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 2nd Mar 2019, 04:13
  #1581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,807
BBC reporting that David Ibbotson studied for a CPL at Cranfield but never completed the course.

Mr Ibbotson studied for a commercial pilot's licence (CPL) qualification from December 2012 until July 2014 through Cranfield Aviation Training School in Luton, but dropped out of the course without qualifying after failing to complete his theoretical training.


Dr Stuart E Smith, head of training for the school, said: "It is common for middle-aged private pilots to undertake the CPL theoretical knowledge course so that they may then complete CPL flight training and be able to earn money as a pilot or flight instructor."

He said Mr Ibbotson returned in 2016 with the intention of resuming his training, but never followed it further.

He added that he had sent a report to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) soon after
AOPA have issued a statement highlighting the dangers of using ‘grey charters’ clearly pointing to the role David Henderson played in organising the flight.

Martin Robinson, chief executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, said it was concerned about the use of so-called grey charters, which are unlicensed flights and the use of foreign-registered planes for air taxi work, since the incident.

"UK air charter companies pay a lot of money to the government for air operator certificates, without which they can't run commercial air taxi operations," said Mr Robinson.

"They know they're being undercut by competitors who in some cases are not fully compliant with the law.

"It's the responsibility of the person who organised the flight to have a suitably qualified pilot at the controls and to ensure the pilot had sufficient flying experience for this kind of flight and for the weather conditions that may be encountered.

"Mr Sala would have had no knowledge of David Ibbotson's licence but the person organising it should have known about that.

"They've let this man down."



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47417434

Last edited by Mike Flynn; 2nd Mar 2019 at 04:43.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 08:59
  #1582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 711
Originally Posted by EXDAC View Post
Actually S-Works said "He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY."
S-Works, post 1559:
His EASA medical had a no night flying restriction on it.
oggers is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 09:09
  #1583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,807
So why did David Henderson pass him the job to fly Sala home at night?
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 09:21
  #1584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cotswolds
Age: 64
Posts: 1,263
Is there a record of the CAA/FAA ever "reconstructing" (parts of) a logbook based on interviews of checking logbooks of planes, landing records to see if there was a pattern of "grey" flights? If so it could show malicious intent rather than a one-off possibly on the part of the pilot(s), plane operators or "agents".
vanHorck is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 09:27
  #1585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 711
Luc Lion
Oggers,
I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4)
Well, I am not sure why you are referring to that regulation. The airplane was not a Large or Multi-engine Turbine. Are you saying it was part of a 91-K fractional ownership program?

Subpart F—Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft

oggers is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 12:09
  #1586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 67
Posts: 282
Originally Posted by meleagertoo View Post
The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality?
Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really?
Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did?
Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before?
Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it?
Wake up!
Get real people!
Puhleese!

There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA.
We need to do something about this!
I generally agree with the 'rules is rules' concept and that they should be followed as I presume they are designed for safe flying, but I'd like to ask, are there more accidents involving 'grey area' flying then in fully legal flying in relation to small aircraft carrying passengers here in the UK?
Hipper is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 12:21
  #1587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by Hipper View Post
I generally agree with the 'rules is rules' concept and that they should be followed as I presume they are designed for safe flying, but I'd like to ask, are there more accidents involving 'grey area' flying then in fully legal flying in relation to small aircraft carrying passengers here in the UK?
How are you going to establish the number of hours of illegal flying because nobody is going to admit to it? I’m sure we can recall accidents that many on here think were illegal but were never labelled as such.
runway30 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 12:33
  #1588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,807
Originally Posted by vanHorck View Post
Is there a record of the CAA/FAA ever "reconstructing" (parts of) a logbook based on interviews of checking logbooks of planes, landing records to see if there was a pattern of "grey" flights? If so it could show malicious intent rather than a one-off possibly on the part of the pilot(s), plane operators or "agents".
I doubt there was any “malicious intent” on the part of any of those who played a part in this tragedy.

To answer your question it is relatively easy to reconstruct the days and weeks leading up to this accident.. So far no one else has come forward on this thread to admitting to having flown N264DB so perhaps it is safe to surmise the aircraft was rented from the owners on a dry lease by one person.

The only pilot linked to that aircraft is David Henderson who refuses to talk and has made efforts to silence press reports to no avail.



Given the agents admission that he was their regular pilot it is safe to assume that his log books and those of the aircraft will be scrutinised by the CAA. I imagine they will also want to look at bank transfers between the parties involved. The pilots family will also be questioned on how when and where he flew that aircraft as will ground staff at Gamston.

The movements of the N264DB leading up to the accident will also be cross referenced to those who paid for the flights etc.

In short it is easy to build a picture of how and when and for who the aircraft was flown for.

The AAIB had an opportunity to recover the aircraft but declined so we can assume they know enough to surmise it was not a mechanical fault that caused the accident.

It is worth mentioning that this ‘grey area’ of flying extends to the movement of jockeys around racecourses in the UK.

There was a recent accident at Haydock Park that just luck on the day prevented fatalities.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/horse...he-racecourse/






Last edited by Mike Flynn; 2nd Mar 2019 at 13:14.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 12:49
  #1589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 558
A definition of gross negligence manslaughter

The test to be applied to determine whether a person has committed gross negligence manslaughter was articulated by Lord Woolf LCJ in R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6, who set out the five elements required:
  1. a duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim
  2. a breach of that duty
  3. a risk that the defendant’s conduct could cause death
  4. evidence that the breach of duty caused the victim’s death
  5. the defendant’s conduct fell so far below the standards of a reasonable person in that situation that they should be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal punishment.
runway30 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 13:05
  #1590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,807
I would be looking at three,four and five on that list.

Sadly we no longer have Flying Lawyer on here to offer an opinion since he was elevated to the judiciary a couple of years ago.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 13:26
  #1591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
S-Works, post 1559:

Quote:
His EASA medical had a no night flying restriction on it.
Ok, so back to my question which was "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."

What restriction was on his UK PPL and how would it have made the (hypothetical) night rating invalid.
EXDAC is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 13:42
  #1592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,807
Originally Posted by EXDAC View Post
Ok, so back to my question which was "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."

What restriction was on his UK PPL and how would it have made the (hypothetical) night rating invalid.
US piggyback licences are issued on the back of UK licences and their restrictions.

In the case of this pilot his eyesight prevented him obtaining a UK night rating because he was colour blind.

So he could not fly at night end of story.

Other countries such as Australia do not allow their residents fly a home based N reg without changing it to a VH and complying with local licensing requirements.(As I know from importing a PA32 to Perth)

The use of N reg aircraft in the UK has mushroomed in recent years because it is a cheaper less regulated and less scrutinised method of flying.


Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 13:54
  #1593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nantes
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post
There was a recent accident at Haydock Park that just luck on the day prevented fatalities.
Fortunately there was no pilot onboard this PA 32 when the accident occured, so no question about pilot's licence
deltafox44 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 13:58
  #1594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cotswolds
Age: 64
Posts: 1,263
Thank you, Mike, for your answer.

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post

I doubt there was any “malicious intent” on the part of any of those who played a part in this tragedy.
I do not understand this..... Surely whomever "contracted" the pilot for this commercial flight (as McKay confirmed) had a duty of care to only employ a commercial pilot fully licensed to execute this flight on an N registered aircraft with a paying passenger (irrespective who paid). So if wilfully employing a daytime-only PPL as the sole pilot is malicious in its intent?
vanHorck is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:26
  #1595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post
One has to ask the question how did that PA32 fly in to Haydock with passengers in poor weather to a grass strip which has no published approach plate?
No one doesn't need to ask the question. Haydock is a nice little strip, about 800m from memory, with trees at either end but it's not difficult to get into. That aside, the PA32 was parked and minding its own business until a Beech Baron landed long and fast and skidded into it.
eltonioni is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:36
  #1596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 58
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
Oggers, I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4)
Luc Lion
Well, I am not sure why you are referring to that regulation. The airplane was not a Large or Multi-engine Turbine. Are you saying it was part of a 91-K fractional ownership program?
Subpart F—Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft

Sorry Oggers ; my mistake.

I was looking for the regulation that construes FAR 91 flights organised and paid for by the operator and flown by a hired commercial pilot for the purpose of transporting the operator or his guests free of charge.
Actually, FAR 91.501(b)(4) describes that for large aeroplanes while there is no equivalent for small aeroplanes and no need for this equivalent because it is authorised by the constitutional principle "what isn't explicitly forbidden is permissible".

FAR 91.501(b)(4) is needed (beyond the constitutional principle) for authorising these operations on large aeroplanes because FAR 125.1 (Certification and Operations of "large" aeroplanes, Applicability) is stated in such a way that it applies by default when no other regulation supersedes it.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:37
  #1597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hector's house
Posts: 69
"Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL.
The aircraft is at the bottom of the English Channel, he clearly could not fly any aircraft at night whatever his qualifications or lack thereof.
hec7or is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:49
  #1598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,097
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post


How are you going to establish the number of hours of illegal flying because nobody is going to admit to it? I’m sure we can recall accidents that many on here think were illegal but were never labelled as such.
How many accidents can you recall that would satisfy the terms of illegal "grey flying" which let me push you to suggest that were such flying to be illegal then given the duty of the CAA there would surely follow a prosecution. I can think of just 1, the recently prosecuted PA28 / Manchester pilot.

Unless I am oblivious to a heap more then either one must conclude it either doesn't happen or the CAA turn a blind eye?
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:56
  #1599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,807
Originally Posted by eltonioni View Post
No one doesn't need to ask the question. Haydock is a nice little strip, about 800m from memory, with trees at either end but it's not difficult to get into. That aside, the PA32 was parked and minding its own business until a Beech Baron landed long and fast and skidded into it.
On a very wet day and a wet strip in weather that was not exactly VFR!

Does this look wet to you?






Anna Lisa Balding, wife of Here Comes When trainer Andrew, was on board the plane as it landed.

She said: "Our pilot did an amazing job in really bad weather conditions. I don't know what happened, I am no pilot, But I know I saw my life slip away from me very quickly. But we are all alive, it was a bit scary.

"I'm going to try and get home safely. I will be going in the lorry. But when you have a winner you don't mind how you get home."

Last edited by Mike Flynn; 2nd Mar 2019 at 15:07.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 15:09
  #1600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by Pittsextra View Post
How many accidents can you recall that would satisfy the terms of illegal "grey flying" which let me push you to suggest that were such flying to be illegal then given the duty of the CAA there would surely follow a prosecution. I can think of just 1, the recently prosecuted PA28 / Manchester pilot.

Unless I am oblivious to a heap more then either one must conclude it either doesn't happen or the CAA turn a blind eye?
Pitts, it isn't a question of turning a blind eye, if everyone has a prepared statement about a mate doing a favour then there is no evidence and no prosecution.

The difference in this case is the person who paid for the flight has made a very public statement pointing fingers. He is no stranger to litigation and has started to defend himself before even being accused of anything.
runway30 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.