Fri Nov 12, 2021 9:32 pm
#1882326
Tariff for breaches is at Art 265 ANO 2016 et seq.
Dave Johnson wrote:I may well have got the wrong end of the stick (I often do!) but my understanding was that the AAIB concluded that the most probable cause of the crash was pilot incapacitation due to Carbon Monoxide poisoning.
If that was the case, then I don't see how many licenses the pilot held, or how the flight was being operated, they would have been just as dead.
While there may well have been a contravention of regulations, but I don't see how that can be regarded as the cause of the crash.
Katamarino wrote:If the regulations were not contravened, this aircraft could not have been used for the flight, and the accident would not have occurred.
Even if this aircraft was used, but with a properly trained and qualified pilot, he'd almost certainly have been properly using the pressurization system which would have prevented any CO ingress.
So, the contravention of regulations did directly lead to the crash.
skydriller wrote: Im not sure Im very happy with this train of thought. It does seem quite like the perhaps familiar to some, "Foriegners driving in the Middle East" laws, ie, if as a foriegner you are involved in an accident with a national, then regardless of what happened it is your fault, because if you, the foreigner, were not there, the accident would not have happened...
I have no issue with prosecution and conviction of illegal flight arrangements, but I do with the idea of being responsible for the crash leading to the death of the pilot and player.
Regards, SD..
johnm wrote:There is a big difference between a cost shared private flight and an illegal charter flight from a legal perspective however from a practical perspective the difference is more nuanced.
The key is that the passengers understand the difference and what they are involved in.
neil9327 wrote:Was it purely the fact that money was being illegally made, that made this flight dangerous? I.e. had the pilot agreed to fly the guy for free, would this have prevented the crash?
neil9327 wrote:Was it purely the fact that money was being illegally made, that made this flight dangerous? I.e. had the pilot agreed to fly the guy for free, would this have prevented the crash?
neil9327 wrote:Was it purely the fact that money was being illegally made, that made this flight dangerous? I.e. had the pilot agreed to fly the guy for free, would this have prevented the crash?
SpeedBrake wrote:neil9327 wrote:Was it purely the fact that money was being illegally made, that made this flight dangerous? I.e. had the pilot agreed to fly the guy for free, would this have prevented the crash?
Money has a big influence. When you work for an AOC operator you are trained in commercial pressures and how to prioritise safety over pressure from the customer.
neil9327 wrote:SpeedBrake wrote:neil9327 wrote:Was it purely the fact that money was being illegally made, that made this flight dangerous? I.e. had the pilot agreed to fly the guy for free, would this have prevented the crash?
Money has a big influence. When you work for an AOC operator you are trained in commercial pressures and how to prioritise safety over pressure from the customer.
Ah I see. Makes sense and explains it.
I guess the cpl/atpl syllabus covers this aspect too.
map5623 wrote:...snip
And also to be aware of the 'flying pigs'