Escourt Ultra City Discussion

[Bundy]

Chaps, this is an important discussion, so I moved the related posts to this new topic.

[Tribal Croc]

Really hope we can get some clearance

I was very disappointed when we decided not to fly to Ultra City

I can't see what the big idea is

[John Boucher]

I posted this on the other thread as well but here goes...

Chaps, there is indeed a case iro the landing at the Shell Ultra City and personally this is going to have to be addressed as it seems a very similar process as Bundy has indicated has been followed by CAA Enforcement.

Just as a matter of interest, I sent a communication to Enforcement requesting some stats as to how many case were active, in process and resolved. I was acting chairman at the time of the request and wanted some additional "sensitive info" for the eyes of the EXCO. Needless to say, I was blown off with a non answer and certain persons were called and informed of their (CAA Enforcement) irritation of my request.

It is clear that either they are a law unto their own and answer to no one!!! This really needs to change. The ARO & RAASA needs to be an integral part of the disciplinary and enforcement process. With that we need to get legal representatives on the committee of MISASA so that this "fight" can be taken to them. This been said, I do not mean by this that we as ARO will ever condone illegal activities or contravening of ANR's. It would be that our members are treated justly and appropriately and not thrown to the dogs because of some misguided interpretation of the law.

Please note that this is me John B speaking in a personal capacity and am curious what kind of support we would be able to amass for the task at hand....

[mulderpm]

Thanks Bundy for moving to a new thread. Oom Paula must be tired of reading through our discussions to get to his flight plan.

I could not agree more. If according to the regulator, the CAA, an aviation practice needs to be stopped the owner of the area affected needs to be informed and a NOTAM needs to be issued. If you ask me, not issuing a NOTAM because no one reads it is a poor excuse. I do not expect this to be brought to the attention of every registered aircraft owner with a current licence but at least be posted on their (CAA/RAASA) web site’s. It is almost as if they do not want us to know so that they can fine us.

Except for the risk of “frightening” the drivers on the N4, I cannot see why landing on the privately owned Shell Ultra City land can be prohibited.

I keenly await the outcome of this topic.

[John Boucher]

Think of this.... if you pay the fine issued by CAA - it goes into their coffers... (for those persons that really broke the law by flying into power lines without valid licenses or operating an aircraft without a valid ATF and then coming a cropper etc.)

However, if you force the matter to go to court and you then found guilty, the monies goes to the state. If they lose the matter with costs - they may think twice before tossing out fines at random and will then force them to have solid cases with all their ducks in a row prior escalating it to the actual authority in the country!

Just me thinking aloud!

[CVStrong]

John,

The prime reason why someone would pay the 10k instead of taking it to court is the legal costs and the risk vs return... You could go to court, end up paying 50k in legal fees and then still have to pay the fine... Also, even if you win and are awarded costs, you only get a percentage of your costs back based on certain scales... the State never pays your full legal costs if you win against them... So the whole thing could end up costing you more than 10k to fight...

I settled a legal case (not aviation related) some time back based on the advice of a lawyer friend at the time, who spelt out the maths to me, and it was less of a risk to pay out R75k which I should not have had to pay, then to fight it with a 50 50 chance of winning, and I woudl have still been in for at least 50 to 75k in legal fees...

The problem with the legal system in SA (and most of the rest of the world) is that you either have to be rich or poor to get good representation... those that sit in the middle simply cannot afford to fight the system in court or out of principle...

Relate this to a Trike owner who flys for passion, and only just is able to afford that... if He has to choose between a 10k fine, or trying to come up with the 15k retainer that the lawyer will want as a down payment to start, you can guess what his choice is going to be...

Just a view from another angle as such...

Cheers

Craig

[ZULU1]

Well the Gyro boys landed there yesterday as i met Malcolm just after he landed at Virginia, i called him while he was at Ultra city..but i will ask the Ladysmith boys, i must have landed there hundreds of times and this would be a shame..will find out.

[vernon11]

I can't see what the big idea is [/quote]


To Top up their coffers.
nothing more.

[Bundy]

I refer to Part 185 CARS..

(9) An enforcement officer must serve the alleged offender with a notice of intended
enforcement action, before issuing and serving a penalty notice for a fine following investigation.
1074
(10) The notice of intended enforcement action must be served in person, by email or by
registered mail, on the appropriate form as prescribed by the Director, and must –
(a) specify the alleged offence to be investigated;
(b) disclose evidence of the alleged offence;
(c) specify the reasons for the action taken;
(d) specify the rights and obligations arising there from, including time frames;
(e) invite the alleged offender to make representation either orally or in writing on the
allegation(s) within 30 (thirty) days of the issue or service of the notice of intended
investigation; and
(f) provide an opportunity to the alleged offender to obtain assistance in making
representations; and
(g) specify the administrative action that may follow.

What concerns me is not whether the fine imposed on this pilot is justified or not, rather the veiled process in which it is decided.

If the NTCA industry was a business, Misasa would effectively be your "union".

It is worrying that enforcement cases being persued by CAA are done so in such an untransparent manner.

I find it completely unacceptable that the ARO's are not consulted at all in the disciplinarary process. We are the ARO, governed by an MOP which the CAA has accepted and we are all bound to this as pilots within our specific discipline.

Why is it that we are consulted when they want to make ramp inspections relevant to our type of operations....but we dont even get an e mail when one of our members are accused of doing something wrong?

The CAA is tasked with enforcement, not Misasa or RAASA. They are the only Governing Body with the Authority to prosecute indeviduals for transgressing the Law and they have the legal backing to do so.
Having said that, they also have a responsibility in ensuring that the process is not abused, and that the indeviduals in question are given a fair chance to make their representations. This can only happen through the various ARO's.
The Cherry picking of cases by the CAA is absolute BS! The ARO should be informed of any action taken against a member in the interests of fair governance.

No word yet on this issue but will report back as soon as I have more info.

[John Boucher]

Now Bundy highlights an important paragraph which in my opinion CAA needs to take note of...

(f) provide an opportunity to the alleged offender to obtain assistance in making representations;

It is my opinion that this would entail the ARO not so? However, the ARO can only really then get involved if the member provides us with the documentation prior it progressing to the point where normally has as we do not get the information or notification otherwise - the right to secrecy or privacy thing. Maybe I am interpreting it incorrectly?

[CVStrong]

Now Bundy highlights an important paragraph which in my opinion CAA needs to take note of...

(f) provide an opportunity to the alleged offender to obtain assistance in making representations;

It is my opinion that this would entail the ARO not so? However, the ARO can only really then get involved if the member provides us with the documentation prior it progressing to the point where normally has as we do not get the information or notification otherwise - the right to secrecy or privacy thing. Maybe I am interpreting it incorrectly?

I must say, if I was "charged" with an offence such as landing at a place commonly used by other people, I would be making all the details public here on the forum, and getting Misasa involved...

But, human nature of course would stop someone from doing this if they had actually done something wrong, or perceived or were led to believe they had done something wrong, then we as people try and hide the "shame"...

One hopes that the person or persons who have been charged, or actually fined, would speak up, so that this can be looked at, but all I hear at the moment are screaches of silence from both the caa and anyone else directly involved in this...

Fortunately for us we have dedicated people like John and Allan, who care, and are passionate about things being right...

I hope we do hear something before a favourite spot, which I had intended to visit becomes un usable with nothing more than rumours stopping us from going there...

Thanks for pushing for the details on this John and Allan, I am watching this with baited breath...

Cheers
Craig

[pietmeyer]

Heard from a friend of mine who the guy was that got the fine

Spoke to this friend who flew there about 2 days ago. He landed, fueled and left. Not sure what the big deal is. From what I understand, the guy who got the fine saw a person (whom he recognized) watching him land there and afterwards he received the fine from CAA. Seems like it might be bad blood or something but this is third hand info.

I don't want to name names here but will send the info to somebody for investigation.

[Bundy]

Good Morning all,

I have been informed from various people about some of the details around this issue. The pilot in question does not want to be named, and so we must respect that.
Unfortunately, during the Enforcement investigation there were indeed some administrative problems which came to light and these on their own would justify (from the CAA's point of view) the 1st offence fine, which is R10k in almost any type of transgression.

I would like to move away from the Ultra City Landing and talk more about the bigger issue here. That is how the CAA goes about an Enforcement Case.

I give you a hypothetical example, and you tell me which is a more transparent and just way to go about this....

You land your aircraft on a piece of ground that you have permission to do from the land owner in order to re fuel, say hi or whatever. The farmer next door Jan Pierewiet breeds budgies for a living. He takes exeption to the two low flights you have just done in order to inspect your landing area prior to touch down. He then files a CAHRS report at CAA, and accuses you of being a nuisance and endangering his safety.

Here is the CAA way....(As it currently play out)

CAA then contacts you and gives you a written notice of Intended Enforcement, where you then have the opportunity to pay your R10k admission of guilt fine. They do not contact your ARO (who represents your interests) at any stage. Now you must answer to them yourself.... You can choose to fight it, at probbable great personal cost with no garuantee of a win, or just pay it to make the issue "go away". The accuser, does not necessarily have to provide proof of your wrong doing, rather YOU must prove your innocence in a "he said, she said" situation. Nothing short of legal blackmail if you ask me....The ARO is never informed of the outcome (unless the pilot informs them personally), and the CAA does not issue any form of warning to others not to do the same.... Hmmm?

Here is how I think it should be handled...(Another perspective)

Jan files his complaint via CAHRS. CAA upon investigation sends the same Letter of Intended Enforcement an charge sheet to the Pilot as well as the ARO who he belongs to. The ARO can now step in to assist the Accused with his written submissions,assessing the facts and clarifying his actions or upholding the charges as the case may be. The ARO in this case will defend their members action because his overfights were done with the intention of TO/ landing at a place where the pilot had permission to do so. This is then sent back to the CAA with a reccomendation from the pilots ARO to not persue the intended fine, rather issuing a warning that he should not land again at that venue. Once the CAA has done this, the same Pilot knows that he must not do this again or face the consequences. The ARO, who has now been an active part of the process, can take that information and distribute it to all it's members in the form of an announcement, warning all pilots not to over fly the complainants property (co ord's supplied) at less than 500ft agl. Jan Pierewiet, can now breed his budgies in peace...and you have 1000 members who now know they must not bother him.

Now you tell me which of the above is a more just and safety concious way of dealing with an aviation matter?

I want to make it clear, as JB did before, that MISASA does not condone the violating of the rules/procedures. If you get a fine for not having your medical certificate/licence valid, then you must face the consequences I'm afraid.
All I'm saying is that the way it currently seems to pan out, is very unfair towards the accused and with the gray area's in the law's everywhere, does not allow proper and fair representation.

[nicow]

Heard from a friend of mine who the guy was that got the fine

Spoke to this friend who flew there about 2 days ago. He landed, fueled and left. Not sure what the big deal is. From what I understand, the guy who got the fine saw a person (whom he recognized) watching him land there and afterwards he received the fine from CAA. Seems like it might be bad blood or something but this is third hand info.

I don't want to name names here but will send the info to somebody for investigation.

Don't give names on the forum,but sent to Bundy to follow up.

[Tribal Croc]

Good Morning all,


I would like to move away from the Ultra City Landing and talk more about the bigger issue here. That is how the CAA goes about an Enforcement Case.

Thanks for the good work

Before we move away let's just get some clarification are we allowed to land at Escourt Ultra City or not