Analyzing Aviation Law Scenarios - Essay Example

?Air Aviation Law Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts 12th January, Introduction Many commercial activities are controlled and monitored by the laws for the benefit or protection of different stakeholders. Moreover, several laws have been enacted to cater for special interests such as human rights, consumer protection and many other special interests. This essay is going to analyze two cases which involve several scenarios in the realm of aviation law. The United Kingdom is a region that is governed by several laws including the Air Navigation Order (ANO) or Rules of the Air (RotA) laws. These laws were enacted to regulate and govern the aviation industry in the region. Using these laws, this essay will analyze the different scenarios presented with the intention of advising different stakeholders in these cases. The provisions or statutes of these laws will be applied in coming up with sound and legal advice to different stakeholders. Part A The scenario presented in this case looks into the case of Carl who is a qualified pilot who flies when his license is not ratified. His long absence from flying is not within the laws since his rating has lapsed. Moreover, he flew over a controlled region and he had the intention of landing the aircraft at Cumbernauld airport. Cumbernauld airport is classified to be in a class D airspace and due to engine failure; Carl fails to land his aircraft in Cumbernauld airport but manages to land in a disused military airfield. The actions of Carl raise several fundamental questions on air safety and application of the set out flying rules and laws. Legal Issues The actions of Carl in flying himself to Cumbernauld airport raises several legal issues that need to looked at carefully. One of the legal issues that need to be looked into is in connection to the lapsing of his instrument rating. According to the provisions of the Air Navigation order and regulations, it is illegal for pilots to fly an aircraft when their instrument ratings have lapsed. The aircraft that Carl flew was registered in the United Kingdom (UK) and therefore the rules and provisions of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) will be used in handling this case. For instance, in section 50 of the ANO requires only registered pilots with licenses granted under this law and in addition for an aircraft registered in the UK. Although, Carl was a registered pilot his flight rating were not satisfactory since he had no flown for 10 months (Henrietta, 2006). During his flight, Carl experienced problems just as he was about to land in his destination. Section 107 of the ANO specifies that an operator or pilot of an aircraft must specify the minimum requirements to be used in landing an aircraft. Carl was well aware through his flight plan that the aircraft was going to fly over a class D airspace and therefore he should have made Cumbernauld airport’s Air Traffic Controllers aware of his departure intentions (CAA, 2009). Moreover, section 107 of the ANO an aircraft should not descend from a height above 1000 meters to the relevant airport without clear vision of that airport. One of the important information that was ignored was the flying requirement for the plane used by Carl. Carl flew a plane that was fuel starved for its intended journey which was in contravention of the section 107 which requires minimum requirements to be followed. Betty, a part owner of the plane company in which Carl later flew contravened the ANO’s section 138, which states that a person must not recklessly or negligently an aircraft to endanger any property or person. Betty did not take any steps in ensuring that Carl was qualified to fly an airplane since she only relied on his word. As the operator of the company that owned the airplane she had the obligation of ensuring that air safety is maintained for her employees and clients. Moreover, Betty did not bother to check if Carl personal log book had good instrument rating since the law prohibits pilots from flying with poor instrument ratings. Legal Advice As a lawyer legal advice could be extended to the parties enjoined in this case who are Alan and Carl. Alan is the owner of the plane which Carl flew in his trip to Cumbernauld. In deciding this case, a court of law would rely on the report prepared by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Based on the legal issues arising from this case, both Alan and Carl are liable to contravening the provisions of the ANO. Alan and his company being the operators of the aircraft breached section 138 of the ANO by allowing Carl to fly when his instrument rating were not good. However, this case is similar in circumstance to the George v Eagle Air Services Ltd [2009] case whereby the victim who was the wife of one of the respondents’ employees (ICAO, 1981). The court in this case held that safety measures were enhanced and that it was the duty of the aircraft operator to explain the circumstances that led to the aircraft crash. Alan being the operator of the aircraft will be obligated to explain under what circumstances was Carl allowed to fly and why did the aircraft have no enough fuel. The legal advice that would be afforded to Alan is to accept the investigation and conclusion of the CAA investigation and to plead for leniency since he did not permit Carl to fly but his partner did. In Alan’s case the court might levy hefty penalties to which I would advice Alan to pay to avoid further problems (CAA, 2009). Carl on the other hand conducted serious breach of the ANO provisions which constitutes a serious case. For instance, he did not get clearance to fly over a class D airspace and his instrument rating had lapsed. Based on these, the legal advice that would be extended to Carl is to brace for disciplinary action from the CAA. In such circumstances, the CAA might withdraw Carl license since he had breached the provisions of air safety. However, based on legal precedence, Carl could argue that the circumstance that would have likely cause an aircraft crash was fuel starvation (Boissier, 2009). Since Carl was not the operator of the aircraft, he could argue that there was absence of fault on his part as was the case in George v Eagle Air Services Ltd [2009] 1 W.L.R. 2133 case. The pronouncement of this case will be based on the ANO provisions which are used within the UK and therefore, Alan’s company could be penalised for endangering property when Carl was flying its plane (Oughton, 2007). However, Betty should be aware of breach of duty since he allowed Carl to fly without checking his documents. The legal advice to Carl is to plead for leniency since he is a qualified pilot and it was not his duty to check if the aeroplane had enough fuel or not. Part B Under this scenario we witness a pilot by the name of Dan, who is assertive, over-confident and heavy handed. Dan is a recent graduate of a piloting course and he has been under the supervision of Alan who is a qualified pilot. Alan advises Dan to practice more of flying before taking more passengers. However, Dan ignores the advice of Alan and tries to fly a passenger who weighs 110kg on a helicopter with full tank. This task seems to be difficult for Dan and the helicopter is damaged in the course of flying. Moreover, Dan flies the damaged helicopter to a repair company for repairs. The engineer at the repair company thinks that the actions of Dan were not in order and he was lucky not to have crushed in the helicopter. Besides, the two incidents Dan went ahead and borrowed another helicopter which he ferries a passenger but ultimately the helicopter crashes. Freda the passenger ferried by the helicopter is finally injured as a result of the helicopter crash caused by the inability of the helicopter to ascend. Legal Issues Dan’s actions lead to several events which went against the provisions of the Air Navigation Order. Dan blatantly ignored air safety procedures on several occasions and this led to injury of one of his passengers. The first legal issue that needs to be looked into is the experience of Dan and its relation to section 46 of the Air Navigation Order. According to this section, a helicopter must carry two pilots especially when it is used for public transport. However, we witness Dan flying the helicopter himself yet he was not experienced in handling such flights. However, this provision excludes helicopters being flown during the daytime or ones which operate on autopilot. In this case we witness Dan, an inexperienced pilot ignoring advice and flying a helicopter under enormous weight pressure. Another legal issue that arises is the fact that Dan flew a helicopter which was faulty and thus he endangered his life and the endangerment of a helicopter. This act amounted to negligence and is prohibited by the Air Navigation Order under section 137. For instance, section 137 of the ANO states that a person cannot act recklessly or in a manner that would endanger an aircraft or person in an aircraft. Thus, based on this provision Dan acted recklessly in his actions of trying to fly a heavy helicopter with a passenger (Henrietta, 2006). Moreover, when Dan flew Freda for the second time well knowing that in his first attempt he nearly crashed his helicopter was reckless. Section 137 of the ANO prohibits a pilot from endangering the lives of its passengers and the actions of Dan were in contraction to this section of the law. Dan did not take necessary steps in reporting the first incident involving his helicopter as is required by the law. According to section 226 of the Air Navigation Order (ANO), accident and incident reporting is very important in the maintenance of safety. In section 226 of the ANO, the law article looks into the occurrences which endanger an aircraft and its passengers. After Dan had destroyed the one of the rotors of his helicopter, he had the obligation of reporting the incident before flying again. Dan is a novice pilot with limited flying experience and in this case we look at the issue of his flying in a limited area in total contravention of section 122 of the ANO (Boissier, 2009). This section prohibits pilots from flying in circumstances that do not allow clear vertical clearance. The other parties in that were affected by Dan’s crash include Alan and Freda, whereby Alan is also liable for the helicopter crash. This is because according to section 138 of the ANO, any person is not supposed to permit or cause an aircraft to cause damage to a person or property. Alan allowed Dan to fly his helicopter knowing very well that Dan was inexperienced. Freda could also claim compensation from the injuries suffered as a result of the helicopter crash caused by Dan’s negligence (ICAO, 1981). Legal Advice The legal issues raised above involving the various parties in this case need proper assessment before a legal decision is reached. The above events could be interpreted using different air laws and past cases where precedence can be established. As a lawyer, numerous legal advices could be extended to Dan since he is the main party to these events. Dan is liable for negligence and breach of the ANO provisions and therefore several legal claims could be brought against him. The court will issue it judgement based on the investigations conducted by CAA and case to be brought forward by Freda. In this case, Dan has limited options since he ignored advice afforded to him by Alan (Oughton, 2007). Dan breached the provisions of ANO causing injury to his friend Freda and therefore he should be held liable for his actions. Some of the circumstances in this case are similar to the case of Fellowes v Clyde Helicopters Ltd [1997] A.C. 534 whereby transporting a friend amounts to public transport. Moreover, the other party involved in this case being Alan, should be wary of Dan fling a case claiming that he was the operator/owner of the helicopter and was well aware of Dan inexperience in flying (Henrietta, 2006). This is because Alan breached section 138 of the ANO by allowing Dan to fly his helicopter while he was inexperienced. However, Dan could file an incident report so that he could use the report to claim for liability of the crash to be picked up by the helicopter insurers. On the other hand if we look at Freda’s case in this situation, we can conclude that Freda has a right to sue Dan for negligence during flying. Freda could sue Dan for breach of duty and negligence. As a pilot, Dan had the obligation of flying Freda to her destination using flying rules and ensuring the safety of his passengers. However, Dan on his second attempt crash landed his chopper leading to injury to Freda. As a result, on relation to Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd [2009] Q.B. 778 case whereby an air balloon pilot and his company were directed to pay a passenger as a result of a balloon crash. The legal advice that would be afforded to Freda is to file her case in the shortest period of time as was the case in claimants in the case of Laroche v Spirit of Adventure. Another case that could be used in assessing the circumstances in this scenario is that of Fellowes v Clyde Helicopters Ltd [1997] A.C. 534. The helicopter crash in the case of Dan and Freda occurred in the UK thus according to the judgement made in the Fellowes v Clyde Helicopters Ltd [1997] case. As a result, the provisions of the ANO will be used in deciding this case (Boissier, 2009). Dan negligence will likely be punished by the courts and thus Dan will be made to damages suffered by Freda and to compensate Alan for crashing his helicopter. Conclusion Air travel is nowadays a common form of transport in the world and this type of travel is suited for passengers travelling long distances or those in a hurry. We have seen the case of Carl who was in a hurry and thus risked his life in an aircraft. Moreover, we looked at Dan who endangered his life and caused injuries to one of his passengers through his actions. The Air Navigation Order (ANO) or Rules of the Air (RotA) laws were enacted to protect air operators, travellers and employees who work in the airline industry. However, these laws are used only in the UK and thus in some situations it necessary to make use of laws and previous cases in handling out judgements. In the first case, we take a look at the case of Carl who ignored the rules and provisions of the ANO. While on the other hand the second case we take a look at a rookie helicopter pilot who blatantly ignores aviation laws. These two cases are different and explore how provisions of the ANO and RotA can be used in deciding and resolving aviation scenarios (Oughton, 2007). For instance, in the first case Carl and Betty should be held liable for breaching the ANO laws while on the second case Dan is the culprit through negligence. References Boissier, P., 2009. Learn the Nautical Rules of the Road: An Expert Guide to the COLREGs. Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), 2009. The Air Navigation Order 2009. London: Civil Aviation Authority. Henrietta, I. and Diederiks-Verschoor, P., 2006. An introduction to air law. London: Francis Taylor. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 1981. Rules of the air: International standards. Annex 2 to the Convention on International Aviation. London: International Civil Aviation Organization. Oughton, D. Marston, J. and Harvey, B., 2007. Q and A: Aviation Laws 2007-2008. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Read More