The biggest fines were 200k$ by FAA for “pilots” flying drones in metopolitan areas (but David Harbottle just paid more than that!)
Sometimes it’s better to be less famous, which is not the case of the top drone pilot on YT !
IMO fines/sanctions on not carrying MED/PPL or flying with expired PPL/SEP/IR should not exceed 2000E & 12months ban from flying, that is what Thomas Salme got for 15 years of flying 1 million pax under CAT for reward with lapsed PPL and 10,000hours, it’s not fair to fine/punish private pilots for more than that 
unlike professional pilots, private pilots don’t enjoy the perks of company & union limited liability, but they can get some compassion from Aeroclubs, FFA/AOPA and EuroGA !
As a ballpark actual figure, a Swiss pilot was sentenced to a 67’500 CHF fine in federal court for negligent homicide and air traffic endangerment following a crash in 2016.
A Hornet pilot charged in military court after a crash was facing a 42k CHF fine, charged with lack of care in following service procedures and destruction of air force materiel.
A tandem paraglider instructor was sentenced to a 3000 CHF fine following a landing accident leading to bodily harm.
I gess for crashes & accidents, third party harm, the bills for fine & sentances are usually way higher as they should !
David Harbottle seems to know how to keep his wings level (but not his head down): I am not sure if he ever had a third party harm or damage? he landed without checking NOTAMS or ATC permission (8.33khz freq change from 25khz just like half of UK pilots) but he flew with a fake PPL/IR for 3 years, the fine smells like he was running a dodgy buisness on top?
Ibra wrote:
IMO fines/sanctions on … flying with expired PPL/SEP/IR should not exceed 2000E & 12months ban from flying,
In that case actually doing those licenses/ratings would no longer have a positive business case. In more than 30 years of flying, my PPL has been checked no more than 5 times and my IR has never been checked.
It’s simple maths: If I’m only checked every 6 years and if the maximum downside of not having the rating is 2000EUR, the value of the rating is less than 350EUR/year. That does not pay for the yearly IR check ride in my plane – not to mention the >10k cost to obtain the license in the first place.
Fines do only work if the expected downside (i.e. probability of getting caught x the cost of getting caught) is significantly higher than the cost of compliance.
btw. in my opinion it is something completely different if you forget to carry a valid license/rating/med you have than if you do not have such rating in the first place. And when you do not have such license/rating/med it is something completely different if you “forgot” to renew for some days/weeks than if it became invalid months or even years ago…
Ibra wrote:
he bills for fine & sentances are usually way higher as they should !
As you can see in this thread: Beyond rumors it is extremely hard to find any cases that are traceable where pilots in reality really paid more than few hours worth of flying. The extreme cases quoted above are very few and from people doing commercial ops and/or flying illegally for years!
Malibuflyer wrote:
The extreme cases quoted above are very few and from people doing commercial ops and/or flying illegally for years!
That’s my impression, I am sure UK CAA did come across people flying without valid papers, I never heard of anyone of them getting 200k£ fine (the most notable one are the sheer load of LAPL converted pilots not used to the 2 years rolling currency, they were used to NPPL SSEA being valid for 2 years, the worst bit some FI/CRI were signing them up for 2 years)
T28 wrote:
As a ballpark actual figure, a Swiss pilot was sentenced to a 67’500 CHF fine in federal court for negligent homicide and air traffic endangerment following a crash in 2016.
Do you remember which case that was? Not the Schmerlat Robin? Because that one now got acquitted by the federal court. (the fine was imposed by the federal punitive court but was appealed against) That case is a bomb shell in many regards, as the TSB report, which was the base for the sentencing, had to be retracted and has not been re-issued since.
I remember another one where BOTH pilots in a collision were severely sentenced by the federal punitive court for air traffic endangerment. Both of them have since passed away, one of them (a friend of mine) from cancer, the other was shot by the police.
T28 wrote:
A Hornet pilot charged in military court after a crash was facing a 42k CHF fine, charged with lack of care in following service procedures and destruction of air force materiel.
This guy was acquitted I believe?
I find it interesting how aviation fines are so much higher than something done of the same magnitude in a motor vehicle. There was a case recently in Liverpool of a driver (a wealthy professional) being spotted doing 120 mph in his BMW by the police, and then running from the police and crashing. He got a few points on his license (not even a suspension) and a fine of just a few hundred pounds.
The equivalent act in aviation would get you fines of many thousands and almost certainly a license suspension, and a criminal record!
When they did the consultation here on new drone regulations, the fines for relatively minor infractions were orders of magnitude higher than much more dangerous infractions committed in a motor vehicle. I said so during the consultation: either the proposed fines for drone infractions were wildly draconian, or motoring fines need to be increased a lot.
Do you remember which case that was? Not the Schmerlat Robin? Because that one now got acquitted by the federal court. (the fine was imposed by the federal punitive court but was appealed against) That case is a bomb shell in many regards, as the TSB report, which was the base for the sentencing, had to be retracted and has not been re-issued since.
That one. Had the report been correct, the conviction wouldn’t have been nullified.
This guy was acquitted I believe?
He was – I merely used it as a tariff indication.
alioth wrote:
I find it interesting how aviation fines are so much higher than something done of the same magnitude in a motor vehicle.
Is that true?
alioth wrote:
There was a case recently in Liverpool of a driver (a wealthy professional) being spotted doing 120 mph in his BMW by the police
Last time I checked, speeding in an airplane has not been an offense at all (well, there is that 250kt limit below FL100 but I have no idea, what the fines would be).
alioth wrote:
… and a fine of just a few hundred pounds.
Very depending on the country. I once had a Swiss colleague who had to pay north of 80k for “just” driving 180kmh on a Swiss motorway…
alioth wrote:
When they did the consultation here on new drone regulations, the fines for relatively minor infractions were orders of magnitude higher than much more dangerous infractions
“Dangerous” is only one of the criteria. Another one is the cost caused by the infringement. If you fly a drone through the approach sector of Zurich or Frankfurt and dozens of planes need to go around or even redirected, you cause multiple ten thousands of damage to the operators.
Yes, if you drive an RC car on the highway there is a risk of causing an accident, but is much more likely that your RC car will be damaged and nothing more happens.
A general rule for fines should be, that the fine is higher than the damage cause by the infringement.
T28 wrote:
That one. Had the report been correct, the conviction wouldn’t have been nullified.
I am looking forward to read the final corrected report. However, there is two aspects to this.
1. The verdict was based on an Annex 13 report, which, by definition should not be used for legal proceedings. As we know, Switzerland unfortunately does not honor this.
2. The appeals, most probably due to the lack of availability of a final report, relied on their own court investigation, as they should per Annex 13. And those experts of both sides came to different conclusions than the TSB report, also considering practicability of scrutiny over passenger weight and what consists criminal negligence on this matter.
We will only know if the report supports the verdict or contradicts it once the revised version appears. The fact alone that it was retracted is rather significant, as far as I know it is the first time this has happened in the history of the STSB.
