Mooney_Driver wrote:
Therefore the passenger was probably pilot flying.
I’ve seen >1 instructor who preferred to fly from the right, as it’s what they were mostly used to do.
The report is full of small errors.
La photographie prise lors du vol, montre que le passager est en place gauche et l’instructeur en place droite. L’instructeur de par son niveau de qualification était le commandant de bord sur ce vol.
which is nonsense in a D-reg. aircraft.
Anyway this doesn’t even matter has this 1/1 000 000 chart doesn’t even appear in the list of equipment found in the wreckage.
Since they did not find one wing (an item about 4m x 1m and with a really strong piece along its length) they probably didn’t look hard enough to find other stuff… It would astonish me if Stefan did not fly with a chart of some sort. Most “foreign” pilots flying in France in their early days buy the SIA chart since that one is the most obvious option. Stefan had been flying for many years but AFAIK very little in France other than via his bizjet flying.
As I posted earlier, FWIW, I emailed the investigator about this thread and he acked the email (well, the 2nd or 3rd time it was sent).
Peter wrote:
However the TB20 has no POH restriction on where the PIC may sit.
In this case it’s irrelevant because Stefan held FI privilege as report correctly states.
Peter wrote:
6500
After reading the report and looking flight path, I’m pretty sure this wasn’t important. He was visual at 5000 ft but obviously weather on chosen path wasn’t as good as expected. Last 90 degrees left turn prior to impact suggests (I’m just speculating) possible involuntary turn caused by lost of control in IMC – continuing northbound would’ve allow climb above terrain.
boscomantico wrote:
which is nonsense in a D-reg. aircraft
Since the accident happened in France, if this was to go to court, the question is which law would be applied? I think for anything under penal law, this would have to be French law. In France unfortunately there has been a court ruling where an instructor sitting in the back seat (in a four seater) had been declared responsible for something that went wrong on a flight.
I have heard about the these stories…
Anyway, I these rules are the domain of the registering state, not the state overflown. Otherwise, in this case here, the PIC would change when the aircraft crossed a border.
Since this flight was on a flightplan, it would have made sense for the BEA to mention who was nominated as PIC in there (I would guess it was the owner) instead.
boscomantico wrote:
I have heard about the these stories…
Anyway, I these rules are the domain of the registering state, not the state overflown. Otherwise, in this case here, the PIC would change when the aircraft crossed a border.
Since this flight was on a flightplan, it would have made sense for the BEA to mention who was nominated as PIC in there (I would guess it was the owner) instead.
The flight contained an IFR portion, for which only one pilot was qualified, which makes that pilot the only possible PIC. That’s was the BEA is saying, and I don’t see how this can be non-sense, or an error.
They also they that they have no way of telling who was actually flying the aircraft.
Can’t you change the PIC partway through a flight e.g. after IFR cancellation?
The flight contained an IFR portion, for which only one pilot was qualified, which makes that pilot the only possible PIC. That’s was the BEA is saying, and I don’t see how this can be non-sense, or an error.
Then they should have written so. They have written something different though.
They also they that they have no way of telling who was actually flying the aircraft.
Really? Disappointing… 
