Although your statement about the reasoning and conclusion in the case is accurate, both are based on the interpretation of legislation.
Legislation can be changed.
I’m talking about the underlying assumptions of this and other legislation.
If the “passenger” in this case had been undergoing flying training for the purposes of eventually obtaining a commercial pilot’s licence for a career in aviation, would that have been a “recreational activity”? Not according to the definition in section 5K of the NSW legislation. (And I’m still wondering how it’s possible for a person to be a “passenger” “undergoing flying training…”.)
So the results are bizarre. Same aircraft, same instructor, same “passenger” and same obvious and inherent risks. If the “passenger” is there as a “recreational activity”, there’s no liability. However, if the “passenger” is there to train for a professional qualification there can be liability. What’s the point of that distinction?
