"JimK" wrote in message
...
/Guidance for MP's as to the general position
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/B...?bp-id=SN04059
Summary: Not within the curtiledge although definition is a matter
for case law, and 28 days max per year/q
Mmm so if it *is* within the curtilage?
Jim K
Did you not the read document I provided the link to ?
....
5. Enforcement
If an aircraft breaches the rules, the CAA will investigate if a member
of the public gathers evidence, including the type of aircraft involved.
The section of the CAA which can
'investigate is:
The Head of Aviation Regulation Enforcement and Investigation Branch
CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6TE
A written answer from 1998 provided details of the action taken by the CAA,
[...] if there appears to be a breach of aviation legislation, steps are taken to
identify the machine and the pilot responsible and to ascertain if there are
any exemptions or permissions in issue which would account
for the observed activity. If it then appears that the flight was in breach
of the rules and also that there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining
sufficient evidence suitable for presentation to a court, a full criminal
investigation is carried out and evidence is taken by a CAA Investigation
Officer in accordance with the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.
quote
Accumulating the necessary evidence shouldn't be too difficult.
If matey is creating such a racket that he's disturbing a number
of neighbours then they can all keep diaries or logs of the
disturbance.
Plus video footage of the helicoptor, both parked and in the
air would help.
Presumably were matey found guilty then he might then render
himself liable for damages for any noise nuisance resulting
from his illegal activity.
While in principle this is what should happen, its possible
that the CAA might drag their feet, owing to a lack of percieved
public concern for those unfortunate enough to live next door
to people rich enough to fly helicopters from their back gardens.
michael adams
....