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 1st Feb 2019, 08:10
  #921 (permalink)  
Aso
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2
EASA has brought us many more rules, making things far more difficult (for those legally plying their trade) to make a living.
However, it seems to have left some large loopholes through lack of enforcement
The enforcement is done through the competent authority. Now how that works for a dodgy N reg in Europe I am not sure... My gut feeling says that the CAA is the competent authority so they would be the enforcement agency, not EASA.
Aso is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 09:02
  #922 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,774
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
I trust the Investigator will look at who is any life insurance beneficiary.
My experience of insurance is the underwriters will appoint a loss adjuster. Normally loss of hull, where no one is injured or dies, is simple.

Where it gets complicated is if there are other innocent parties involved. Shoreham being a prime example or the tragedy where the police helicopter crashed on the pub.

Clearly this accident throws up all sorts of questions not least who engaged the pilot and what was known about his qualifications.


Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 13:10
  #923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,234
Originally Posted by Aso View Post
The enforcement is done through the competent authority. Now how that works for a dodgy N reg in Europe I am not sure...
I anticipate that the FAA will be really hacked off at getting dragged into an investigation where the relevant overseas authority has let things get to this stage. Can you imagine the FAA tolerating for a moment flag-of-convenience aircraft operating inside the USA against their regulations.

Clearly this accident throws up all sorts of questions not least who engaged the pilot and what was known about his qualifications.
It's a grey area because normally the sanction against a bad operator is to cancel their AOC. The regulations don't cater nearly so well for someone who never had an AOC in the first place.
WHBM is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 13:17
  #924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,774
The grey area appears to be flying an N reg outside the USA on an airmans certificate linked to a UK licence.

I recall busting the airspace around the Woomera rocket range in Australia flying an N reg Lance from Ayers Rock across the outback in 1989. On landing at Port Augusta I was asked to phone Adelaide who berated me,asked for my Aussie licence details (I had none at the time), and let me go because they had no jurisdiction. They were a bit shocked when asked for my point of departure and I replied Detroit.

However Australia did not allow N reg aircraft to be operated by residents for longer than a year.I had to change the the aircraft and my licences to comply.

That is to avoid US registration disguising aircraft owners behind shell companies using it as a flag of convenience.

Most of the current fleet of N reg UK based aircraft are rarely owned by US citizens.

The FAA certificate is clearly linked to the UK licence so surely the buck stops with the CAA?







Last edited by Mike Flynn; 1st Feb 2019 at 13:34.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 14:02
  #925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post
The grey area appears to be flying an N reg outside the USA on an airmans certificate linked to a UK licence.
This isn't a grey area.

A pilot who holds a VALID UK-issued PPL, and a Part 61.75 FAA-issued licence with current BFR is legal to fly an N-reg aircraft both inside and outside the USA in accordance with any limitations of the underlying UK licence, and those applicable to the FAA certificate.


2Donkeys is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 14:52
  #926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,774
hi
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys View Post
This isn't a grey area.

A pilot who holds a VALID UK-issued PPL, and a Part 61.75 FAA-issued licence with current BFR is legal to fly an N-reg aircraft both inside and outside the USA in accordance with any limitations of the underlying UK licence, and those applicable to the FAA certificate.
Which opens up the whole can of worms that allowed this flight to take place without an AOC.

I suggest the passenger thought he was on a regulated charter flight and not a micky mouse adventure flown by a person whose day job was a gas fitter.

It makes you question why anyone bothers to get a commercial licence when you can fly passengers across Europe with little more than a PPL.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 14:58
  #927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post


Which opens up the whole can of worms that allowed this flight to take place without an AOC.

I suggest the passenger thought he was on a regulated charter flight and not a micky mouse adventure flown by a person whose day job was a gas fitter.
Mike, you're going to think I am arguing with you for the sake of it!

No (new) can of worms here. The pilot's licence, if it is as represented, would not have permitted him to operate a commercial flight here, or in the US. That in itself is enough to bring the conversation to a halt. Conversations about AOCs, Part 135 permission and the rest of it are entirely redundant since the pilot is fundamentally not qualified - possibly quite spectacularly so.

I think it does raise questions about the CAA and DGAC's ability to regulate GA flights within their territories - but we might want to be careful what we wish for there.

Nobody yet knows what the passenger understood about the flight, and that information may sadly be permanently unavailable. Speculation as to the views of the deceased is probably beyond even PPRuNe's wide-ranging chatter.

Last edited by 2Donkeys; 1st Feb 2019 at 15:11.
2Donkeys is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 16:38
  #928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 75
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys View Post
This isn't a grey area.

A pilot who holds a VALID UK-issued PPL, and a Part 61.75 FAA-issued licence with current BFR is legal to fly an N-reg aircraft both inside and outside the USA in accordance with any limitations of the underlying UK licence, and those applicable to the FAA certificate.
Not quite.

patowalker is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 16:41
  #929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cardiff
Age: 43
Posts: 93
I had understood - mistakenly obviously - that the AAIB had said it was not going to carry out an underwater search . However I now see that it IS going to do so - and what's more the AAIB has defined an area of only 4 square nautical miles for what they call a "priority search". This search will be separate from the privately-funded search being carried out on behalf of the Sala family - although there will be liaison between the two searches.

The AAIB search is expected to start at "the end of this weekend" and will take "up to three days". They say "Side-scan sonar equipment will be used to try to locate the wreckage on the seabed. If the wreckage is found, a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) will be used to visually examine the wreckage".
korrol is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 17:46
  #930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The middle
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by vanHorck View Post
On Facebook just now saw an advert for a Pilatus for dry hire, no mention of an AOC, G-reg. Renter to organise fuel and the pilot, insurance (which one) for the plane owner. Interesting blog also on the webpage.https://flexifly.co.uk/hire-agreement/ , I had to think about this thread, even though a turbine is better than piston. I happen to be a lapsed PPL, but many unsuspecting non-pilots may not know the additional differences between a charter and dry hire. Is it safe enough?
There are two questions to answer when you ask is it safe enough? Personally I believe you would be safer in a 30 year old PA31 (or C421 if you wanted to fly higher above some of the weather), provided the aircraft was properly maintained, the pilots properly qualified, experienced, and current (including single engine currency), and the aircraft wasn’t overloaded so that it could climb in the event of an engine failure on take-off. The proponents of single engine turbines may disagree, but I’m offering an opinion.

The second question is is it safe not having an AOC? Again this is personal opinion, but many years ago by coincidence I was employed to fly the C421 which has been mentioned in this thread, before it was owned by Cool Flourish, and flew it for about 300 hours. We didn’t have an AOC, but I had a CPL/IR, about 5000 hrs total experience, and a type rating on the aircraft (in the days before MEP class ratings for commercial pilots). Every flight with company passengers was flown on an IFR flight plan, I was not expected to operate the aircraft for longer than about 10 hours a day, and most importantly everyone who had use of the aircraft knew that instrument approach minimas would be rigidly adhered to, the aircraft would not be overloaded, and that I had the final say if a flight happened or not.

At the same time a certain large AOC operator, which I will not name, would regularity send it’s PA31s off in appalling weather, either scud running or blatantly flying in IMC on VFR flight plans, off airways, to avoid paying en route navigation charges. So to answer VanHorks question, there is no reason that a non AOC operation is inherently less safe than an AOC operation, at the end of the day safety doesn’t necessarily depend on the amount of paperwork generated by the flight ops inspector, but on the attitude of the person or persons at the controls of the aeroplane.

In a properly maintained Malibu, with a properly qualified and current pilot, this flight from Nantes to Cardiff should have been as safe and simple as any IFR flight in a pressurised single piston can be. Take off, climb IFR on airways to flight level 200 above the weather, cruise for an hour and a half and fly a simple ILS approach into Cardiff, probably with most of the flight coupled to the autopilot. The reason that didn’t happen was because it was organised and operated by a bunch of cowboys, the AAIB report will be longer and contain more eventual detail, but that’s the reason for this tragedy.

Last edited by excrab; 1st Feb 2019 at 18:05.
excrab is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 18:01
  #931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
patowalker

I fear that you are mis-interpreting that letter, which is relatively well known in air-law circles.

Your original 'grey area' relates to somebody operating an N-reg, with both a UK PPL, and a US part 61.75 license based on that UK licence. They are free to do that anywhere in the world.

The letter refers to a different situation - namely, a UK pilot flying an N-reg aircraft elsewhere EASA land, with his UK-issued EASA licence. No 61.75 piggyback licence. Here he is attempting to place reliance on FAR 61.63(1)(v)

The FAA opinion is that even an EASA licence has a country of issue (such as the UK), and that whilst this will allow such a licence to be used to fly an N-reg in the UK (in this example), it would not allow the pilot to fly the aircraft in another EASA European country. For that, he would need, either:

1) an FAA licence (61.75 or native); or

2) another EASA licence issued in the country in which he is now flying.

I hope this helps.

Last edited by 2Donkeys; 1st Feb 2019 at 18:28.
2Donkeys is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 19:18
  #932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 75
Posts: 1,029
Thanks for the explanation 2D.
Donald
patowalker is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 20:37
  #933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post
hi

Which opens up the whole can of worms that allowed this flight to take place without an AOC.

I suggest the passenger thought he was on a regulated charter flight and not a micky mouse adventure flown by a person whose day job was a gas fitter.

It makes you question why anyone bothers to get a commercial licence when you can fly passengers across Europe with little more than a PPL.
I am amazed by the constant sensationalism of the fact Dave Ibbotson was a gas fitter......On the days that he was 'contracted' to fly Sala it is fair to say Dave Ibbotson was acting as a pilot. It is only the background of the 'contract' that is full of unknown facts.

If the flight had taken place in Daytime VFR conditions most of what Dave Ibbotson was asked to do would have been legal under the privileges of his licence, the bits that exceeded his privileges are the being paid to fly a 'commercially orientated charter' & being put in the position of being asked to conduct a flight at night when he had Daytime Flight privileges only.

The 'finger wagging' towards Dave Ibbotson isn't going to bring him back so it serves no real purpose now, I am not trying to defend his actions as such, but when a person hits ' Rock Bottom ' they will do anything to claw themselves back to where they need to be. We are not talking about a man with no responsibilities, this was a man who had/has a wife and children, to provide for your kin most people will do anything to achieve that........ So, Dave Ibbotson was a man who worked as a Gas Fitter/Plumber, did Disco's, volunteered as a Para drop pilot & then did a few ' Ruskin type flights ' for Cash in Hand.....His intent was most likely that he did all this to provide for his family ( I admire him for wanting to provide for his family, I certainly don't condone what he was doing by taking on the Cash in Hand work, but I don't condemn him for doing it either if it was a means to an end to provide for his kin )

He was probably an 'easy target' for others to take advantage of his vulnerability by offering him the 'Golden goose' If he took the work he was guaranteed a continuing source of income or profit that may be exhausted if it is turned down.

Sadly, there is going to be collateral damage for his family on top of their personal bereavement, we keep seeing remarks about Willie McKay telling newspapers that it has "been an absolute nightmare for us." & the agent claims his son is still owed €1.7m from the deal. I am pretty sure that the Ibbotson family are having a bigger nightmare than the McKay's as are the Sala family.

I am sickened by the remark " the agent claims his son is still owed €1.7m from the deal. " Does he not understand that the deal has turned very sour & 2 people are dead?
With an emphasis on the 1.7m owed, you can see where the funding for the aircraft running costs & pilot charges was going to be coming from? So, if you think you are going to be 'copping' 1.7m I would even absorb the cost of the aircraft running costs & pilot charges as a 'gift' to the Cash Cow to get into his good books.

The more remarks/comments purporting to have come from the agent that I see I can only conclude that every player they represent is just a rolling source of income with no real regard for the actual player.
TRUTHSEEKER1 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 21:03
  #934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Mode S & ADSB are not the same thing.

In what is called a Professional Pilots Network, there seems to be a huge gap in the general understanding of ModeS and ADSB and Flight Radar 24.

ModeS is a transponder system like ModeC, except that in addition to displaying altitude, it displays a unique id number for the Transponder. All Mode C transponders look the same to the receivers, and depend on the selected Squawk to make a difference obvious when you see two of them on the screen. Radar systems can not tell the difference between two Mode C aircraft squawking the same code.

ADSB is a different thing entirely. It runs in the background and is carried by the Mode S squawk.

In simple terms;

Mode A sends a four digit 0-7 code.
Mode C accompanies that ModeA code with the altitude of the aircraft, based on 1013.
Mode S has the A & C data and adds in a unique ID for that airframe.
ADSB is tagged on to Mode S and sends the GPS derived Lat/Long of the aircraft and some other details, like heading, speed, call-sign, route and others.


That's it simplified just enough to suit the needs of this forum.

As for FR24, ADSB Exchange, or better still 360Radar.co.uk tracking them, they have different filters in place, depending on what they have agreed with aircraft owners.

FR24 do not show some airframes, Military and Police are usually missing, despite having ADSB on some.

360Radar show all that they receive, no filtering, and their display includes Police, Military, Coastguard, Private aircraft and SAR resources such as lifeboats.

For an ADSB equipped aircraft, the tracking sites mentioned, only need one receiver, out of the thousands that they have all over the world, to pick up the transmission from the aircraft, and that's what allows the public to see it on the web page.

For an aircraft with Mode S without ADSB, the sites all need 5 ground station receivers to get the response to an SSR Radar head pinging the aircraft. The 5 or more stations, send the received data to a server that crunches the time difference between each response, related to the exact location and height of the receiver's antenna, and plots a position for the aircraft. This process is called MLAT. The results of this are added to the ADSB results and makes a composite page where lots of aircraft show up, some ADSB and some just Mode S that have been subject of MLAT calculations.


So... if you only have Mode C, they know you are out there, but can't plot a position for you, as you don't have an ID attached to the squawk, so the server that crunches the number can't be sure of the responses coming from just one aircraft.

Even if you have Mode S, they need 5 hits on each pulse, to be sure of your position.

So even if this aircraft had been transmitting Mode S, it might still not have been within range of enough FR24 receivers to get MLAT'd so it will not be on their page. No conspiracy theory, no non-squawking skullduggery, just the wrong part of the world. 360Radar.co.uk do not have enough contributors in that neck of the woods to be confident of seeing cross channel traffic at that height. FR24 might be in the same position, as lots of contributors feed more than one system.


The total costs, for the end user to monitor Secondary Radar in this way, come to less than 100 as a one off. You buy a small device (Raspberry Pi, or use an old PC) and connect it to a cheap mast, on the chimney or in the loft, and using your domestic broadband, you send away to the server, all that it hears.

In exchange for sending your reception up, they give you access to the shared product of all the calculated positions resulting from you and many others sending in data. There are thousands of "anoraks" all over the UK doing this. Alliances are being formed world wide, and in the next 12 months, an almost complete coverage of the globe is to be expected.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 21:35
  #935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northants
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys View Post
Mike, you're going to think I am arguing with you for the sake of it!

No (new) can of worms here. The pilot's licence, if it is as represented, would not have permitted him to operate a commercial flight here, or in the US. That in itself is enough to bring the conversation to a halt. Conversations about AOCs, Part 135 permission and the rest of it are entirely redundant since the pilot is fundamentally not qualified - possibly quite spectacularly so.

I think it does raise questions about the CAA and DGAC's ability to regulate GA flights within their territories - but we might want to be careful what we wish for there.

Nobody yet knows what the passenger understood about the flight, and that information may sadly be permanently unavailable. Speculation as to the views of the deceased is probably beyond even PPRuNe's wide-ranging chatter.
This is the nub of it. If a G reg was trying to charter inside the US, the FAA would be all over them. It is a European enforcement problem. Being N reg is irrelevant.
jecuk is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 22:01
  #936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,680
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
The total costs, for the end user to monitor Secondary Radar in this way, come to less than 100 as a one off. You buy a small device (Raspberry Pi, or use an old PC) and connect it to a cheap mast, on the chimney or in the loft, and using your domestic broadband, you send away to the server, all that it hears.
You do of course also need a receiver connected to your PC or Raspberry Pi in order to capture the transmissions.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 22:30
  #937 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
You do of course also need a receiver connected to your PC or Raspberry Pi in order to capture the transmissions.
20 on Ebay, that's how we end up at nearly 100 quids.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 02:21
  #938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
Dave Ibbotson wasn’t the only one with problems in the Courts. According to The Telegraph a winding up order from HMRC has been adjourned until next month. Mercato Sports is the McKay family company run by McKay’s wife and son. Of course Willie McKay can’t run it himself because he is not a fit and proper person according to the Football Association. The McKays have a history of problems with HMRC.

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Companies Court No 008651 of 2018

In the Matter of MERCATO SPORTS (UK) LTD

(Company Number 10683175)

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company, Registration Number 10683175, of ,Martin Grange Lodge, Martin Common, Bawtry, Doncaster, DN10 6DD, presented on12 October 2018 by the COMMISSIONERS FOR HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS, of South West Wing, Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4RD,, claiming to be Creditors of the Company, will be heard at the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, 7 Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL on 23 January 2019 at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).

Any persons intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioners or to their Solicitor in accordance with Rule 7.14 by 1600 hours on 22 January 2019 .

The Petitioners` Solicitor is the Solicitor to, HM Revenue and Customs,Solicitor's Office & Legal Services, South West Wing, Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4RD,telephone 03000 589216 . (Ref SLR1968947/Z.)

11 January 2019

When the legal actions start, as they inevitably will, who actually has any money?

runway30 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 09:56
  #939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
When the legal actions start, as they inevitably will, who actually has any money?

Much of the discussion so far has actually centred around speculative breaches of regulation relating to how the flight was operated, procured and perhaps represented. To the extent that any of the parties involved in such suspected breaches of regulation are still alive, the fines and sentences are relatively unimpressive.

When and if, life insurance and other policies relating to the (presumed) deceased passenger fail to pay out, there will undoubtedly be a desire to engage lawyers looking for places to cover the shortfall. It remains to be seen how many parties there are that have a direct enough connection to the flight and the passenger that they would be feasible targets for a claim. Probably not as many as some assume.

The more interesting question will be whether the investigation of the circumstances surrounding this flight bring to light a more commonplace culture of illicit charters in the sports world. Not just football, but perhaps horse racing too. Then the spotlight would be on the regulator (CAA and DGAC) as to why they had apparently lost control of a small but important chunk of their responsibility.
2Donkeys is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 10:07
  #940 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,614
@Warren peace : many thanks for that short but clear explanation , I did not know you needed minimum 5 returns to establish a mode S track on FR24. Learnt something ,
Indeed many confuse mode S and ,ADS-B , and some forget that to have ADS-B-out ( broadcast) you need it to be coupled to a certified GPS, which is not the same as a hand held Garmin ....

Back to the aircraft in question ; Has someone here seen a copy of the PLN ? . and if yes which letter was on the equipment field ? even the inbound one to NTS plan would do .
ATC Watcher 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.