Originally Posted by
flying-saint
And yes, based upon the totality of evidence I have seen, I believe the pilot did not fall short of what could be reasonably expected of him or any other competent qualified pilot of that experience during the accident flight and particularly the accident sequence.
I think we are so far apart that further discussion is futile. As I admitted earlier I do now agree that a criminal prosecution of the pilot was not correct given the facts presented.
However as an aerobatic instructor I feel very strongly about the requirement for a proper course of instruction before flying
any aerobatic maneuver. This instruction will deal with all the bad things that can happen when flying aerobatics even for the simple maneuvers. All credible aerobatic training will also emphasize the importance of conducting aerobatic maneuvers at a safe height.
I find the flight profile of the first flight frightening in its recklessness and simply do not find it credible that the same style of flying was not carried out on the second flight and that it contributed to the accident.
Given the level of training and experience of the pilot and the fact that the aircraft passenger was a large and very heavy man, a local slight seeing flight at a sensible altitude and with moderate turns with no aggressive maneuvering would have been appropriate and would have greatly reduced the probability of an accident.
I know that sounds judgmental but respecting the limits of ones abilities as bounded by the pilots experience, training, the aircraft flown and other relevant factors is the essence of responsible pilot decision making. The pilots first flight represents the antithesis of that decision making and thus will inevitable colour my view on what happened on the second.