The issues raised by this include:-
(1) the form of Rule 5, and
(2) the attitude of the CAA to alleged infringements of rule 5, particularly in connection with forced landing training and practice.
On (1), the CAA has been consulting interested parties on a revision of rule 5. It is a pity that BEagle appears to have left us for "that place whereof we do not speak" (rumour suggests that he's gone off to get his headset painted), as he might have some valuable insights here, both as an instructor and because he has been in contact with the CAA about the proposed rule amendment.
As to (2), Flying Lawyer has the most relevant experience of this, and has publicly expressed concern that the CAA's attitude is unhelpful. The AAIB report invites the CAA to consider and publish its position, but I do not know if the CAA is going to respond to the invitation. The AAIB is an organisation distinct from the CAA.
I would be inclined to regard a CAA policy/best practice statement as a good idea, but it's fair to point out that there are potential difficulties for any body with enforcement powers, in any field of activity, in making statements as to its general approach, as such statements can lead to people setting up arguments that they have a legitimate expectation that the authority will always act in a certain way, rather than taking a view on a case by case basis. The Inland Revenue, for example, gets a lot of this.
PS, Big Hilly, maybe it's a good thing that BEagle isn't here, as he's even more of an apostrophe-nazi than me. What is it about pilots that makes them such serial apostrophe abusers? Is there a genetic link between pilots and greengrocers?
Last edited by FNG; 13th May 2004 at 07:32.