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 15th Feb 2019, 23:02
  #1361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by EXDAC View Post
Quite right about confusion. There is no FAA regulation that prohibits me, an FAA CPL well over 60, from flying single crew commercial flights. That could be glider towing, crop spraying, banner towing, parachute operations etc. Commercial operation is far more extensive than part 121 operation.
Yeh, confusion indeed - A 59 year old UK resident with a UK PPL and an FAA add on based on his EASA license is what we're talking about - can I suggest that you read up on the EASA regulations which apply in this case - particularly on the examples you gave. Getting back to the point raised i.e. hour building - the pilot in this case had plenty of hours.

Last edited by Good Business Sense; 15th Feb 2019 at 23:34.
Good Business Sense is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 01:51
  #1362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Good Business Sense View Post
Yeh, confusion indeed - A 59 year old UK resident with a UK PPL and an FAA add on based on his EASA license is what we're talking about - can I suggest that you read up on the EASA regulations which apply in this case - particularly on the examples you gave. Getting back to the point raised i.e. hour building - the pilot in this case had plenty of hours.
The post I answered was not specific to the accident pilot. It was a statement with no context and demonstrably untrue in the context for which I responded. If you want to narrow the context to EASA rules perhaps you could provide a reference. The only EASA rules I have have found relating to age 60 single pilot operations apply only to Commercial Air Transport.

FCL.065 Curtailment of privileges of licence holders aged 60 years or more in commercial air transport (a) Age 60-64. Aeroplanes and helicopters. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 60 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport except as a member of a multi-pilot crew.

"Commercial air transport" means the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.

How would this regulation apply to, for example, banner towing, crop spraying, or glider towing? Perhaps there is another EASA regulation that does apply?
EXDAC is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 04:21
  #1363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
How would this regulation apply to, for example, banner towing, crop spraying, or glider towing? Perhaps there is another EASA regulation that does apply?
add in surveying, photography and flight instruction and you have aerial work which doesn't need to be multi crew over the age of 60.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 08:15
  #1364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 486
There is a brief article about the cost sharing/pseudo charter situation in the current Private Eye. Reasonably well informed by the standards of the non specialist press.
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 09:18
  #1365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by EXDAC View Post
The post I answered was not specific to the accident pilot. It was a statement with no context and demonstrably untrue in the context for which I responded. If you want to narrow the context to EASA rules perhaps you could provide a reference. The only EASA rules I have have found relating to age 60 single pilot operations apply only to Commercial Air Transport.

FCL.065 Curtailment of privileges of licence holders aged 60 years or more in commercial air transport (a) Age 60-64. Aeroplanes and helicopters. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 60 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport except as a member of a multi-pilot crew.

"Commercial air transport" means the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.

How would this regulation apply to, for example, banner towing, crop spraying, or glider towing? Perhaps there is another EASA regulation that does apply?
No context ? The subject matter of this thread is more than obvious and the conversation above, over the last few weeks, clearly indicates what we are talking about.

If people would rather take the view that a 59 year old pilot is building hours, spending perhaps a year or so passing exams, and spending tens of thousands of pounds on a CPL so that he can tow banners etc at, if he's lucky, £30 per hour that's absolutely fine and there lies my response.

Now, if you wish to discuss FARs disregarding the thread topic and conversation then fill your boots.
Good Business Sense is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 10:39
  #1366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Belfast
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Good Business Sense View Post
No context ? The subject matter of this thread is more than obvious and the conversation above, over the last few weeks, clearly indicates what we are talking about.

If people would rather take the view that a 59 year old pilot is building hours, spending perhaps a year or so passing exams, and spending tens of thousands of pounds on a CPL so that he can tow banners etc at, if he's lucky, £30 per hour that's absolutely fine and there lies my response.

Now, if you wish to discuss FARs disregarding the thread topic and conversation then fill your boots.
So in any case- even if Henderson had have flown using his CPL, it would have been illegal as he's over 60. The only way to make it legal would be by having a 2nd pilot (multi-pilot crew). So... that brings us nicely back to the reported additional identification shown at Nantes? However, Ibbotson still only had a PPL so couldn't really have been part of a multi-pilot crew on a commercial flight (in order to legitimize Henderson being over 60).

Last edited by positiverate20; 16th Feb 2019 at 10:50.
positiverate20 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 12:05
  #1367 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,602
On the insurance , if is interesting to see there seem to be a lot of lawyers, insurance experts here , but the reality is a bit different .

I just looked in my insurance certificate on my aircraft (registered in Germany) and it is all there . .
The insurance part has nothing to do with EASA( or FAA) in fact , it is up to each State in which you want to operate.into.,and it is the European Parliament that did set the rules in 2004 , ( Regulation EC no 785/2004 ) so , yes, in the EU , liability for 3rd party insurance it is mandatory and the minimum is set per weight (MTOW) . For my aircraft it is 1,5 Million SDR ( a SDR is a little bit more than 1 euro )
But individual states can ask for a higher amount , for instance in Austria it is 3 million. ( the highest in Europe) so if I want to fly only in my country and it only applies the legal minimum ( like in Germany) I can have an insurance of 1.5 Milion , but if I want to fly in the whole of Europe I must increase my insurance to cover 3 million, .
It does not matter where the aircraft is registered , it is operating in the country that counts , because each country can set its own values, even inside the EU / EASA land..
Don't worry I leaned also something today :-)
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 14:50
  #1368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,202
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
On the insurance , if is interesting to see there seem to be a lot of lawyers, insurance experts here , but the reality is a bit different .

I just looked in my insurance certificate on my aircraft (registered in Germany) and it is all there . .
The insurance part has nothing to do with EASA( or FAA) in fact , it is up to each State in which you want to operate.into.,and it is the European Parliament that did set the rules in 2004 , ( Regulation EC no 785/2004 ) so , yes, in the EU , liability for 3rd party insurance it is mandatory and the minimum is set per weight (MTOW) . For my aircraft it is 1,5 Million SDR ( a SDR is a little bit more than 1 euro )
But individual states can ask for a higher amount , for instance in Austria it is 3 million. ( the highest in Europe) so if I want to fly only in my country and it only applies the legal minimum ( like in Germany) I can have an insurance of 1.5 Milion , but if I want to fly in the whole of Europe I must increase my insurance to cover 3 million, .
It does not matter where the aircraft is registered , it is operating in the country that counts , because each country can set its own values, even inside the EU / EASA land..
Don't worry I leaned also something today :-)

I already linked all this information several posts back without being a lawyer or an insurance agent......

S-Works is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 17:47
  #1369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by positiverate20 View Post
So in any case- even if Henderson had have flown using his CPL, it would have been illegal as he's over 60. The only way to make it legal would be by having a 2nd pilot (multi-pilot crew). So... that brings us nicely back to the reported additional identification shown at Nantes? However, Ibbotson still only had a PPL so couldn't really have been part of a multi-pilot crew on a commercial flight (in order to legitimize Henderson being over 60).
nowithstanibg an AOC - exactly positiverate
Good Business Sense is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 18:29
  #1370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
On the insurance ... liability for 3rd party insurance it is mandatory
And what does your insurance say about passengers? In this case, no third party was harmed, but instead a very "precious" (in terms of money) passenger. On commercial air transport there is a minimum (ridiculously low!) sum for which every passenger is insured, with private flights there is usually none at all. So all claims will be go directly to the pilot in command (or his estate) or to whoever is deemed responsible by the lawyers working on the case.
what next is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 18:57
  #1371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The middle
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by positiverate20 View Post
So in any case- even if Henderson had have flown using his CPL, it would have been illegal as he's over 60. The only way to make it legal would be by having a 2nd pilot (multi-pilot crew). So... that brings us nicely back to the reported additional identification shown at Nantes? However, Ibbotson still only had a PPL so couldn't really have been part of a multi-pilot crew on a commercial flight (in order to legitimize Henderson being over 60).
I hold an FAA ATP, and my understanding has always been that if the owner of an FAA registered aircraft for which I have a current class or type rating came to me and said " I would like you to fly my aircraft and a passenger who is not paying for the flight from A to B (or N to C)" then this would be legal if I am over or under 60, as it is not an act of public air transport as the passenger is not paying for the flight. As the Malibu is a single crew aircraft then this would be legal if flown by an FAA CPL holder with a current IR, class rating, differences rating etc.
So the flight would have been legal if Henderson flew it, assuming he holds an FAA CPL and not an EASA one. It became illegal when a pilot without a commercial licence was somehow subcontracted to fly it.
excrab is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 19:01
  #1372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,387
In non-commercial, private, flying, is the passenger a third-party? That seems to be the situation in road vehicle injury.
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 19:08
  #1373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nantes
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post


Sala signed on the Saturday before travelling back to Nantes. The Manager implied that this put him under their control because he stated that he could have insisted that Sala travel with the team to Newcastle rather than fly to Nantes. It is difficult to know the basis of the dispute with Nantes over payment but Cardiff seem to suggest that the registration of the contract with the Premier League hadnít been completed before the accident. Their previous statements also seem to suggest negligence in the booking of the flight by the agent employed by Nantes Football Club.
The transfer was registered at the FIFA. The agent booking the flight (Willie McKay or son) was not employed by Nantes FC but only had been commissioned to sell their player. 2 others of his sons are players at Cardiff City and from the SMS the flight's counterpart was to help them scoring goals.
The Cardiff City insurance - if any - should cover the financial loss (transfer plus prejudice). Cardiff City has promised they would pay "what is due" once everything about the flight is clear. It seems they are just trying to gain time...
deltafox44 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2019, 19:47
  #1374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outside in the cold distance
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Maoraigh1 View Post
In non-commercial, private, flying, is the passenger a third-party? That seems to be the situation in road vehicle injury.
I would suggest that in this case, since the passenger was not paying for the flight he was very much a third party as he was not a party to whatever contract existed between the provider and customer, whoever they may turn out to have been.
Gwyn_ap_Nudd is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 08:12
  #1375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Gwyn_ap_Nudd View Post
I would suggest that in this case, since the passenger was not paying for the flight he was very much a third party as he was not a party to whatever contract existed between the provider and customer, whoever they may turn out to have been.
Under aircraft insurance regulations Ďthird partiesí and Ďpassengersí are separate entities. This remains true even if both are collectively covered under a combined insurance policy.

A passenger is defined as any person onboard who is not part of the flight or cabin crew, or undergoing formal training by a licensed instructor.

Sala was a passenger.
CBSITCB is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 11:01
  #1376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,767
in my opinion no one goes down to Nantes in the middle of winter on a jaunt like this unless they are being paid.

Trying to prove the pilot was paid is a different ball game if you pardon the pun.

I doubt this was the first time Ibbotson did such a flight.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 11:37
  #1377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
As I predicted, the claim that Cardiff City Football Club intends to bring against Nantes Football Club appears to depend on a chain of causation. Dave Ibbotson is hired by the broker Dave Henderson, the McKays gave the job to the broker, Nantes Football Club appointed the McKays as their sales agent.

There are weak links in this chain. If you approach an Air Charter Broker, you should be able to expect the broker to act in a professional way and only use licenced air carriers. However, if this activity had been going on for a long time, it then becomes more difficult for the McKays to claim that they didnít know that Henderson was hiring private pilots.

I also think there there is a problem in the link between the McKays and Nantes Football Club. The McKays were hired for the specific task of selling Sala, we donít know that Nantes Football Club also asked them to provide transportation.
runway30 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 12:10
  #1378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Henderson has approached the press watchdog to say that heís not prepared to give interviews.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...17-h1bdcq.html
runway30 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 13:56
  #1379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,157
Runway 30

is it any suprize no one will talk to the press, after all would you talk to the press if you had been unwise enough to get involved in this dubious enterprise ?
A and C is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 14:29
  #1380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
Originally Posted by A and C View Post
Runway 30

is it any suprize no one will talk to the press, after all would you talk to the press if you had been unwise enough to get involved in this dubious enterprise ?
Apologies, I should have given the earlier reference where it was suggested that Henderson had tried to take out an injunction against the press. Given the cost of taking out an injunction, a complaint to the watchdog would be a cheaper alternative.
runway30 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.