Originally Posted by
cncpc
It isn't possible to be high enough to glide to land if the engine calves for the entire segment between Guernsey and the on track shore crossing point. I may be missing your point, but two things. We know he wasn't "planning" to fly at MSA because he filed for higher. That aside, what is wrong with crossing the channel at MSA when IFR, or 100 feet when VFR? It's 75 miles from Guernsey to the far shoreline. He couldn't maintain 5000 and had to request lower to 2000, so the only glide to shore places were at best max 10 northwest of Guernsey, and no more than 10 short of the intended shore crossing point. I have flown a bit from Biggin Hill VFR to the Channel Islands, and sometimes that was at 1000 due to weather. Mind you, it was in a 310.
The assumption is they are down near Guernsey, and that is a good assumption. The truth may be they are five miles from Cardiff or really anywhere between Guernsey and Cardiff, including in the Bristol Channel. Sure, 80% in the search area, but in all of these circumstances, buck shee chisel chartering, the questionable legality of the flight if an emergency had been declared and questions asked, it is possible that this was a guy ducking down to get home, but IFR and unable to ask for lower than the MSA.
It doesn't seem that the pilot was fully at the races with IFR.
Sorry, I missed this reply CNCPC.
I perhaps should have been a little more eloquent in explaining that.
When I said "plan", I was meaning that at the point where he requested descent, surely he did not think that it was a good idea to continue on across the channel at 2300' in the current conditions.
You state that its perfectly fine to cross the channel at MSA, or at minimum VFR altitudes.
I'm sorry, but no. I have flown both piston and turbine singles in some of the most inhospitable places on earth and there is no way that this flight profile fits any form of flight safety given the conditions. You cannot compare flying a C310 at 1000' in what I am assuming was day VFR in good conditions to what transpired on this flight.
As a pilot carrying passengers, whether it be private or commercial, you have a duty of care for your passengers. Part of this, is always leaving yourself an out. Especially in a single engine aircraft.
The conditions that night made that flight profile beyond acceptable, the end result of which we have tragically witnessed.
The fact that he has requested descent and not a diversion to a nearby field is suggestive that he did not appreciate the danger that he was in at that point.
Looking at the situation that night, the pilot allowed the flight to continue into a situation where he had no alternatives.
I fear that he has been placed into a situation that he is not used to, and as murphy's law would have it, it was the worst possible night for it to happen. This pilot had just enough experience, and therefore confidence in his abilities, to get himself deeply into trouble.
Purely speculation here....
But the absence of Mode S may have made him think that higher altitudes were not available to him.
Commercial pressures that he has no experience with may have made him depart into unfavourable weather.
Night IMC and being unfamiliar in icing conditions may have lead him to push further into icing before realising that he had ice building up on the aircraft.
A fairly unfamiliar aircraft flying in conditions that he has most likely not experienced recently.
A somewhat cavalier approach to flying (As noted in his Facebook post) may have led to less than adequate preparation. Particularly in regards to weather.
There is also some change of some sort happening as per the text message exchange on the day of the flight. It was important enough to warrant a phone call. The reassuring text of "It is the same company" means (to me) either an aircraft change, or a pilot change. This may indicate why there is some confusion to the name of the pilot on the flight plan.
Has anyone confirmed that the Malibu was the actual aircraft that he flew to Nantes on? He requested leaving Cardiff at 1100 and the N264DB aircraft didn't leave until 1215 and was not direct as earlier inferred.
Whether this is an illegal commercial flight, or a private flight, is completely irrelevant in the cause of the crash. That is purely up to the lawyers and the validity of insurance cover. It will most likely come out that this was a legitimate private charter. I can only hope that this has put enough of a spotlight onto this type of charter and makes some passengers think twice before getting onto one.
I think that the assumption that they are anywhere but the channel islands is far fetched to say the least. Given that the UK is one of the worlds leading military super powers, I would be highly concerned if they couldn't pick up a malibu sized aircraft crossing the English channel at 2300', let alone it managing to fly all the way to Wales.