442
Thanks for your kind words.
Purple, I like your logic, but am dismayed by it, as it is the same kind of weasley argument which will be used by the insurer's legal team.
Letsby,
You said: 'What benefits are there for a Police Observer to be called a crewman instead of a passenger? His personal life insurance premiums would increase exponentially to possibly unaffordable levels. He would be subject to an FTL, which is something ACPO would never agree to. He would need to pass two stringent medicals a year, he would need to pass two CAA type checks per year (instead of one) and he could not be represented by the PF as he would be subject to the strict rules of the CAA.'
Hardly a very onerous set of circumstances compared to 442's ordeal. I hope you never find yourself out of work and disabled for want of a few quid extra on your life insurance (BTW as a police pilot, my premiums were not loaded), and a few extra check rides.
A police helo mission is tasked by a police control room, directed by a police observer, the sensors are operated by a police observer. Stark common sense says these guys (and gals) are acting in the capacity of crew members and not as passengers. The CAA called them pax for licensing reasons, not as a definition of their role.
English law is supposedly based on common sense and what a 'reasonable person' would interprate.
If this is so, then 442 will(eventually) win this one. I for one will be geared up to lobby my MP and anyone else required if common sense does not prevail. I hope it does!
edited for poor memory and tiredness!
[ 06 September 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]