As the tow device is physically connected to the glider I assume that is considered its own power? But I have no interest in checking.

Not the fire again!!!

What part do you not understand of when we can ABSOLUTLY say and legally prove when a pilot is "In Command" and has those responsibilities.

But we can not prove that they are responsible before that point in time.

As before common sense, right thing and assumptions are not regulations.

You can not prove you have responsibility - I can prove when you will/would have it not only that I have.

In the absence of an explicit definition of start the courts will most likely decide that the flight starts from the time the PIC boards the aircraft and the end of the flight will be when the PIC gets off. Actually they might indeed take it back to flight planning on further thought.

The PIC has to make decisions to continue with the flight from the time they clock on. Is the aircraft serviceable, is the weather ok to allow the flight at both the departure and destination, etc etc. Good luck convincing a judge you aren't in charge given the breadth of the responsibilities before the engines start.

Its unlikely a PIC will be able to argue I'm only in charge from engine start. And if they did rule that way would you really want that. Open invite for mgt to take ALL the pre-flight planning and decision making out of your hands. Some airline will go, excellent, we'll do the fuel, flight planning, and hand you an aircraft, you just fly what we give you, no questions allowed.

If your employer states in your contract you must follow all regulations given by CASA.

Are you deviating of frolicking?


A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but sorelated to the original instructions that the employer will still be heldliable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or herown capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer.

Lucker - the work "flight" is defined and MUST be used, so no it is not boarding, doing the flight plan or the day the first bit of aluminium was ordered to build the aircraft.

If the aircraft after boarding fails to move say due weather - there was never a flight. It the aircraft taxied out then returned due weather it is recorded as a flight.

So go change the regs, the rest of us don't give a s$&>!

I think a certain pilot working for a company contracting to United does in fact give a very large a s$&>!

And if he were here (in Australia) the definition of "flight" and "PIC", would most likely save his bacon if he had no part to play in calling the renta cops.

Also no reason to change regs, company SOP's could achieve the same result.

United cannot dodge responsibility (indeed culpability) with that excuse. The airport police were very clearly acting on the instruction of United. United also share in responsibility with the police of having crossed the border into criminality by having commited common assault against the passenger.

I very much hope that both United AL and the airport police get thoroughly shafted in both the civil and criminal courts.