Aviation Law Case - Jack and the hiring of a light aircraft.

Bob, at the location of departure requested to see jack’s pilot logbook however, unknown to Bob the last three entries of flights from Cessna over the last 12 months had been falsified alongside an expired instrument rating giving the impression that not only was he a regular flyer but able to fly in the worst of conditions therefore granting Bob reassurance. Certainly, the omission of an inaccurate logbook entry is a criminal offence and is punishable by the (CAA) under s (34)(5) of the Air navigation order. The (CAA) reserve the right to exercise jurisdiction in cases concerning false credentials. According to the publication the (CAA) prosecution results (2008) on separate occasion’s two pilots were fined a sum of £400 and the other £1000 for falsifying logbook data with both cases

heard in the magistrate’s court furthermore, prosecution may lead to a jail term sentence of up to 2 years therefore it is safe to conclude that Jack will be subject to a fine or a jail term.

Amongst all other complications, the weather played a significant part in the decline of the aircraft. As the qualified pilot Jack pretended , performing a full check on an aircraft before flying should become second nature however, this seemed absent in jack’s condition, the forecast was left unattended, later having an adverse effect on the safe landing of the aircraft. At 2000ft airspace, Jack realised he was flying over a controlled airspace, Luton CTR/CTA, tuned into the wrong radio frequency an infringement of law customary to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

The UK Airspace is divided into 2 main areas referred to as the flight information region (FIR) The London Area and Terminal Control Centre (LATCC) situated at West Drayton. Luton CTR/CTA is classified under Airspace D  therefore, flying in such airspace without adequate permission bears serious consequences. S (96) of the ANO states that “The operator of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom must not permit the aircraft to fly for the purpose of public transport without first being satisfied using every reasonable means that the aeronautical radio stations and navigational aids serving the intended route or any planned diversion are adequate for the safe navigation of the aircraft”. In addition, not only did jack enter into a class D airspace without tuning in to the precise radio frequency to inform the appropriate public body but an Easy Jet commercial airport at that.

 If not for the intervention ATC who sighted Jack from a distance requested the pilot to call sign and his name and where he had come a procedure recognised as Mode C intruder, the ascending Easy Jet aircraft could have been involved in a collision as a result from such a careless act. In a similar manner,  ATC strictly demanded he fly the QDM and exit to the North as speedily as possible and ensure he maintain a standard 2000ft and report leaving the Air Traffic Zone (ATZ.

Subsequently, Jack navigated the Cessna 172 away from the class D defined Aerodrome and steered north towards Leeds Airport which was located approximately 140 miles or 225.26 Kilometres under the airspace classification (D). Leeds airport is built complete with an Aerodrome Traffic Monitor which has the ability to “determine the landing order, spacing and distance from touchdown information of arriving aircraft, Monitor the progress of over flying aircraft and assist in taking corrective action when separation between arriving aircraft becomes less than the prescribed minima”. On schedule to arrive at the desired destination, Jack is caught off guard by horrendous weather, rather than divert east or west he decides to continue with the flight.

The weather chronically deteriorated as he flew towards the ground causing Jack to lose sight of where he was going and have no choice but to make a reckless manoeuvre in attempt to avoid an electric pylon and clipped the starboard wing as he passed , an action that sent him spiralling downwards 400ft out of the air. At the time of this misfortunate occurrence, Jacks visibility was down to zero therefore leaving him in a vulnerable position.  Visual Flight Rules (VFR) enforce that in a controlled airspace (classes A-E) meteorological visibility in conditions below FL100 must maintain a 5KM flight visibility, 1500m horizontally from cloud and 1000FT vertically, steer clear of clouds and maintain sight of the surface.

The recommended fuel for Cessna 172 is 100LL (BLUE) Avgas – very volatile and is extremely flammable petroleum based gasoline with the LL meaning ‘low lead’. In clear conscience, Bob warned that the Cessna 172 needed re fuelling before flight. Despite Bob’s warning Jack proceeded to fly and as a result the aircraft descended from the air into a farmer’s field. Rather than use the type of fuel deemed acceptable, Jack re fuelled the aircraft using unleaded fuel detrimental to the

operation of this aircraft. Realistically, from this point onwards jack is liable for all damages caused to the aircraft due to fire spluttering from the engine. The (CAA) will rely on relevant areas of S(94)(3) Air navigation Order which claims to bear a sole purpose to ensure flight safety and prevent air accidents furthermore, this raises an issue of whether or not jack illegally trespassed onto the farmers land. In Tort, trespass is thought to be an intentional act whereby one enters another’s land without appropriate authorisation even though initially thought to be wrongful conduct resulting in damage or personal loss however, nowadays trespass can apply in any situation involving non consent upon entry of land and can be seen as a criminal offence.

Establishing whether or not Jack committed the act of trespass solely relies on proof that he did in fact intend to trespass. Evaluation of the scenario indicates that Jack indeed trespassed onto the farmers land however; Jack can rely on emergency landing as a defence in terms of protecting his and the life of his passengers. S76 (1) of the Civil Aviation Act (1982) illustrates that “no action shall lie in nuisance or trespass by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which is reasonable”. However, S76 (2) confers a right to bring an action against intruder in respect of damage caused by the aircraft without the need to prove negligence. This rule was upheld in the case of Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco.

Nevertheless, Jack, the responsible pilot in this situation owed a duty of care to his passengers, a duty he failed to take charge of by inadequately checking the aircraft prior to flying. “Duty of care requires you to consider the consequences of your acts and omissions and to ensure that those acts and/or omissions do not give rise to a foreseeable risk of injury to any other person” jack forfeited

his need to provide a duty of care by ignoring necessary flight preparations such as weather checks and fuel.

The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is part of the Department for Transport and is responsible for the investigation of civil aircraft accidents and serious incidents within the UK and its overseas territories. The purpose of the AAIB neither aims to allocate blame or liability but improve aviation safety by accurately investigating air accidents founding guidelines to prevent future reoccurrence. An inspector will be assigned by the AAIB to investigate the cause of the accident using flight records and witness statements for assistance. Once the true cause is established the (CAA) attend to the case as they see fit.

In terms of the damage caused to the aircraft during the flight, one might argue that Jack had contractual obligation to ensure the safe returning of the aircraft. Based on principles associated with contract law, both parties entered into a contract at the point of currency exchange (deposit) therefore Jack is accountable for caused to the aircraft whilst in his possession.

Finally, due to the evidence presented against Jack, it is clear that he infringed the rules that embody the law of Aviation. The law of Aviation encompasses the standard rules and regulations under which flying is considered safe. Any attempt to circumvent these rules leads to a ripple effect causing total disarray. Jack is liable under the law of Tort to provide a duty of care to his passenger, a virtue he failed to deliver therefore In any event, Mary could claim under psychological trauma due impact of aircraft descending towards the ground. The aircraft in question requires a major structural repair of the starboard wing and an engine rebuild, Jack will therefore  be obligated to pay damages as a remedy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES

Kelson v Imperial Tobacco [1957] 2 QB 334

LEGISLATION

Air Navigation: (CAP 393) The Order and the Regulations; 3rd edn incorporating amendments up to 10 August 2012

ICAO Rules of the Air, Rules of the Air and the Air Traffic Services, PANS- RAC (Doc 4444)

BOOKS

Guidance Criteria for the Approval of Flying Training Organisation’s Offering Modular Courses of Training for the JAA CPL (Aeroplane and Helicopter), Instrument Rating (Aeroplane and Helicopter), and Training for addition Class Ratings (Aeroplane) and Type Ratings (Aeroplane and Helicopter). Standard Documents 36, Version 2

Guide to Visual Flight Rules in the UK- Civil Aviation Authority- Part 4 (a

WEBSITES

http://www.industrialheritage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:panshanger&catid=8:history&Itemid=16<accessed 27th  November 2012>

http://www.aviate.flyer.co.uk/airspacepage-airspace.htm<accessed 23rd  November 2012>

Trespass to Land’ <http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/trespass-to-land.php> (2003 – 2012) <accessed 29th November 2012>

   29th November 2012>

http://www.distance-calculator.co.uk/world-distances-leeds-to-luton.htm< accessed 23rd November 2012>

---