Kit d'Rection KG
"..... the CAA bring the prosecutions"
True.
"and they tend to do so very carefully"
If you mean no expense is spared in gathering evidence to try to obtain a conviction, I agree. (The CAA is reimbursed handsomely: By a combination of the pilot and the DfT if they win; by the DfT if they lose.)
If you mean the CAA only prosecutes serious breaches/deliberate breaches/repeat offenders, that is certainly not correct.
"and seriously intent on success"
That is true, very true indeed. And it's completely the wrong approach to prosecuting. (I speak as an experienced prosecutor.)
A prosecutor should
not be "seriously intent on success." It's not a prosecutor's role to be all out to win the case. That attitude, by police and/or lawyers, is one of the causes of notorious miscarriages of justice over the years.
"almost always, rightly so, in my experience"
I don't know what/how much experience you have of CAA prosecutions - or whether it's what you've been told at "CAA ARE briefings."
It's not my view, based on my experience.
TST Tom
What you quote sounds sensible - and encouraging.
But:
1)
"in good faith"
Will the pilot's word be sufficient, or does it depend upon what the CAA ARE think?
2)
"no intent to breach the 500' rule"
As above.
3)
"reasonable care is taken to check the area is clear"
As above. And, reasonable in whose opinion?
4)
"where you become aware of a previously unseen person you immediately initiate a go-around"
Will the pilot's account of when he became aware be accepted, or will ARE decide whether he saw the person or, if he didn't, whether he should have?
(I'm not suggesting you can answer the questions - I'm simply pointing that it may not be quite as straightforward as it might appear.)
I hope it is an indication of the current Head of ARE's approach. A previous Head was responsible for one the most ridiculous prosecutions I've known - the prosecution of an Instructor at Wycombe teaching EFATO - which should never have been brought.
The CAA was as always
"seriously intent on success" but, fortunately, the credibility of the CAA's witnesses (Nimbies) was totally demolished in cross-examination and the FI was found Not Guilty. Taking their accounts apart, demonstrating that they'd put their heads together to tell the same story and exposing their underlying Nimby agenda was sheer joy.
I could give many examples, but that one came to mind because it's relevant to the discussion here.
FL