Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[deltafox44]

Originally Posted by runway30

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 hadn’t 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...

[Gwyn_ap_Nudd]

Originally Posted by Maoraigh1

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.

[CBSITCB]

Originally Posted by Gwyn_ap_Nudd

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 ‘third parties’ and ‘passengers’ 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.

[Mike Flynn]

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.

[runway30]

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 didn’t 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 don’t know that Nantes Football Club also asked them to provide transportation.

[runway30]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Henderson has approached the press watchdog to say that he’s not prepared to give interviews.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...17-h1bdcq.html

[A and C]

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 ?

[runway30]

Originally Posted by A and C

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.

[Chronus]

Here is the story of another accident on a similar theme.

PILOT TO BLAME: Not qualified in crash plane, nervous when flying in clouds, 129 illegal flights in 11 weeks | The Tribune

[Chronus]

Here is another link relevant to discussion on this topic.

https://www.avweb.com/news/features/...-228750-1.html

Here is an extract from it:

"Moreover, such cost sharing applies only when the pilot and passenger share a common purpose for a flight. "

[runway30]

Originally Posted by Chronus

Here is another link relevant to discussion on this topic.

https://www.avweb.com/news/features/...-228750-1.html

Here is an extract from it:

"Moreover, such cost sharing applies only when the pilot and passenger share a common purpose for a flight. "

‘We note that the above guidance for operation of aircraft applies to all “N” registered aircraft no matter in which country the aircraft is being operated. The FAA has specifically stated that while an N-registered aircraft is being operated in a foreign country and must comply with the aviation regulations of that country, it must also comply with the FARs.’

I have copied this one paragraph because anyone who tries to manufacture some way in which this flight was legal is going to be beaten by that test. I am particularly annoyed by the public statements of the Ibbotson family who have raised a large amount of money by suggesting that Ibbotson was doing nothing wrong which is a deception.

[OwnNav]

Further to Chronus's post

We acknowledge that the risk of the FAA seeking out and filing violation actions against VPOs and VPs is low. However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135. That finding could expose the VP to a certificate action and the VPO to significant fines under the civil penalty procedures of the FARs. In addition there is also, in our opinion after consulting with attorneys and insurance professionals, a significant risk that the insurers for the VPO and VP would refuse to pay any claims because the flight met the FAA’s definition of “for hire” rather than being conducted under Part 91. It would be a terrible situation if a passenger on a flight were hurt in an accident and it turned out no insurance was available to pay for her or his medical costs or other claims. Finally, we believe that directors and officers of those VPOs could find themselves facing legal action regarding their fiduciary responsibility.

[runway30]

Originally Posted by OwnNav

We acknowledge that the risk of the FAA seeking out and filing violation actions against VPOs and VPs is low. However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135. That finding could expose the VP to a certificate action and the VPO to significant fines under the civil penalty procedures of the FARs. In addition there is also, in our opinion after consulting with attorneys and insurance professionals, a significant risk that the insurers for the VPO and VP would refuse to pay any claims because the flight met the FAA’s definition of “for hire” rather than being conducted under Part 91. It would be a terrible situation if a passenger on a flight were hurt in an accident and it turned out no insurance was available to pay for her or his medical costs or other claims. Finally, we believe that directors and officers of those VPOs could find themselves facing legal action regarding their fiduciary responsibility.

I’m not sure where this is going? I don’t think there is any suggestion of a Volunteer Pilot Organization flying around footballers.

[OwnNav]

Fair point Runway30

But I'm sure the Feds will think thus: However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135

[runway30]

Now that the Sala funeral is over, it seems that Cardiff City’s complaints are going to get louder. This has come from the Sun so comes with an automatic reality check but is supposedly a list of questions that have been sent in reply to the claim from Nantes Football Club.

1. Was Sala a Nantes player when he stepped on to the fatal flight?

2. Who arranged the flight and why did that person put him on a single-engine plane at night in difficult conditions, without adequate emergency apparatus?

3. Who took the decision to put Sala on the plane?

4. Why won’t the owner of the aircraft come forward?

5. Was the plane licenced to take commercial passengers?

6. Was pilot David Ibbotson in possession of a licence to carry passengers?

7. Was Sala third-party owned?

8. Are Sala’s previous club Bordeaux due 50 per cent of the transfer fee as part of a sell-on clause negotiated when he moved to Nantes in 2015?

9. What was transfer broker Willie McKay’s cut?

10. Was McKay’s commission, or part of the transfer fee, due to be split between other parties involved in the deal and, if so, to who?

[ATC Watcher]

This tread is going into an area which has not much to do with what it was supposed to be, . All these Sun questions are just looking for blame and pointing fingers, even starting unhealthy rumors (e.g. nr 10 ) is exactly what we hate in incident investigations . Apportion blame and responsibilities is for the police, they are trained for this , not for Aviation professionals . .

[ChickenHouse]

Originally Posted by OwnNav

But I'm sure the Feds will think thus: However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135

Would the FAA start investigations, if one would file, against sites like Wingly?
Does the FAA work proactively to prevent accidents, or only retrospective?
Interesting question. Would they pull the licenses of those flying N-reg such?

[2Donkeys]

Originally Posted by ChickenHouse

Would the FAA start investigations, if one would file, against sites like Wingly?
Interesting question. Would they pull the licenses of those flying N-reg such?

If specific complaint were made, with evidence, to the FAA that a pilot had flown in violation of Federal Regulation, then there is little doubt that FAA would investigate. The FAA has the power to suspend or in extremis, to revoke a licence.

As for a complaint against Wingly, I imagine that the FAA would have less than zero interest. Why? Because under part 91

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

The pilot, not Wingly, is responsible for determining whether a flight may be lawfully conducted. "The evil website made me perform a dodgy charter" is not a line of defence worth considering even for a moment.

[runway30]

Excerpts from an interview McKay has had with the Daily Telegraph.

‘McKay confirmed, too, that he had spoken to the Air Accidents Investigations Branch about Sala’s fatal journey on Jan 21 and had produced a timeline of all previous private-jet trips arranged as part of the transfer.

This timeline, which he shared with Telegraph Sport, shows his son had organised and paid for two earlier flights to Nantes for Cardiff manager Neil Warnock to watch the striker and two between the cities for the player himself, the first for contract talks and the second for his medical.

McKay said: “The only flight everybody is talking about is the one that crashed, right? Cardiff knew everything [about every flight]. When are they going to come out and tell the truth?”

McKay confirmed none of the four previous journeys used the same Piper Malibu plane or pilot, who was drafted in to take Sala back to Nantes to say his farewells before returning him to the Welsh capital.


The Scot has repeatedly stressed he neither owns the doomed plane nor had any input into the selection of it or the pilot, Dave Ibbotson. Instead, he says, he simply asked one of his regular pilots, Dave Henderson, to make all the necessary arrangements.

He claimed on Monday he still not to know who owned the plane or whether Ibbotson – who had £23,400 in County Court Judgments against him – was licensed to make a commercial flight or had been paid anything more than expenses.

McKay said he routinely funded the flights and hotels of players he was contracted to sell – and even managers he was trying to sell them to – listing the practice among “gambles” he took in the hope of securing a lucrative payday.’

‘Meanwhile, the AAIB confirmed on Monday its interim report into Sala’s plane crash would not be ready this week but that a publication date could be confirmed by Friday.’

[Cows getting bigger]

..... and so it continues.

https://news.sky.com/story/emiliano-...-deal-11638527