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 28th Feb 2019, 21:37
  #1561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cotswolds
Age: 63
Posts: 1,259
The player was always intending to return in the evening according to these whatsapp's
vanHorck is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 07:41
  #1562 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,579
Yes , if those screenshots are correct it is quite damaging as indeed the return flight was from the beginning planned to be in the evening ( so at least partly at night) and Sala apparently paid for it as the person on the other end of the phone asked Sala if he arranged the price [with Willis Mc Kay] , , and Sala replied : yes , it is good .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 10:37
  #1563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 161
The colour blindness issue is a red herring.
Historically, barring some flying privileges to colour blind people had surfaced for fear that such people would be unable to distinguish the different flare signals sent by a tower in the event of a radio-communication failure or unable to distinguish the left and right position lights of a conflicting traffic. Most colour blind people can perfectly distinguish the 2 position lights but fail the Ishihara test.

The real issues that have a causal relationship with this accident are:
- was the pilot trained and current for flying in IMC at night ?
- why wasn't a commercial pilot at the controls of that plane, if it is confirmed that the actual conditions of the flight match private carriage operation as defined under FAR 91.501(b)(4).
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 10:45
  #1564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by Luc Lion View Post
The colour blindness issue is a red herring.
You may even believe that, I don't.
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 10:59
  #1565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,199
Originally Posted by Luc Lion View Post
The colour blindness issue is a red herring.
Historically, barring some flying privileges to colour blind people had surfaced for fear that such people would be unable to distinguish the different flare signals sent by a tower in the event of a radio-communication failure or unable to distinguish the left and right position lights of a conflicting traffic. Most colour blind people can perfectly distinguish the 2 position lights but fail the Ishihara test.

The real issues that have a causal relationship with this accident are:
- was the pilot trained and current for flying in IMC at night ?
- why wasn't a commercial pilot at the controls of that plane, if it is confirmed that the actual conditions of the flight match private carriage operation as defined under FAR 91.501(b)(4).
He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY. He had NEVER been trained to fly out night due to this restriction. This could not be over ridden on his 61.75 certificate. So regardless of any of the other issues around the flight, the fact that it was flown at night made it illegal.......
S-Works is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 11:11
  #1566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
The colourblind isn’t a red herring. One presumes he knew of the limitation and he clearly ignored it. To me that is indicative of someone who chooses not to completely comply with the regulations. One could offer a similar argument about taking a brown-envelop payment - no harm, not the cause etc. Fine, tell that one to the insurance companies.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 11:13
  #1567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 161
S-Works, I believe you are right.
But it doesn't make a difference if the flight was illegal for one reason or for 2, 3 or 5 reasons.
To me, as the flight was organised in the first place, it should have been manned with a CPL (IR) pilot.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 11:32
  #1568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nantes
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Sala apparently paid for it as the person on the other end of the phone asked Sala if he arranged the price [with Willis Mc Kay] , , and Sala replied : yes , it is good .
"it is good" doesn't mean he had something to pay. Other text messages (with Jack McKay) say that he would have nothing to pay, only help him score a few goals.
FRIDAY JANUARY 18

7:43pm - Jack McKay: "My dad has told me that you are going home tomorrow. He could organise a plane to take you direct to Nantes and to come back on Monday, at a time that suits you, so you can get to training on Tuesday."

7:51pm - Emiliano Sala: "Ah that is great. I was just in the middle of checking if there are some flights to get to Nantes tomorrow."

7:56pm - McKay: "He said he could organise a plane that would go direct to Nantes."

7:56pm - Sala: "How much will it cost?"

7:56pm - McKay: "Nothing. He said if you help me to score goals it's nothing."

7:59pm - Sala: "Hahaha with pleasure."

8:00pm: "We are going to score lots of goals."

8:01pm: "I want to leave tomorrow for Nantes at around 11am and come back on Monday night around 9pm to Cardiff if that is possible."

8:05pm - McKay: "Good. I'll send a message when that's sorted."

Last edited by deltafox44; 1st Mar 2019 at 11:44.
deltafox44 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 11:49
  #1569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,733
Originally Posted by S-Works View Post
He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY. He had NEVER been trained to fly out night due to this restriction. This could not be over ridden on his 61.75 certificate. So regardless of any of the other issues around the flight, the fact that it was flown at night made it illegal.......
I am still amazed you can get an unrestricted night rating with only a few hours training in the local area and then fly over the sea and mountains without having visual reference to the ground.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 13:10
  #1570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 260
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post


I am still amazed you can get an unrestricted night rating with only a few hours training in the local area and then fly over the sea and mountains without having visual reference to the ground.
But withe a night rating you are still required to have visual reference with the ground. If there are no lights (ie over the sea) and no horizon or sky references then you can be definition only be flying by sole reference to instruments which specifically requires an IR or IMC rating. Under those conditions your rating to fly VMC at night is negated by there being no VMC present.
meleagertoo is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 13:26
  #1571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Luc Lion View Post
The real issues that have a causal relationship with this accident are:
- was the pilot trained and current for flying in IMC at night ?
- why wasn't a commercial pilot at the controls of that plane, if it is confirmed that the actual conditions of the flight match private carriage operation as defined under FAR 91.501(b)(4).

To me, as the flight was organised in the first place, it should have been manned with a CPL (IR) pilot.
He was NOT rated to fly an N reg either IMC or at night. Check the FAA airman database yourself. He held an FAA private without Instrument Rating. Even if there turned out to be UK IR(r) or IMC/Night Rating that did not allow him to fly at night outside the UK.

Single pistons are NOT permitted to carry out commercial air transport at night anyway. So I do not see the logic that "it should have been manned with a CPL because it was organised in the first place". And "if it is confirmed that the actual conditions of the flight match private carriage operation" (unlikely) an appropriately rated private pilot would be completely legitimate.
oggers is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 14:04
  #1572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 161
Oggers,
I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4) where the operating costs are borne by the operator "for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". That's private carriage operation.

Either the operator flies himself the aircraft, possibly with a PPL, or he hires a commercial pilot for flying his plane.
I understand that FAR 61.113 forbids any other combination when the plane carries the guests of the operator.
Thus, if Mr McKay had rented that plane and, separately, hired a commercial pilot for flying his guest, the flight would have fit FAA Part 91 under FAR 91.501(b)(4).
Of course, the pilot must NOT be the person renting the plane.

Note: about "was the pilot trained and current for flying in IMC at night ?", I was writing about ability, not legality.

Last edited by Luc Lion; 1st Mar 2019 at 14:18.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 15:15
  #1573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nantes
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by meleagertoo View Post
But withe a night rating you are still required to have visual reference with the ground. If there are no lights (ie over the sea) and no horizon or sky references then you can be definition only be flying by sole reference to instruments which specifically requires an IR or IMC rating. Under those conditions your rating to fly VMC at night is negated by there being no VMC present.
When VFR on top you cannot see the ground either. And VMC only means you will be able to see and avoid other aircraft by their lights, it does not require you see any light of the ground. When flying at night, lights (stars or from the ground) can be a source of spatial disorientation and you should only rely on your instruments. That's why artificial horizon is compulsory for night VFR, isn't it ?
deltafox44 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 15:28
  #1574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by deltafox44 View Post
When VFR on top you cannot see the ground either.
No such thing in EASA land. You may be VMC on top, but, VFR requires sight of the ground, two very different sets of in-flight conditions.

SND


Sir Niall Dementia is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 15:37
  #1575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by oggers View Post

He was NOT rated to fly an N reg either IMC or at night. Check the FAA airman database yourself. He held an FAA private without Instrument Rating. Even if there turned out to be UK IR(r) or IMC/Night Rating that did not allow him to fly at night outside the UK.
Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL. The argument put forward before was that he could not do so because he had no night rating on his base UK licence. Now you say he couldn't do it even with a UK night rating.
EXDAC is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 15:38
  #1576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by Sir Niall Dementia View Post
No such thing in EASA land. You may be VMC on top, but, VFR requires sight of the ground, two very different sets of in-flight conditions.

SND

Wrong. Very wrong. The SERA:




Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 16:27
  #1577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 161
Sir Niall Dementia,
even considering you meant Night VFR, your statement that sight of the ground is mandatory is still wrong.
SERA.5005(c)(3) only mandates sight of the ground when the aircraft is below 3000 ft AMSL or 1000 ft above terrain, whichever is higher.
Originally Posted by SERA.5005
c) When so prescribed by the competent authority, VFR flights at night may be permitted under the following conditions:
...(iii)in airspace classes B, C, D, E, F and G, at and below 900 m (3 000 ft) AMSL or 300 m (1 000 ft) above terrain, whichever is the higher, the pilot shall maintain continuous sight of the surface; and’;

So you can be VMC at night and have to control your airplane by sole reference to the instruments.
A consequence of that is that you must be above 3000 ft AMSL for flying at night in conditions where the sight of the surface is impossible.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 17:04
  #1578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 867
Apologies for that, I was thinking of the old rules. BUT re-read the extract above, a1and b rely on flying at speeds allowing avoidance of other traffic or OBSTACLES, OBSTACLES tend to be terrain based, they are rarely hanging around at FL90. The terminology is poor in 5005, but sight of the surface is implicit in the avoidance of obstacle wording. The UK ANO and JAR were clearer on this, SERA 5005 gives intent in it's wording, but needs clarity.

SND

Sir Niall Dementia is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 17:17
  #1579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Luc Lion View Post
I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4) where the operating costs are borne by the operator "for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". That's private carriage operation.
A moot point. When in an interview the agent (who isnt the operator) has stated that hed paid for the flight whilst separately in a published text exchange the player intimated hed accepted responsibility for payment, the status of the flight isnt in question.
Mach Tuck is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 17:27
  #1580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 161
Sir Niall Dementia,
the requirement of flying higher than 1000 ft above terrain (2000 ft in mountainous areas) when not having sight of the surface is also there to ensure that obstacles are not hanging around at altitude.
Grid MORA are there exactly for that purpose.

However, personally, I tend to think that NVFR is there for leisure flights performed in calm clear skies, with the moon providing an eerie lighting.
And for a journey from A to B, at night, the flight should be IFR.
And if an IFR flight can't be made safely under prevailing meteorological conditions, then the flight should be made through an airline.
Luc Lion 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.