Originally Posted by
runway30
Pitts, it isn't a question of turning a blind eye, if everyone has a prepared statement about a mate doing a favour then there is no evidence and no prosecution.
The difference in this case is the person who paid for the flight has made a very public statement pointing fingers. He is no stranger to litigation and has started to defend himself before even being accused of anything.
Yes it is everything to do with asking the question if authority is turning a blind eye and what you have suggested above still hasn't given the answer to a question asked which was effectively - what is the ratio of the grey flight accidents to non grey flight accidents. I gave you the only one I can think of, I guess you can not add to the tally?
I might well agree some people are doing things that seem quite sharp, but on the basis this practice has been common place for at least 3 years (where the cost element shared by the pilot was reduced to 1p) then there can only be 3 options. 1) regulators are unconcerned because it isn't a problem 2) they are concerned it is a problem but required wording to change to prosecute flights they are unhappy about but failed to change the wording 3) regulators are concerned but can't be bothered to do anything until a high profile accident then they will have a look, which doesn't seem responsible either tbh