What a tragic, senseless loss of life.
I wonder if I can throw some fuel on the fire, by suggesting that the "Commander" was maybe not as much to blame as some posters (and the AAIB) are suggesting?
The AAIB report suggests that the Commander may have thought that his "experienced passenger" was in fact an instructor. In which case, is it not likely that he thought that the "instructor" would be Commander of the flight? Especially since he was out of currency.
Now, the picture is rather different. Maybe the Commander knows that the flight is well outside of his limits, but he has an experienced instructor sat next to him. Maybe he believes that the flight is to be carried out IFR, with an instrument-rated instructor supervising him at the controls? Since he has no instrument training, he would not be expected to know what the instrument minima are, nor what equipment might be legally or practically required for an instrument flight. Certainly when teaching IMC rating or IR students I help them out with weather decisions at the start of the course (in the same way a PPL instructor helps his students out with weather decisions at the start of a PPL course), so it would be reasonable for the "student" to expect his "instructor" to check the weather and make the go/no-go decision?
Which now raises the question, why did the "experienced passenger" let the flight go ahead? Legally he had no responsibility to make such a decision, and if my hypothesis that the Commander thought he was an instructor is right, there is no reason to suspect that he knew this..... but, if the Commander did not have the experience to know that what he was undertaking was dangerous even for a suitably qualified pilot, then surely the passenger must have known this?????
FFF
------------------