineering organisation is aware of some of of the threads running on the forums, and it is probably to their credit that they maintain a dignified silence, especially as it was they who instigated the procedure which has come to such a controversial conclusion.
By: bloodnok - 17th April 2006 at 09:53
so far its been decidedly one sided, with the owner shouting his side of things on a few forums.
his side of things may, or may not be totally accurate, but to me, unless both sides of the story are told, an accurate picture will never come out.
i’m suprised at the lack of responses from the maintenance organisation, either directly, or by someone who has close ties with them, as their reputation is taking a battering.
perhaps DBW should post his allegations about the owner on the flyer or pprune forums to see what the response would be.(just in the intrest of fairness, nobody likes allegations that aren’t backed up , do they?)
By: scotavia - 15th April 2006 at 15:49
CAA
If you look around at cases involving official bodies such as the CAA who perform regulatory duties you will see the charges are high. They have sharp teeth and when they make a win they bite very hard.
I would hope that the review of CAA charges makes some progress towards a more reasonable amount.
What puzzles me are the licensed aircraft maintainers who sign off work which when checked by others is found to be below standard. Why have they still got a licence? Reports to the CAA have been ignored. Just what does it take to get action against those who are doing shoddy work.
By: SimonH - 11th April 2006 at 01:31
If you haven’t seen it, its worth checking out the thread on the Flyer forums on this subject. It is currently up to 6 pages but stick with it. The owner made several posts along with a JP, a magistrate and a very highly respected aviation lawyer. It swung my opinion in favour of the owner, I dont condone what he did as such (although do understand it) but there is little doubt he got well and truely shafted to put it bluntly.
By: Propstrike - 9th April 2006 at 18:53
I think we have nearly done this to death, but my final observations-
The vehicle on the runway was OBVIOUSLY NOT performing any runway inspection, mandatory or otherwise, though I expect that on some days it would perform that fuction.
It was on the runway, in an attempt to block the path of the PA28, which was making a hasty exit, following a heated discussion about an unpaid bill.
My reference to the paperwork issue was just to make the point that, whilst important, it is not the single most fundamental component of flight safety.
There were a number of charges, but the paperwork one seems to loom large in this case, hence the general dismay at the magnitude of the fine.
The Sunday Times today reports the case of a Nursery Manager who neglected a toddler in her care and there was a fatal accident. She was fined £11,500.
An ex-paratrooper hospitalised his girlfriend for 3 days after she refused to sleep with him. He was fined £1,500.
As they say, go figure.
By: Moggy C - 8th April 2006 at 23:57
with no consideration for others aircraft in there which may or may not have included Moggy’s aircraft from my understanding
Now having access to the date (Tuesday 9.10am 2nd August 2005.) I can say that our aircraft certainly wasn’t there. Nevertheless when I visited the engineers during this annual, our 1961 Piper was the newest aircraft in there. It is therefore obviously not unusual for the hangar to be occupied by a fabric-covered aircraft or two.
Moggy
By: Propstrike - 8th April 2006 at 23:47
DBW. You seem to have managed to miss the points which are being made here, and allowed your personal antipathy to condition your response.
There is no dispute that the accused behaved in a reckless manner, and some sort of penalty is appropriate. It is disingenious to introduce spurious lines of defence on behalf of the engineering company, such as the car on the runway performing some sort of ‘mandatory inspection’ which is blatant guff. Reckless and dangerous behaviour was exhibted by more than just one party.
Paperwork is all well and good, and is a core component of the regulatory regime, but perfect paperwork is no guarentee of flawless flight safety, and by the same token its absence does not automatically condemn an otherwise airworthy aircraft to an inevitable accident.
This is not a partisan issue, and it does not really matter whether we support X or Y.
What IS important is that the appointed body, charged with enforcing the law, applies financial sanctions which go FAR beyond those levied by the court. In short, £5K is reasonable, £17.5K is not. To whom do we look to reign in the powers of the CAA ? Furthermore, for those unfortunate to find themselves in the spotlight, faced with the threat of costs of this magnitude, can they risk fighting their case, or is it ‘better’ to cave in, and publically concede guilt, though actually innocent?
You dismiss the fine as ‘the judge’s decision’ which it was up to a point, but having lost the case, the accused then becomes liable for costs automatically. Now, perhaps the judge neither know, nor cared about the size of the costs which the CAA were going to claim, but plent of observers DO care, and it ought to be obvious why.
By: DBW - 8th April 2006 at 22:13
DB you are quite wrong, there’s nothing personal at all, except I hate to see behaviour like that in an aircraft. I know at least one person who has lost money at this characters hands though.
In answer to your question I fly non radio reguarly but I always phone my intended landing field beforehand and then go and talk to the A/G operator and book out before departure.
He was in fact fined for flying without a C of A, to me its immaterial if it was only a signature or not. You may have sheds loads of work done at a garage for an MOT but if you then take it away before the paperwork for the actual MOT is done I’m guessing the Police would still take a dim view.
Lets also not forget the fact he started in a hangar, with no consideration for others aircraft in there which may or may not have included Moggy’s aircraft from my understanding. He then taxiied out of the hangar with no consideration for who or what may have been about to pass the hangar doors, taxiied out without any consideration for other possible airfield users and lastly took off towards a car on the runway which by his own admission reversed at the last second to avoid being hit by him. IMHO both him and the car driver should have been done for that! His sole defence was that the aircraft had a valid permit to test and that was what he was doing despite the fact he isn’t CAA approved for the task, he then seemed to argue against himself by saying someone in the maintenance organisation had told him it had a C of A. I suspect if it wasn’t the CAA who had just prosecuted him, you would roundly condemn his behaviour, at least I hope so and that you don’t agree with any of his actions. As for the amount of the fine, it’s the judges decision and he obviously had all the facts to hand.
By: Moggy C - 8th April 2006 at 20:42
Is that deserving of a £17,500 fine for anybody?
Just in the interests of accuracy. The fine was £5,000.
Costs made up the rest.
Moggy
By: DaveH1962 - 8th April 2006 at 20:30
IMHO, serves him b***** right-capital punishment may have been done away with in Norfolk but here in Suffolk we would have had him at the devil-worshipper’s club for an evening……
By: Camlobe - 8th April 2006 at 19:39
Further details on Pprune in Private Flying, including the owners side of the story.
By: BIGVERN1966 - 8th April 2006 at 17:40
Not a GA man, but know a little bit about aircraft. Surely if the aircraft does not have a valid CofA certificate or a permit to fly (My knowledge of aircraft law is limited to gliders), then its legally not airworthy, period. Would not that make his insurance invalid too?
By: DBW - 8th April 2006 at 17:03
I don’t see how that’s relevant; Old Buck is A/G and taxiing and departing is not a PPR issue, being entirely pilot’s discretion.
I wouldn’t think the airfield owner/operator would be happy with that sort of attitude, why bother with A/G at all with that logic.
How about flight safety enhancement by announcing your intentions to other airspace users then? IMHO appaling airmanship. Did he meet ANO requirements by booking out then? Normally accomplished by radio.
Interesting responses to the owners side of things, most seem to think he deserved punishment for bad airmanship/hot headedness/common thugery.
By: DBW - 8th April 2006 at 10:24
Propstrike,
With all due respect, have you actually met the guy concerned? We know him well up here in Norfolk/Suffolk and many are actually of the opinion that the sentence was well deserved having been at the receiving end of his non-payment tricks.
I would suspect the Airfield fire vehicle was doing a mandatory runway inspection when he shot onto the runway and accelerated towards it.
As for non radio not being illegal, it clearly states in Pooleys for the airfield concerned non-radio strictly PPR. How does that stand up in terms of ANO? maybe someone can answer for us? If not illegal it was terrible airmanship, for instance was parachuting going on? was anything in the circuit? By all accounts he didn’t even bother with a headset such was his haste.
I was of the opinion that the fine was the highest the court could give for the offence and as for costs, well he was found guilty so better him than me or you through our taxes, solicitors and barristers cost!
Frankly if I saw someone start in a hangar, taxi out at a high speed (according to eye witnesses) and take off with no power checks etc with a vehicle on the runway I wouldn’t have a problem appearing as a witness against them.
He should have had his licence pulled as well.
By: Moggy C - 8th April 2006 at 07:54
I would imagine that the carrying of a pair of bolt croppers didn’t exactly indicate to the court that this was a spur of the moment action.
(The owner never mentions this in his explanation elsewhere and claims the hangar was open)
Moggy
By: Propstrike - 7th April 2006 at 21:25
Seemingly the fine was £5,000- the rest was costs.
DBW, strip away your emotive prose, such as ‘heavies’ and ‘seized’ what are you left with?
He turned up with his family, started his own aeroplane in the hangar, made no radio calls (that’s not illegal) and took off, without striking a vehicle which was on the runway ( what was it doing there?? ). What good would a custodial sentence do ?
I suppose he is lucky that capital punishment is out of fashion in Norfolk.
By: DBW - 7th April 2006 at 20:58
By all accounts he did dispute the bill, no surprises there, he reguarly disputed his bill and refused to pay.
He then turned up with heavies, seized the aircraft, started it in the hangar, taxied without any radio calls, took off whilst their was a vehicle on the runway and then tried to explain it all away by saying the aircraft still had a permit to test on it and he was just checking it out. The fact he wasn’t a CAA approved test pilot seemed to have escaped him. Local rumour is that the judge was within a gnats of sending him up to high court for a custodial.
Its certainally all over the local papers, we really don’t need this sort of publicity.
IMHO he got off lightly and for once the CAA didn’t bring a prosecution that was questionable. Well done to them I say.
By: Propstrike - 7th April 2006 at 20:46
With such scant information, one can not know the details of this case but of what exactly has he been found guilty ?
* He took possession of his own property, before a disputed bill was settled.
* He operated his aeroplane in a reckless manner (but injured nobody)
* He flew the aeroplane without possession of all paperwork (knowing it was fully airworthy).
All of these transgressions are foolish, but the punitive fine with which he has been served seems out of all proportions with the offences. If this fine included the Costs of the CAA I will be amazed if they comprise less than half the sum, since the CAA are notorious for attaching massive costs to their cases, possibly to dissuade individuals from taking them on in court. If the CAA lose, no matter, the tax payer picks up the bill.
He may or may not be very wealthy, but in the eyes of the public all private pilots are just rich playboys. Most offendors could rack up a string of muggings, burglaries and gross, multiple motoring offences without being hit like this. It seems to me like a pretty dubious kind of justice, regardless of the character of the defendant.
Sign In
April 7, 2006 at 9:03 am