I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I must admit to being rather surprised at this outcome - it seems to imply that a pilot is doing nothing illegal when an aeroplane under his command crashes because he failed to perform what most pilots would consider a very basic check as to the suitability of the aeroplane for flight.
I was always under the impression that I was responsible for the aeroplane while captain of it, so can somebody who understands this verdict explain it...? If I did a similar thing, would the result in the same verdict? And if so, if I made a different mistake while flight planning - say, causing me to enter a NOTAMed TRA - is that better or worse than crashing due to lack of fuel?
(edited slightly for language)
Last edited by Evo; 5th Sep 2003 at 04:59.