Originally Posted by
Genghis the Engineer
My call to take a precautionary diversion, which I still think was the right one.
IMO that's beyond doubt. The fact that you, as PIC, felt a precautionary landing was justified is reason enough.
Any inflight failure should prompt the question "where would this leave me if something else were to happen". If, let us say, you were unfortunate enough to lose the engine later in the flight, the loss of comms with both ground & your passenger could have made a catastrophic difference to the outcome.
The whole point of the Strasser scheme is to remove any cost/permission issues which might influence a GA pilot's decision to make a precautionary landing. Unless someone is obviously taking the p**s, subsequently questioning that decision undermines the principle of the agreement and IMO this kind of behaviour by Tatenhill harms us all.