Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[Jonzarno]

The 2 scenarios you outline are in no way symmetrical/ analogous.

In the first scenario, you are the boss. If you say that the flight is off, disappointment apart, there is no pressure on you not to exercise your judgement.

In the second case, the punters didn't pay you to cry off at the last minute. They're paying you good money, maybe in cash, for you to get them there and they don't take kindly to last minute hitches.

Actually they are. There is a direct comparison because in both cases there is a risk of “gethereitis” causing a bad decision, it’s just driven by different motivating factors.

In the one case a desire not to deprive a 95 year old veteran of what may be his last reunion with old comrades with whom he risked his life 70+ years ago, in the other pressure from a type alpha passenger whose attitude is: “I’ve paid and want to fly”. (FWIW, in my case the former would probably be the harder to resist, but I’d resist anyway! )

My ability or inability to make the right decision is the same in either case and depends only on my ADM skills, willingness to use those skills to make an objective decision and the determination to implement it.

Note: this is NOT a comparison between a pilot with a CPL and all its associated training vs a PPL/IR, it is the latter either being paid or not for the same flight and, again, I stress: this is in no way in support of grey charters which are illegal and should be stamped on.

And, by the way, even an ATPL doesn’t necessarily immunise a pilot against this kind of bad decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk_air_disaster

[Jonzarno]

Do I go to a qualified surgeon for a straightforward operation, or go with a failed medical student

Whilst I agree with this analogy: that’s not the comparison I made.

I simply said that, given a non-CPL licensed pilot, in the same aircraft, in both cases the risks are the same.

In other words: the appendectomy done by the (failed) medical student carries the same level of risk whether they are being paid for it or not.

Yet again, I stress: this is not in support of grey charters!

[alfaman]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

Whilst I agree with this analogy: that’s not the comparison I made.

I simply said that, given a non-CPL licensed pilot, in the same aircraft, in both cases the risks are the same.

In other words: the appendectomy done by the (failed) medical student carries the same level of risk whether they are being paid for it or not.

Yet again, I stress: this is not in support of grey charters!

I don't think the data supports your view: objectively, the measure of risk is surely the accident rate per number of flights: this is just one article, but it quotes Eurostat data on fatalities, still somewhat simplistic because it doesn't seem to take account of the difference in hours flown, but it's a start. I would hazard a guess that the number of commercial hours flown against private would swing the data even more in commercials favour. https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/flyi...an-commercial/

In the tragic case here, surely Sala would not have been in that aircraft in that piece of sky, if it were properly chartered & flown? There would be no need for it to be desperately trying to stay VMC fighting the weather, a commercial crew would plan to avoid such circumstances anyway?

[Jonzarno]

alfaman

Please read what I have now written in three separate posts.

FTAD (and please excuse my use of caps, no offence is intended! THEY ARE FOR EMPHASIS ONLY)

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A GREY CHARTER IS AS SAFE AS A PROPERLY CHARTERED AND FLOWN AIRCRAFT

ALL I am saying is that a flight undertaken by ANY pilot is neither safer nor less safe PURELY AS A RESULT of whether the pilot is being paid or not.

It is the same aircraft, whether safe or unsafe, the same pilot, whether competent or not, with the same NON-CPL (i.e. PPL or PPL/IR) qualification, flying in the same bit of sky, in good weather or bad, at the same time and subject to the same ADM considerations as discussed in my earlier post.

In the one case the pilot is being paid (illegally!) and in the other he / she is not. That is the only difference.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

ALL I am saying is that a flight undertaken by ANY pilot is neither safer nor less safe PURELY AS A RESULT of whether the pilot is being paid or not.

I think we understand your point, but don't believe it is quite correct. The decision whether to cancel a flight or not is quite different where you are just giving your mates a joy ride, and can say "weather not good enough, lets go and have a drink in the clubhouse and come back next weekend", compared to paying 'passengers' turning up and expecting to be taken - particularly if you need the money, and are concerned about the 'fixer' saying they won't use you again.

I do remember quite some years ago when BA ran helicopters in the North Sea, pilots aborting an approach to a platform where there was a parked second chopper at one end and the lit flare stack was blowing over the other end. The oil company platform manager wrote to BA ops saying they were obviously unreliable and they wouldn't renew the contract. This got up to the BA Chairman, who wrote to the oil company Chairman putting things straight, and all hell let loose at the oil company, with the platform manager back home in Houston quicker than you could turn around.

Can you imagine McKay accepting that from Henderson ?

[Jonzarno]

The decision whether to cancel a flight or not is quite different where you are just giving your mates a joy ride, and can say "weather not good enough, lets go and have a drink in the clubhouse and come back next weekend", compared to paying 'passengers' turning up and expecting to be taken

Each to his own I guess.

I have never flown any kind of commercial flight as a pilot, legal or otherwise, but have never once had a problem cancelling a flight for weather or technical reasons and have done so several times in very pressing circumstances.

I am also absolutely sure I would have no problem doing so if I was being paid.

[megan]

I've flown with ATPL's and PPL's, individuals in both have exhibited traits where I would be happy to fly with them any time, and others no way in the world if I could help it. For a commercial pilot the standard is set by the employer, it may be good, or it may be the absolute pits. There are no guarantees with what you're getting, other than by due diligence checking of who you wish to employ. Buyer beware.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

I am also absolutely sure I would have no problem doing so if I was being paid.

Always bearing in mind, of course, that as with much of aviation, if you don't do the flight, you don't get paid ...

[alfaman]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

alfaman

Please read what I have now written in three separate posts.

FTAD (and please excuse my use of caps, no offence is intended! THEY ARE FOR EMPHASIS ONLY)

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A GREY CHARTER IS AS SAFE AS A PROPERLY CHARTERED AND FLOWN AIRCRAFT

I did thanks, & no offence taken, but nowhere have I said your view is in support of grey charters. My point relates to the risks of private vs commercial. If I've understood you correctly, your point seems to be that the same circumstances with pilots of different qualification level would meet the same fate: but different qualification directly relates to whether paid or not, hence my reference to the data. Competence isn't being used here as a term to describe whether one is a fantastic flyer or not: it means the individual has had their professional skills assessed as meeting or exceeding a set standard.

ALL I am saying is that a flight undertaken by ANY pilot is neither safer nor less safe PURELY AS A RESULT of whether the pilot is being paid or not.

It is the same aircraft, whether safe or unsafe, the same pilot, whether competent or not, with the same NON-CPL (i.e. PPL or PPL/IR) qualification, flying in the same bit of sky, in good weather or bad, at the same time and subject to the same ADM considerations as discussed in my earlier post.

In the one case the pilot is being paid (illegally!) and in the other he / she is not. That is the only difference.

My point is that a) that ain't necessarily the case, because b) the qualification may well mean the aircraft should never be in that same circumstance, because c) the qualified pilot should know better than to ever put it there - by dint of the skills demonstrated by their qualifications. Even if by some quirk of fate, they do find themselves in that same piece of sky, & fate decides to be a b!tch, then the qualified pilot has been trained & assessed to be able to handle that situation effectively, & successfully. That's not to say a PPL/PPL/IR wouldn't have a successful outcome, just that the odds are significantly less, & perhaps rely more on luck than judgement - that is the difference.

[Bergerie1]

In a former life, when I was a chief pilot in an airline, I always emphasised to newly promoted captains that they were 'long stop', and that one of their more difficult decisions would be when they needed to say, 'No'. I emphasised that if they did so, and even if they were wrong, I would always back them up. One of the strengths of a properly run AOC operation is for captains to know they would have the backing of the company when making these difficult decisions.

[Hipper]

Originally Posted by WHBM

This is called "going for the low hanging fruit". A common sign of a poor administration.

Can someone link to an AAIB report for this.

Edit - wrong report!

Now we are getting somewhere!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/u...plane-20468815

https://assets.publishing.service.go...BAKH_06-19.pdf

[Jonzarno]

alfaman

the same circumstances with pilots of different qualification level would meet the same fate

No: not different qualification levels.

What I have been saying is that THE SAME PILOT would probably have the same result whether being paid or not. I acknowledge fully that a CPL is a higher qualification and that a properly conducted genuine charter is safer that a grey charter.

[parkfell]

Following on from Hipper, you might wish to google COMED AVIATION LTD where one Robert George Murgatroyd operated an airline that ceased trading in 2003.

[parkfell]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

Whilst I agree with this analogy: that’s not the comparison I made.

I simply said that, given a non-CPL licensed pilot, in the same aircraft, in both cases the risks are the same.

In other words: the appendectomy done by the (failed) medical student carries the same level of risk whether they are being paid for it or not.

Yet again, I stress: this is not in support of grey charters!

It is unlikely that a professional pilot on a charter would use a single engined piston aircraft across water at night. Even if the pilot was qualified in all respects, would the AOC permit a flight across the English Channel?
That is what would separate a professional operation from a cowboy operation.

Had CO poisoning not occurred, and the AP remained serviceable, I would suggest that Sala would have arrived at Cardiff.

[alfaman]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

alfaman



No: not different qualification levels.

What I have been saying is that THE SAME PILOT would probably have the same result whether being paid or not. I acknowledge fully that a CPL is a higher qualification and that a properly conducted genuine charter is safer that a grey charter.

Ok, so I admit I'm confused: I can't see how that circumstance can arise? How would a CPL find him/herself in that position in the first place?

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

alfaman



No: not different qualification levels.

What I have been saying is that THE SAME PILOT would probably have the same result whether being paid or not. I acknowledge fully that a CPL is a higher qualification and that a properly conducted genuine charter is safer that a grey charter.

If the same pilot in this instance wasn’t being paid, would he have have attempted the flight at all?

[Jonzarno]

Originally Posted by alfaman

Ok, so I admit I'm confused: I can't see how that circumstance can arise? How would a CPL find him/herself in that position in the first place?

OK: one last try.

A PPL/IR Pilot WITHOUT a commercial licence (CPL) flies a friend from Nantes to Cardiff in a SEP. He is not paid anything. Although the flight carries a level of risk associated with flying in a SEP over water, this flight is perfectly legal.

A few days later, the same pilot, in the same aircraft, flies a different passenger on the same route in identical weather conditions but this time he is operating a grey charter and charges his passenger £500 for the flight. This flight is illegal because the pilot is not allowed to charge for it.

Although it is clearly illegal: why is the second flight inherently more dangerous than the first?

[Jonzarno]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

If the same pilot in this instance wasn’t being paid, would he have have attempted the flight at all?

Who knows? Getthereitis is a disease that can strike for all sorts of reasons and money can be one of them for sure, but is far from being the only one. There are plenty of pilots in the cemeteries who have taken on flights they shouldn’t have for all sorts of reasons.

[alfaman]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

OK: one last try.

A PPL/IR Pilot WITHOUT a commercial licence (CPL) flies a friend from Nantes to Cardiff in a SEP. He is not paid anything. Although the flight carries a level of risk associated with flying in a SEP over water, this flight is perfectly legal.

A few days later, the same pilot, in the same aircraft, flies a different passenger on the same route in identical weather conditions but this time he is operating a grey charter and charges his passenger £500 for the flight. This flight is illegal because the pilot is not allowed to charge for it.

Although it is clearly illegal: why is the second flight inherently more dangerous than the first?

Ah, OK now I think I'm with you: in that instance, I agree, it probably isn't dangerous for those two flights in isolation. But perhaps if we remove the IR element, both might be considered foolhardy? The AAIB report states - 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.

I suspect the answer lies in the perception of rule adherence/rule breaking. If your pilot is prepared to break the rules to make some cash, what other rules is he also prepared to break? Landing below limits? Controlled airspace boundaries? Weather limits? We've stepped beyond ignorance of the law, into knowingly breaking it - from there, it's a slippery slope. So, yes, perhaps those flights will be conducted effectively & without incident, but at some point in the future, all those cheese holes will line up.

In the sad example which generated this thread, the final flight was the culmination of a series of transgressions, accumulating like flotsam on a beach: sure, no doubt previous flights were flown without incident (although there's evidence not totally without), but at any point, the pilot may have been presented with a situation that his skills & experience couldn't handle: tragically for Mr Sala, that flight was the one he was on.

[Maoraigh1]

"A PPL/IR Pilot WITHOUT a commercial licence (CPL) flies a friend from Nantes to Cardiff in a SEP. He is not paid anything. Although the flight carries a level of risk"
Would that pilot do so in the weather forecast for this flight, in an aircraft he was unfamiliar with?
Would the friend, knowing him, accept without questions?
Sala was NOT a friend of any of the people involved. He was a trusting innocent, betrayed by the system he trusted