Originally Posted by
TheGorrilla
The FTO where the pilot learned to fly, the outfit renting him the aeroplane (where he probably did a check ride) and the examiner who last signed his licence obviously all thought he was trained well enough. As a licence holder you are accountable for you own decisions and should not expect to be "spoon fed" or abide by the descisions of an organisation when they tell you "it's ok to go, the ops clerk says so".
As you should know, holding a licence does not necessarily give you all the skills you need. There are a great range of abilities and experience levels amongst PPL holder (indeed holders of all licences) and to simply say that he was a licence holder who had been checked out is a gross oversimplification and misses the point. The aeroplane owner has a responsibility to ensure that the hirer is properly qualified to use the aeroplane in the manner in which he intends. We check licences, medicals and ratings before we let someone loose in one of our aeroplanes - it isn't difficult to do and would have highlighted that the pilot was insufficiently qualified for the flight he planned to undertake.
The point in question is that regardless of whether or not the pilot is accountable for his own actions, the operator of the aeroplane has the right (some would say duty) to advise the hirer that what he intends to do is illegal. His decision to take off into IMC took him outside the privileges of his ratings and thus the FTO lending hi the aeroplane were complicit, given that they would have been aware of the weather at BPL at the time of take off.
If you lend someone an item or piece of equipment knowing that it is to be used illegally then the law regards you as an accomplice to that illegal act.
None of this is rocket science - it's just plain common sense.