Per Dyson J in Nugent & Killick v Michael Goss Aviation Ltd  2 Lloyd’s Rep 222 at p 332:
It is sufficient for recklessness that a person should act regardless of the possible consequences of his acts. What Art 25 [of the Warsaw Convention] requires is that there should be knowledge of the probable consequences. Moreover, it is clearly established that knowledge in Art 25 is not imputed knowledge. It is not sufficient to show that, by reason of his training and experience, the pilot ought to have known that damage would probably result from his act or omission. The test is subjective… Actual knowledge is required.