Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: May 2005
Location: WILTSHIRE
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the 80's I used to fly light twins on an AOC , the customers were often people of high net worth , cricketers, some pop stars, CEOs etc. 90% was single crew ( there being no legal requirement for two crew - just a request from the the individual company due the HNW of the individual pax).
I can think of at least 10 " friends" who were keen to take my business ( customers) in their rented N registered ( sometimes G reg) aircraft because they could offer what they perceived to be the same service but cheaper ( with no AOC). I often had some heated discussions with them arguing the loophole which they believed exonerated them.
None of them are now pilots.
They were probably correct in some of their views and arguments - who is going to stop them in an N reg aircraft and ask to check their licence and qualification - hardly an FAA rep flying over for the sole purpose ... ( admittedly there was the chance of a ramp check in Europe , but they considered it a risk worth taking - probably a small fine for not having their licence with them ( if they had one).
I am not sure how much has changed - I suspect very little.
This accident has brought this illegal flying to the forefront - will anything change ? - Probably not - there is no oversight
I can think of at least 10 " friends" who were keen to take my business ( customers) in their rented N registered ( sometimes G reg) aircraft because they could offer what they perceived to be the same service but cheaper ( with no AOC). I often had some heated discussions with them arguing the loophole which they believed exonerated them.
None of them are now pilots.
They were probably correct in some of their views and arguments - who is going to stop them in an N reg aircraft and ask to check their licence and qualification - hardly an FAA rep flying over for the sole purpose ... ( admittedly there was the chance of a ramp check in Europe , but they considered it a risk worth taking - probably a small fine for not having their licence with them ( if they had one).
I am not sure how much has changed - I suspect very little.
This accident has brought this illegal flying to the forefront - will anything change ? - Probably not - there is no oversight
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know there are many here who believe a flight of this nature should never have taken place in a piston single at night.
That said, the aircraft type was designed for this type of mission when flown IFR by a suitably qualified and licenced pilot.
If this flight had been planned using this aircraft, but IFR using the airways at a sensible flight level, it would almost certainly have ended uneventfully.
How difficult would it have been in practice to have found a suitably qualified CPL/IR to captain this flight?
That said, the aircraft type was designed for this type of mission when flown IFR by a suitably qualified and licenced pilot.
If this flight had been planned using this aircraft, but IFR using the airways at a sensible flight level, it would almost certainly have ended uneventfully.
How difficult would it have been in practice to have found a suitably qualified CPL/IR to captain this flight?
Genuine question about airman/woman decision making, not focused exclusively on this tragic accident.
Last edited by piperboy84; 27th Jan 2019 at 10:41.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: WILTSHIRE
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would he know what the tops were if the flight was planned for 5k and under CAS and which I assume was not intended to be flown on a clearance? He appears to have choosen to descend either to find for warmer air or to get out of visible moisture in order to avoid iceing or reduce a build up in progress. Why would climbing to airway flight levels if indeed that was even possible if he already was experiencing icing been any better of a choice than descending if the tops were unknown to him?
Genuine question about airman/woman decision making, not focused exclusively on this tragic accident.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: scotland
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would he know what the tops were if the flight was planned for 5k and under CAS and which I assume was not intended to be flown on a clearance? He appears to have choosen to descend either to find for warmer air or to get out of visible moisture in order to avoid iceing or reduce a build up in progress. Why would climbing to airway flight levels if indeed that was even possible if he already was experiencing icing been any better of a choice than descending if the tops were unknown to him?
Genuine question about airman/woman decision making, not focused exclusively on this tragic accident.
Last edited by ericsson16; 27th Jan 2019 at 12:42.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Madrid
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expect Wingly is legal but jumping into a light aircraft with someone I don't know and whose qualifications/experience I know nothing of isn't something I make a habit of. The closest I have come is a club flyout where I'm thinking at least this guy/gal is a club member and therefore a relatively 'known' quantity. I did once run through the 'what if I have to take control here' scenario in my mind though.
piperboy84 A quick Gramet check before departure would have given him some ideas, but without a PIREP it would remain the computer's best guess.
Total speculation, but it could be he was slow in noticing ice accretion (at night with AP engaged he'd have fewer visual clues and not feel anything untoward), and couldn't get down quickly enough to warmer climes. Not much fun, but if he'd been able to maintain 1500' over the water any ice would melt and there are no mountains to hit... Not discussing the legalities, just the practicalities.
Total speculation, but it could be he was slow in noticing ice accretion (at night with AP engaged he'd have fewer visual clues and not feel anything untoward), and couldn't get down quickly enough to warmer climes. Not much fun, but if he'd been able to maintain 1500' over the water any ice would melt and there are no mountains to hit... Not discussing the legalities, just the practicalities.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are wrong. This elephant, or as somebody said nicely better some posts ago: mammoth for its age of knowledge, is being targeted by task forces now. There is an agreement between FAA and EASA to ramp checks on N-reg by the usual EASA personnel. My bet we widely will see checks on N-reg this year, already and unrelated to this accident.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Formality , Crash investigation.
I have followed this accident with some interest and have a few questions to pilots here with proper knowledge of GA.
1 Who is conducting the Investigation ( UK or France)?
2 Will NTSB be involved as it was a N- registered AC?
3 What is the likely reaction from FAA, if any?
4 In the case of it being a UK matter , what is the likely CAA reaction or recommendation?
5 What would be France involvement and possible action?
6 What is the chance of the responsible people being taken to criminal court?
For those of You who are not familiar with me and my postings, here is a heads up!
I say it as I see it, and I have been in the industry for 30 years.
I resent that there is private pilots in Europe doing professional work like this!
It is dangerous, as proven here, and takes work away from young commercial pilots.
I particularly hate seeing innocent people die due to other peoples greed and incompetence!!
I am familiar with aircraft investigation ,and have been involved I all levels of Instructing.
I have experience with instructing in Canada, Norway, Europe and under the FAA system.
So, It intrigues me that this kind of stuff is allowed to go on.
I do believe that this would not be tolerated in the US by the FAA ,and in Canada by the MOT, correct me if I am wrong. It has been some time since I was in Canada.
The fact that UK CAA lets this go on does not surprise me one bit, as my experience and observation of them can be summed up in one word: Disappointing!
The Regulations and Legal limits here are obviously complicated, this is why I ask some rather basic questions.
The operational limits are in hindsight broken on just about every level, I would think.
I hope this high profile accident can end with the UK CAA and EASA getting the boots on the ground and finally do the Duty assigned them!
Regards
Cpt B
1 Who is conducting the Investigation ( UK or France)?
2 Will NTSB be involved as it was a N- registered AC?
3 What is the likely reaction from FAA, if any?
4 In the case of it being a UK matter , what is the likely CAA reaction or recommendation?
5 What would be France involvement and possible action?
6 What is the chance of the responsible people being taken to criminal court?
For those of You who are not familiar with me and my postings, here is a heads up!
I say it as I see it, and I have been in the industry for 30 years.
I resent that there is private pilots in Europe doing professional work like this!
It is dangerous, as proven here, and takes work away from young commercial pilots.
I particularly hate seeing innocent people die due to other peoples greed and incompetence!!
I am familiar with aircraft investigation ,and have been involved I all levels of Instructing.
I have experience with instructing in Canada, Norway, Europe and under the FAA system.
So, It intrigues me that this kind of stuff is allowed to go on.
I do believe that this would not be tolerated in the US by the FAA ,and in Canada by the MOT, correct me if I am wrong. It has been some time since I was in Canada.
The fact that UK CAA lets this go on does not surprise me one bit, as my experience and observation of them can be summed up in one word: Disappointing!
The Regulations and Legal limits here are obviously complicated, this is why I ask some rather basic questions.
The operational limits are in hindsight broken on just about every level, I would think.
I hope this high profile accident can end with the UK CAA and EASA getting the boots on the ground and finally do the Duty assigned them!
Regards
Cpt B
I know there are many here who believe a flight of this nature should never have taken place in a piston single at night.
That said, the aircraft type was designed for this type of mission when flown IFR by a suitably qualified and licenced pilot.
If this flight had been planned using this aircraft, but IFR using the airways at a sensible flight level, it would almost certainly have ended uneventfully.
How difficult would it have been in practice to have found a suitably qualified CPL/IR to captain this flight?
That said, the aircraft type was designed for this type of mission when flown IFR by a suitably qualified and licenced pilot.
If this flight had been planned using this aircraft, but IFR using the airways at a sensible flight level, it would almost certainly have ended uneventfully.
How difficult would it have been in practice to have found a suitably qualified CPL/IR to captain this flight?
The way this played out had everything to do with how it was set up. A charter (commercially-operated) flight is NOT the same as a privately-operated flight, just with a better qualified pilot. There are takeoff requirements, destination weather requirements, etc. Let's say icing was reported. In a non-FIKI aircraft, you can't then fly. All sorts of stuff.
As I said earlier, there's a reason why there's more training involved. And it's ultimately to protect passengers.
What baffles me is that people (agents) handle their product so carelessly. If I had a £15,000,000 asset, I don't care if it was £15,000,000 worth of horse dung, I would make sure it was cared for properly. And that does not involve putting it on a plane with an unqualified crew.
I guess I'd make a pretty good agent. And what do these agents give a crap for what the flight costs anyway? These clients have money. Are they friggin' pocketing the difference or what? The whole thing makes so little sense.
BluSdUp,
The answers to some of your questions are covered by a recent UK AAIB statement:-
See link:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...ircraft-n264db
The answers to some of your questions are covered by a recent UK AAIB statement:-
In accordance with international protocols, the AAIB is investigating the loss of the aircraft. Since Tuesday morning, we have been working closely with international authorities including the US National Transportation Safety Board, the Bureau d’Enquêtes & d’Analyses (BEA) in France and the Junta de Investigación de Accidentes de Aviación Civil (JIACC) in Argentina.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...ircraft-n264db
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The straight line distance is 264nm ( broken down into 89nm before coasting out.....then a potential 131nm across the water to the UK Coastline & then a further 43nm to Cardiff ) on the 131nm sector after 54nm Guernsey would have been under them on a straightline course, but I think we have all realised that the routing on the Flightplan would have included IFR waypoints like BRILL ( which would explain it being near Casquets in some reports ).
I am at a loss where Malabo got his 200nm figure from? It is still conjecture that the route would have been a straight line so the 264nm could quite easily be a 300+nm journey, at this time nobody knows ( well, Cardiff ATC & Nantes ATC will have the Flightplans filed & will know exactly what route was filed )
I think now it is assumed that Sala was collected from Nantes to fly to Cardiff on the 18th by N531EA Eclipse & then as he wanted to return on the 19th the Malibu N264DB was organised to do the 'jolly' to say " Goodbye " to his ex team mates etc.
Supposition would be that having had the Eclipse Jet on the 18th Sala was probably expecting the same class of aircraft on the 19th & when being given the Malibu he possibly thought " Ah well, not as nice as that jet but will do? " Which would back up the message of: " It is the same company operating the flight " from the flight organiser
It is Horses for courses because if Sala had been flown across in a PA32 on the 18th he would have thought " This Malibu is an upgrade " on the 19th but because he had been in the Eclipse on the 18th he would think the Malibu was a downgrade.
Anyway, it will all be investigated & I am sure some heads will roll.... it looks like a case of buck passing, somewhere Dave Henderson & Willie McKay will be made accountable and I think I know who will end up the 'scapegoat'
I am at a loss where Malabo got his 200nm figure from? It is still conjecture that the route would have been a straight line so the 264nm could quite easily be a 300+nm journey, at this time nobody knows ( well, Cardiff ATC & Nantes ATC will have the Flightplans filed & will know exactly what route was filed )
I think now it is assumed that Sala was collected from Nantes to fly to Cardiff on the 18th by N531EA Eclipse & then as he wanted to return on the 19th the Malibu N264DB was organised to do the 'jolly' to say " Goodbye " to his ex team mates etc.
Supposition would be that having had the Eclipse Jet on the 18th Sala was probably expecting the same class of aircraft on the 19th & when being given the Malibu he possibly thought " Ah well, not as nice as that jet but will do? " Which would back up the message of: " It is the same company operating the flight " from the flight organiser
It is Horses for courses because if Sala had been flown across in a PA32 on the 18th he would have thought " This Malibu is an upgrade " on the 19th but because he had been in the Eclipse on the 18th he would think the Malibu was a downgrade.
Anyway, it will all be investigated & I am sure some heads will roll.... it looks like a case of buck passing, somewhere Dave Henderson & Willie McKay will be made accountable and I think I know who will end up the 'scapegoat'
When I took out a life policy 30 years ago I'm pretty certain the wording was more like "flying of any kind other than as a fare paying passenger in multi-engined aircraft". The policy was nothing special, being the endowment policy that (eventually) failed to pay off a modest mortgage.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outside in the cold distance
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I took out a life policy 30 years ago I'm pretty certain the wording was more like "flying of any kind other than as a fare paying passenger in multi-engined aircraft". The policy was nothing special, being the endowment policy that (eventually) failed to pay off a modest mortgage.
common purpose
and here is the bigly one:
c) COMMON purpose - the pilot not only has to have his own reason to be making that flight (an event, visiting family/friends, sightseeing, etc.), but it has to be COMMON between the pilot and the passengers. I as the pilot can't be going for lunch at the destination airport while my passenger goes to a meeting nearby.
I have found an "FAA Safety Briefing" article dated September/October 2010 that references common purpose but I can find nothing in Part 91 that references or defines "common purpose". Is common purpose an FAA interpretation related to cost sharing or is defined by regulation? If defined by regulation, or even by Advisory Circular, I'd appreciate a reference.
Has been asked before on this thread, but who would be investigating this aside from the UK AAIB? Who takes the lead on the legal front? Are the US FAA doing an independent investigation to the UK CAA, indeed are the UK CAA doing anything? Are the UK Police interviewing the likes of the McKays, Dave Henderson, the beneficial owner(s) of the aircraft? Has someone gone down to Nantes already to ascertain exactly what was going on there the day the aircraft set-off with contradictions in pilot names, flight plans, passports etc.? Has someone spoken to people at Gamston, the maintenance outfit etc? No indication that there is any other investigation aside from the AAIB alone which will be entirely focused on the cause of the accident not the illegality of the flight?
If that is the case here (and I have no idea whether it is), the police investigation will be completely separate from and independent of the AAIB's, for obvious reasons.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tops of the clouds from Luton to Guernsey were around 5000ft for the whole flight. I can't comment on the icing other than there was some. We only had the anti-ice for the engine and windshield on and it was light at best. However, we were doing 250kts descending through it and therefore our TAT was around +3 if I recall correctly. The SAT was certainly below zero. We were only in it for around a minute or so before popping out the bottom of it. Ceilings at that point were 1900'
The really foul weather didn't start rolling through until around 0200 LCT. I would hazard a guess that at around 2023, the weather would still be well within the realm of that aircrafts capability. And certainly able for the aircraft to turn 180 and fly back out of the icing.
@Truthseeker, The message regarding the "Same company" text was sent through on the 21st, the day of the accident flight, at around 1623. A few hours prior to departure.
I'm not sure where the eclipse that you are talking about fits into all of this, but interestingly enough, it is shown to be going into Guernsey at 1800 LCT that day. Probably a complete Red Herring and not worth going down that road.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point of note, the flight that Sala did in the N-registered Eclipse earlier would also almost certainly also have been illegal - not on an AOC and almost certainly paid for by someone in the process
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily by all means, you could construct a legal constellation. Conviction before assessment and trial has not been proven a good idea, let's wait for the investigation results.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sala plane from Nantes landed at Cardiff airport at 9.17am this morning and is now on his way to Hensol for the medical
Landing at 09:17 from LFRS/Nantes Atlantique is "N531EA" Eclipse EA.500 N531EA ..parking on the Cambrian apron
So when they wanted his signature, he got the Eclipse. When the money was in the bank, he got the Malibu piloted by the gas engineer. My level of disgust at this operation has risen to levels that I can’t describe.
Landing at 09:17 from LFRS/Nantes Atlantique is "N531EA" Eclipse EA.500 N531EA ..parking on the Cambrian apron
So when they wanted his signature, he got the Eclipse. When the money was in the bank, he got the Malibu piloted by the gas engineer. My level of disgust at this operation has risen to levels that I can’t describe.
I join posts #690 and #691 above. We had life insurance to cover our mortgage which covered aviation only as passenger in a multi-engined aircraft flown by a pilot of not less than commercial rating. They wouldn't budge (very wisely, it took about 400 hours to discover how little I knew) so instead of flying we paid off the mortgage instead. When I started a business later my partners and I took out life insurance on one another, and I was charged 15% extra premium to cover my PPL/IR activity.
The Wingly helo advertisement earlier is appalling, Wingly is clear that whatever their insurance covers it is not helicopters, and 70 hours is little enough on fixed wing never mind a helo. My message for those contemplating such a trip would be to go for it if you're a youngster with no dependants or debts. If you have commitments, understand that you will have no life cover as required by mortgage companies so your dependents will lose their house; if you suffer permanent injury you won't be compensated unless you can fund a claim against the pilot whose negligence you will have to prove. Good luck with that; and fellow Pruners will forgive me if I have a certain cynicism with regard to insurance companies paying out.
The Wingly helo advertisement earlier is appalling, Wingly is clear that whatever their insurance covers it is not helicopters, and 70 hours is little enough on fixed wing never mind a helo. My message for those contemplating such a trip would be to go for it if you're a youngster with no dependants or debts. If you have commitments, understand that you will have no life cover as required by mortgage companies so your dependents will lose their house; if you suffer permanent injury you won't be compensated unless you can fund a claim against the pilot whose negligence you will have to prove. Good luck with that; and fellow Pruners will forgive me if I have a certain cynicism with regard to insurance companies paying out.