Legal situation with an unauthorised pilot

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.

like taking stuff from a skip

That is probably applicable to a lot of GA planes

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).

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.

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.

Peter wrote:

Of course it is theft

Reminds me of David Brent’s auntie.

Of course it is theft… just may not be prosecutable as such. In the UK and probably most other places, the police will not go anywhere near any crime which has a “civil dispute” angle to it. They don’t have the resources left at the end of the day, and only the very top specialists would have the intellectual capacity to grasp the intricate legal details.

As always there are two angles: the legality of the operation (whether the CAA will prosecute), and whether insurance will pay out. If you look up the CAA prosecutions list (google) you will see the sort of thing they go after. Mostly dodgy charters, politically provocative low flying, crashing at airshows, a few CAS busts where the pilot stuck the middle finger up at the interview, etc.

Did the insurance not pay out?

Not sure the FARs are your biggest issue, in Europe. It will be whether the insurer pays out, and they should if the flight was unauthorised. My policy (Haywards) covers such a case.

The FAA would not pursue the pilot in Europe anyway (they would have to ask the CAA here to prosecute on their behalf). They might pull his papers though…