Hoverman. .“The 'CAA bashing' is because of the way they went about it.eg Charging him with reckless flying, not just negligent flying.”. .I still don’t see why that is a problem, you could argue that it was reckless flying.
“eg Allowing their barrister to allege the worst 'flying lady' version …..". .Welcome to the real world. It was the CAA barrister’s job to get a conviction and so yes he is going to do and say everything that he can to ensure that. He was doing his job. It’s not up to him to decide if a witness’s story is correct it is the job of the court. He is there to prove the case and he’ll use the witnesses to try and achieve that. As FL said, that was why they went for both the reckless and negligent charge so that they have a fullback if reckless isn’t proved.
“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?”. .Maybe, but then that is the law that is at fault for allowing the lawyer to do that. As I said before, he was out to win in case. Did the defence lawyer pick up and on that and argue that point?
“Pause to think what would have happened if the guy had been defended by an ordinary lawyer.”. .Oh come on, if you are charged with a murder you don’t get a libel lawyer to defend you. You get the appropriate expert to defend you for the crime that you are charged with.
“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? “. .The incident involved blowing people over along with tables and chairs. What happened if a person received an injury which lead to them losing their livelihood? What if it wasn’t a group of “old dears” as you called them but a group of small children, worth a thought? Nobody wants to be prosecuted or lose their licence but we shouldn’t become so blinkered in that approach that we forget the fundamentals of general aviation or support those that have.
“Because they've lost so many cases in the past few years, they were determined to make a point this time. But they failed.”. .No. They succeeded in one of the two charges. From the CAA’s point of view they have actually achieved a lot in this. For starters how many of us now that have read this discussion or the newspapers etc are going to be more careful next time they land at a similar site. So that’s good for flight safety. They got a prosecution for negligent flying and proved to their political masters/ the press etc.. that they are active in policing the industry which is after all their job.
“BTW, do you work for the CAA? If not, apologies for suggesting it.”. .Why? For all you know you may have paid me the highest compliment by suggesting it! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
No, I don’t and Earpiece I’m not a gatwick wannabee. You shouldn’t read too much in to pprune usernames. I'm just an ordinary pilot adding his opinion to a discussion board. There is no hidden agenda! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">