Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck 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 9th Feb 2019, 12:14
  #1201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 961
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by ShropshirePilot
It's very sad but had this been a car accident, everyone would have moved on whether or not the driver was a professional.
To wish the standards of road dangers on the aviation industry would be something of a backwards step in my opinion.

For example in UK -

In the year 2017/18 144 people died in workplace accidents.[1]

It is estimated that in 2012 1,000 people die in road accidents each year while at work.[2]

For reasons unknown we do not include road deaths as workplace deaths.

We demand that the workplace be as safe as practicable however we do not make such demands on the roads. I believe there have been pressures to include At Work road deaths as Work Related deaths which would mean that road deaths at work might be investigated by the HSE. This has been resisted by the voters since as alluded to by the @ShropshirePilot we are happy enough to accept road deaths as a cost of doing business.

[1] http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf

[2] https://worksmart.org.uk/health-advi...e-killed-while
jimjim1 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 12:18
  #1202 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More regulations are not going to prevent this as this was not operated as a commercial operation from the outset .
Some individual(s) decided to bend the rules, putting stronger rules in place would only penalize those of us following them .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 13:23
  #1203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 1,576
Received 123 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
More regulations are not going to prevent this as this was not operated as a commercial operation from the outset .
Some individual(s) decided to bend the rules, putting stronger rules in place would only penalize those of us following them .
Thus, clearly, what's needed is more enforcement, something the CAA has always been notably ineffective at. They regulate us honest properly licenced operators almost to death but despite the long-known problen of illegal commercial work going on nothing seems to be done about it, and certainly nothing proactive.
That needs to change - big time.
meleagertoo is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 13:24
  #1204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
More regulations are not going to prevent this as this was not operated as a commercial operation from the outset .
Some individual(s) decided to bend the rules, putting stronger rules in place would only penalize those of us following them .
Absolutely right. The real questions here are around the enforcement of regulation. Should the CAA (and DGAC) regulate with a heavier hand? More ramp checks along the lines of the FAA?

We might want to be careful what we wish for.
2Donkeys is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 13:37
  #1205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Craven Arms
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimjim1
To wish the standards of road dangers on the aviation industry would be something of a backwards step in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting that we adopt the same approach to aviation as to road safety - quite the opposite in fact - but the fact that globally every single GA crash is deemed newsworthy suggests to me that this activity, when carried out sensibly, is actually very safe indeed but that the general public (and my brother in law especially!!) think that he takes his life in his hands when flying GA. We are still all more likely to cop it on the way to the airfield!

Last edited by ShropshirePilot; 9th Feb 2019 at 13:39. Reason: shortening required!
ShropshirePilot is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 15:55
  #1206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimjim1
To wish the standards of road dangers on the aviation industry would be something of a backwards step in my opinion.
Sadly you are ignoring the fact that compared to the number of people who travel on the roads and the number of fatalities when set against the much fewer people who do GA and their accident rate then you are indeed at a very much higher risk in GA.
I recall hearing a figure of 7 times a while back though I think that was in the field of leisure GA rather than commercial GA travel. Incidentally the most dangerous possible leisure activity you can do is horse riding.

It's the same erroneous perception made about how dangerous motorways and dual carriageways are. Yet due to the huge traffic flows on them their accident rate per vehicle mile traveled is very low. Near to me two single carriage A roads were identified in an Euro study of being of the most dangerous in the UK: they did not have much traffic on them yet manage to accumulate huge number of fatalities. Yet in the local news all we hear (after some gargantuan pile up) is how we desperately need updates to a major dual carriage A road in the area as it is so dangerous.......errr no it is not.
dsc810 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 16:57
  #1207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,110
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse
snip). A call for more regulations is the same way wrong as the call for more enforcement. We do have sufficient regulations and laws to deal with such issues.

We should not give our current self elected oppressors even more power.
We do not need more ramp checks, we already have the needed knowledge ourselves.
(Snip)

Anybody getting aware of those breaches of regulations simply has to call the police or other authorities to deal with it, immediately the moment it happens, not after damage is done. With enforcement we give our power out of our hands, we depersonalize our accountability and hand it over to somebody we don't know what they do with it in the end.
i can’t see what the issue is with more ramp checks, if the legislation is sufficient, then surely more ramp checks will enable that legislation to be enforced. Im Not sure what you mean by dealing with it ourselves, if you mean talking to a ‘grey operator’ what power do ‘you/we’ have to prevent the operation taking place? If current law isn’t being enforced by the authorities, any discussions with an operator are likely to be unproductive. If the regulators raise the profile with thorough ramp inspections, and subsequent enforcement/prosecutions for transgressions, surely that’s the way forward. I know some of our local UK police, their resources are already stretched to a microscopic thin blue line. They’re highly unlikely to be able to provide an adequate response and investigation to a call regarding a grey charter. The CAA have the legal instruments to really tackle this issue, but they need to take effective action.
jumpseater is online now  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 17:37
  #1208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronus
A "BOLLEAUX" ? Whatever is meant by that, it is not what the majority of those who participate on PPRUNE. Most of us feel and deep sense of concern when a tragic incident occurs in aviation. Many of us wish to learn from it and try and do our best to avoid our human inadequecies, shortcomings and failings. We try to pool and share our knowledge and understanding in this field of human endeavour. Yes we do speculate, but even in that there is some value to others. There could be much error in what has been said, but at least we learn what is incorrect from those who know better. The whole world is shocked by this tragic loss. We as pilots once, pilots now and pilots in the future, are certainly most concerned over the impact it has and will have in the future and our role and interest in aviation. Those are not "bolleaux`s.
Well said - too many 'thought police' , and yet frequently comment themselves
It's in our DNA to question , learn and advance
Jagwar is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 18:19
  #1209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I still find it bizarre that the AAIB have decided not to recover the aircraft.
Silver Pegasus is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 18:47
  #1210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Silver Pegasus
I still find it bizarre that the AAIB have decided not to recover the aircraft.
Yes it is curious.Makes me wonder whether photo /video imagery from a ROV is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion for the cause or whether the costs involved in raising the wreckage may not be in the public interest, given that a light aircraft on private flight is involved. After all the large scale news and media coverage of this story perhaps is sufficient to have raised public awareness of travel by such means of air transport. I`d imagine in the future before some unwitting member of the public is about to board such a flight he/she or they or some other person concerned with theirs, their own, their business or their families, may ask a few pertinent questions about the flight . Unless of course they have a well developed sense of adventure, and as must be said there could be no adventure without risk. And that depends on how much adrenaline is required for the particular person with the habit.
Chronus is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 19:17
  #1211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronus
Yes it is curious.Makes me wonder whether photo /video imagery from a ROV is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion for the cause or whether the costs involved in raising the wreckage may not be in the public interest, given that a light aircraft on private flight is involved. After all the large scale news and media coverage of this story perhaps is sufficient to have raised public awareness of travel by such means of air transport. I`d imagine in the future before some unwitting member of the public is about to board such a flight he/she or they or some other person concerned with theirs, their own, their business or their families, may ask a few pertinent questions about the flight . Unless of course they have a well developed sense of adventure, and as must be said there could be no adventure without risk. And that depends on how much adrenaline is required for the particular person with the habit.
As someone who has gone looking for the adrenaline rush, driving a Formula 1 car and doing the Cresta Run have been the two best, I can tell you that the briefings for both of those involved a lot of discussion of broken limbs, missing limbs and death. Yet, when I have flown passengers I gave a safety briefing, I haven’t given a risk briefing because the whole purpose of aviation for me was to conduct myself and my passengers safely to their destination. The added risk comes from breaking the rules and you either have to stop rule breaking or give passengers enough information to know when rules are being broken.
runway30 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 19:20
  #1212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Jagwar
Well said - too many 'thought police' , and yet frequently comment themselves
It's in our DNA to question , learn and advance
And was precisely the reason behind setting up this forum in the first place.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2019, 22:40
  #1213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northampton
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As with I am sure most here, my initial thoughts are for the families concerned. My second thoughts concern some of the decisions made that night. My third thoughts stem from some of the revelations in this thread concerning what appears to me to be 'pilots' acting totally outside of the remit of an appropriate licence.

With regard to the second, the actual direct end cause of the accident is as yet uncertain. However, there seems little doubt that at least two people should never have been in that situation in the first place. As someone posted earlier, single-engine flying is not inherently unsafe, nor is a single-engine flight at night or over water. But add them all together, and the risk factor increases. Add in icing conditions and the risk factor goes up more. Add in a (potential) lack of pilot experience of the combination of aircraft type and the conditions, and it goes off the scale. We will never know the reasons for some of the decisions that were made, but most of us know the pressure some people can exert and not everyone finds it easy to say no. This especially if you put yourself in the position of someone who possibly should not really have been where they were and didn't have the financial means to stay there. There are very few here who have had years sitting at the pointy end who haven't at some time been pressured in one way or another. There are times it takes a lot to say no, and as other incidents have unfortunately shown, there are times people have failed to say no to the person sitting next to them, and have paid the ultimate price.

Like a lot of others here, I started off longer ago than I care to remember, with a combination of a freshly-minted PPL, youth, big cojones and a limited understanding of just how easily things can go wrong. I was very, very lucky to have had an FI who told me that he'd beat me senseless with a broken rudder if I ever so much as thought about taking any passenger anywhere under any circumstances until I'd got a good few more hours, learned the hard way that things can go t*ts up, and added at the very least some instrument and night instruction. Happily, I went on to do a lot more than that. Equally happily, the way things have gone and are going, I can now stick to gardening and painting the living room. Again.

With regard to the third point, having been out of the loop to a degree, I am as amazed as others to learn about what seems to be blatant abuse of the system. I am unfortunately a little less surprised to see just how little is being done about it. As always, I am afraid, those who play a straight bat are the ones who pay and ironically, who recreive the most attention from the authorities. More and tighter legislation? Of course, but someone has to enforce it. We also have to realise that not everyone plays by the book. You cannot blame the passengers in any way, shape or form here. Almost anyone getting on any aircraft will have near zero idea about the necessary qualifications, and as someone said earlier, to the average person, 70 hours sounds like a lot.

Obviously (to us anyway), something needs to be done. Unfortunately, I fear it may take the sort of event none of us want to see, before someone in a position of authority wakes up to what is happening out there in the real world. I won't hold my breath.
Rabski is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 00:45
  #1214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by runway30
I don’t know whether Cool Flourish Ltd. owned this aircraft or not because I can’t find the database in the US that others have quoted. However two Chartered Accountants acquiring 2 £1 shares from other nominees leads to the suspicion that they are themselves nominees and are just another layer obscuring the ownership of this company. Is this really the lack of transparency that we want in air transport? Uncovering the ownership of the aircraft would probably give more answers as to what has gone on here. Maybe when we get into charges/financial claims, someone will start talking?
An awful lot of limited companies are set up by Chartered Accountants or Solicitors as 'off the shelf companies for clients to use. When that happens the initial director(s) are referred to as nominees and then, when the company is used for trading, they resign and the person(s) taking control of the company becomes director. To suggest that the formation 'director' being a nominee makes the actions of the company 'doubtful is misleading at best... whatever may have happened later, many many companies start out with a nominee director.
Mikeg_123 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 01:46
  #1215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 714
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts
Logic of appropriateness vs logic of consequences. It is a mistake to conclude that an undesirable circumstance is in any way the root cause of the accident. You have to separate out the incidental and resist letting your emotions slant your conclusion on the hard reason for the crash. Why the AAIB is better at this than most of us. As has been said earlier, the crash was not because the pilot only had a PPL. Lots of incompetent pilots with CPL, lots of ultra competent with PPL. Did not happen because it was single-engine, there has been no suggestion or evidence that the engine failed. Did not happen because the aircraft was not flown on an AOC - two B200's crashed here in the same week flown two crew on an AOC. Did not happen because it turned into a popsicle and fell out of the sky from forecast icing. We fly the same aircraft all winter in forecast light icing. Did not happen because it was night instead of day. Now any of those things may have influenced the precipitating incident, or the consequences afterward but at this point we just don't know. As experienced pilots or AOC managers we look at sum of probabilities, and learn to back off when the odds start to stack against us - doesn't mean that anyone that chooses to proceed is automatically doomed. And back to logic of appropriateness and now the demand for greater regulatory enforcement. Same flawed argument that if we can avoid one of the incidental circumstances we can prevent the crash next time. Time travel fantasy.

Last edited by malabo; 10th Feb 2019 at 05:32.
malabo is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 02:29
  #1216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flying in forecast and known icing conditions, at night, followed by a request for descent to a lower altitude before disappearing off the radar strongly suggests that icing was a primary factor in this incident. Night is significant because someone without recent IFR experience is likely to be head down monitoring the instruments and unaware of perhaps rapid ice build up due to the darkness.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 05:58
  #1217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by malabo
Logic of appropriateness vs logic of consequences. It is a mistake to conclude that an undesirable circumstance is in any way the root cause of the accident. You have to separate out the incidental and resist letting your emotions slant your conclusion on the hard reason for the crash.

True, but it is also worth considering the fallout from a crash where the legalities were questionable. For sure, there are two people here who no longer have an opinion on that but there are plenty more who will now suffer the absolute objectivity of insurance companies and a legal system for a number of years. Perhaps, as pilots, we should consider the potential outcomes of our actions, even if we have ended-up in a box, six-foot under. Somewhere in the back of my mind I always have the thought about my wife, children, dog and their inheritance.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 07:31
  #1218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cows getting bigger

I know of a number of very good airshow pilots who have given up flying air shows because of the fallout from the Shoreham accident. Their main worry is that should they have an accident their families will end up on the street once the lawyers have finished with them.
A and C is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 07:39
  #1219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Amblesidel
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crowdfunding page to recover Ibottson's body has now reached £104,182 from 5871 donations!
anchorhold is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 08:06
  #1220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronus
...After all the large scale news and media coverage of this story perhaps is sufficient to have raised public awareness of travel by such means of air transport. I`d imagine in the future before some unwitting member of the public is about to board such a flight he/she ... may ask a few pertinent questions about the flight...
There’s been plenty of large scale media coverage of the accident itself but precious little of the matters surrounding it. The unwitting public, I fear, will remain unwitting.
Mach Tuck is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.