-
I agree with a lot of this. I think if he can't prove he blacked out or whatever, the assumption has to be that he was at fault. His expertise and training does not absolve him, but it highlights how odd it is for him to make these seemingly obvious mistakes.
In terms of liability, there is still the question that if someone has a heart attack, out of nowhere, while driving down the motorway and kills someone, are they to blame? Or is it just an accident? In this scenario he's trying to claim the latter as his defence, but can't prove he had the heart attack.
In your stall practice comparison, it would be similar if, after crashing you claimed not to remember anything, and it to become apparent that rather than starting the manourve at say 5000 feet, you inexplicably did it at 1000. Your argument may be that you must have had some kind of cognitive failure as to do that on purpose would be crazy.
You are reading a single comment by @Scrabble and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Scrabble
I'm baffled that he was found not guilty. In the absence of any other reason for the failure, he is at fault. There's a simple checklist to show whether or not it's safe to begin a particular move or routine, and he failed to follow it. If I did the same while trying to practice a stall in a Cessna, crashed and killed someone, I'd be 100% at fault for not doing the right thing. Just because he's that highly trained doesn't absolve him, it makes it worse.