SACAA introduced a fining system

[Koevoet]

See this topic on AVCOM.

SA Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) introduced a fining system on Wednesday for those who contravened aviation rules.

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=79255

News24 :

Johannesburg - The SA Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) introduced a fining system on Wednesday for those who contravened aviation rules.

"In a nutshell, SACAA inspectors and/or authorised officers will now be able to impose monetary penalties for infractions," SACAA legal head Ntheri Magoai said.


"Such infractions include, among others, the obstruction of authorised SACAA officers in performing their duties, flying illegally, falsifying records, as well as the general contravention of the Civil Aviation Act."


He said the new regulations came into effect after SACAA identified gaps in its punitive measures.


"Instead of just warning and letting culprits walk away unpunished for minor contraventions, we now have in place a comprehensive system that can deter rampant disregard of all civil aviation regulations," said Mogaai.


Fines would range between R5 000 and R20 000 for individuals and between R16 000 and R53 000 for organisations, depending on the nature of the contravention.

[Bundy]

This is a very Kak idea!

There are already many "incidents" and sometimes even "accidents" that go unreported. This is already detrimental to us all as we do not get to learn from these incidents due to a report never being issued. If the CAA goes ahead with this, there will be even more unreported mispaps due to fear of reprisal!

The CAA needs to re think this one. Are you all going to own up to something that gets you a min R5000 fine for a first offence?? What we need in my opinion is some kind of "Peer Review" system. Where our mistakes are judged upon by fellow (nuetral) pilots. Reccomendations can then be made to a Regulatory Authority based on such "Disciplinary Hearings".

This will also sort out the pilots who constantly break the rules from the ones who do so unwittingly every now and then.
For a fine to be imposed, I believe there has to be blatant disregard for the rules. Pilots like this are in my opinion in the very small minority?

This type of blanket fining system will never work!

All it will do is fill the CAA coffers

[Bugwar]

This will open the door for CAA inspectors to be bribed like all other spietkops. Watch out for the increase in inspections just before xmas

[bobthebuilder]

This is designed to make aviation safer. I don't have a problem with it.
Traffic fines are designed to discourage bad manners on the roads, this should have the same effect.

[Slabfish]

Imagine getting that R10,000-00 fine in the post for low flying
Now you have to prove in court that you are not guilty---pasop manne

[Splinter]

This is gonna be a can of worms! Someone is going to get rich! Please prove that you were not the oke spotted flying low somewhere in a gaggle and that you were in fact flying at 500ft or that you did in fact join the airfield at 6800ft and not 6000 as reported to CAA by some chap on the ground! Its gonna be a mess! I flew with a group of trikes once and one pilot got the boundary wrong and inched into JHB CTR near Bapsfontein! Guess who took the wrap, me, because I was the next plane to broadcast on that frequency and in that vicinity although outside JHB CTR! Now try to prove you are innocent! This is a joke and not intended to make flying safer

[salem]

SACAAA = KAKAAA!

[justin.schoeman]

Imagine getting that R10,000-00 fine in the post for low flying
Now you have to prove in court that you are not guilty---pasop manne

Actually, not that bad, as they have to prove that you are guilty, not the other way around... No judge is going to accept 'I was a km or so away, and it looked like he was 100m high' as legal proof... They will have to find the farmer's washing line wrapped around your wheels before they could legally prove you were flying low ...

[Bugwar]

This is designed to make aviation safer. I don't have a problem with it.
Traffic fines are designed to discourage bad manners on the roads, this should have the same effect.

What it was designed for and used for are 2 different things. Metro's spend millions to buy equipment to catch drivers going 10 km/h over the speedlimit but do not paint the lines on the roads or fix the traffic lights.
Same will happen here. CAA will spend money to be able to write more fines an nothing to actually make flying safer.
Sorry but I can not see how this will make flying safer.

[Ranger]

He said the new regulations came into effect after SACAA identified gaps in its punitive measures.

Should read: 'He said the new regulations came into effect after SACAA identified unfilled deep pockets'

[Eggbeater]

Hi All

Can anyone direct me to the actual regulations which specify the offences and the penalties. I do not seem to find them anywhere and I would like to have a look at them.

Essentially one cannot just go around creating offences whenever one feels like it (even Big G had to reduce his to writing on stone tablets or the like) so they have to be specified and then, once specified, they should be scrutinised to ensure that the proper procedural steps were complied with. If the proper procedural steps were not followed then the regulations can be set aside by a court.

Once the above has been done the specified offences must also specify the punishment (in this case seemingly a fine) which cannot be out of all proportion to the nature of the offence (flying without having your license cannot, for example, attract a R100 000 fine or, I would also suggest, a R5 000 fine and such disproportionate fines or other punishments can be reviewed by a court and set aside).

If the regulations were properly enacted and the punishments are not way out of line then that is the price for living in a democracy but at the moment we seem to be debating something which may not exist hence my request. So please point me in the right direction to obtain a copy of the regulations.

Thanks

[Blue Max]

Voertsek

In hierdie land is dit aan die orde van die dag dat wette gemaak word en even deur die parlement geloods word deur onbekwame persone en persone wat nie die inhoud van hulle vak ken nie.!!
Dink maar aan die gemors met die wapen wet..Orals word daar gepeuter deur poepolle wat aan die hoof staan van een of ander organisasie....Een van die dae gaan die poepolle jou vertel dat jou vlieglisensie nie meer geldig is nie en dat jy nou n nuwe moet kry vir een of ander uit die duim gesuigde rede..
Soos n klomp skape aanvaar ons maar net alles en stem sommige ouens selfs saam soos hierbo.!!!
Wat n lot f@kken bulshit.
Alles n lot geld makery en 'ek wil slim wees.' stront.

[Eggbeater]

Hi again

I found them, and have had a brief look at them.


The offences are provided for in Regulation 185.00.1 (1) and these have been in effect since 13 August 2007. Nothing new has been added to the offences but, what is new is the provision, in Regulation 185.00.3, of Administrative Monetary Penalties. These Administrative Monetary Penalties are, essentially, spot fines.

Procedurally anyone having committed an act (as specified in 185.00.1 (1)) was guilty of an offence. In this regard nothing has changed. One is, however, only guilty of an offence once a court has made a pronouncement to that effect having regard to all of the facts and the elements of the offence having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What the Administrative Monetary Penalties provision seeks, I think, to do is relieve the burden of having to go to court and prove the elements of the offence by inducing the offender to pay a spot fine (the amounts are as specified) and also in lieu of criminal proceedings actually being instituted (just beware in cases where one elects to pay a spot fine rather than return to Uppington Magistrate’s Court to defend against criminal proceedings and, in paying the spot fine, being deemed to have committed a criminal offence and in this way getting a criminal record almost by default).

The actual offences are limited although they may seem to be broad. They relate to any person who:

(a) hinders or obstructs an authorised officer, inspector or authorised person in the exercising of his or her powers or the performance of his or her duties;
I think this is correct but the key word here is “authorised” so the officer, inspector or person should be able to prove, on request, that they are indeed authorised.

(b) when called upon by an authorised officer, inspector or authorised person to do so, refuses or fails to give his or her name and address, or gives a false name or address;
Again, I think that this is reasonable and, again, the key word is “authorised” for the person asking for your name and address could be an unscrupulous telemarketer.

(c) obstructs or impedes any other person acting in the exercising or performance of any
privileges, powers or duties conferred on such other person by or under the regulations; This too is reasonable because the regulations place limits on what such other persons are able to do and they should, when called upon to do so, at least have a copy of the regulations empowering them. Of course, someone, not being an authorised person in (a) or (b) above would fall foul of this provision if they stopped a pilot from exercising the privileged conferred upon him or her by his or her pilot’s license.

(d) makes or causes to be made, either orally or in writing –
(i) any fraudulent, misleading or false statement for the purpose of obtaining any licence, rating, certificate, permit, approval, authorisation, exemption or other document in terms of the regulations;
(ii) any fraudulent, misleading or false entry in any logbook, record or report which is required to be kept, maintained, made or used to show compliance with any provision of the regulations;
The only problem I have with this sub-regulation is that any person committing fraud to obtain a rating or the like should not be given the option of a spot fine.

(e) falsifies, counterfeits, alters, defaces or mutilates, or adds anything to, any licence, rating, certificate, permit, approval, authorisation, exemption or other document issued in terms of the regulations;
Same comment as for (d) above except perhaps more so.

(f) does or causes, or permits to be done or caused, any act contrary to, or who fails to comply with, any provision of the regulations, or a direction given or a prohibition made or a condition imposed in terms thereof;
This could be a bit harsh, fining someone R5 000 for not flying with a copy of interception signals which would, while flying, not have immediate access to anyway but I do not think that any CAA inspectors would issue a spot fine for this lest it be tested in a court. I think a warning would be appropriate.

(g) exercises a privilege granted by, or uses, any licence, rating, certificate, permit, approval, authorisation, exemption or other document issued under the regulations, of which he, she
or it is not the holder;
This is, I think, reasonable although the severity of the offence should also be assessed on the spot (a Magni M16 pilot taxiing a Magni M22 away from a fuel bowser where it was blocking a lot of traffic and where the M22 pilot was engaged in a rather long sojourn on the toilets for example should not attract a R5 000 fine.

(h) unless otherwise authorised in the regulations, permits a licence, rating, certificate, permit, approval, authorisation, exemption or other document issued under the regulations, of which he, she or it is the holder, to be used, or a privilege granted thereby, to be exercised, by any other person;
This too is reasonable. One cannot transfer driver’s licenses either.

(i) operates or attempts to operate any aircraft in respect of which no valid certificate of registration or valid certificate of airworthiness have been issued;
Also reasonable although it is interesting to note that nothing is said about the certificate actually being on board the aircraft.

(j) commits any act, whether by interference with any flight crew member, air traffic service personnel member or aircraft maintenance engineer, by tampering with any aircraft, or any (?) thereof, or by disorderly conduct or otherwise, which is likely to endanger the safety of any aircraft or its occupants;
The only problem I have is that a spot fine is too lenient an option for such conduct.

(k) without the permission of an aerodrome or heliport operator, enters any place within the boundaries of a licensed aerodrome or heliport which has been closed to the public;
Reasonable I think.

(l) gives false information pertaining to the investigation of any aviation accident or incident;
Also reasonable.

and

(m) contravenes in any manner the provisions of the Aviation Act, 1962, and regulations promulgated in terms of the said Act which are administered by the Authority in terms of the South African Civil Aviation Authority Act, 1998 (Act No. 40 of 1998).
This is a catch all for under this would be the provision for certain documents and other equipment to be carried on board the aircraft but here too I would expect the CAA inspectors to inspect and enforce in much the same way as they have been, by way of warning errant pilots as opposed to imposing spot fines.

Finally, should it be decided not to impose a spot fine but to institute criminal proceedings then the spot fine amounts are to serve as guidelines to the court should the accused be found to be guilty. Similarly, the reverse also apples and I would think that if a pilot disputed the issuance of a spot fine then the pilot could insist on the institution of criminal proceedings and, if found guilty, could expect to pay no more or not much more than the spot fine or even less if the offence is minor (see above regarding failing to carry interception signals).

In summary then, I do not think that much has changed and this could be a storm in a teacup although the possibility of soliciting bribes must not be ignored and I think should be discouraged by pilots reporting any bribe seekers to the CAA and, where possible, following the AOPA advice given elsewhere.

[Eggbeater]

Hi Again

Sorry, I drew attention to sub-regulation (m) and the fact that it is a catch all but now I see that this is the only one where there is no specified spot-fine. It is discretionary which, I think, reinforces my suggestion that the CAA inspectors will deal with minor transgressions by way of a warning in much the same way as they have done in the past.

[Tumbleweed]

With any legal preceeding you have the right to defend yourself, either in hearing or by way of a written submittion - explaining e.g. that some requirement are not practical in an open cocpit or plea for a lesser fine.

If you're unsatisfied that in responding they had not applied a reasonable mind, you could insist that the law takes its toll and demand to be heard in a court of law. They would then have to convince the magistrate that you contravened whatever law and he will decide if you or your lawyer's submittion is fact reasonable.

I think most CAA inspectors are knolegeable and reasonable enough to rather warn and advise than be held up in court for trivial issues.

It's another thing when you are confronted by idiotic SAP who are trying all means to find you contravening some act so as to issue a fine. If your written application for reasons and clemency is denied (undersigned by the chief whatever with a "PP" signature- you know the secretary or constable just signed it off) wait for the official 'notice to appear in court'.

Fly with a copy of your licence and medical, A.T.F, updated folio or logbooks, receipt of f#$%^&ng radio base licence and know that the rest is beaurocratic noncense and you'll await the summons.