Now come on chaps you know you are writing rubbish.
Whilst I would never contend that there are a few who started flying after having a trial lesson (in fact me included) there are an awful lot of people who want a pleasure flight (and good for them too).
There is a huge difference between some one who might take their PPL and some one with no intention of doing so what so ever.
In most cases if you ask them they will give you a perfectly honest answer - after all, why wouldn’t they?
If you take a friend flying most of us know full well you might well explain to them quite a bit about how the aircraft works and what the controls do. You will probably let them do some of the flying as well. Was that a trial lesson? Did your friend have any intention at that point in time of learning to fly? I don’t think so in the majority of cases, and in those few exceptions, your freind probably set at the outset, I wouldn’t mind learning to be a pilot.
In many other areas of law the courts are asked to look at the defendant’s intent. In other words did the defendant start out with the intention of following a particular course of action. By definition when Jo public pitches up at the flying school was his intention to have a lesson because he thought he might well like to do a PPL or did he want to go for a pleasure flight?
The flying schools might even treat the person as if they were a student in terms of a full briefing etc but in many many cases both parties know full well the intention of the person was not to learn to fly.
Its bending the law as much as someone giving another pilot a lift and the other pilot buying the first a gift voucher after the flight.
I suspect you know it, and I know it, but it is still sad to see such double standards.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 24th Sep 2007 at 15:02.