The CAA have a less than faultless record when it comes to prosecution of pilots and it would seem that in this case the lawers and enforcment did not fully understand the issue in question. Some might say that the CAA jummped the gun in this case and that compensation is due to the instructor in question for loss of income but I suspect that such an action would not be worth the shot & powder in terms of recoved money.
This case has a lot of the marks of another case a few years back when the CAA prosecuted an instructor for low flying (during EFATO trainning). This was an ill conceved action that seemed to have been taken because of the protests of a local anti aviation person who was smart enough to get the CAA legal department to do the dirty work.
The whole case fell apart when it turned out that the CAA witnesses could not agree if the offending aircraft was high or low wing, so if the witnesses could not agree on this how could that say that they had all been looking at the same aircraft?
How the CAA got taken in by this fabrication by a bunch of local "antis" is still a sorce of amusment to me with the "the flying lawer" making the whole two day trial look like an episode of Rumpoe of the bailey.
All turned out well in this case but without well resorced defence the story could have been a disaster for the pilot in question.
For me the real issue here is that the CAA is more than willing to chase pilots for ill founded nif-naf & trivia but has yet to prosecute one person for smoking in an airliner toilet, I can't help trying to balance the public saftey issues between a light aircraft flying at slightly below 500ft during EFATO trainning and the results of an airliner having a cabin fire mid-Atlantic.
I can only conclude that prosecuting pilots is the easy way to keep a job in the very cushy if Aviation House.
Last edited by A and C; 15th July 2008 at 14:24.