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 25th Feb 2019, 16:10
  #1461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by ianf100 View Post
Hi Positiverate20

Where did all that come from? The AAIB report said nothing about “The fact that this operation was carried out 'under pressure', as part of a substantial 'commercial contract', “ unless I missed something. The AAIB report confirms that the pilot held an FAA licence, so flight in an N registered aircraft across an international border was Ok, and the FAA doesn’t prohibit cost sharing flights. The only questions are whether the pilot’s licence and ratings were valid and how much of the cost was he planning to pay? If at least half then it’s within the FAA regulations.

As for pilots taking passengers flying, if examiners think that a GST candidate isn’t fit to take non-pilots flying then they shouldn’t give a pass on the GST.

What would you do, make PPL solo flying only? They don’t do that with cars, so why aircraft?
No, no, no. Do you understand ‘common purpose’? Did Dave Ibbotson have an appointment for football training on Tuesday morning? Did Sala insist on being taken to Cardiff Football Club or could they have gone to some other football club of Dave Ibbotson’s choosing?
runway30 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 16:12
  #1462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nantes
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by vanHorck View Post
It makes for painful reading. The track and altitudes suggest to me a possible scenario of spatial disorientation (the Kennedy accident springs to mind) , perhaps due to IMC conditions, unless he decided to turn back to land at an alternate? 180 degrees turn to the right, a climb prior to the crash. I hope they will find the iPad and perhaps recover data from it.

I am happy the AAIB seems to also be looking into the legislative part of the flight.

I am also happy the AAIB have confirmed for non commercial on an N register an equal part cost sharing and common purpose are required. No ambiguity here! EASA should in my view adopt the same common purpose for cost sharing.
The last 30 seconds show a tight 180° turn to the right and a 2500' descent. This is neither a turn to land nor an engine failure, it can only be a disorientation, a pilot attack, or a stall/spin due to icing.
deltafox44 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 16:15
  #1463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
Some detective work will find out the pilot's recent flying hours in the absence of his log book.. The airfields he flew from and to will have a record in ATC of the actual departure and arrival times of his aircraft. Maintaining night recency for instance can be done by simply doing three night takeoffs and landings in quick succession at one airfield.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 16:15
  #1464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by ianf100 View Post
The AAIB report confirms that the pilot held an FAA licence, so flight in an N registered aircraft across an international border was Ok, and the FAA doesn’t prohibit cost sharing flights. The only questions are whether the pilot’s licence and ratings were valid and how much of the cost was he planning to pay? If at least half then it’s within the FAA regulations.
That points to one thing I find surprising. The electronic FAA IACRA system is a rather strict system to keep records of issuance, initial activation and all check rides for licenses. I wonder why they did not put the investigation results on the US history in the report, as they must have the data by now. We know from the database a FAA piggyback 61.75 license was issued, but when was it first activated by an initial flight review - mandatory to render the license valid, and what comments show the records of subsequent BFR check rides - mandatory to keep the license valid? If there would be surprisingly no entries in the database, the 61.75 would have never been enabled for flying.
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 16:27
  #1465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melrose
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Arkroyal View Post


3,700 hours or the same hour of VFR 3,700 times?

Sad story. Poor Sala.
How true, I was an engineer, and led large projects which involved hiring people. Often I encountered applicants who had 20 or 30 years of 'experience' , but who on deeper enquiry had obviously had the same years 'experience' 20 or 30 times. Airline pilots with many thousands of hours may have only actually handled the controls for a tiny fraction of that time. I am a glider pilot with over a thousand hours during which my hands were seldom off the controls for more than a minute or two. There is increasing evidence that this lack of hands on is a contributary cause of some of the accidents we see to commercial flights.
Olympia463 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 16:30
  #1466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2
Did he enter the sea in a spin?

Reading about the outer aspects of wings, tailane and fin off main bodies (connected by the cables running through) of wreckage, and looking at suggested rate of final descent it suggests to me that this may perhaps have resulted from a spinning entry to the water. The ascents and descents suggest to me that the pilot was disorientated and distracted in his quest to avoid weather and remain visual, and probably seriously distracted/disorientated by a heavy shower blocking his visibility. I would imagine such might result from little training or experience in night flying. He did admit, per FB, to being a little rusty on the autopilot, which would not have helped the situation. The investigation will find the likely cause, whatever it was. Even if no payment was involved, other than basic the cost of hiring the aircraft, airport fees and fuel, I should imagine any private pilot would be most enthusiastic about flying a sports or any VIP in a beautiful, and airworthy aircraft from abroad to back home, with every hope of being able to remain visual on a route which doesn’t traverse high mountains. RIP to them both.
martinebrangan is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 17:02
  #1467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,201
Originally Posted by golfbananajam View Post
Mike Flynn are you sure that's correct, I understood the UK night rating on a PPL to be UK FIR only, same as the IMC
No, the Night rating has no restrictions. However he did not have one so its a moot point.....
S-Works is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 17:27
  #1468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 153
Actually being a skydive pilot myself, your stick and rudder skills improve enormously so I doubt the pilot was lacking in that regard. It's hands on flying all the way.
However I did find that others skills withered from lack of use. I sure wouldn't like to to find myself over the Channel at night in weather without recent practice and I actually held an Instrument rating with plenty of hours in actual IMC.

The possibility of spatial disorientation followed by in flight break up is what the report seems to imply. It's a common enough outcome, inadvertent entry into IMC on a VFR flight.

​​​​​

Steepclimb is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 17:43
  #1469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: East of Edenbridge
Age: 58
Posts: 83
The FAA issued legal interpretations in 200917 and 201418 making clear that a pilot must not pay less than the pro rata share for the flight. If the flight involves the pilot and one passenger, then the pilot must pay half the operating expenses. The ruling also made clear that the pilot must have a bona fide purpose (also known as common purpose) for making the flight and must dictate when the flight is to go. The flight must not be made for the purpose of merely transporting the passenger
So basically, whatever other information comes to light, it was not a legal flight.
OPENDOOR is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 18:18
  #1470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cotswolds
Age: 63
Posts: 1,259
Originally Posted by Steepclimb View Post
The possibility of spatial disorientation followed by in flight break up is what the report seems to imply. It's a common enough outcome, inadvertent entry into IMC on a VFR flight.
​​​​​
I am not so sure about the inflight break up. The sonar seemed to show the wings were still attached and he was pretty low, rather spatial disorientation and high speed impact with the sea, causing the engine to break off and the tail to collapse on the fuselage. Figure 7 seems to show more damage on the right, so perhaps still in a right turn, possibly a spiral dive? Not sure what to make of the outward parts of the wings having broken off, perhaps someone has an idea? Inflight breakup would likely sheer-off an entire wing?
vanHorck is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 18:31
  #1471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Belfast
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by vanHorck View Post
I am not so sure about the inflight break up. The sonar seemed to show the wings were still attached and he was pretty low, rather spatial disorientation and high speed impact with the sea, causing the engine to break off and the tail to collapse on the fuselage
Yes I agree entirely. It's chilling in a way... the old saying, in IMC a VFR pilot has only got 3 minutes to survive. This pilot requested descent to return to VMC.

The initial radar return in the AAIB's track was at 2013:32, 3 minutes 2 seconds later at 2016:34 was the last radar return at the crash site.
positiverate20 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 18:43
  #1472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 682
Here is an extract from the PA46 Malibu Pilots Operating Handbook.
2.34 ICING INFORMATION "WARNING" Severe icing may result from environmental conditions outside of those for which the airplane is certified. Flight in freezing rain, freezing drizzle, or mixed icing conditions (supercooled liquid water and ice crystals) may result in ice build-up on protected surfaces exceeding the capability of the ice protection system, or may result in ice forming aft of the protected surfaces. This ice may not be shed using the ice protection systems, and may seriously degrade the performance and controllability of the airplane. During flight, severe icing conditions that exceed those for which the airplane is certificated shall be determined by the following visual cues. If one or more of these visual cues exists, immediately request priority handling from Air Traffic Control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the icing conditions. Unusually extensive ice accumulation on the airframe and windshield in areas not normally observed to collect ice. Accumulation of ice on the upper surface of the wing, aft of the protected area. Accumulation of ice on the engine nacelles and propeller spinners farther aft than normally observed. Since the autopilot, when installed and operating, may mask tactile cues that indicate adverse changes in handling characteristics, use of the autopilot is prohibited when any of the visual cues specified above exist, or when unusual lateral trim requirements or autopilot trim warnings are encountered while the airplane is in icing conditions. All wing icing inspection lights must be operative prior to flight into known or forecast icing conditions at night.

May be of interest to a previous post about auto pilot malfunction. AS the above reminds us more to the point is pilot`s knowledge about the use and limitations of the auto pilot.
Chronus is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 19:17
  #1473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 164
I am surprised by some comments here that assume that the interim report states the illegality of the flight.

I don't read any of that in the report.
It says that, if the flight was organised as a cost sharing flight, the FAA rules would apply ; i.e. pro-rata cost sharing and common purpose.

However, it is pretty obvious that the costs were neither borne by the pilot nor by the passenger.
Possibly by the operator or by a third person.
As the operator does not hold an air carrier certificate, this is a PART 91 flight.
As per FAR §61.113, in such a situation and if the aircraft transports passengers or goods, the pilot MUST hold a CPL licence.
If the aircraft were not carrying passenger or goods (eg: a ferry flight) and the pilot were not receiving any compensation, the flight would have been legal.

So the conclusion is the same : the flight was very probably illegal because the pilot was not holding a commercial licence.
However, this is inferred from other elements than just the report contents.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 19:28
  #1474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Warks
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by Luc Lion View Post
I am surprised by some comments here that assume that the interim report states the illegality of the flight.

I don't read any of that in the report.
It says that, if the flight was organised as a cost sharing flight, the FAA rules would apply ; i.e. pro-rata cost sharing and common purpose.

However, it is pretty obvious that the costs were neither borne by the pilot nor by the passenger.
Possibly by the operator or by a third person.
As the operator does not hold an air carrier certificate, this is a PART 91 flight.
As per FAR §61.113, in such a situation and if the aircraft transports passengers or goods, the pilot MUST hold a CPL licence.
If the aircraft were not carrying passenger or goods (eg: a ferry flight) and the pilot were not receiving any compensation, the flight would have been legal.

So the conclusion is the same : the flight was very probably illegal because the pilot was not holding a commercial licence.
However, this is inferred from other elements than just the report contents.
right but does the FAA also not state that the direct costs are borne by the OCCUPANTS of the craft (up to a maximum of six) on a pro-rata basis? A third party paying for the direct costs would not seem to meet the cost-sharing criteria.
skyrangerpro is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 19:39
  #1475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 164
skyrangerpro,

the interim report confirms that
Originally Posted by AAIB Interim Report
...
The pilot of N264DB held an EASA PPL, issued by the CAA in the UK, and an FAA PPL, issued on the basis of his EASA PPL
...
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 19:40
  #1476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Warks
Posts: 69
you're right of course, this wasn't a cost-sharing flight, but that's not to say it it wasn't being flown under the auspices of being one. The FAA state for a cost sharing flight that the direct costs are borne by the OCCUPANTS of the craft (up to a maximum of six) on a pro-rata basis. A third party paying for the direct costs would not meet the cost-sharing criteria. But then the corollary of your point is that the pilot knowingly flew a commercial flight and portrayed it as such without the necessary licence which I find extraordinary.
skyrangerpro is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 20:18
  #1477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,410
Originally Posted by korrol View Post
Granted that this is only an interim report - but it must surely be unsatisfactory that the details of Mr Ibbotson's FAA PPL and EASA PPL are still unclear and not on record somewhere. The AAIB report says they appear to have been in the aircraft and consequently lost.
I have been saying for years that the laws requiring licences and log books to be carried on board the aircraft are bonkers, precisely because this means they're likely to be unavailable when they'd be of most interest.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 21:21
  #1478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
More information in the Sunday papers. The aircraft owner has been named as Cool Flourish Ltd. by the Daily Mail. The name will have been known to the Daily Mail for some time (they probably read it here).

The pilot of the Eclipse which brought Sala inbound to CWL on the Friday has been named by The Telegraph as David Hayman, CEO of Aeris Aviation. Willie McKay says that the unavailability of David Henderson and David Hayman to fly the Eclipse was the reason that Dave Ibbotson was drafted in to fly the PA46 (but he took no part in that decision of course).
Presumably Bruce Dickinson the chairman of Aeris was also unavailable. Do I remember he also owns an airline of sorts?

The Mail make much of the aircraft changing hands 4 times on the same day in 2015 but this is probably quite usual in the case of a N reg going into trust. I am not sure how the Mail can be certain that Cool Flourish Ltd are the beneficial owners, company returns do not readily confirm this as likely, no great change in the asset situation in 2015 as I recall.

Last edited by Rory166; 25th Feb 2019 at 21:47.
Rory166 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2019, 22:04
  #1479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nantes
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by positiverate20 View Post
Yes I agree entirely. It's chilling in a way... the old saying, in IMC a VFR pilot has only got 3 minutes to survive. This pilot requested descent to return to VMC.
I disagree. Night VFR request good skills of instrument flying. The pilot and the aircaft had everything to cross safely the showers line level through the clouds.

Trying to keep clear of the clouds means putting A/P off, turning and banking, which increases the risk of spatial disorientation. Had the pilot be asleep with autopilot, the aircraft would probably have reached Cardiff by itself...
deltafox44 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2019, 04:24
  #1480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,085
What a total waste of time and energy this whole thing will become. No doubt we can spin our wheels for the next - what? 2, 3 years before a final report gets published and all for what exactly?

The AAIB and others will consume huge resource and present a lovely comprehensive report to tell us what? The Met looked marginal for his planned flight and his ratings and the cost sharing element is parallel to that. BUT to what end is all of this? Cost sharing pros/cons have been done to death, pilots are aware of the rules, the CAA are aware of the rules and even if there is some item of question in this flight so what the pilot is dead.

What would be a better use of time and resource would be free the AAIB to investigate the remainder of what is on their book in a more timely manner and any resource impact for the CAA to spend time and energy going through the rules they have to ensure they say what they think they mean, oh and maybe do the odd ramp check.
Pittsextra 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.