Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

Old 27th Jan 2019, 12:57
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
I make it 264 nm - where do you get 200 from ?
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'
TRUTHSEEKER1 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 13:18
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove, England
Age: 54
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post

5. your engaging in flying of any kind other than as a passenger;
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.
dastocks is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 13:43
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outside in the cold distance
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by dastocks View Post
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.
Mine said something to the effect of excluding: "flying other than as a passenger in commercial aircraft". I had to query it, as my job requied me to fly occasionally as a passenger in certain non-commercial aircraft.
Gwyn_ap_Nudd is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 13:55
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 47
​​​​​​​common purpose

Originally Posted by mryan75 View Post

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.
EXDAC is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:04
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,815
Originally Posted by Winniebago View Post
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?
There is always the potential for a police investigation in the aftermath of any accident where it is suspected that a crime has been commited (cf. Shoreham).

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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:14
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by red9 View Post
I think the tops that evening exceeded the PA46 - probably around 28-30,000 ft
I am aware that weather changes, however I flew in from London Luton that night. We arrived into Guernsey around 1745 LCT. We were then driving around lost until around 1900, the weather was more or less the same as when we arrived.
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.
lilflyboy262...2 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:29
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 76
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
Winniebago is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:36
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Winniebago View Post
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
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.
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:48
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
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.

runway30 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:52
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Co. Down
Age: 78
Posts: 514
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.
Geriaviator is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:01
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by malabo View Post
Flight should have been a doddle. Straight line 200nm, little more than an hour, low level. Easy altitude, lots of turn around or enroute alternates. We all fly in light icing, moderate needs some equipment, heavy you don’t fly in. Lots of beef about single engine -who cares, it is only a statistical consideration. Lots of Malibu and other single-engine fly night IFR all over, if the fan quits you’re a deadman. In a twin if the engine quits then you play the stats against the coincidence of the second one quitting, and there is the same probability it will quit. Over water doesn’t matter, outcome won’t be good but chances are a little better in daylight. Anyway, no indication of engine problems have surfaced, so for now it is simply a platform for the “only twins should be allowed to fly” chestbeaters. Nothing on pilot qualification or experience to indicate a boy was sent out to do a man’s (or woman’s) job. FAA PPL is an easy FLV for an EASA licenced pilot, and the licence (UK) it is based on could be up to an ATPL. All speculation.
One thing that we take for granted in all our aircraft these days is satellite tracking, usually 2.5 minute intervals. Unlimited tracking for a year costs less than an hour of fuel a year. Is this unheard of in EASAland? Seems Stone Age to be depending on radar pings in the 21st century. Always wonder if these unsuccessful searches would have been more successful if they could focus the assets on a few square miles.
I understand what you mean that the left engine has the same probability of the right engine as quitting, but unless you didn't put enough go juice in the plane, you are essentially doubling down on your odds of getting to the destination with one engine still working. Its a bad bad day in the office if you have two blow up.

I don't think that any of us here are saying that single engines are dangerous and shouldn't be flown, however, and this is the big however, you have to start weighing up the conditions.

Day VFR over the flat land parts of Europe. Piston single, A-OK.
Day VFR in the summer over the English Channel at a reasonable altitude, with calm-ish sea conditions. Still fine.
You can see that the levels of safety are slowly being peeled away. At that point, it becomes when you are comfortable for those layers to stop being peeled off.

IFR - No time to find suitable landing spots, as most singles have a low approach speed, most field landings become akin to a car accident.
Night - As above, and unable to see unlit obstacles on approach.
Piston - Not as reliable as turbine.
Water conditions - possibility of a successful ditching. Same considerations as if flying over mountains or forest.
Water temp - survival and more importantly, ability to function.

This flight was attempted :-
1) At night.
2) Single engine.
3) Piston engine.
4) IFR.
5) Over rough waters.
6) Over winter waters.
7) In poor weather.
8) At low level.
9) Icing conditions at low level.

There was at least 9 layers of safety that were peeled away from this flight prior to it even leaving the ground. Some can argue the single pilot point as well in that it may have encouraged better decision making. Personally, with around 2500hrs single pilot ops, I think that the risk from that aspect can be negated, or at least reduced to a negligible level, with professionalism and planning.

As per the satellite tracking, 2.5 minute intervals vs Radar pings? At 180kts, thats still 7-8nm between pings. A search area of 64nm2.
Just prior to me leaving my last flying job, a PC-6 crashed into the mountains only 7nm from the departure airport. The aircraft was using spidertracks. Even with that, it still took a long time to find the aircraft and it was only spotted with the aid of some locals on the ground waving them towards the crash site.
Radar pings in this part of the world are about as accurate as the current cheap tracking software that is used. In the more remote parts of the world such as in America, Africa, Australia, Canada etc etc, then the satelitte tracking makes absolute sense.

In my years of GA, I have met a lot of interesting characters. Some are saying this if this was a commercial operation, then the both of them would still be alive. I disagree.

Regulators only really pay attention to small operators once they start making mistakes, or they have been shown to be dodgy when it comes to audit time. There are still many AOC holding operators who push their young pilots out into horrendous conditions. I have had that happen to me in Canada. It nearly cost me my life.
Other commercial pilots will still "give it a lash", relying on their skills to get them out of trouble if it occurs. Stopping briefly to have a cigarette after landing, before coming back tomorrow to do it all again.
To me, a life is a life. I don't care if its a celebrity who's paying me to fly them from A to B, or a friend on a cost sharing flight. Both are just as valuable and the same degree of mitigating factors can be applied before going flying. I've applied these to just about every one of my flights since day dot with my flight training.
I feel that this pilot would have conducted this flight whether it was an above or below board operation. The flight profile speaks volumes of this.
lilflyboy262...2 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:06
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
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.

Well that Eclipse Sala flew in is down as being privately owned by a Mark Farmer and a Jason Bannister (50% each) through another owner trustee in Delaware - Feggair Inc. So, via what channel(s) did Farmer/Bannister 'loan' the aircraft for the purposes of transporting Sala? Who paid and who flew it? For those thinking 'ah, but it could have been loaned as a favour', I suggest we get real here, unless Farmer/Bannister are in the football transfer business and their fees from this or another Mckay-related transfer deal more than compensated for the costs of lending their privately registered/operated Eclipse for the exercise.
Cambridge172 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:20
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
Well they make their intentions clear

Jbmf Air Ltd

Aircraft Rental Leasing And Charter Services in Swindon View others nearby
Add review
South Marston Industrial Estate
Wiltshire Sn3 4Tn
Swindon
Wiltshire
SN3 4TN
runway30 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:25
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by lilflyboy262...2 View Post

@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.
On the 18th January Sala flew to Cardiff in N531EA to complete the transfer & medical to join Cardiff FC. ( SEE MESSAGE BELOW )
(18th January 2019) 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
Nantes, France Friday 18-Jan-2019 09:21AM CET
Cardiff, United Kingdom Friday 18-Jan-2019 09:16AM GMT

On the 19th N531EA was on a charter from Biggin Hill (0801 GMT) to Paris Le Bourget (0951 CET) so not available for Sala to use, N531EA stayed in Paris Le Bourget until 1601 CET on the 21st before departing back to Biggin Hill with an arrival time of 1550 GMT.

Now this next bit is supposition: After Sala had used N531EA on the 18th it was flown to Guernsey at some point & then departed approx 1415GMT from Guernsey to be positioned to Biggin Hill for the Paris LB Charter the following day, it is also noted that N531EA after arriving back from Paris on the 21st @ 1550 GMT was then again flown from Biggin Hill (1709 GMT) to Guernsey arriving @ 1800 GMT......... Why did N531EA go back & forth to Guernsey? Who was onboard on these flights? supposition would be that a certain set of initials would be on these flights........ Why was N264DB allegedly flightplanned to Guernsey on the 19th but went to Nantes? it is obvious that Guernsey plays a part in this whole conundrum but where it fits in is anyone's guess?
The AAIB should look at the crew/passenger manifests for the period 18/01/2019 - 21/01/2019 for both N531EA & N264DB as I am pretty sure it will make an interesting list of names.
Special attention should be on who was crewing the aircraft on each flight.

TRUTHSEEKER1 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:29
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by lilflyboy262...2 View Post
I am aware that weather changes, however I flew in from London Luton that night. We arrived into Guernsey around 1745 LCT. We were then driving around lost until around 1900, the weather was more or less the same as when we arrived.
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.
Now here is a reliable report on the prevailing wx conditions. It does go some distance to raise doubts over the speculation on icing and introduces more credence on the possibility of mechanical malfunction and failure.
Yes I do agree with most of the sentiment and outrage expressed over the matter of cowboy operations, grey charters, illegal flying, etc., nevertheless my real interest lies in the actual cause(s) of this accident. In that respect, unless the wreckage is recovered from the sea bed, the truth is most unlikely to come to light. Charts of the area show relatively shallow sea bed depths, so it should not be a difficult task to locate the wreckage. The main issue is who might be willing to foot the bill. Particularly given that this accident involved a N reg private aircraft with two on board. Of all the interested parties involved, I can only think the aircraft insurers may be the most likely to do so, within the terms of the liability cover under the policy.
Chronus is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:37
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by lilflyboy262...2 View Post
Some are saying this if this was a commercial operation, then the both of them would still be alive. I disagree.
I'd say if this flight had been conducted at (say) FL160, that both of them would still be alive. If they couldn't maintain 160 in the prevailing weather, they'd likely have found out before crossing the French coast and would have had good diversion options.

Does anyone know if N264DB was FIKI-approved? The photos I've seen show it with boots, but the system may have subsequently been placarded INOP.

AIUI there's an issue with the windshield deicing on some PA46 aircraft; I've no idea if this has any relevance here.
Sillert,V.I. is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:38
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
I have been very careful to only say what I know and never what I assume/suspect. I am now having to bite my tongue very hard..................
runway30 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:40
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bishop's Stortford
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Cambridge172 View Post
Well that Eclipse Sala flew in is down as being privately owned by a Mark Farmer and a Jason Bannister (50% each) through another owner trustee in Delaware - Feggair Inc. So, via what channel(s) did Farmer/Bannister 'loan' the aircraft for the purposes of transporting Sala? Who paid and who flew it? For those thinking 'ah, but it could have been loaned as a favour', I suggest we get real here, unless Farmer/Bannister are in the football transfer business and their fees from this or another Mckay-related transfer deal more than compensated for the costs of lending their privately registered/operated Eclipse for the exercise.
Another twist to the story, the Eclipse 500 has Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden fame's name and logo on the nose along with the Mark Farmer mentioned above. So, is Bruce (who sells Eclipses as one string of his extensive aviation interests) a silent partner in N531EA - or not so silent with his name on the nose?! So who did they lend the aircraft to?

Avioactive is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:41
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NY
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by EXDAC View Post
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.
FAA letter of interpretation in the Flytenow case.

https://www.kattenlaw.com/Flytenow-I...-Certification
mryan75 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:46
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by Sillert,V.I. View Post
I'd say if this flight had been conducted at (say) FL160, that both of them would still be alive. If they couldn't maintain 160 in the prevailing weather, they'd likely have found out before crossing the French coast and would have had good diversion options.

Does anyone know if N264DB was FIKI-approved? The photos I've seen show it with boots, but the system may have subsequently been placarded INOP.

AIUI there's an issue with the windshield deicing on some PA46 aircraft; I've no idea if this has any relevance here.
Exactly my point. You don't have to be a commerical op to be at FL160. FL100 would have been enough that night.
lilflyboy262...2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.