ELOM:2023:007 | Advertising flights too long during event | North Holland
Decision: 12 April 2023 PPS North Holland
Aviation case category: General aviation (advertising aircraft)
Formal links: -/-
Content indication: Advertising aircraft flew over Amsterdam for too long twice during an event Violations following dismissal for similar case and adjustments in working method/procedure. Nevertheless, a further dismissal followed due to the relatively short overrun (8 minutes on the first flight and 12 minutes on the second) and the positive attitude of the company representative.
PPS Decision
in the case against an aviation company, referred to below as the suspect.
Reason for the investigation
The investigation was initiated following a citizen's report to the Dutch CAA (the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate) about a plane with an advertising tow over the centre of Amsterdam. The Dutch CAA forwarded this report to the aviation police.
Suspected offence
Violation of Article 2 and 4 Towing and Advertising Towing Regulations.
Facts and circumstances
Based on the aviation police report, the aviation public prosecutor has established that on [date in the year] 2022, during [event], the aircraft with [registration number] flew for too long with a commercial tow over Amsterdam on two occasions. A total of 53 minutes was spent flying over built-up areas in the morning, and 57 minutes in the afternoon.
Decision
It is prohibited to fly above the same built-up area for more than 45 minutes per day per tow (Article 4 opening words under b Towing and Advertising Towing Regulations; under the same provision, no more than 15 minutes per day per tow may be flown above the same location either). A violation therefore occurred both the morning and afternoon flight.
A previous violation of this prohibition, during [other event in the year] 2022, was dismissed in view of the positive attitude of the company's representative. The company had lost focus on the requirement regarding the towing duration. The representative took full responsibility and changed the working method.
Regarding the latest overruns, the company's representative explained that it has made agreements on the duration of flights and always tells customers this, but that a flight over Amsterdam can be complex due to the contact with Schiphol's control tower. He explained that the pilot could, for example, be ordered to make an extra round before being allowed to continue to fly out of the area. He could no longer retrieve the information on these flights because they were too long ago. He said it was difficult to keep exact time, but that it was never the intention to fly over Amsterdam for more than 45 minutes.
The aviation prosecutor considered the decision based on the case file. On the one hand, after a previous warning, the company committed the same offences again and the penalty guideline starts out from €800 per offence. On the other, the company representative appears to take the set standard seriously and has outlined the difficulties that may be involved. Also in view of the limited overrun, the aviation prosecutor concluded that this case should also be dismissed.
The aviation prosecutor did however note the following. If it is difficult to estimate the time, it is a matter for the company to build in a margin of error. If special circumstances still cause the time limit to be exceeded, it is advisable to document those circumstances and also to report the matter if another time limit violation is found. That way, this can be taken into account when assessing that occurrence.