IAA entitled to ground aircraft and pilot of Irish Skydiving Club over safety concerns

Seán McCárthaigh

The High Court has ruled that the Irish Aviation Authority had powers to ground an aircraft and suspend the licence of a pilot associated with a parachuting club based in Kilkenny during safety inspections three years ago.

Mr Justice Anthony Barr dismissed a legal action taken by the Irish Skydiving Club and its director, Eoin Nevin, which challenged the legality of two inspections carried out by IAA officials on an airfield in Hoddensrath, Co Kilkenny on August 26th, 2022 and September 16th, 2022.

The plaintiffs sought orders from the High Court setting aside the IAA’s findings and imposing corrective actions on the aviation regulatory body.

They claimed the IAA carried out the inspections without legal authority and that the IAA’s inspectors lacked competency and acted unlawfully and in breach of fair procedures.

All claims were denied by the IAA.

The High Court heard that the IAA had been in contact with the Irish Skydiving Club since July 2021 to arrange an inspection of the club’s operations.

Mr Justice Barr noted that an IAA official has received “a somewhat frosty response” from Mr Nevin who complained that the club had not had any contact from the regulatory body in the previous six years.

In an affidavit, one of the IAA inspectors said a checklist for parachuting operations presented to him by Mr Nevin during an inspection on August 26th, 2022 was “entirely unsatisfactory.”

The pilot was instructed that he could not fly the aircraft for parachuting operations until a suitable checklist had been formulated and presented to the IAA for review.

The High Court heard Mr Nevin declined the offer by IAA inspectors of a number of template documents to assist with compiling the required checklist.

The IAA inspectors were also concerned that flight charts on board the aircraft were not up to date and that markings on the plane were missing or unreadable.

However, Mr Nevin refused to sign a copy of an inspection form which outlined a number of findings of non-compliance with regulations.

A letter from the plaintiff’s solicitors subsequently accused the IAA of abusing its statutory powers and asked it to refrain from any further visits to the airfield without express notice from them.

However, the High Court heard that IAA inspectors returned to the airfield on September 16th, 2022 when they observed Mr Nevin landing a plane.

The pilot declined to comply with a request to produce his licence and aircraft documents until his legal representative arrived before walking away from the IAA’s inspectors.

They subsequently decided to ground the aircraft because it had not been shown that it was being flown with adequate checklists.

The IAA inspectors also called in gardaí because they feared Mr Nevin and others might react badly to the grounding of the aircraft.

Mr Nevin was also subsequently grounded for failing to produce his licence and refusing to cooperate with the IAA inspection.

The grounding order on the aircraft was lifted in March 2024 after an inspection by IAA officials deemed it airworthy for normal operations.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Barr said he was satisfied that the IAA had the power to carry out unannounced ramp inspections of aircraft when it felt appropriate to do so.

The judge said it was difficult to envisage any impediment to the IAA carrying out such inspections given the often fatal consequences of a departure from the highest standards of safety in aviation operations.

Mr Justice Barr ruled that the interactions between an IAA inspector and Mr Nevin and his colleague, David Byrne,s in the period before any inspection at the airfield did not limit or prevent the regulatory body from carrying out ramp inspections.

He claimed there was no legal impediment to the IAA to carry out the two inspections in 2022.

The judge observed that the plaintiffs had a mistaken belief that they could dictate “when and how they should be regulated.”

He also ruled that the IAA inspectors had carried out the ramp inspections lawfully and appropriately which he observed was corroborated by a recording Mr Nevin had made on his mobile phone without the consent of the IAA officials.

Mr Justice Barr said the main inspector had carried out his duties in a calm and polite manner despite persistent interruptions down the phone by Mr Byrnes.

In relation to the second inspection, he ruled that the IAA inspectors were not obliged to wait for the arrival of Mr Byrnes before carrying out their inspection.

He remarked that Mr Nevin’s belief that he had the right to consult his lawyer because he felt under arrest was “irrational” while it had been “reasonable and prudent” for the IAA inspectors to have gardaí on standby.

Given Mr Nevin’s blanket refusal to engage with them before his lawyer arrived, Mr Justice Barr said they had little option but to proceed in the way that they did.

He also ruled that there was nothing improper in the IAA informing the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority that Mr Nevin had been provisionally suspended and involved in legal proceedings with the Irish regulatory body after he had applied for a pilot’s licence in the UK.

Mr Justice Barr said it was “truly shocking” that Mr Nevin as a pilot in command of an aircraft had refused representatives of the IAA access to his plan when they were carrying out a safety inspection.

He said it demonstrated “a serious lack of understanding” by Mr Nevin on the nature and purpose of safety inspections.

The judge listed January 28th, 2026 for making final orders and a ruling on costs