Dan et al,

All seems reasonable to me. See my posting on uras,
posted today and last Saturday (10/2), for explanation.


If you guys over the pond are any doubt on what the
CAA can do take a look at their enforcement and prosecution
policy:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/755/CAA%20...olicy%20%20Pro
cedures%20June%202005.pdf

(you will need to reconstruct).

Unlike some Law Enforcement Agencies in the world,
the CAA are reasonable, and are are looking for improvement
(or in my opinion back to a style of finishes that
we were doing 15 years ago). They will reasonably raise
their enforcement position if we, as a movement, don't
improve. I noted that the UK Air Accidents Investigation
Branch referred to European competitions in their report
so don't think that this is a problem to be solved
by the UK in isolation.....


At 19:01 14 February 2007, Dan G wrote:
Missed this bit, in the List of Approved Penalties:

'Finish and approach to finish - hazardous or
prohibited manoeuvre including :-
1) flight below 30' AGL outside the declared airfield
perimeter other than an emergency straight-in
approach where it is not possible to maintain safe
airspeed to maintain the minimum ground clearance
or in the event of an out-landing. FR evidence from
500' above airfield elevation will be used to verify
any deliberate planning of energy management that leads
to flight below the minimum limit. Such proven cases
will not be exempt from penalty.
2) any approach that does not describe a descending
flight path other than to convert from a straight in
approach to a go around or for reasons of flight
safety.'

So that is what the BGA and the CAA believe will prevent
any future
incident like the HusBos one.


Dan