Inspector L.. .I do know quite a bit about this case. All secondhand I admit, but it's from someone I've worked with many times over the years, and trust totally as a balanced sensible and reliable guy.
Yes, the pilot did a ground recce that morning, and a downwind recce before landing. Witnesses saw him flying overhead, then he returned and landed.. .No, the fact that neither the pilot nor the ATPL with him saw the hazard doesn't "makes it alright then." But it gives a clue that the hazard wasn't as obvious as you might think.
"Can we be a little bit more open minded about this rather than just CAA bashing.". .The 'CAA bashing' isn't because they prosecuted the pilot. Everyone seems to agree that was fair enough in the circumstances.. .The 'CAA bashing' is because of the way they went about it.. .eg Charging him with reckless flying, not just negligent flying.. .eg Taking the case to the crown court instead of dealing with it in the local court.. .eg Allowing their barrister to allege the worst 'flying lady' version when (a) other witnesses had her just tipping back in her chair, and (b) their own experts must have known just like the rest of us that the Mary Poppins story had to be complete b*lls.. .eg The CAA inhouse experts were very quick to use their expertise to criticise the pilot's account, but said nothing to cast doubt on the flying lady nonsense.. .eg Why did the CAA lawyer told the jury that he was a wealthy company chairman flying his own helicopter and collecting a 22 year old young woman from the hotel? What's that but simple prejudice?. .eg The CAA lawyer claimed the pilot just charged recklessly into the site without caring about the people who might be there when every single witness said he came in very slowly.
Pause to think what would have happened if the guy had been defended by an ordinary lawyer.. .Flying Lawyer is a pilot and managed to get the case back in proportion by crossexamining the witnesses and showing the CAA's version was completely OTT. . .Why do you think the CAA gave up trying to prove reckless? Because their case was shot down.. .It could be one of us if we screwed up and the CAA decide to build it up all out of proportion. End of licence and livelihood. Worth a thought?
I'm not criticising the CAA for prosecuting, it was the OTT/unfair way they went about it.. .And why?. .Because they've lost so many cases in the past few years, they were determined to make a point this time. But they failed, thanks to Flying Lawyer. They gave up trying to prove recklessness, and the pilot pleaded guilty to what he had done, made a mistake, negligence.
IMHO
the way the CAA prosecuted did more harm to the industry with all the national Press/tv coverage than the pilot did in a relatively minor incident in front of 10 old dears in a small remote hotel in Norfolk.
Hope that makes things a bit clearer, even if we disagree.. .Safe flying.
BTW, do you work for the CAA? If not, apologies for suggesting it. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Edit. .Earpiece. Just seen your post. I don't know the answer to your question. I'll try to find out and come back to you.
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Hoverman ]</p>