EFATO
A problem for those working at the CAA is that common sense is not allowed to be left switched on. They quite often do switch back to common sense during private conversations, however.
Has anyone ever been prosecuted following an EFATO? Anyone know?
Not that many years ago Eric Thurston from Stapleford Tawny was prosecuted by the CAA following a PFL conducted during a PPL Skill Test. He was initially found guilty by the Magistrates but successfully appealed.
The Jury found him not guilty and the Appeal Judge concurred with some very strong words to the CAA for bringing the prosecution in the first place. The judge found that there was no definition of 'structure' within the ANO or guidance as to what would be a reasonable defence in the case of flight too near to persons. He obviously considered that it was not clear cut. He made rulings in regard to the whole of Rule '5'.
If I remember it correctly; A boundary fence around a field would not for the purposes of the ANO be considered a 'structure'. A roadway is to be considered a structure i.e. it is there for the use of people and vehicles and they should be expected to be found there. With regard to persons, if an individual or say a courting couple were laid down in a field it would be reasonable to say that the Pilot couldn't know that, for it was not a place that people would normally be expected to be found.
The ANO did not prescribe flight below 500'. If a pilot was to be expected to always avoid flight within 500' of a vehicle or person, whatever the circumstances, the effect would inevitablely be that flight could not be undertaken without risk of prosecution when flying below 500', even when over open countryside and should a person without warning pop up. He reasoned that if Parliament had intended that no flight must take place below 500' they would have said so.
It would be helpful if Tudor sees this to have his more professional observations.