It seems to me that "appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs was clearcut."
The aeroplane was behaving as it was supposed to, but it's not totally impossible that there was some abberative behaviour that AAIB couldn't see from the limited evidence they had.
Personally, whilst I disagree with him to some extent, I think that Step's views about the Maule pilot are entirely defensible. It's not at-all hard to make a case that flying along the surface of a lake skimming the wheels in the water is reckless. That wasn't so far as I can see the concern of the court - their concern was whether it was illegal or not - and a clear decision was reached that it wasn't.
It I decide to drive down to the coast tomorrow and try and swim the English Channel without training or backup, doing so would be reckless, stupid and irresponsible. It would not so far as I know be illegal.
If I train & build up a lot of experience in low flying, risk assess it carefully, and fly a carefully planned route at 250ft in a twin with plenty of excess power over the top of various houses, that would be annoying and illegal. But, from the point of view of safety, arguably it's not all that reckless.
They ain't the same thing.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 1st Apr 2016 at 10:49.