421C, Let me reply to the points you raised, you obviously
do not understand my point:
421C Posted:
Supersport,
Forgive me, but the "aviaiton perspective" is the one that matters most to the people on an aviation forum. It may sound harsh, but I think the culture of dispassionately discussing accidents from an aviation safety perspective is a good thing - in fact an essential thing.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Could you please point out where I have said anything to the contrary.
421C Posted:
I am with Bose-X on this. The principle of the responsibility and accountability of the pilot in command is a vital one. It has no grey zones. Admitting it has any grey zones is a safety issue in of itself, in case some pilot in the future, in analogous circumstances, is tempted to think that some of the responsibility of the PIC is sort of shared by some other senior figure(s). Bose's emphasis is also important because it may help a pilot, especially a less experienced one, feel less intimidated by the very real perception of "seniority gradient" in a private flying or training environment and challenge anything that doesn't 100% satisfy them when taking on the responsibility of PIC; exactly the lesson HappyFran was referring to.
Yes, there are no grey zones on paper, but in reality there can be especially when people start making assumptions, and if you have fully read the AAIB Report I can't believe you can come out with a statement like this, here are some extracts from the AAIB Report, I saved the best one until last:
From AAIB Report:
However, the CFI called him again clarifying that he did not mean for him to fly solo but that a more experienced pilot would accompany him. It was not established whether the pilot understood this to mean that the ‘experienced pilot’ was an instructor. However, the pilot agreed to this arrangement and shortly afterwards went to the airport.
The confusion over PIC and manner in which the flight was to be carried out begins.
From AAIB Report:
One went directly to the Aztec aircraft which was to be collected, the other had a conversation with the accompanying pilot. This included a discussion about the amount of fuel on board and a visual inspection of
the fuel quantity in the tanks. The accompanying pilot apparently decided it was not necessary to refuel at Exeter and was heard to comment that “they could drop in somewhere on the way back if it became necessary”.
***
It was not established whether the pilot himself was involved in these discussions.
PIC possibly not involved in a discussion about fuel. The accompanying pilot apparently making the
decisions about fuel. Confusion over who is PIC gets even worse.
Finally.....
From AAIB Report:
The relatively inexperienced pilot was paying for the fuel for the two flights, the purpose of which was for him to build up his flight hours. He was seated in the left seat and he was almost certainly handling the controls throughout the accident flight. Thus, he should be considered the pilot-in-command even though he may have called upon the experienced accompanying pilot for help and advice.
Pretty big assumption, and that is all it can ever be, nothing on paper.
No Grey in reality 421C? You sure? With a lack of
FACT it is always going to be 'grey'.
421C Posted:
You mention an outsiders' perspecitve. I understand that. The principle of the duties/responsibilities of a PIC is very 'absolute' and black and white, perhaps more so than is typical in modern culture and therefore not obvious to the outsider. Nevertheless, it is the principle that is relevant here. Based on the AAIB facts, there is nothing more to it. There may be a whole set of private thoughts and issues and "what ifs", but I hope you'll see why some people would want them firmly distanced from the accident causes and responsibility.
rgds
421C
Black and White on paper again indeed, but there are no hard
facts regarding PIC in the AAIB Report, references to PIC are assumed, not proven.
Yes, I can understand why people would want the "what ifs" distanced from the accident causes and responsibilty as you put it,
BUT there is a lot more to this accident (obviously only an outsider would be able to see this as you and some other fellow aviators can't) than just the assumed PIC, which is why the "what ifs" will remain firmly attached to this incident. A lot of unanswered questions will be raised at the Coroner's Court, some aviation related, some not. If I was in David Walkers position I'd definately want more answers than what is contained in the AAIB Report, I would want to know more about the circumstance's surrounding the demise of my son.
When it comes to Rules, Regulations, Laws etc, in reality there is plenty of grey, if you can't see it you are blind.
Whoa... Long one that one.