Hugmonster
Not so sure about wheher CAP371 is, in fact, the 'law' as such.
I downloaded the following passage from a DETR website the other day. It is supposedly the DETR response to an ICAO report criticising the UK system. I quote:
"1. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 has been framed in such a way as to distance the safety regulation of civil aviation from day to day political control but to set it within a framework of public accountability. It would not be consistent with this framework for Parliament to delegate legislative powers to the Civil Aviation Authority. Although the CAA cannot make "operating regulations" as defined in the report, the UK system does allow the Authority to impose and enforce operational conditions which implement ICAO SARPs.
2. Parliament recognises the need for the CAA to act independently and has given it the power to issue, vary and revoke licences, certificates and other authorisation subject to such conditions as the CAA thinks fit. The CAA's policy on its discretionary powers and the conditions under which it will grant a licence etc are published in documents called Civil Aviation Publications. Such conditions are used to implement SARPs and are enforceable. The CAA's power to impose such conditions therefore give the CAA the same powers envisaged for operational regulations in paragraph 2.1.2 of ICAO Doc 8335. The report does not give any example of a situation, nor is the UK aware of any, where the Authority has not been able to implement and enforce a SARP under this system."
Now, I am not quite sure what a SARP is (perhaps you can enlighten me?) but it appears from this official response to ICAO that CAP371 (and all other CAPs in fact) are not "law" as such but are nothing more than CAA 'policy statements' as to 'operating conditions' it imposes on licence holders. Naturally, the CAA can 'enforce' these conditions but, as stated above, it seems it can only do so through punitive action with respect to AOCs, pilot licences etc. There is not, it seems, an offence committed by breaching the CAP371 provisions.
Perhaps, after all, the 'catch-all' you have described is the only effective legislation on this issue and CAP371 has no teeth whatsoever? Of course, it remains incumbent upon operators under the provisions of the Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995 to produce an FTL Scheme for inclusion in the Operations Manual and one is left to speculate what powers might be employed to enforce compliance with the provisions of a company's own FTL scheme.
The mind boggles sometimes, does it not? Any lawyers care to comment on this subject?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 03 July 2001).]