Increasingly, litigation is bought against people, pilots are no exception. Any well versed aviation lawyer will explain that a progressive transference of liability has been undertaken away from the corporate and ending up with the pilot.
Pilots do understand
mostly that 'the buck stops with them'
However, in a litigious environment, which has different rules in different jurisdictions any pilot seen sitting around an airport, for 4 hours or having commuted across the country to commence a pattern of rostered flying and then being involved in an accident, may find their impression of how the law views their pre-duty decision making is interpreted at odds with the litigant.
A commuter moving across a continent before duty
may be viewed as 'contributing' to the accident that occurs later when duty has commenced. At the very least it would add additional stress when it could be avoided.
The FAA made specific reference to commuting and fatigue as did the NTSB in the Colgan Air accident.
Anyone thinking Qantas would rush to their defence if commuting were involved may want to re-examine their opinion.Any pilot wanting to test their defence in court would be welcome to provide a precedent in Australia
