Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[SWBKCB]

I qualify as I'm a member of the public and whilst I've learnt a lot as a result of reading on this case I still fail to see how only having a private licence makes someone an incompetent pilot. Likewise the fact that the pilot's qualification for flying this plane expired a few months before the flight.

So if Mr Ibbotson had come and explained to you the true nature of the flight, would you have got on and flown with?

[alfaman]

Originally Posted by Hipper

I qualify as I'm a member of the public and whilst I've learnt a lot as a result of reading on this case I still fail to see how only having a private licence makes someone an incompetent pilot. Likewise the fact that the pilot's qualification for flying this plane expired a few months before the flight.

Similarly it seems that despite flying at night and a threat of cloudy/wet conditions it seems possible for a VFR pilot with an instrument rating to attempt this flight. I know the AIAB report rightly criticises the pilot for this but I presume the pilot's decision to fly is controversial rather then just plain wrong. A matter of judgement, not law.

Perhaps the legal definition of competence may help, rather than the common usage? "The power of a person, business, court or government to deal with something or take legal decisions" - a commercial pilot is vested with certain obligations, & trained & assessed to undertake certain flight services, which the private pilot isn't. As such, he/she is authorised to charge for those services, whereas a private pilot is not, because he/she hasn't undertaken that training & assessment process. It's not as simple as how one handles the aircraft. Similarly, the aircraft probably crashed due to the faults within it; but, it shouldn't have been in that position. A competent pilot would not have placed it there: competent because their professional skills & qualifications would not have allowed it, rather than their ability to control it in flight under those circumstances.

[Eutychus]

Similarities to Alec Baldwin

I took a close interest in this thread at the time of the event, not least because I'd taken two similar flights to and from the CI not long beforehand and was with tangentially related parties when news of it broke.

It occurs to me that this debate is quite similar to the one surrounding Alec Baldwin's fatal shooting of the director of photography on a film set. How one sees the event, and the appraisals of the related risks and responsibilities, is very different depending on how familiar one is with the situation and the related skills and regulations.

The Sala tragedy made me realise how ineffective my risk assessment of such a situation as SLF was, and how dangerous (with hindsight) one of the flights I took was. I don't think it would necessarily stop me taking one again, though - but I would like a much clearer picture of my insurance cover before I did.

[anothertyke]

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.

But what are the implications for public policy?

Is this a rogue event in the sense of being a real one off? Or is it the tip of an iceberg?

And if the latter, how does the regulator enforce the requirements around hire or reward? Even the definition of 'an operator' seems to have been challenged in this case.

[jumpseater]

Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins

We posted simultaneously. This demonstrates total ignorance of aviation and I suspect that most members of the public will know no different

It doesn’t. It shows a defence lawyer at work.
The defence is being paid to minimise/refute the impact of the prosecution case for their clients, so if making light and underplaying the requirements of qualifications, experience and ‘commercial regulation’ gets their client off the hook, they’ve done their job.
No different to the lawyer whom is often associated with successfully defending for celeb driving offences

[jumpseater]

Originally Posted by anothertyke

But what are the implications for public policy?

Is this a rogue event in the sense of being a real one off? Or is it the tip of an iceberg?

And if the latter, how does the regulator enforce the requirements around hire or reward? Even the definition of 'an operator' seems to have been challenged in this case.

Public policy, not a lot I think(see enforcement below). It will likely make organisations who arrange transportation of high net worth celebs and similar, look more closely at who is actually working for them and how and what insurance is in place. I suspect insurance claims can now follow and that won’t be good news for any sole traders involved in the Sala trail.

Its almost certainly the tip of an Iceberg. I imagine when sentencing the number of previous flights uncovered in the investigation may be taken into account, ie just how often various laws were known to have been broken.
Enforcement, the structure is almost certainly there, ramp checks for example, whether the manpower/time resources are though…

The defence expectedly challenged ‘operator’, if the late PIC could be defined as the operator, rather than the facilitator who actually put the whole flight in place, they (defence) could walk away saying ‘not our problem, the pilot done it’

[airsound]

Jumpseater is right when he says:

It doesn’t. It shows a defence lawyer at work.

Here is what Stephen Spence's chambers, Drystone, says about him:

Stephen is recognised for his specialist aviation practice. An RAF trained pilot with flying experience ranging from gliders to fast jets and rotary he has an enviable reputation for defending aviation related prosecutions. These have ranged from regulatory issues to allegations of gross negligence manslaughter. His clients have included aircraft engineers, pilots (private and commercial), aviation businesses and international airlines.

He was part of the team that successfully defended Andy Hill at the Old Bailey. Hill was acquitted unanimously of manslaughter by gross negligence over the Shoreham Hunter crash.

As far as I know, despite the BBC report, Stephen Spence is not a QC. But, having seen him at work in the Hill case, I can vouch for his aviation knowledge and his abilities in court.

airsound

[Yellow Sun]

Originally Posted by jumpseater

It doesn’t. It shows a defence lawyer at work.
The defence is being paid to minimise/refute the impact of the prosecution case for their clients, so if making light and underplaying the requirements of qualifications, experience and ‘commercial regulation’ gets their client off the hook, they’ve done their job.
No different to the lawyer whom is often associated with successfully defending for celeb driving offences

Well said, the defence case was littered with selective and partial statements and the tactics of playing upon the likely preconceptions of a lay jury. The reference to Henderson having been an RAF officer, whilst true begged a multitude of questions. Whilst it was true that he had completed Initial Officer Training (IOT) and was thus commissioned, in his remaining time in the service he could not have proceeded much further than initial navigator training before he voluntarily withdrew or was withdrawn from training and may or may not have been offered continuation of service in another branch. We shall never know.

In a similar vein, Ibbotson's 3,500 recorded hours of flying were offered as evidence of his competence. Unfortunately the public at large readily accept the gross figure as a true indication of acquired ability. Those of us who have flown for a living know nothing could be further from the truth! The fact that the flying time had been gained over a period of nearly 30 years would not occur to most if any of the jury. A quick sum tells me that I have on occaision flown nearly as much in a month as Ibbotson's annual average. It gives it a little perspective that defence counsel might rather wish to avoid.

The comments about professional licences were so partial as to be almost an attempt to mislead. All a professional licence does is allow you to seek employment as a pilot, it is a pre-requisite and doesn't make you anything special; counsel was correct in that respect! If you spend any time in aviation you will run across those individuals who struggle to get that first job; even in times of shortage; and may never achieve it. You usually have a pretty shrewd idea why.

As has been said above, there's a lot more to flying for hire or reward than the stick and rudder bit. It's about consistency and maintaining competence and performance over an extended period within a complex and sometimes unpredictable environment. Proper training for licence is the ticket to an organisation that will start you on the road to properly understanding the job, mentoring and development throughout the whole of your career.

YS

[NutLoose]

Sala fatal crash flight organiser found guilty

Sentencing to follow, see link, it makes some sobering reading.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59062626

[calypso]

However Stephen Spence QC, defending, had said his client's actions were "purely a paperwork issue" and had not led to a likelihood of danger....

Mr Spence told the court the only difference between a commercial licence and the private licence held by Mr Ibbotson was whether you could carry passengers for money or not, rather than ability

Just as demonstrated by what actually happened on the day...

[Mike Flynn]

For those who have not seen it this BBC interview with David Henderson and the ill fated Malibu in 2015 is worth viewing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-34492176

[Katamarino]

Well, my first post was deleted by the mods, possibly because I posted the rather rude PM that Mr Spence sent me. So, I'll try again!

As reported by Wales Online:
Spence stated "David Ibbotson didn’t have a commercial licence. It meant he couldn’t get paid to fly but it doesn’t affect his ability to fly, his experience or competence."

I'd say that it absolutely does affect his competence, given that a commercial pilot is required to demonstrate objectively higher levels of aviation knowledge and flying ability in order to obtain the licence. He never did that. In my opinion and based on the reporting from Wales Online, trying to pretend otherwise either demonstrates a lack of knowledge (unlikely) or a pretty tacky way to give the jury the wrong impression of how these licenses work, semantics notwithstanding.

We'll see if he accuses me of libel again. Given that he's a member here he's free to respond directly if he thinks my impression is incorrect, and explain in more detail how a private pilot and a commercial pilot apparently have to demonstrate the same levels of knowledge and ability.

[jumpseater]

Originally Posted by Katamarino

Well, my first post was deleted by the mods, possibly because I posted the rather rude PM that Mr Spence sent me. So, I'll try again!

.

More likely because your initial post was,( in my unprofessional opinion), libelous. As was the other one removed.

It’s important to realise the reports are only snap shots of the whole trial, so you don’t have the full context of how each argument for/against is presented. I think WalesonLine did a pretty good job of the ‘headline’ elements, and having worked with the hire and reward sector of GA, wasn’t surprised by the outcome, of either the flight, and the trial.

[pilotmike]

I would concur with anyone disputing that a Commercial Pilot's Licence simply allows the holder to be paid for their flying, and that it has no bearing on their ability to fly safely, especially under adverse conditions.

Training for - and passing the tests - for gaining a Commercial licence give the far greater knowledge and skills to Commercial pilots, allowing them to make better, safer judgements, especially under commercial pressures. All Commercial pilots are tested thoroughly for their theoretical knowledge and their flying ability, as well as judgement to a greater degree than a mere Private pilot's licence. Even the Class 1 medical is a far higher hurdle to pass than the lesser requirements of a Private pilot. Many perfectly able Private pilots are weeded out at the Class 1 medical as being unfit for Commercial flying.

Otherwise, what would be the point of requiring Commercial pilots to undertake an enhanced medical, as well as a long and arduous course of study, as well as an in-depth course of flying training in order to demonstrate the flying skills required to a considerably greater level than that required for the PPL? The theory course and written exams, as well as the flying course and test(s) cost at least £20,000 and 8 months of dedication and hard work. Many prospective Commercial pilots invest far more time and money than that. Gaining a Commercial Pilots Licence is sufficiently difficult that many never achieve it, despite putting their heart and soul into it. It is NOT an easily gained qualification, for the avoidance of doubt.

If it were merely a paperwork exercise, as has been reported, wouldn't it be far simpler all round for anyone wishing to be paid for their flying simply to stump up say £20,000 to buy a shiny new Commercial licence, then operate with impunity and without the greater knowledge and skills required for the Commercial environment?

Wouldn't that be simpler? For sure! As safe? Definitely not! Anyone suggesting it is merely a paperwork issue would either be ignorant of the facts or misrepresenting them. It is interesting that the jury in the recent Henderson case apparently aligned with these sentiments and found the defendant guilty, despite suggestions that inadequate licencing and qualifications weren't relevant.

To put the above into context, when I flew aeroplanes and helicopters as a Private pilot, I believed I was a good pilot, about as safe, knowledgeable and experienced as could be, able to undertake almost any flight completely safely - coincidentally with similar hours to David Ibbotson's reported hours. Then I underwent the ATPL training, comprised of studying for 15 difficult written exams, flying training, flight exams etc, and blowing £40+k in the process. If it gave me just one thing, it was the knowledge that I didn't know it all. It taught me that there were vast areas of potential risk that I was previously either unaware of - or more likely in denial: that I needed to be more careful than I had ever realised or admitted before, factors that needed more careful consideration than I had ever before believed possible. Mercifully I learned that I had SO much more to learn about inclement weather, commercial pressures, Aviation Law, and taking tough decisions when I had doubts about the aircraft's serviceability, that the ATPL training has thankfully kept me safe to this day. "There but by the grace of God".

To that extent, I find myself fully supporting Katamarino's sentiments on the true value of Commercial Pilot's Licence. It demonstrates a level of knowledge, ability, experience and competence that merely holding a Private Pilot's Licence does not. It is more than a paperwork issue.

[Hipper]

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.

[wiggy]

Very much in agreement with pilotmike..

To paraphrase a wise (Military) Chief Flying Instructor welcoming a group of us about to the start climbing of the next rung of the ladder towards being a truly operational pilot….

“You each have about 200 hours in your logbooks, so we know you have the stick and rudder skills needed to fly an aircraft around the circuit or navigate safely across country …what this course is about is finding out whether you can operate an aircraft or not”

Same applies in the civilian commercial world….it’s not just stick back, houses get smaller etc, it’s about being able to operate safely and sometimes having the wisdom and the training to recognize when not to operate despite commercial/external pressures.

[jumpseater]

Originally Posted by Hipper

. However the attitude of the Guernsey ATC in allowing Ibbotson to manoeuvre the aircraft to regain VMC seems to read as 'business as usual'. P.

Guernsey ATC did nothing wrong.

The flight was filed under visual (VFR)rules, so flying ‘looking out the window’. It’s entirely normal to offer alternative routes and heights for weather (and traffic) avoidance. So yes, business as usual for this flight, and any other making similar flight.

The report stated the manoeuvre was to maintain VFR not regain it. That indicates he was still flying with references to good ground contact or a defined horizon.If he then flew into cloud or a shower that reduces visibility, disorientation can occur fast enough to lose control regardless of any CO problem that may have degraded the pilots faculties.

edit auto correct

[ShyTorque]

Hipper, I doubt that the operation had insurance in place for commercial flights, bearing in mind the big picture.

jumpseater,

The report stated the manoeuvre was to maintain VFR not regain it. That indicates he was still flying with references to good drowns contact or a defined horizon.If he then flew into cloud or a shower that reduces visibility, disorientation can occur fast enough to lose control regardless of any CO problem that may have degraded the pilots faculties.

I presume you mean “ground contact” rather than the unfortunate typo of “drowns contact”, but a properly instrument trained and experienced pilot with sufficient recency would be far less likely to allow himself to become disoriented just by flying into reduced visibility. Or a large percentage of scheduled airline flights would be flown with a similar risk!

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by alfaman

A touch off topic, & not directed at you, Wiggy, or Pilotmike, but I wince a bit at the "just stick back, houses get smaller..." nonchalance with which professional flying, or indeed any complex skill set, is sometimes described by those within it. I appreciate the mindset behind it is well intended, but it really undersells how much effort goes in to attaining & maintaining those skills. It only seems easy to the speaker because they've attained that level of competence: pretending it's easy to those who don't have that experience, perhaps so as not to appear too far up ones own rear end, undermines the profession, for me. I speak as one who's guilty of doing exactly that...until a more worldly wise colleague pointed out the downside.

You’re not wrong…comments along the lines of “nothing to it really”, an expression much beloved by some senior captains in the days of flight deck visits by passengers, did us no favours at all….

[jumpseater]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

Hipper, I doubt that the operation had insurance in place for commercial flights, bearing in mind the big picture.

jumpseater,

I presume you mean “ground contact” rather than the unfortunate typo of “drowns contact”, but a properly instrument trained and experienced pilot with sufficient recency would be far less likely to allow himself to become disoriented just by flying into reduced visibility. Or a large percentage of scheduled airline flights would be flown with a similar risk!

Absolutely in agreement. Original post typo corrected