Originally Posted by
happybiker
You are missing the point somewhat. International and UK regulations require an operator to obtain an Air Operators Certificate (AOC) to be able to commercially operate an aircraft where payment is to be made for carriage of passengers or freight. This is to ensure that operations can be carried out safely in accordance with prescribed standards. The AOC requires a documented system approved by the safety regulator which would cover all aspects of the operation including the airworthiness of the aircraft, qualifications of the pilots and also the competence of the pilots to carry out flights in accordance with standards prescribed in the AOC. This operator did not have an AOC therefore the standards of the operation were not known and as demonstrated by this tragic accident were far below what was necessary to effect a safe operation. As previously said in this thread, this was a rogue operation to avoid the expense that would be required to establish a fully approved AOC.
It is not a matter of judgement. The pilot did breach UK law as prescribed in the Air Navigation Order. 1. Flight at night without the prescribed rating. 2. Carrying out a commercial flight without an Air Operators Certificate.
I do understand that an AOC requires higher documentation and also that a CPL requires more training and expertise then a PPL. Yet, the grey charter system seems to operate without excessive major tragedies. I don't know how the accident rate compares.
I agree that the pilot breached UK law but he wasn't on trial here. The operator, Henderson was, and earlier admitted breaching the law in relation to certificates etc.. This case just finished is asking about the risks the operator took and the judge asks if '
he failed to show such care or skill that a person in that situation should exercise', then the defendant should be found guilty'.
My thinking on this was that, as far as I'm aware, Henderson had employed Ibbotson, and other pilots, without any incidents (except the couple of what I understand to be minor infringements brought up in court) and therefore it seems reasonable for him to think the accident flight would be no different. He presumably had faith in Ibbotson's judgement regarding the weather which from what I read in the AIAB report, was questionable. However the attitude of the Guernsey ATC in allowing Ibbotson to manoeuvre the aircraft to regain VMC seems to read as 'business as usual'. Perhaps I'm wrong on this.
As I wrote earlier the cause of the crash seems to be CO poisoning and it may well be that, but for that, the flight would have been completed. The AIAB says that one of the contributory factors was that 'A loss of control was made more likely because the flight was not conducted in accordance with safety standards applicable to commercial operations. This manifested itself in the flight being operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) at night in poor weather conditions despite the pilot having no training in night flying and a lack of recent practice in instrument flying'.
In the end, as the CAA said, aviation works on the integrity of it's operators. For us public then, as others have mentioned, we can only question that integrity although how practical is that - maintenance records, various certificates, insurance..... Perhaps insurance can be a force for change.