All
It's amazing how the press and others are able to use phraseology that completely distorts the facts. The CAA have prosecuted this case only because of the (very regrettable) accident and subsequent deaths.
I'm reasonably privy to the circumstances and this accident would almost certainly have occurred - particularly because the aircraft was a gazelle, was being flown by a very low time PPL (H) and in conditions outside the capability of many experienced helicopter pilots. The examiners, totally un-related involvement, were not a factor in the incident.
The 'offence' committed by the examiner was so slight as to be insignificant. In fact the CAA have subsequently (not connected with this incident) changed their rules and had the examiner concerned done the same thing now, he would not have not committed any 'offence'.
It was a witch hunt from the start. and the fact that a conditional discharge was given, proves that. It's a pure technicality that an absolute discharge wasn't given instead of the conditional one.
Hopefully now, the examiner can put this situation behind him and carry on teaching and examining. He's one of the best I know, hugely talented and anyone that has flown with him or been examined by him will have benefited in many aspects not least of which is flight safety.
And, on a final note, he's also responsible for the fact that two very good friends of mine are still walking and talking today after the helicopter they were flying in suffered a serious mechanical failure 30 seconds before entering the London Helicopter lanes not so long ago. If you're in the sh*t in a helicopter, other than g-d sat next to you, this is the guy you want sat beside you.
Yes, I'm his mate - and proud to be - but I'm a straight talker, I'm sensible and objective and the prosecution was a load of bo**ocks from the start.
Joel
