Originally Posted by
Jonzarno
Whilst I agree with this analogy: that’s not the comparison I made.
I simply said that, given a non-CPL licensed pilot, in the same aircraft, in both cases the risks are the same.
In other words: the appendectomy done by the (failed) medical student carries the same level of risk whether they are being paid for it or not.
Yet again, I stress: this is not in support of grey charters!
I don't think the data supports your view: objectively, the measure of risk is surely the accident rate per number of flights: this is just one article, but it quotes Eurostat data on fatalities, still somewhat simplistic because it doesn't seem to take account of the difference in hours flown, but it's a start. I would hazard a guess that the number of commercial hours flown against private would swing the data even more in commercials favour.
https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/flyi...an-commercial/
In the tragic case here, surely Sala would not have been in that aircraft in that piece of sky, if it were properly chartered & flown? There would be no need for it to be desperately trying to stay VMC fighting the weather, a commercial crew would plan to avoid such circumstances anyway?