seems like a lot of guess work going on here. check this out for how a court found on a similar passenger vs crew matter:
When does the Civil Aviation (Carriers? Liability) Act 1967 (NSW) apply? - Carter Newell
http://www.cgw.com.au/publication/ai...lity-update-2/ - see "who is a passenger"
Was Edwards a passenger?
Absent a definition of '
passenger´ in the CACLA, the Court took guidance from leading international and local cases
5 and applied the principles laid down in those cases to the facts of this matter.
In finding Edwards to have been 'an essential part of the crew', and therefore not a passenger for the purpose of the CACLA, the Court looked to the contract for aerial services as between Precision and Endeavour noting the following critical features:
- Two Endeavour employees were supplied to Precision as an 'inspector' and 'observer';
- The observer was to 'assist the pilot by providing advance warning of approaching hazards, tracking flight developments to determine changing risks and recording the condition of the powerline';6 and
- At the time of the accident, and in accordance with the contract, Edwards fulfilled the role of observer.
The Court found Edwards' role as observer was central to the pilot's conduct of the aerial inspections of the overhead lines and the pilot had relied on Edwards to assist with the navigation of the aircraft as well as to provide advance warning of hazards.