Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Legal situation with an unauthorised pilot

Qalupalik wrote:

The facts in Fenner and the possibility of an alternative outcome do not change the statutory and regulatory definition of operator as found in that case or in Gatewood. In Gatewood the Administrator made no apology for going against NTSB precedent in applying a standard of strict liability: “[t]here was no evidence in [the Fenner] case that Mr. Fenner could have anticipated that the pilot would fly the aircraft in such a reckless manner.”

But the Gatewood circumstances are far more consistent with the customary definition of “operator”, i.e. the person with management control over the aircraft, determining where and when it flies. He was the flight school owner, and he sent a pilot/mechanic to determine the serviceability of the aircraft and fly it home if serviceable. As you imply from your comment on previous case law, a finding of strict liability for the misjudgment of the pilot/mechanic seems harsh, verging on unreasonable, and makes one wonder about what we’re not being told. Fenner is different and extraordinary.

Timothy wrote:

Unfortunately not in the UK. Theft must involve “..the intention to permanently deprive..”. That is why we have TWOC (Taking [a motor vehicle] Without Consent.)

Surely it is a crime nonetheless ? Or I could take any aircraft on the ramp, take it for a ride ans say thank you for the loan?

We also have a different legal terms and laws for unlawful use, but it’s still theft. Directly translated it is “use-theft” and for a motorized vehicle (airplanes included) the punishment is up to 5 years in prison (+ any eventual damage according to civil law) . The catch is if you belong to the same home as the owner or are “in service” somehow by the owner, then you cannot be punished by criminal law. “Loaning” a plane after an agreement has ended, you are indeed in deep shit if you wreck it

Insurance vise stolen is stolen in any case, with it’s own logic.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

In the case of motor vehicles, as I say, it’s TWOC. I have no idea if there is an equivalent for aircraft.

The definition of theft is, indeed, frustrating; especially as there is another class of crime, theft by finding, which is defined as illegal in circumstances which surprises many people (like taking stuff from a skip).

EGKB Biggin Hill

like taking stuff from a skip

That is probably applicable to a lot of GA planes

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

I would call that theft.

Unfortunately not in the UK. Theft must involve “..the intention to permanently deprive..”. That is why we have TWOC (Taking [a motor vehicle] Without Consent.)

I don’t see that as “unfortunate”. In my opinion, taking away (of any property) without authorisation with intention to return it, should be an offense, but a lesser one than taking away with the intention to permanently deprive the owner.

ELLX
15 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top