Originally Posted by
Hadley Rille
Was this all a private undertaking with the sponsors chipping in a few bob?
Or was it a commercial promotional exercise for the benefit of the sponsors with a commercial documentary being made along the way thus requiring a commercial pilot?
This is an interesting point.
If Ms. Curtis-Taylor really DID fly "Alone in an open cockpit plane" making a commercial documentary, and possibly with commercial sponsorship in return for which she is providing publicity arising from her flying: she would have needed a commercial licence. Does she have one?
If she doesn't have a CPL and DID do what she claims, she would appear to be in breach of her licence conditions, which would also void her insurance. That should make the insurance claims on the accidents discussed here interesting to say the least!
Of course, if she was accompanied by another pilot who does have one, or an ATPL, and would presumably have to pe PIC, she would be fine. But then she wouldn't remotely be able to claim to have been "Solo", or even "Sole" pilot.
So which was it?
Whichever of the two possibilities is true: how can HCAP and the LAA possibly justify ANY award to someone who has either not done what they claim to have done or, even if they did, can only possibly have done so in flagrant breach of their licence conditions and, hence, without valid insurance?