Jeremy Paxton's offence
I'm confused.
On the basis Jeremy Paxton was charged with contravening the 1000 feet, 3000 persons rule, ( ie Rule 5, 1, (d) 1.) I'm sure most of us know that ... "It shall be a good defence to prove the flight was made at a 'reasonable' height and for a reason not connected with the event." (not exact ANO wording)
Knowing Jeremy as I do, it seems odd that he was not represented by an aviation knowledgeable lawyer.
A few years back, I was alleged to have broken one of the CAA's daft ANO rules, having taken off from and landing back at a private non CAA licenced site on my way to a licenced aerodrome for a training sortie. Leaving aside the outcome for a moment, the CAA elected to raise four identical charges for each occasion over a four day period, which had the charge been proved, would have increased the maximum allowable fine fourfold ! The case was discharged by the Magistrates Court, but the CAA then asked for costs of £6,000. Dear Jeremy you did well.
In my selling days, it became routine to make a helicopter sale to a newcomer to our industry. Buyers invariably owned a substantial property with land, where they planned to operate their newly acquired machine.
The above 'licenced airfield' requirement precludes an instructor from providing specific and dedicated 'on site' approach and landing training, which is an aspect where a new owner must surely benefit and which some might say is essential.
Many of us will know of one particular instance where a well known figure, being unable to receive any local 'on site' training and using his own 'site slope assessment' ... subsequently suffered a 'landing rollover' and demolished a one million dollar MD in the process!
How do ppruners apportion blame for that accident?
Dennis K
PS One day I suppose, I may well empty my closet and write up a dozen silmilar areas where common sense seems to have evaporated.