A Fine for the Pilot: Higher Punishment Due to Lack of Learning Effect
The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) North Holland has prosecuted a now 74-year-old pilot for a violation the rules of the air traffic circuit of the Hilversum airport, which could have caused danger to another aircraft already flying in the same circuit. In the prosecuting decision of the PPS, the arrogant attitude of the pilot after violation played an important role. The case was served on 8 September 2021 before the district judge in Haarlem. The judge sentenced the pilot to a higher than usual penalty because of his attitude.
Facts of the Case
At the centre of the case was an incident that took place on 16 May 2019. That morning, the pilot involved flew from Antwerp to Hilversum in order to pick up a friend there and fly on to Ameland. Instead of joining in at the fixed entry point of the air traffic circuit, the pilot flew right ahead to the Hilversum airport. Fortunately, the captain of the other aircraft, who was giving circuit training at the time, saw this coming in time. He took over the controls from his student-pilot, reduced the speed and deviated to the left. In his experience, a collision would have occurred had he not done so. His intervention prevented this collision.
Refusing conversation
The pilot of the training plane was keen to discuss the incident with his fellow pilot, but he had already left for Ameland after about five minutes. When he returned to Hilversum airport later that day, the airport manager on duty tried to talk to him, but he refused. He told him he had flown a ‘fine circuit’ and that if the airport manager had any remarks or objections he should call the aviation police. The airport manager did just that.
Appeal to Force Majeure Dismissed
While the pilot in the first telephone contact with the aviation police had said that ‘nothing has happened’ and that ‘it was an exaggerating attitude of the Hilversum airport’, five months later - as he was interrogated as a suspect - he made another statement. He had allegedly had a bird strike and had flown this way ‘for the safety of people on the ground, his plane and himself’. The judge agreed with the PPS that this statement should be set aside, partly because the processed report of radio communications gave no reason to suppose anything like this had occurred.
Just Culture
The PPS has had a lot of investigation conducted in this case, for the sake of ‘Just Culture’, which is recognised in aviation law and endorsed by the PPS. In short, according to Just Culture, no one is punished if there is no intent or gross negligence. The idea behind this is that persons involved then report safety issues more quickly and lessons can be learned from them. According to the PPS, this Just Culture implies that a person involved takes responsibility himself, discusses an incident and tries to learn from it. The pilot did not do this, while his flying behaviour can be considered grossly negligent.
Criminal Law
The PPS therefore believed that standards, including the standard of Just Culture, should be upheld by imposing a sentence. Because at the trial the pilot again placed the blame entirely outside himself, the PPS demanded, on top of the € 1000,- (which had previously been proposed as a fine) a conditional revocation of the flying competence for six months. The judge did not go along with this, although he shared concerns about the pilot's attitude. This attitude the judge found ‘most troubling in the whole’. Because of 'the defendant's record and work', the judge found no reason yet for a conditional revocation. However, it should not happen again and thus a monetary fine of € 2000,-, of which € 1000,- conditional, followed.