Why were there 4 people on first flight?
Perhaps it is because I can identify with David Walker, that I have had this nagging discomfort about the PIC conclusion of the AAIB.
As earlier posters pointed out, the facts that lead the AAIB to conclude David was PIC are equally true for PUT.
Trying to stay with the facts:
David told the CFI that he was not current and could not be PIC. CFI told him he would have an accompanying pilot and so would be OK.
It is a very small assumption that David would conclude if not actually told that he would be PUT. Why else would he go? He had already said no once!
David arrives at the airfield; there is a fuelled aircraft, 2 passengers and a 3rd person (the accompanying pilot). Is it not unreasonable that David would believe him to be the Instructor designate…? Why not why else would he be there….clearly they did not need the ballast.
I admit there is a little assumption in that prognosis but very little.
Now maybe the ‘accompanying pilot’ thought that David was current and PIC, but it does seem a bit odd not to have at least discussed with the David who was last to arrive, and therefore his pre-flight activity was observable, some aspects of the flight planning must have been discussed?. I would be concerned if the PIC arrived late, jumped in the aircraft without kicking the tyres and peering in the tanks. The ‘Accompanying Pilot’ was not a newbee he had years of experience!.
At the very least there must have been a lack of clarity as to who was PIC between the 2 of them.
The only thing that is clear is that the CFI knew that David was not legal as PIC and the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ was not legally an instructor and yet he authorised the flight. He did not crash the aircraft but he did dispatch it, knowing it was illegal, and assuming he looked out the window he knew it was illegal on met grounds also. At the very least he was negligent in his capacity as CFI on that day.
OK so the flight arrived at Exeter.
At Exeter the fuel situation was discussed by the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ I draw 2 observations from this;
- If David believed he was PIC, even if perceiving some seniority slope would he not have at least wanted to listen in on the conversation?
- If either the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ or the other passenger / pilot thought David as PIC would it have not been extremely unprofessional / discourteous not to at least involve him.
In conclusion I would disagree with the AAIB report (only regarding PIC) and tend to feel it ‘more likely’ that the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ was actually the PIC. I would also be more firmly of the opinion that David thought he was PUT.
The remaining troubling factors are why the CFI wanted David to go anyway?
Initially he may have thought he was doing David a favour. But when he knew he was not current, why still encourage him?. Could the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ not make the trip without a 2nd pilot ?. Nice to have but not essential.
There are lessons here for me as a new pilot, experienced pilots and but also lessons for FTO’s / clubs which should not be dismissed / ignored because of the strict interpretation of the air law.
Excellent post Helen49.....echo's my feelings