ELOM:2023:005 | Low flying | North Holland

Decision in Aviation Case | 16-01-2023

PPS Decision

in the case against a captain, referred to below as the suspect.

Reason for the investigation

The investigation in the case was launched following a report to the aviation police. The report stated that a single-engine aircraft, bearing registration number [registration number], had been flying circles above a residential area below the minimum permitted flying altitude.

Suspected offence

Violation of SERA.5005(f), Regulation 923/2012.

Facts and circumstances

The investigation by the aviation police established that on [date in the year] 2022, the suspect was the captain of the aircraft mentioned by the reporting party. Radar images showed that the aircraft flew at [location 1] at about 300 feet, where it made two 360-degree turns between 350 and 675 feet. According to radar images, the aircraft passed the lighthouse located at the [lake] at about 300 feet.

The suspect turned out to be an experienced pilot. He has logged about 1,000 flying hours in approximately 15 years. He stated that he was aware of the minimum flight altitude. On the day in question, he was flying with three passengers who were friends of his. He made two turns at the house of one of the passengers. He further took a 'dip' at [place 2] to view the lighthouse that had been completely refurbished. He acknowledges that he was too low. He admitted that he should not fly in that way and will not do so again.

Decision

The suspect flew below the minimum permitted flying altitude. This constitutes a violation of Regulation SERA.5005, part f. Violation of this regulation is punishable as an offence in Article 11.9 (1) (c) of the Aviation Act, via Article 1.6 of the Aviation Act and Article 3.1 (1) (e) of the Aviation Safety Implementation and Enforcement Regulations.

When assessing a case, the PPS takes into account the provisions of Just Culture. The positive attitude of the suspect is considered important by the PPS. The suspect acknowledged the offence, apologised for it and expressed his intention to pay extra attention to flight altitudes when preparing future flights. The suspect also said that he is very concerned about ensuring aviation safety and that he understands that someone made a report to the aviation police about this, even though he does not think safety was jeopardised on this flight.

The intention of the reporting party was not to ensure that the suspect would be punished for this offence. The reporting party is a pilot who saw the suspect flying and found it so dangerous that he had to be challenged on it. Since it was not possible to get in touch with the suspect through the airport authority, the reporting party filed a report with the aviation police. The positive response to this has allowed the PPS to give the reporting party feedback.

Given the above, the PPS does not see any added value in imposing a penalty. The PPS does however encourage the suspect to talk about it with other pilots and, in the event of future occurrences - because they may happen - to report them themselves to the Aviation Occurrence Analysis Bureau so that they can be included in their analysis and share them more widely as points of learning.