How I wonder was Mr Weaver employed to ferry the aircraft on a trans-Atlantic journey, when he didn't appear to have IR for twin engine aircraft? So is this his first deception with regard to this job?
Given that he was in fact handed the job and named as P1 by the company employing him, but took along a more experienced colleague to actually carry out the flight, would the insurance still be vaild? Could this be his second deception with regard to this job?
The person named by Mr Weaver as the "passenger along for the ride" denies being aboard the aircraft and also denies knowing Mr Weaver. Could this be his third deception with regard to this job?
If I remember correctly, even Mr Weaver at one point denied being aboard the aircraft and threatened legal action against anyone who might suggest that he was. So this would appear to be a fourth deception with regard to this job.
So the above begs the following questions (at least):
a) Who was aboard the aircraft when it crashed (sorry "landed") off-piste.
b) Who was PIC?
c) Who took remedial action to mitigate the effects of the situation in which they found themselves?
d) Who did the fuel calculations?
e) Who was responsible for the "incident" bearing in mind that there has been no subsequent report of a "blown cylinder" or any other significant engine problem.
f) Why could not a twin engine aeroplane maintain a straight and level flight on one engine, should the other have failed.
I am sorry if these questions appear simple and the answers obvious and my assumptions above completely wrong, but there does seem to be some conflicting information given on this thread. Or have I got several ferries mixed up here?
One more question, in the event of a aircraft being disabled in the fashion described, who stands the loss? The owner? The commissioning company? The pilot? Further, has the claim been settled?