I have to say, I think this is incredibly sad. Fully grown men (I presume) banging heads and trying to score points rather than co-operating over trying to establish the truth of the matter - and to all of us who have an IMC, and are current, this matters - a lot. I sincerely hope DFC does what Fuji has asked and shares names - but to be honest, I'm not holding my breath.
For what it's worth, I disagree with DFC's position on the "magic sentence" : the lawyer in me believes that the sentence reads that the additional heights are advisory - but DFC would say that I have an IMC, so I'm therefore biased.
I also disagree (bear with me) with Fuji's statement that :-
I finally wrote to the CAA for clarification. I would reiterate that I accept they are not the ultimate authority
Why ? The CAA are the undisputed fount of UK aviation knowledge in most people's eyes. Hauled into a court, I would unhesitatingly argue that the "test of the reasonable man" would confirm this, and that basing my interpretation of a very badly worded sentence on an authorised and verified source within the CAA would seem an extremely sensible thing to do !
Anyway, I continue to watch this thread in the hope that there is an outbreak of common sense before long. I'm afraid, however, that with the stances adopted by some of the contributors, this is looking increasingly unlikely ...
FF
