Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by runway30
I have all along maintained that the Ibbotson family should be treated with respect and given our condolences for their loss. I also respect their wish to defend Dave Ibbotson, I hope all our families would do the same for us. However, I think this media appearance was very ill advised.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Age: 65
Posts: 9
I would guess the police will need to await the Coroners verdict before they may consider investigations for any criminal acts which may have led to the deaths of the occupants. The coroner in adjourning the hearing may well have decided to wait for the AAIB report.
I think it is more likely that the Coroner will wait for the police report, to have all available evidence before him. The purpose of the inquest is not to apportion blame, indeed the rules specifically state that no civil or criminal liability can be specified against any named individual.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,567
Originally Posted by JFW
I think it is more likely that the Coroner will wait for the police report, to have all available evidence before him. The purpose of the inquest is not to apportion blame, indeed the rules specifically state that no civil or criminal liability can be specified against any named individual.
From a previous post:
Senior acting coroner Brendan Allen said that investigations were being carried out by the police, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Warks
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by JFW
I think it is more likely that the Coroner will wait for the police report, to have all available evidence before him. The purpose of the inquest is not to apportion blame, indeed the rules specifically state that no civil or criminal liability can be specified against any named individual.
Right. He will seek to ascertain
1. Who
2. When
3. Where
4. How
but not why. He has very wide ranging powers too.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 912
Originally Posted by Cambridge172
Surely this function on a well known private 'flight sharing' website is fundamentally illegal and should be removed?
(See for example page 4 of this document from EASA: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...AIR_OPS_EN.pdf)
Last edited by what next; 14th Feb 2019 at 16:43.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by what next
Although I am not the biggest fan of flight sharing sites (and would never have allowed my son to use such a service while I still had the power to forbid anything to him) this is not illegal in Europe as long as European registered aircraft are used. And as long as the cost is shared between all occupants, including the pilot, and the latter does not receive any kind of remuneration. And some more conditions are met most of which have been listed on this thread several times already.
(See for example page 4 of this document from EASA: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...AIR_OPS_EN.pdf)
(See for example page 4 of this document from EASA: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...AIR_OPS_EN.pdf)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 912
Originally Posted by Good Business Sense
I think you'll find that most insurers don't agree .
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Belfast
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by what next
No, no, no! Regulations and laws are made by states, not by insureres. We are talking about legality here. Cost sharing flights (observing the relevant rules) are legal in EASA member countries. How much an insurer has to pay in case of an accident has nothing to do with that.
Just a numbered other
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 68
Posts: 1,167
Originally Posted by what next
No, no, no! Regulations and laws are made by states, not by insureres. We are talking about legality here. Cost sharing flights (observing the relevant rules) are legal in EASA member countries. How much an insurer has to pay in case of an accident has nothing to do with that.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 862
If your insurance policy doesn’t specifically exclude legal cost sharing flights, I can’t see on what basis an insurer could refuse to pay. You are flying within the scope of your licence and not in breach of a specific exclusion.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Belfast
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
But what if you have a passenger on that track day jaunt?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by what next
No, no, no! Regulations and laws are made by states, not by insureres. We are talking about legality here. Cost sharing flights (observing the relevant rules) are legal in EASA member countries. How much an insurer has to pay in case of an accident has nothing to do with that.
Just because a state writes a law doesn't mean to say that it can't be challenged or proved to be improperly constructed - see here for EU/EASA CASE LAW / COMMON LAW application and challanges - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/collection...-case-law.html
For example, in my view, Wingly employes pilots - if pilots don't fly for them wingly doesn't make a profit or have business. For example, Wingly sells gift certificates to people who then give them on to a third party who, in turn, contact Private Pilots who offer to fly them anywhere they want to go at the time they wish to depart - one way, return, IFR/VFR, overnight, international ..... and that's not commercial ??
Last edited by Good Business Sense; 15th Feb 2019 at 01:07.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Warks
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
And you'll be a danger to nobody but yourself. Spot the difference.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,567
Originally Posted by skyrangerpro
well that’s not right. You could injure another participant or bystander or any number of scenarios. Specific track day insurance is offered by a number of insurers. Either call your existing insurers in advance of the day or go to a specialist who will insure you on a case by case basis.
But it's illegal to fly an aircraft without insurance.
An aircraft must be insured before it can fly
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Bristol
Posts: 164
Recently Ibbotson's wife Nora and daughter Dannielle were interviewed on television. Nora stated that Ibbotson had a Private Pilots Licence and was qualified to carry passengers. It was stated that he flew purely as a hobby. When pressed about if he received payment Nora, she chose not to answer the question.
What we also know about Ibbotson is that he was a Gas Safe (Corgi) engineer, and under law entitled to service boilers, issue gas certificates and install and sign out new gas supplies. I think we all agree with with the law in the UK on gas fitting. Those violating gas regulations are rightly dealt severely by the courts in the UK.
Now then, what if a ATPL or CPL holder in the Scunthorpe before this accident decided as a hobby on his daysoff to do gas fitting for 'expenses', surely Ibbotson and local gas fitters would report him or her, likewise the local authority and Gas Safe would be pressing for a prosecution.
Whether Ibbotson was operating for hire and reward is not perhaps the issue, more to the point he was operating as a commercial pilot, yet not qualified to do so. In the same way I am not qualified to carry out surgery or act as a pro bono solicitor, solicitor being a protected title in law.
The crowdfunding page is worth visiting, for the comments. Many of Ibbotson's supporters seem critical that the football industry are not fully funding the search for Ibbotson, David Beckham has been identified as someone who should throw in some money towards the search, I ask why? Likewise they are very critical of the UK AAIB, which is highly respected worldwide, they do not understand the remit of the AAIB, in so much they are not an agency for the recovery of bodies. In the case of Lockerbie, my understanding was that not all the bodies were recovered. Of course there might had been further searches by the AAIB for the body, if they suspected that the pilot was incapacitated, but the was little indication of this.
The AAIB will know more than us, but the evidence suggest that the pilot was not qualifed to fly in IMC, or at night, icing was likely and the post mortem evidence from Sala suggests a high speed impact, so a controlled forced landing can be ruled out.
What we also know about Ibbotson is that he was a Gas Safe (Corgi) engineer, and under law entitled to service boilers, issue gas certificates and install and sign out new gas supplies. I think we all agree with with the law in the UK on gas fitting. Those violating gas regulations are rightly dealt severely by the courts in the UK.
Now then, what if a ATPL or CPL holder in the Scunthorpe before this accident decided as a hobby on his daysoff to do gas fitting for 'expenses', surely Ibbotson and local gas fitters would report him or her, likewise the local authority and Gas Safe would be pressing for a prosecution.
Whether Ibbotson was operating for hire and reward is not perhaps the issue, more to the point he was operating as a commercial pilot, yet not qualified to do so. In the same way I am not qualified to carry out surgery or act as a pro bono solicitor, solicitor being a protected title in law.
The crowdfunding page is worth visiting, for the comments. Many of Ibbotson's supporters seem critical that the football industry are not fully funding the search for Ibbotson, David Beckham has been identified as someone who should throw in some money towards the search, I ask why? Likewise they are very critical of the UK AAIB, which is highly respected worldwide, they do not understand the remit of the AAIB, in so much they are not an agency for the recovery of bodies. In the case of Lockerbie, my understanding was that not all the bodies were recovered. Of course there might had been further searches by the AAIB for the body, if they suspected that the pilot was incapacitated, but the was little indication of this.
The AAIB will know more than us, but the evidence suggest that the pilot was not qualifed to fly in IMC, or at night, icing was likely and the post mortem evidence from Sala suggests a high speed impact, so a controlled forced landing can be ruled out.
