M14
I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone from the CAA Enforcement section.
Yes, the CAA does presume pilots are guilty when they get a complaint.
Yes they do give more weight to the estimates/word of complainers than the word of the pilot who as an altimeter. The case mentioned by A&C is a good illustration.
Yes the CAA is heavy-handed with pilots, particularly GA pilots.
No, they aren't fair in the way they deal with complaints against pilots.
Put it down to experience. You've learnt some things lots of people don't realise, and it sounds as though you didn't till this happened.
I think you're very wise not to risk stirring up a can of worms by making a complaint to the CAA, just in case it was a genuine call. It sounds as if they realise the evidence they have isn't strong enough to prosecute - but why take the risk of being prosecuted.
The CAA can make your life a lot more difficult than you can make theirs.
Niknak
What did you mean by 'misleading advice'?
edit
Just noticed Westwind's comments.
" ..... unless there is definite proof, it ends up word against word and the complaint gets filed away because there is just no positive proof."
That is part of the CAA party line, and it's not true.
What is "definite proof"? In the BA Instructor case mentioned by A&C, they prosecuted even though they knew their witnesses were troublemakers who had a long history of protest against Wycombe and wanted the circuit moved from their houses.
Ken Lilley the head of Enforcement personally authorised the prosecution - which the CAA lost because BA supported the FI and got him represented by FL.
Welcome to Prune, Westwind.
I see it's your first post.
Which department of the CAA do you work in?
