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, 13:36
  #1601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 153
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, 13:37
  #1602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hector's house
Posts: 26
"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, 13:49
  #1603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,073
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, 13:56
  #1604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,721
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 14:07.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:09
  #1605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 507
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  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:09
  #1606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post

On a very wet day and a wet strip in weather that was not exactly VFR!

Does this look wet to you?

It being wet alone has nothing to do with VFR.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:17
  #1607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
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.
Yes it is everything to do with asking the question if authority is turning a blind eye and what you have suggested above still hasn't given the answer to a question asked which was effectively - what is the ratio of the grey flight accidents to non grey flight accidents. I gave you the only one I can think of, I guess you can not add to the tally?

I might well agree some people are doing things that seem quite sharp, but on the basis this practice has been common place for at least 3 years (where the cost element shared by the pilot was reduced to 1p) then there can only be 3 options. 1) regulators are unconcerned because it isn't a problem 2) they are concerned it is a problem but required wording to change to prosecute flights they are unhappy about but failed to change the wording 3) regulators are concerned but can't be bothered to do anything until a high profile accident then they will have a look, which doesn't seem responsible either tbh

Pittsextra is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:24
  #1608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,721
I have received this email from Terry Holloway who is well known to many of you and MD of the Cambridge Flying Club.

I have campaigned for quite some time for jockeys to use a safer means of transport locally, since I watched Franki Dettori crash. They regularly fly from the grass strip at Newmarket in all sorts of aeroplanes and I have encouraged them to use a proper local airport such as Cambridge! Rightly you raise the Haydock Park accident which you and I discussed at the time. The fact of the matter is that jockeys are not particularly well paid – unless they get a winner – and that they are looking for flying on the cheap, and I do know that Dave Henderson has been flying jockeys in that very aeroplane.
My understanding is that it is not necessary to have an AOC to conduct that sort of flying. A pilot - however inexperienced – with a CPL is able, as I understand it, to transport anyone and be paid for doing so. Frankly, Dibbo with a PPL and 3700 hrs was probably much more competent, and safer, than a newly qualified CPL who only has 250 hours, and is hours building before he can get into an airline job. However, everyone has to start somewhere, but the issue for me with the jockeys is putting too much risk in the process: poor weather/inexperienced pilot/inadequate landing strips.
Wingly is a different matter, and as you know I have banned its use at the Cambridge Aero club – or rather banned our members using our aeroplanes for Wingly flights. I believe the intention of the CAA was to provide opportunities for young inexperienced holders of PPLs is to gain experience by flying more - to be safer - which is why they introduced the cost sharing scheme. Unfortunately, Wingly has exploited that, and you get the ridiculous situation where a PPL holder with maybe 50 or 60 hours is taking people for what is effectively a commercial flight. It goes rather deeper than that, because Wingly pilots are also allowing their passengers to handle the controls and that is strictly forbidden unless you happen to be a flying instructor. As the holder of an ATO I can teach people to fly, but because I do not have an AOC my highly experienced instructors cannot take people for passenger/charter flights in my aeroplanes – they can only be used for training! Another idiosyncrasy in the rules, Is that the CAA has placed very clear restrictions on PPL holders taking members of the public for a charity flight - de facto a commercial flight - but then Wingly runs roughshod over that as well! The Wingly pilots are not being supervised or controlled, and there are no weather minimal in force. It’s all very dangerous
Wingly needs to be stopped!
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:46
  #1609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 507
Frankly, Dibbo with a PPL and 3700 hrs was probably much more competent, and safer, than a newly qualified CPL who only has 250 hours, and is hours building before he can get into an airline job.

I am shocked at Terry saying this. He might have had 3700 hours of take offs and landings but if he had 0 hours at night and was not qualified/current on instruments then he was dangerously negligent and I don't think a newly qualified CPL would be that stupid.
runway30 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 14:51
  #1610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post
I have received this email from Terry Holloway who is well known to many of you and MD of the Cambridge Flying Club.

His view is broadly one likely shared by very many here but I don't agree with its conclusion. First of all there is confusion around just what it is regulation and/or guidance is actually trying to associate risk with. As Terry himself highlights a 3700hr PPL is entirely likely to be as capable as a 250hr CPL in all ways but the paperwork, so then one might try and understand just what the barriers are to holding an AOC because if it is cost for the sake of loading cost into the equation due to the view that commercial operations can afford it and must pay then surely that is a bad thing and better to bring people into the fold than leaving them outside.

Further he may well speak about his highly experienced instructors and perhaps they are yet prior to AOC holders complaints over Wingly the other grumble surrounded the "Air experience" / gift flight conducted by this time inexperienced instructors!

You can have a conversation around the conduct of individual flights and if they are safely done or not (i.e. handling of the controls etc) and you can argue the relevant ratings this accident pilot may or may not have had, but what I don't think you can say with much confidence is that Wingly pilots are creating lots of smoking holes and I think that actually the root of this is more likely to be found in an overly onerous and costly AOC process than in any other place.

Wingly and its pilots are supervised just as any other pilot would be -the regulator has the same powers over them as anyone else?

[color=left=#333333]I am shocked at Terry saying this. He might have had 3700 hours of take offs and landings but if he had 0 hours at night and was not qualified/current on instruments then he was dangerously negligent and I don't think a newly qualified CPL would be that stupid.[/color]
Come on - it may not suit the current mood of outrage but I can give you dozens of CPL/ATPLs that make mistakes, even with all the associated ratings.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 15:16
  #1611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 507
Pitts, it is the difference between negligence and gross negligence. It doesn’t really matter what the mistake was that sent them into the Channel, on departure the combination of ratings, experience and weather made it very likely that something would happen that would stop them reaching their destination and that is the recklessness.
runway30 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 15:23
  #1612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: With the fairies!
Posts: 30
There have been many selective quotations from SERA trying to prove a point but perhaps they should be the relative quotations:

GM1 SERA.5005(c)(3)(iii) Visual flight rules
NIGHT VFR ON TOP When flying in airspace classes B, C, D, E, F, or G, more than 900 m (3 000 ft) above mean sea level (MSL) or 300 m (1 000 ft) above terrain, whichever is higher, the pilot may elect to fly above a cloud layer (VFR on top).

When making the decision on whether to fly above or below a cloud at night, consideration should be given at least but not limited to the following:
(a) The likelihood of weather at destination allowing a descent in visual conditions;
(b) Lighting conditions below and above the cloud layer;
(c) The likelihood of the cloud base descending, if flight below cloud is chosen, thus resulting in terrain clearance being lost;
(d) The possibility of flight above the cloud leading to flight between converging cloud layers;
(e) The possibility of successfully turning back and returning to an area where continuous sight of surface can be maintained; and
(f) The possibilities for the pilot to establish their location at any point of the route to be flown, taking into consideration also the terrain elevation and geographical and man-made obstacles.

There is NO mention of maintaining visual contact with the ground - in fact (e) indicates that it is not necessary
Red Plum is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 16:00
  #1613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 153
Red Plum, what you are quoting is the Guidance Material (GM) of SERA that explains, a contrario, that when above 3000 ft AMSL (or 1000 ft AGL) maintaining sight of the surface is no more required and thus VFR on top is possible.
The actual SERA requirement states that, below 3000 ft AMSL (or 1000 ft AGL), keeping sight of the surface is mandatory.
Originally Posted by SERA.5005(a)(iii)
(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’;

Sera regulation writers have played the same game as FAR authors : what is not explicitly forbidden is permitted.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 16:04
  #1614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by Pittsextra View Post
Come on - it may not suit the current mood of outrage but I can give you dozens of CPL/ATPLs that make mistakes, even with all the associated ratings.
PittsExtra, you may well have 10,000 hours of flying VFR, if you are not trained and current in IMC flying at night, a young 250 h CPL-IR will be more experienced than you in these conditions.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 17:20
  #1615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 71
Posts: 676
The Legal Aspects

It would appear this particular accident has a similar theme to the death of the distinguished lawyer, Sir Ian Brownlie QC and his daughter Rebecca
In January 2010, Lady Brownlie with her husband Sir Brownlie were on holiday in Egypt, staying at the Four Seasons Hotel Cairo at Nile Plaza. On a previous visit to the hotel, she had picked up a leaflet published by the hotel advertising safari tours which it provided. Before leaving England on the subsequent trip, she telephoned the hotel and booked with the concierge an excursion to Fayoum in a hired chauffeur-driven car. The excursion took place on 3 January, and ended in tragedy. The car left the road and crashed. The passengers, in addition to Sir Ian and Lady Brownlie, were his daughter Rebecca, and Rebecca’s two children. Sir Ian and Rebecca were killed. Lady Brownlie and the two children were seriously injured.

The full text of the Supreme Court`s decision may be found at :
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...5-judgment.pdf

The Appeal Court`s earlier decision is more detailed and can be found at :
1 Chancery Lane | Court of Appeal Judgment - Brownlie -v- Four Seasons Holdings Inc
Chronus is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 18:18
  #1616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cotswolds
Age: 63
Posts: 1,259
Originally Posted by beamer View Post
It seems that some people are falling into the old trap of equating flying hours with capability. A thousand hours of teaching circuits does not make a good aerobatic pilot, ten thousand hours in the rhs of a heavy four jet does not necessarily mean the same pilot will make a good commander, twenty thousand hours in multi-engine aircraft does not automatically mean that a pilot is anything more than competent in GA; in each scenario it might but no guarantee.

It would be wrong to speculate too much into the Malibu incident but I get the sense that a chain of events took place which put the pilot into a corner from which he felt the simplest way out was to complete the flight. Perhaps there were ample opportunites to break that chain but none was taken resulting in tragedy.
The corner started only AFTER he accepted the flight, despite not being licensed to execute. Also Sala knew and texted he wanted to return in the evening. We are all told to avoid get-home-ites. By accepting a commercial flight he put himself in the corner. I agree with you on the CPL/PPL thing.
vanHorck is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 19:18
  #1617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by vanHorck View Post
The corner started only AFTER he accepted the flight, despite not being licensed to execute. Also Sala knew and texted he wanted to return in the evening. We are all told to avoid get-home-ites. By accepting a commercial flight he put himself in the corner. I agree with you on the CPL/PPL thing.
Agree - the one thing Airline / AOC SOPS do is to give you limitations/boundaries - they don't always cover everything but they can be very helpful to new commanders in particular. i.e. you can point to the SOP and say "no" not possible at the moment etc - most of the time with no pressure and even if you do get pressure you have a backstop in writing. I think the biggest surprise most Wingly PPLs will get is when confronted by an aggressive cost sharing passenger who demands what he paid for whilst saying, "it looks alright to me" ...... I know even in my commercial days I had to deal with some very famous people (who I had previously admired) who, in my view, lapsed into temporary insanity when told of a delay or cancellation.
Good Business Sense is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 19:30
  #1618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Pittsextra View Post
I think that actually the root of this is more likely to be found in an overly onerous and costly AOC process than in any other place
Around ten years ago, the airlines, in particular BA, complained that they were paying too much in fees - shortly after that, over a 2-3 year period, AOC fees for the small operators almost tripled and that was in the middle of the biggest recession in a 100 years.
Good Business Sense is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 19:34
  #1619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 74
Posts: 5,154
@ sense re your #1620... indeed, I have encountered DYKWIA in ATC, to the extent that I filed an official Report against one of our locally-based Captains.

Pressures can be applied from all quarters, and it requires a bit of balls to tell those up the food chain to go away.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 20:49
  #1620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hector's house
Posts: 26
I think the biggest surprise most Wingly PPLs will get is when confronted by an aggressive cost sharing passenger who demands what he paid for whilst saying, "it looks alright to me" ......
had exactly the same conversation over 20 years ago with a ppl hirer - who is now a BA Captain...lol! (pardon the teenage vernacular) when I called off a flight to Le Touquet with him when he was hours building and I was a QFI, due wx, because despite the Cat 1 conditions at destination, he hadn't noticed the OVC010 with a surface temperature of 01 degrees for a flight planned at 2500' in a PA28 (not certified for known icing).....ok he wasn't a BA Captain then, but what was he thinking? I was the hired help and he was paying for the flight!

I'd like to think he's learned something since
hec7or 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.