Shy: the case where an S76 flew into the side of the mountain several years ago: The dead pilot responsible for doing this was successfully sued by the deceased co-pilots wife.
{Or rather the dead pilots estate was successfully sued].
Puma crash. Dead crewmans family are suing the dead pilots family.
You see, the repurcussions are enormous, here.
So here we have a hero (seemingly by several peoples views on pprune) saving the life of another (bravo). Until or unless it goes wrong.
Then we have lawyers saying....so we have the dead pilot unlawfully flying.
The family of the other innocent third (dead) party now sue both the owner of the helo and the family of the medically unfit pilot. Solely on the grounds that he flew knowingly illegally???
In addition.
Since when do we have members of the general public (and I inculde those sympathisers amongst you) deciding it is fine to ignore the rules and just get on with it because in their (very limited) view of things - it's the "right thing to do at the time".
And on what basis does society build its legal and communal infrastructure if we include rule 36: "Exception: Do what you feel is right on the day".
Aviation as black and white as this scenario, doesn't come any clearer. Those who think they have a God given right to twist the rules to fit - should be cause for concern by their associates and those who work around them.
