It should be noted that, in March 2010, the details of the accident were not widely known amongst the CASA inspectorate. CASA’s position with respect to the diversion issue was and remains that, in all the circumstances of the accident flight, good airmanship should have resulted in a diversion, even if there was no explicit, mandatory requirement that the accident pilot do so.
Another assertion purporting to represent the states of mind of each and every individual within CASA.
More importantly, it’s not relevant to the question. The question was about a division of opinion in CASA on whether diversion was
mandatory in the circumstances, not about CASA’s ‘position’ on whether ‘good airmanship should have resulted in a diversion’.
Further, knowledge of the details of the accident is irrelevant to the question whether a diversion is mandated or good airmanship, when a PIC becomes aware of the weather at the destination going below alternate minima but remained above the landing minima. That’s a question that may be properly answered in the abstract. What details of the accident could possibly alter the answer?
And remind me: Where is CASA’s power to set the standard of ‘good airmanship’, separate from the standards of pilot competence and experience in the rules, and where is the rule that says a pilot must continuously meet or exceed the standard of ‘good airmanship’ determined by CASA?