From day one it was apparent that the CAA had changed their direction of attack. This no doubt was after they had recieved the defence expert witness statements. The account of being reckless was on thin ice, this being supported by the CAA own witness evidence and the FL cross examination along with the defence expertwitness statements.
The CAA own expert witness gave a very good account of himself and talked a word perfect exercise 26(confined areas). Therfore the FL had very little to counter, although by this stage (day 3) the CAA had agreed to allow a plea bargain and go for the charge to be only that of negligence.
Points to ponder!. .1. The recce of the site, which was the mainstay of the inital charge (or should I say the implication of the lack of recce).. .This point in it's self was countered by the expert witness statements. Why carry out a full exercise 26 recce (High and Low), when most pilots with experience will make a judgement on the hoof ie, downwind or on finals.. .We as pilots are always being asked to fly in such a manner to avoid the noise nuisance this even being highlighted on the reverse of exemptions issued by the CAA.. .This was conceded by the CAA in follow up statements after they had tme to read the expert witness statements.
But after their own expert witness and the video evidence had been given, it is still apparent that they will require the recce to satisfy he procedures for off field approaches and landings.. .(So now we end up Pxxxxxg everyone off and getting complaints, please refer them to the CAA).. .They also mentioned that consideration for a late overshoot should be given (Is that a charge of low flying!).
2. The first day in court was a complete sham and it proceded to show how low the CAA intended to go with the press briefings, the sympathy vote being pushed (What if a child had run out!),Implying the accused was a wealthy buisness man who went flew to pick up the young girl and that he could'nt give a toss and the fact that the highly paid gold braded witness were here to support the defence. All of which left the FL steaming from the ears and proving that the CAA were out to try all the dirty tricks and at all cost(Hence the £40000) to win the case. (read into this I know the FL has!).
3. The CAA hired aircraft and videoed the alledged flight path. This video being filmed from on top of the instrument combing with a slight depressed veiw therfore showing that there was a very good almost unobstructive veiw. (As we all kwow the veiw from an IFR 355 is not that good but we tend to fly to compensate this difficency). It went on to show the alledged flight path along the hotel frontage this to me was an account of reckless flying by the CAA as the aircraft flew sideways along the edge of the gravel drive at around 5-6ft trying to embelish the statements. But this point was not consistant with the statements given by both the accused and the of the witnesses there at the time of the incedent.
Finally, My thoughts go to the accused who unfortunatly err'd, and the account of negligence was upheld, but he has been used as a scapegoat in this case, which in it's self should have been a case for the magistrates court and not that for the county court. This has cost a great deal of money and has showed that they will stop at nothing to get a conviction.. .How many of us could afford this sort of action! how many have insurance to cover the cost!.. .There by the grace of God!!!.