A note, left on the fridge door.; thought it worth posting.
“K” – You owe me a couple of pints now for editing (more haste boy; remember); anyway – here’s an easy two pint bet, get it right and I’ll waive the beers:-
20. While you were not convicted of such an offence, I consider that your conduct on 16 July 2010 was also in breach of section 29(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (CAA), in that you were the owner, operator and pilot of the aircraft and the operation of the aircraft resulted in a contravention of section 20A(2) of the CAA, in that you operated the aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger yourself or another person.
I have highlighted the ‘easy’ guess passage, for one beer: for two, you must enumerate how many of these ‘I consider’ opinions we have now read. The point I am getting to – eventually, is the ‘legal weight' of a ‘considered’ opinion, the value which comes from someone with almost zero qualification or experience to actually be legally supportable as ‘considered’, let alone ‘expert’.
I hear the scribe of these vicious , CASA backed denunciations is about to be moved from a position where his ‘opinion’ matters, due to the exalted title, to a less dangerous (to aircrew) billet. This is a very good thing – as you know, I’ve often wondered how well these ‘considered’ opinions would withstand a determined ‘legal’ assault, through ‘qualified’ expert opinion.
Safe home – see you for Sunday lunch. (Mum's got pork).
“K” – You owe me a couple of pints now for editing (more haste boy; remember); anyway – here’s an easy two pint bet, get it right and I’ll waive the beers:-
20. While you were not convicted of such an offence, I consider that your conduct on 16 July 2010 was also in breach of section 29(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (CAA), in that you were the owner, operator and pilot of the aircraft and the operation of the aircraft resulted in a contravention of section 20A(2) of the CAA, in that you operated the aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger yourself or another person.
I have highlighted the ‘easy’ guess passage, for one beer: for two, you must enumerate how many of these ‘I consider’ opinions we have now read. The point I am getting to – eventually, is the ‘legal weight' of a ‘considered’ opinion, the value which comes from someone with almost zero qualification or experience to actually be legally supportable as ‘considered’, let alone ‘expert’.
I hear the scribe of these vicious , CASA backed denunciations is about to be moved from a position where his ‘opinion’ matters, due to the exalted title, to a less dangerous (to aircrew) billet. This is a very good thing – as you know, I’ve often wondered how well these ‘considered’ opinions would withstand a determined ‘legal’ assault, through ‘qualified’ expert opinion.
Safe home – see you for Sunday lunch. (Mum's got pork).