Originally Posted by
G0ULI
I suspect this case will hinge around whether Mr. Armstrong took off in the helicopter knowing that he would be required to take over the controls on arriving at the scene due to his co-pilots' inexperience.
Again, this is interpreting the journo's use of the term 'co-pilot' as gospel. I find it not just unlikely but impossible for the flight to have commenced with Mr Armstrong as the pilot and the other as co-pilot. There would have been one pilot signing out the aircraft, and it would not have been the accused.
Had the journo referred to 'the other pilot' would there be such mock outrage? Are we living in such a rules dominated/risk averse culture that saving a life takes second place to doing what is morally right and logistically achievable?
I don't know what the medical grounding was for, but on the assumption that it was to guard against Mr Armstrong collapsing at the controls then the presence of the other (in command) pilot would have been more than enough to cover that issue for the few minutes needed to complete the task of landing in adverse conditions. If only to pull power and fly out of the landing.