Timothy wrote:
I was cleared by Rouen into Evreux airspace and, once I passed the boundary, was handed over to them. Evreux were completely useless, didn’t understand where we were, what we were doing, or why we were there. And at one point they turned us through 180° back to the north, because they were so far behind the ball. They accused us of entering controlled airspace without clearance, but I gave them very short shrift on that.
France does occasionally screw up. They are usually the model of how it should be done, but I guess everyone has “off-days”. I think that Evreux is military though, and my only direct “airspace bust” in France, if you want to call it that (I certainly didnt), was in similar circumstances with a civil-military clearance with Luxeuil – I also gave them short shrift – the guy then went on to say I was the 3rd aircraft to do this that afternoon…
Edit to Add: To be clear its the only “ATC issue” Ive had since moving to France 15 years or so ago…
Regards, SD..
So, are there several (sensible) courses of action if one does receive one of these email from NATS? When one knows one is guilty but also doesn’t want to aggravate things via self incrimination.
AFAIK, and I don’t know of any data points (i.e. I have not heard of anybody having the balls to do this unless certain of their innocence), but if you don’t respond to the NATS and the CAA requests to self incriminate supply them with details, they will simply take you to court and prosecute.
The CAA also has a long history (and makes no secret of this) that they will apply for much higher costs if you plead Not Guilty and get convicted. So the pilot is faced with pleading G and getting a fine of £X and costs of say £1k, or pleading NG and getting a fine of £X and costs of say £5k. Most choose the former, even if they are NG, because most pilots cannot afford to pay out so much money.
So I don’t see that you have any choice, unless certain of being NG.
There is also no evidence that the stuff you write in the two “self incrimination” reports has any bearing on the “sentence” you get. According to the CAA website, some large % of the sentences are decided by the one guy; the rest (basically repeat infringers, infringers who have done Gasco previously, more serious cases) are decided by the committee.
Interestingly, the above link now shows July decisions:
As expected for “high summer”, many more (60) are getting letters. Only 15 got Gasco this time, presumably because the Gasco infringer processing pipeline is running at full capacity from preceeding months. Could also be they are reading EuroGA… and no doubt more FOIA applications have been sent in.
Peter wrote:
The CAA also has a long history (and makes no secret of this) that they will apply for much higher costs if you plead Not Guilty and get convicted. So the pilot is faced with pleading G and getting a fine of £X and costs of say £1k, or pleading NG and getting a fine of £X and costs of say £5k. Most choose the former, even if they are NG, because most pilots cannot afford to pay out so much money.
What costs are these? Legal costs? It seems strange if the government can charge legal costs in a criminal case.
I think Peter refers to the cost you incur by getting a lawyer to defend against the CAA
What costs are these? Legal costs? It seems strange if the government can charge legal costs in a criminal case.
This seems strange to me as well. If you win in court, obviously all your legal costs are carried by whoever took you to court (CAA in this case). Is this different in the UK?
The costs are mainly the costs of gathering evidence, getting witnesses to court and lawyers preparing the case.
These costs are largely not incurred following a guilty plea, so the costs are greatly reduced, as is the sentence (by law).
Or it’s all a great big conspiracy to grind people down. I forget which.
My bet is that in Germany about 100% of GA pilots will have a Rechtsschutzversicherung (legal protection insurance) which would cover all legal expenses anyway. This kind of insurance is very common and relatively cheap (mine is 147€/year), and is one of the reasons why Germans take each other to court relatively often.
MedEwok wrote:
This seems strange to me as well. If you win in court, obviously all your legal costs are carried by whoever took you to court (CAA in this case).
Unfortunately even in Germany that often does not work out. Often the cases are terminated in many ways other than a final verdict of innocense (Payment of a small fine, simply terminated for lack of proof etc.). You will accept this to get the case closed and end up paying your own legal defense.
Timothy wrote:
The costs are mainly the costs of gathering evidence, getting witnesses to court and lawyers preparing the case.
But Peter was talking about the CAA costs, not the cost of defense.
Is it normal in the UK that the prosecution in criminal cases recover their costs from persons who are found guilty?
