Originally Posted by
DeltaV
This is the sort of stupidity that arises when you overthink things and do you really want to live in a world where every possible eventuality had been thought about and legislated for? Wouldn't you rather live in a world where there was some freedom of choice and room for taking responsibility for what you do?
What about the occasions, and there was one not too long ago, where the pilot did conk and the passenger had been a passenger from the outset? He, the passenger, had no licence to pilot an aircraft but did that mean he was subsequently prosecuted for doing something for which he was neither trained nor authorised in order to save his own life? Was he pilloried for it? Of course not, rather his actions were celebrated.
FFS did you think I was being serious? I was trying to point out the silly interpretations of the rule.
To me the sensible thing would be a medically fit safety pilot qualified to fly the thing.
I think it's laughable the number of folk who try to interpret the rules to either suit themselves or make them more onerous than they are.