In the fourth statement, and subsequently, the line has been 'sole pilot'. Now that it is established that Ewald was in the aircraft for very nearly all of the flights of all of the trips it might be interesting to examine this relationship/role a little more closely.
Starting with looking at this:
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59000-59499/59012/594566.pdf
So, three questions arising from this are:
- Why has Ewald completed the 'Other Flight Crew' section, and not 'passenger'? He clearly hadn't been told the 'sole pilot' plan before May 2016. Oops.
- Given that he was 'Other Flight Crew', in what capacity was he operating?
And then, the big one, number three, they both logged six hours in the preceding 24 in the same type. This, I believe, only leaves a few options:
- The aircraft was actually flown a total of 12 hours in the previous 24h. Six by each of them at different times.
- Ewald was flying another Stearman whilst Tracey was flying his.
- Ewald shouldn't have been logging the time (single pilot plane, and Tracey was PIC)?
- Ewald was PIC and Tracey was logging PICUS?
- Ewald was logging Instructor time and Tracey was logging PIC (or dual) depending what system she was following?
- They've both been logging PIC?
- Another option? https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2017/Dick_2%20-%20(2017)%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf
The results of positive answers to each question are:
- Unlikely.
- Very, very unlikely.
- Not legal.
- Doesn't fit the 'sole pilot' story.
- Doesn't fit the 'he's not my instructor', nor the 'sole pilot' stories.
- Not legal.
- Ah, must be somewhere here.
So, for the avoidance of doubt, I think that three logbooks (from the aircraft, Tracey and Ewald, covering all three trips) should be presented at the AGM for inspection. They are legal documents, less prone to 'he said, she said' and so what better way to demonstrate that she's right and we're all wrong?