Picture this......
The crew of aircraft 'A' are hammering through space towards their assigned runway, having completed landing performace charts indicating they will need 1500m of the 2500m runway. Meanwhile, in front of them, aircraft 'B' has been cleared to land on the same runway. Aircraft 'B' is still on the runway when ATC decides to clear aircraft 'A' to land, claiming application of a landing standard, without asking the crew what length they require (yes, it happens). Aircraft 'A' lands, and promptly slams into the @rse end of aircraft 'B'. In the ensueing investigation CASA/insurance try to nail the PIC of aircraft 'A', saying that he should not have landed, and that as PIC he holds the ultimate responsibility. In his defense, counsel for the PIC claims that by completing the required P charts and being alert for denial of landing clearance by ATC (which would indicate unsafe landing conditions such as insufficient length available) as a qualified assesment of runway conditions, the PIC exercised all possible due care and responsibility. The CASA/insurance guys grumble and look at each other with disdain, beat a path to the foot of the tower stairs, and scream all sorts of questions down the intercom to the ATC dude asking why he made an available/required length judgement call without asking the crew of aircraft 'A' what length they require. He pulls out the book of regs and throws them down at the gathering mob below, the impact killing an innocent bystander before thudding open at the page containg the above-quoted regs. More head scratching by our friends from CASA/insurance who get in their shiny government/corporate cars and drive up and down the runway. They discover to their amazement that all the runway edge lights and markings are evenly spaced to the point that by knowing the distance between each marking an observer could determine with relative accuracy, the distance from the runway threshold to any given object on the runway.
Imagine this scenario for:
1. A CAVOKEYDOKEY day; and
2. The weather being down on the ILS minimums (200-300ft cloud and 'if you squint you can kinda see some lights' type vis).
Who, if anyone, should go to jail....?
(We all know who usually ends up wearing it...)
After the above decision has been handed down in court, a passenger who was sitting in the rear seat of aircraft 'B', who is now a quadraplegic as a result of the accident, comes forward and decides to claim damages arising as a result of.............
Who should they sue?????
Have another read of the regs in question and decide if they are truly quantifiable to the point that they allow the judgement call they claim to permit.
I'm really curious to see a few responses.