ELOM:2023:006 | Tracking a marten in a prohibited area | North Holland
Decision: 1 March 2023 PPS North Holland
Aviation case category: General aviation (sport aircraft)
Formal links: -/-
Content indication: The captain realised too late that he had entered a restricted area. Because of the context he outlined, culpability was assessed as low by the PPS. The captain has also learned lessons from the occurrence. Case dismissed.
PPS Decision
in the case against a captain, referred to below as the suspect.
Reason for the investigation
The investigation in the case was opened following a report from the military air traffic control (Dutch Mil).
Suspected offence
Violation of Article 5.10 of the Aviation Act in conjunction with Article 9 of the Air Traffic Decree 2014 and Article 2(1) of the Regulation Limitation or Prohibition on Civil Air Traffic in Certain Areas 2018.
Facts and circumstances
The investigation established that the suspect was the captain of the sport aircraft that had flown into a prohibited area near [place] on [date in the year] 2022. The Ministry of Defence's Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit was practising with explosives in the area at the time. The exercise was stopped as soon as the sports plane was spotted.
To protect air traffic over this area, airspace there is closed to civil air traffic up to an altitude of 3,000 feet (about 900 metres) daily from 00:00 to 24:00. This is regulated in Article 2(1) Regulation Limitation or Prohibition on Civil Air Traffic in Certain Areas 2018. [1]
The suspect stated to the aviation police that he realised too late that he was flying through the prohibited area. He had not noticed the explosions. At the time, the suspect was flying with an acquaintance who was using a device to track a transponder signal from a released marten, which was moving across the military training and firing range at the time. As soon as he flew out of the area, he was called by Dutch Mil and told that he had flown into a restricted area.
The case was discussed at length with the suspect during an interview at the prosecutor's office. He comprehensively explained the context which led him to misjudge the situation.
Decision
At the end of the interview, the aviation prosecutor dismissed the case against the captain. The culpability for the offence was assessed as minor in view the context. The captain came across as a serious pilot, who also clearly showed he had learned from the occurrence.
[1] The airspace in question is 'EHR3 (Odenbroek)', also referred to by pilots as 'Romeo 3'.