Originally Posted by
Hipper
I qualify as I'm a member of the public and whilst I've learnt a lot as a result of reading on this case I still fail to see how only having a private licence makes someone an incompetent pilot. Likewise the fact that the pilot's qualification for flying this plane expired a few months before the flight.
Similarly it seems that despite flying at night and a threat of cloudy/wet conditions it seems possible for a VFR pilot with an instrument rating to attempt this flight. I know the AIAB report rightly criticises the pilot for this but I presume the pilot's decision to fly is controversial rather then just plain wrong. A matter of judgement, not law.
I think this shows how deceitful this defence was. To the public a pilot is a pilot, the only difference between private and commercial is that one can take money, an AOC is just paperwork and you still have a rating even after you have failed to revalidate it.
As all the commercial pilots on here will shout as one, they have to demonstrate that they can fly and then maintain a much higher standard than a private pilot to a common and consistent standard. Private pilots vary from the good to the downright dangerous but at no point do they have to fly to the standard or have the knowledge of a commercial pilot.
An AOC isn't just paperwork. It is hard to get and hard to maintain because the public have to have confidence that the aircraft they get into is operated and maintained to a high standard with properly qualified pilots at the controls. None of that was available in Henderson's business. Sometimes they will get lucky, sometimes they won't but that is no way to run an air transport operation and it is bad that some members of the public can be convinced that all the layers of safety aren't necessary.