ELOM:2023:016 | Corkscrew motion with MLA | North Holland
Decision: 2 June 2023 PPS North Holland
Aviation case category: General aviation (MLA)
Formal links:
Content indication: A pilot with aerobatics experience instinctively made a 360-degree turn above built-up area to avoid a prohibited area. Violations acknowledged and lessons learned. Case dismissed.
PPS Decision
in the case against a the captain of a Micro Light Aircraft (MLA), referred to below as the suspect.
Reason for the investigation
The investigation was launched following observations made by officers from the East Netherlands Police Unit. They saw a small plane flying above buildings and making a 360-degree turn on its axis.
Suspected offence
Violation of Article 47 of the National Aviation Safety Regulations, Article 4 paragraph 2 under f Flight Operations Regulations and Article 5.3 of the Aviation Act.
Facts and circumstances
The investigation shows that on [date in the year] 2023, the suspect, as captain of an MLA, made a flight with a passenger. Near [place], he made a 360-degree turn around the axis above buildings. This twist is also known as a corkscrew movement.
Such movement is not permitted in view of the user restriction mentioned in the MLA manual. An MLA may only be flown for 'non-aerobatic use' and with 'turns with angle of inclination not exceeding 60°'. The violation of this user restriction was also not registered in the aircraft's flight log.
Decision
In the opinion of the aviation prosecutor, this constitutes three offences. Failure to observe the user restriction is a violation of Article 47 of the National Aviation Safety Regulations. Failing to note this in the aircraft's logbook is a violation of Article 4(2)(f) of the Flight Operations Regulations. Moreover, the mode of flight could have posed danger not only to the suspect himself, but also to his passenger and people on the ground. This is a violation of Section 5.3 of the Aviation Act.
Given the suspect's positive attitude during the questioning by the aviation police, the aviation prosecutor takes the view that no punishment is required for these offences. The suspect stated that he flew to [place] at the request of his passenger (a former colleague) and inadvertently flew through a restricted area. When this was pointed out to him by Dutch Mill, he had to take a turn. In the process, his aerobatics experience prompted him to instinctively turn on his axis, even though he knew about the 60-degree limit. When questioned, he acknowledged the offences. He stated that he agreed that turning it back would have been safer and that this was how he was taught. He did not think of mentioning this occurrence in the flight log. He has also acknowledged the danger involved. He stated that he will not repeat this offence. The aviation prosecutor understands from this that he has learned lessons from this occurrence. This is the most important aspect in terms of flight safety.