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 28th Jan 2019, 19:38
  #801 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: WILTSHIRE
Posts: 73
IF Dibbo descended into what he thought would be warmer air ( we know he was cleared down from 5000 ft) - We know he disappeared from radar at 2300 ft _ how do we know he didnt continue on track for many miles ( perhaps hitting the water at low level and a shallow angle with no horizon for a VFR pilot to follow / see) and the aircraft is MUCH nearer the mainland coast ?
Given its very odd that we have no radar traces - I thought CI radar could " see" us on SVR clearances " not above 1500 ft ".............
red9 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 19:59
  #802 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Outside the 12 mile limit
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by red9 View Post
IF Dibbo descended into what he thought would be warmer air ( we know he was cleared down from 5000 ft) - We know he disappeared from radar at 2300 ft _ how do we know he didnt continue on track for many miles ( perhaps hitting the water at low level and a shallow angle with no horizon for a VFR pilot to follow / see) and the aircraft is MUCH nearer the mainland coast ?
Given its very odd that we have no radar traces - I thought CI radar could " see" us on SVR clearances " not above 1500 ft ".............

ATC never said he went below radar coverage. They said they lost him off radar which is different. May be wrong, but I think radar coverage goes lower than 2,300 off Alderney. Certainly the Aurigny flights to Alderney don't come off secondary radar, if they did they would not be tracked on say FR24. . Can't speak for primary radar.

This would imply he went down pretty close to the loss of radar contact.

edited to say, thinking about this further, Alderney is visible from North of Jersey, therefore around Alderney radar coverage must be at or nearly at sea level

Last edited by radiosutch; 28th Jan 2019 at 21:19. Reason: add more
radiosutch is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 20:36
  #803 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Someone highlighted that there have been 228 Malibu accidents as a statistic, now statistics are there to be used or abused for whatever purpose.
If the flight had taken place in a King Air you would all be saying " The King Air is a very capable aircraft well suited to this kind of trip " but if you look at the accident statistics of the King Air it shows 410 King Air accidents in the same database as the 228 Malibu accidents are listed in.
TRUTHSEEKER1 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 21:30
  #804 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 507
Quote from the Cardiff City Manager saying he wished the footballer hadn’t travelled to Nantes.

“I do keep thinking back, I said to him ‘why don’t you come up to Newcastle and watch us play tomorrow and have a look?’

“You’re now asking yourself should I have made him come up, because it’s after the event, but he wanted to go back and see his teammates, and family, and get his belongings for the following week so that’s what happened.

“I just thanked him and off we went, you know.”

A Premiership football club isn’t a corner shop. They have a duty of care to their employees. If they drove him from the airport to the training ground in a company car they should have checked the licence of the driver and given him a set of rules related to the use of the car. So how is aviation any different, how can you just absolve yourself of any responsibility? I know the club position is that they aren’t responsible because the player made his own arrangements. However all the parties involved had contractural relationships with each other. I have also read the argument that passengers don’t have enough knowledge to know when they are at risk. Well these are multi million pound organisations, so if you don’t have enough knowledge to know what a licensed air carrier is or don’t want to buy in that expertise, then send your employees by scheduled flight.

runway30 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 21:54
  #805 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
They have a duty of care to their employees
Every company has a duty of care to its employees, rarely would that extend to oversight of an employees travel arrangements during off duty hours. I think it is way too early to seek to apportion blame. I think I agree with Chicken House now...and I would not worry that anything is going to get over-looked. There is absolutely zero chance of any sort of cover up whatsoever with this one.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 22:16
  #806 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by The Old Fat One View Post
Every company has a duty of care to its employees, rarely would that extend to oversight of an employees travel arrangements during off duty hours. I think it is way too early to seek to apportion blame. I think I agree with Chicken House now...and I would not worry that anything is going to get over-looked. There is absolutely zero chance of any sort of cover up whatsoever with this one.
When is a football player on duty? I presume it says in their contract what they can and canít do for insurance reasons? I also presume that going back to move house was paid for under his contract and if so the Club does have a responsibility.
runway30 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 22:20
  #807 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: London
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by The Old Fat One View Post
There is absolutely zero chance of any sort of cover up whatsoever with this one.
....are the words of a man who has never met Willie Mckay.

I'm a chartered accountant and a PPL - I was asked to work for him (in my professional capacity) and refused. He's never asked me to work for him in my other capacity
mynameisbrian is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 22:22
  #808 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 507
I am also aware of people who have been told to not drive to work if the company thinks they are not fit to drive and that is in their own car, in their own time. The duty of care extends to the employee’s own time if their is any connection to employment and I would say that going to clear up loose ends at the club that has just transferred your contract is definitely related to employment.

Last edited by runway30; 28th Jan 2019 at 22:58.
runway30 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 22:59
  #809 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,072
Originally Posted by TRUTHSEEKER1 View Post
Someone highlighted that there have been 228 Malibu accidents as a statistic, now statistics are there to be used or abused for whatever purpose.
If the flight had taken place in a King Air you would all be saying " The King Air is a very capable aircraft well suited to this kind of trip " but if you look at the accident statistics of the King Air it shows 410 King Air accidents in the same database as the 228 Malibu accidents are listed in.
You might want to Google "denominator neglect" before deleting that nonsense.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 23:19
  #810 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brentwood Essex
Posts: 18
Luc Lion ... I'm just a PPL and have flown across the channel many times. From what I've read this pilot is also a PPL and I'm not sure he was instrument rated. (I don't get it where a PPL is flying a pro. footballer when the footballer could very likely afford any kind of flight by any carrier with any kind of pilot.)
My main point though is, this pilot's planned route from Nantes to Cardiff. From Nantes as a PPL holder flying a single engined aircraft I would have flown for as long as possible over land making the sea crossing as short as possible.
I ask myself why he didn't consider flying at a height which would give him the ability to glide to be over land from any point during that flight. This raises several questions of course ... was he IFR rated? i.e. could he fly in an airway? ... Icing conditions at the time and the anti-icing capabilities of the aircraft.
Assuming IFR rated and icing not being an issue ... he'd have been better crossing the channel at around 20,000 feet which would have given him 'friendly' height in the event of an engine failure and allowing him to glide to be over land. I assume this plane can glide for at least 2 miles for each 1,000 feet of height. I haven't accurately measured it but the shortest channel crossing on that route was about 60 miles and from Omonville-la Petite to Portland island in Hampshire, this route not taking them very far from a direct route to Cardiff.
Assuming the worst everywhere here... glide distance with full tanks and two on board, for each 1000 feet of height being just 2 miles (probably a little more) ... a minimum height of 15,000 feet, plus at least 1,000 feet of 'fat' at the point of arrival over land at Portland was required ... as said, 20,000 being ample.
To be at 5,000 feet and then request to fly at just over 2,000 feet for that Channel crossing, presumably in order to be able to fly VFR, is in my opinion irresponsible in a single engine aircraft flying in winter and at night.
As said I am just a private pilot and there are far more experienced pilots who will have a far better grasp of the situation than myself ... it's just my take on it.
Edit: I forgot to add that the reported position of where this aircraft was lost indicates that the route flown was directly from Nantes to Cardiff .... thus avoiding the safer option of staying close to land and when considering that the aircraft was single engined.

Last edited by keni010; 28th Jan 2019 at 23:31.
keni010 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 01:06
  #811 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by keni010 View Post
I ask myself why he didn't consider flying at a height which would give him the ability to glide to be over land from any point during that flight. This raises several questions of course ... was he IFR rated? i.e. could he fly in an airway? ... Icing conditions at the time and the anti-icing capabilities of the aircraft.
Assuming IFR rated and icing not being an issue ... he'd have been better crossing the channel at around 20,000 feet which would have given him 'friendly' height in the event of an engine failure and allowing him to glide to be over land. I assume this plane can glide for at least 2 miles for each 1,000 feet of height. I haven't accurately measured it but the shortest channel crossing on that route was about 60 miles and from Omonville-la Petite to Portland island in Hampshire, this route not taking them very far from a direct route to Cardiff.
Assuming the worst everywhere here... glide distance with full tanks and two on board, for each 1000 feet of height being just 2 miles (probably a little more) ... a minimum height of 15,000 feet, plus at least 1,000 feet of 'fat' at the point of arrival over land at Portland was required ... as said, 20,000 being ample.
To be at 5,000 feet and then request to fly at just over 2,000 feet for that Channel crossing, presumably in order to be able to fly VFR, is in my opinion irresponsible in a single engine aircraft flying in winter and at night.
As said I am just a private pilot and there are far more experienced pilots who will have a far better grasp of the situation than myself ... it's just my take on it.
Edit: I forgot to add that the reported position of where this aircraft was lost indicates that the route flown was directly from Nantes to Cardiff .... thus avoiding the safer option of staying close to land and when considering that the aircraft was single engined.
A Piper Malibu 310 glides at a bit better than 10:1, i.e., if youíre up at 25,000′ (5 miles) you can hopefully glide more than 47.25sm / 41.25nm miles horizontally. If the glide was commenced at 5,000' he would have only had 9.45sm / 8.25nm until SPLASHDOWN !!! Now with the emphasis on him requesting a descent to 2,300' his glide from there would be less than 4.35sm / 3.8nm if the donkey quit or 2mins 30secs to SPLASHDOWN !!!



TRUTHSEEKER1 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 04:35
  #812 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
Not going to post on this particular subject again, because it is irrelevant to any aspect of flight safety which is the only reason a lot of us will be posting here in the first place. R30, if you want to continue this...

I am also aware of people who have been told to not drive to work if the company thinks they are not fit to drive and that is in their own car, in their own time. The duty of care extends to the employee’s own time if their is any connection to employment and I would say that going to clear up loose ends at the club that has just transferred your contract is definitely related to employment.
...extremely random speculation, which nobody can possible know the truth of at this stage, then I guess its the internet and you can do so (assuming ofc the Mods don't step in)

CH sums it up imo...

I think now is a moment to stop speculating, keep quiet and leave some time to the investigators. The public surfaced facts are already enough to hold breath.
I'll rest until something less speculative comes up.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 06:46
  #813 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by TRUTHSEEKER1 View Post
A Piper Malibu 310 glides at a bit better than 10:1, i.e., if you’re up at 25,000′ (5 miles) you can hopefully glide more than 47.25sm / 41.25nm miles horizontally. If the glide was commenced at 5,000' he would have only had 9.45sm / 8.25nm until SPLASHDOWN !!! Now with the emphasis on him requesting a descent to 2,300' his glide from there would be less than 4.35sm / 3.8nm if the donkey quit or 2mins 30secs to SPLASHDOWN !!!
And if at cruise power and speed an ice contaminated wing stalled?
Mach Tuck is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 06:47
  #814 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 1,779
I don't think you need to ask that question - and whether that happens at 20 thousand feet or 20 the result is the same.
Sam Rutherford is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 07:13
  #815 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Warwick
Age: 54
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
I do wonder on what basis the Cardiff City Manager can assess DI as a fabulous pilot.

What utter dribble some people speak.
He was just espousing a personal opinion, something we are all entitled to do, as do many on here. I don't think he attached any technical or professional to his opinion.

Originally Posted by runway30 View Post

A Premiership football club isnít a corner shop. They have a duty of care to their employees. If they drove him from the airport to the training ground in a company car they should have checked the licence of the driver and given him a set of rules related to the use of the car. So how is aviation any different, how can you just absolve yourself of any responsibility? I know the club position is that they arenít responsible because the player made his own arrangements. However all the parties involved had contractural relationships with each other. I have also read the argument that passengers donít have enough knowledge to know when they are at risk. Well these are multi million pound organisations, so if you donít have enough knowledge to know what a licensed air carrier is or donít want to buy in that expertise, then send your employees by scheduled flight.


I think you need to read up on the facts before spouting off.

This was a personal trip, to go back and say farewell to his ex-team mates. Cardiff did offer to arrange a commercial flight for him, but he declined the offer, because he did not want to go via Paris. Had this just been a case of bringing his luggage to Cardiff, then CCFC would have arranged the freight for him, but he decided to take McKay up on his offer of a direct flight.
Road_Hog is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 07:38
  #816 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford View Post
I don't think you need to ask that question - and whether that happens at 20 thousand feet or 20 the result is the same.
Pertinent nevertheless, considering an aircraft equipped and certified for flight in known icing operating within radar cover in probable icing conditions requests a descent to an altitude where it is possibly still icing apparently disappears from radar at 2,300ft.
Mach Tuck is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 10:12
  #817 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by Mach Tuck View Post


Pertinent nevertheless, considering an aircraft equipped and certified for flight in known icing operating within radar cover in probable icing conditions requests a descent to an altitude where it is possibly still icing apparently disappears from radar at 2,300ft.
Very good reason to believe that the surface de-ice was known to be inop on the subject aircraft.
Midlifec is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 10:17
  #818 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 240
People just going over the same old ground again and again. Get a grip.
Echo Romeo is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 10:40
  #819 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Axminster Devon
Age: 79
Posts: 149
I think we agree, all else being considered, that the aircraft should have been cruising at levels around 15,000 or 20,000 feet.

I have read every thread so far, probably not remembering all I have read. Has anyone mentioned oxygen yet ?

If the aircraft had oxygen, can we guess that the pilot would have been familiar with the system enough to use it and to get the passenger to use it ?
rlsbutler is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 11:58
  #820 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 153
@keni010,
Even putting aside gliding distance considerationsm, flying IFR (or VFR on top ending IFR) was the only reasonable plan possible with this aircraft when you put the following facts together:
1.- The EGFF TAF was forecasting an arrival in conditions below VMC minima.
TAF was:
EGFF 211644Z 2116/2212 22012KT 9999 SCT035 TEMPO 2116/2120 7000 -RA TEMPO
2120/2124 23016G26KT 6000 RA BKN010 PROB30 TEMPO 2120/2124 27020G30KT 4000 RA
BKN006 BECMG 2121/2124 28012KT TEMPO 2208/2212 6000 SHRA BKN010 PROB30 TEMPO
2208/2210 3000 SHRA SHRASN BKN008 PROB30 TEMPO 2210/2212 SHRA TSGS BKN008

2.- Night VFR requires that the ceiling is at minimum 1500 ft in airspace F and G and minimum 2000 ft in airspaces B, C, D, E.

To me, all this means:
- if de-ice equipment inop or pilot not trained : no-go
- if de-ice equipment and pilot are ok : IFR flight plan with fuel for destination EGFF + fuel for a UK alternate (eg: Oxford EGTK) + fuel to come back to Nantes LFRS

That's not a problem with 2 POB : full tank range with economy cruise is +/- 1380 nm, plus 45 min holding

See SERA.5005 in https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ...01:0066:EN:PDF
The TAF at EGJJ indicated that the conditions would not be fulfilled over the Channel Islands:
EGJJ 211707Z 2118/2203 20010KT 9999 FEW015 BKN030 TEMPO 2118/2124 -RA BKN015
PROB30 TEMPO 2118/2121 7000 SHRA BKN012 BECMG 2121/2123 22020KT BECMG 2202/2203
31017KT NSW SCT015

3.- The weather maps on a LFRS-EGFF route shows that the tops were between FL100 and FL150 for most of the route with some scattered clouds higher right above EGFF

4.- VFR on top would have been possible but the Cardiff weather would have required an IFR arrival.
Highest possible VFR level being FL195 (in France, not sure if it is not lower in UK).
Of course, an IFR flight above weather was also possible with an arrival in IMC.

5.- In all cases, the di-icing equipment needed to be operational for the arrival, and the pilot trained to using it.
In case of de-icing equipment failure, the closest airport without icing conditions on arrival that I could find was the departure airport LFRS.
TAF LFRS 211700Z 2118/2224 VRB03KT CAVOK
BECMG 2123/2201 18010KT
BECMG 2202/2204 4000 -RA BKN012 BKN030
TEMPO 2204/2207 2500 RA BKN007
BECMG 2207/2209 32010KT CAVOK
BECMG 2213/2215 25007KT
PROB30 TEMPO 2215/2220 4000 SHRA BKN020TCU=

Last edited by Luc Lion; 29th Jan 2019 at 13:20.
Luc Lion 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.