I'll open my mouth and remove all doubt. In my interpretation of Creampuff's question, I would have a tough time assigning guilt under either reg. I would like to know the original intent and history of both laws, but in my layman's read, it seems to me that the intent is to prohibit the unauthorised operation of the aircraft's controls, or the operation of an aircraft without the appropriate permission, ie. the equivalent of stealing, grabbing the controls from the pilot for "fun" or to see what happens, or for joyriding.
Wasn't Toller invited to manipulate the controls by the PIC? (Entrapment perhaps?) If so, a technical breach of both regs, but were the laws written with the intent to prohibit this specific minor incident with little or no safety repercussions or something far more serious? On a hunch, I posture that the regs were meant to enable prosecutorial support for the more serious incident to protect the property and decisions of the aircraft owner, passengers, general public and PIC. In my opinion, in this instance, the PIC should get a smack on the side of the head accompanied with a "What were you thinking?" and Toller should receive a slap on the back of the hand with a "You should have known better!" and leave it at that. Seems to be a big mountain out of a molehill. I'm sure both will think twice before they do it again and isn't that the goal?
Zhaadum, young GA pilots might argue over who has the bigger member, watch and wings, but like older airline pilots, real lawyers argue over the relative size of their wallets and the views from their back verandahs.
Last edited by Lodown; 13th Jun 2008 at 20:44.