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 17th Feb 2019, 15:18
  #1381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 687
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 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 15:34
  #1382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 687
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. "
Chronus is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 15:55
  #1383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
Originally Posted by Chronus View Post
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.
runway30 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 19:54
  #1384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ooop north
Posts: 130
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.
OwnNav is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 20:21
  #1385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
Originally Posted by OwnNav View 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.
I’m not sure where this is going? I don’t think there is any suggestion of a Volunteer Pilot Organization flying around footballers.
runway30 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 20:34
  #1386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ooop north
Posts: 130
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
OwnNav is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2019, 23:55
  #1387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
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?

runway30 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2019, 07:13
  #1388 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,609
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 . .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2019, 07:19
  #1389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by OwnNav View Post
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?

Last edited by ChickenHouse; 18th Feb 2019 at 07:37.
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2019, 07:39
  #1390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse View Post
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.

Last edited by 2Donkeys; 18th Feb 2019 at 09:48.
2Donkeys is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2019, 17:41
  #1391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
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.’
runway30 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 09:31
  #1392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
..... and so it continues.

https://news.sky.com/story/emiliano-...-deal-11638527
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 10:00
  #1393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
Every time McKay speaks I just have more questions than answers. All the previous flights presumably were in the Eclipse. McKay is quite certain that he organised and paid for them. When it comes to the PA46, he asked Dave Henderson to ‘make all the necessary arrangements’. What does that mean? McKay says that he didn’t chose plane and pilot. In my experience, clients who regularly use air charter know the basics, prop or jet, one or two engines, one or two pilots. At some point somebody made a decision to use the PA46 after using the Eclipse for the previous flights. Wouldn’t McKay be annoyed by that? Wouldn’t the person who booked it know it wasn’t what he normally used? Suddenly McKay, although he didn’t chose the pilot, has become an expert on Dave Ibbotson’s qualifications. He uses the same form of words as the Ibbotson family, ‘he was licenced to carry passengers’. Well, yes he was in some other circumstances but not in this set of circumstances. Once again there is a cynical PR campaign going on.
runway30 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 10:10
  #1394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cotswolds
Age: 63
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger View Post

So a multitude of flights are "arranged". It can't be too difficult to find out what was the reward, who paid and who received, in which planes owned by whom etc. The big question is who will really delve into this. Apart from the high value of the passenger, authorities may consider this to be a normal "Accident". The "common purpose" required under FAA rules seems the crucial point, but will the FAA bother to investigate? Either way it would be excellent if EASA and CAA introduced the same "common purpose" rule, it would be a clear solution to a grey area.
vanHorck is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 10:49
  #1395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
McKay told Sala that Cardiff were paying for the flights, now he says that his son paid for the flights. To investigate this will be like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Except for the PA46 which was ‘arranged’.
runway30 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 11:02
  #1396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,774


Looking at the wider picture surely it is time for the FAA and CAA to legislate and abolish the abuse of this N flag of convenience.

Clearly the reason many UK based light aircraft operate on the FAA register is to exploit the fact that it is cheaper and less regulated. Here is Asia there is a rule whereby foreign registered aircraft can only stay in the country for a limited period.

Regarding agent’s part in the tragedy he clearly has passed the buck.

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.
I am not a legal expert but I imagine one of ‘ his regular pilots ‘ has played a significant part in all this.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 11:23
  #1397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
At some point somebody made a decision to use the PA46 after using the Eclipse for the previous flights. Wouldn’t McKay be annoyed by that? Wouldn’t the person who booked it know it wasn’t what he normally used?
4.23pm - McKay: [in response to a voicemail from Sala, contents unknown] " He said that it is the same company."

Eutychus is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 11:27
  #1398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
One thing that was puzzling me was where Sala’s personal agent went because he didn’t leave on the PA46 to Nantes on the Saturday. It has been revealed today that he left on the Friday afternoon on yet another PA46, N14EF.

Altaclara Aviation Ltd.

Nature of business (SIC)

  • 77351 - Renting and leasing of air passenger transport equipment
What a surprise! Yet another company that rents out an aircraft!

Last edited by runway30; 19th Feb 2019 at 11:41.
runway30 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 12:35
  #1399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 844
The "common purpose" required under FAA rules seems the crucial point
Only if this was claimed to be a cost sharing flight, which I don’t think it was.

it may well be an illegal charter, but the “common purpose” provision has nothing to do with that.
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2019, 13:05
  #1400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,220
I got the impression that "common purpose" is a stupid blunt sword.
It only means the pilot has to have a reason at a A to B flight to be at B.
You can always construct such, no way to really enforce that.
ChickenHouse 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.