Perhaps the last Hurricanes in service may have been operated by the Portugese Air Force, as I think it was these which were sourced for the movie ‘Angels One Five’ ( ‘Septic Calling’ and all that).

The Soviets also had plenty of Hurricanes, and may well have operated a few into the 1950’s, at a guess.

I expect it was flying around the ‘ Iron Cross Wood’

The story, as told to me, was that a bunch of German POWs were doing some horticultural work, and when nobody was looking, planted a load of acorns in the pattern of an Iron Cross (not a Swastika, they were nice POWs )

Proof required? Just go to Multimap, look at Henley On Thames, and convert map to Aerial photo. The wood is on a NNW radial, one mile from the town centre.

One of the photos on that link shows the final movement of WL668, which believe it or not, never flew again following its instant conversion to a swing-wing Varsity at El Paso in 1983.

A number of errors are listed, but the landing was, in summary, a complete c@ck-up.

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.

I think there was still an RAE Varsity flying in the mid-to-late eighties. That may have been the last flyer (not civil, obviously)

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.

Did the Focker look anything like this?

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.