When it comes to the discussions between the CAA and FAA I'm intrigued by the ironic possibilities to which this matter gives rise.
Would one not wish to be a "fly on the wall" for the various chats and exchanges between the CAA and FAA as they take hours and days to dissect and argue out a decision that normally has to be taken in minutes?
I mean to say, if YOU are up to your ears "in the merde" you are normally told that the regulations and requirements are clear, are you not?
Of course, what you are really being told is that the interpretation being shoved down your throat is the current "conventional wisdom" as to how the regulations should be interpreted. Individual pilots facing "the system" have an uphill battle to explain why what they decided seemed quite reasonable at the time. The system tends to win these arguments.
But what happens when two equally opinionated authorities - here the CAA and FAA - disagree? I, for one, would pay for an observer's seat as they thrash out their points of view. In fact it is the argument, not the published outcome that will be interesting - perhaps a better source of education and enlightenment than your average accident report?
BTW, iomspaseo, I don't think continuing on 3 will ever be "SOP". It is an option, and it should be an option.