There's an interesting section in
this AAIB report:
Concerns related to the legal status of practice forced landings
The instructor remarked that the success of his ensuing landing was very much the result of regular practice in simulated forced landings which he had carried out. He pointed out, however, that the provisions of the existing Rule 5 seriously limited the opportunity for, and the realism of, such practice. It is a widely held view in the flying training community that the CAA will take firm action against those who break the rule, regardless of whether the transgressors are doing so in a reckless fashion or inadvertently breaking the rule as part of a responsibly planned and realistically carried out training exercise.
The rule is recognised to be a valuable safeguard against both nuisance and danger to third-parties. However, its perceived rigidity and lack of identification of the needs of training, by a considerable proportion of Flight Instructors, is seen as a factor increasing the risk to both aircraft occupants and third parties, by reducing opportunities for realistic training. In particular, at those airfields where engine failure after takeoff (EFATO) demonstration and practice cannot be carried out legally at a sufficiently low height to be a realistic training exercise it is felt that a greater risk of causing danger to the public exists from poor handling of genuine engine failures at takeoff.
The risk of a genuine failure resulting in an accident must, however, be balanced against the risk of one of the necessarily much greater number of practised failures going seriously wrong. The conditions under which Flight Instructors may give effective engine failure and forced landing training without transgressing the provisions of Rule 5 would, therefore, appear to depend on their having a clear understanding of the Authority's philosophy and preferred best practice for such training and of their being convinced of the soundness of both.
It is, therefore, recommended that the CAA publish a paper, for the information of Flight Instructors in particular, on engine failure and forced landing training, making clear their philosophy and promulgating what they believe to be acceptable best practice.
What do others think? Could the paper be good news, which could protect Instructors from the full weight of the CAA? Could it turn out to be a ‘Poisoned Chalice’ causing more harm than good or is it merely a CAA/DFT paper-pushing exercise? And does it mean that the CAA are finally admitting that they are seen as too 'Heavy-Handed' as was the general consensus from my last thread?
Over to my fellow PPRuNers. . . .
BH