Aircraft flying at night.
Aircraft flying IFR
Pilot Flying at night
Pilot Flying IFR
Aircraft NOT Night VFR RATED
Aircraft NOT IFR RATED
Pilot NOT NIGHT RATED
Pilot NOT IFR RATED
Just had a close read of the judgement and it makes for interesting reading,
The pilot was rated for IFR and held a command instrument rating, so yes he was rated. His rating was not current, by three days, big difference.
The flight was conducted under IFR rules, however the prevailing weather was night VFR.
The Mooney Maintenance Manual was pretty clear in recommending 500 hour replacement of the pump. The manufacturer of the pump recommended 500 hours.
An Airworthy Advisory Circular circa 1985 recommended 3 years and 500 hours and both the manufacturer and the circular gave clear warning the pumps were subject to catastrophic failure without warning, and were bound to be unreliable beyond 600 hours. The LAME admitted hew knew this,
LAME's defence was the aircraft was under schedule 5.
The pump in question had done 1248 hours.
We all know vacuum pumps fail without warning with monotonous regularity at any time.
The maintenance organization was only found 30% liable in this case. There was no mention in the judgment that the aircraft was not rated for IFR,
only
(a)that the maintenance organization didn't hold an approval to do IFR instrument maintenance
(b) that the aircraft was a Category B aircraft
It did say however that IFR instrument maintenance was subcontracted to an approved company by the maintenance provider, a situation we know is pretty common.
So the two things you claim in defence of the LAME do not correlate in the judgement,
The pilot did have a rating, just not current
and
The judgement made no mention of the aircraft not being in the IFR category and that in fact the Vacuum system was being inspected and maintained.
If it was me that failed to replace the pump I would be jumping for joy that I was only 30% liable.
Aero Club 15% for not determining the pilots qualifications and how he would operate the aircraft.
Dead Pilots estate 55%
Also you stated that it was the wife that sued, implying the wife of the deceased pilot sued when in fact it was the wife of the deceased passenger.
Again big difference,
all in all a very different picture than the one you have painted?