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 6th Mar 2019, 18:27
  #1661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Pittsextra View Post
Is it just me but don't we read this afternoons posts and think this is ridiculous?

Snip

Again to what end? The whole thing is utterly utterly meaningless.
Well most forums/posts are meaningless in the scheme of the world revolving, so you don’t have to post, it’s not compulsory. I think it highly likely there are prosecutions to come for some of the participants in the chain of events.
The other outcome of this accident may be that some future charterers look more closely at whom, and what services are being provided. If that prevents a future accident, fatal or otherwise, that can only be a good thing.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 18:33
  #1662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 687
Originally Posted by what next View Post
Not entirely I think. Unfortunately in aviation a lot of knowledge gained over the years comes from analysing accidents. In case of that accident itself there is, in all probability, nothing new to be learned here. A pilot not trained and/or not current for what he was doing lost control. That has happened to professionals too and the lesson learned is always the same: More/better training and don't do what you are not qualified to do.

But here there is something extra that we all who fly should think about when we take the controls of an aircraft next time: Before pushing that "Start" button ask yourself: "Am I covered for what I will be doing the next few hours?" Will my familiy have to live under a bridge if it goes wrong? Was that budddy of mine really sayng the truth when he asked me to fly that plane for him and everything would be OK? Am I really supposed to take the buddies of my flying students in the back seats? Am I really allowed to fly a turboprop in Europe only because my Australian license says so? ... If one or two or three pilots will answer questions like these with "No!" in the future then this thread is worth being kept alive!
Very well put by What Next.

What sort of a legacy for those left behind is the one that reverberates for me from another PA46 accident that occurred many years ago, took six lives, and a trail of devastation in its wake. It had many similarities to this one.

To say it is meaningless is abject naivety. Piloting aircraft is first and foremost about judgment, if that is no longer required, the quicker we get computers and electronic wizardry to do it the better for us all.
Chronus is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 20:10
  #1663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,202
As the last examiner to fly with him and having a copy of his licence sat in front of me I can tell you he had no night Rating and was restricted to day only. I have shared this with the AAIB and CAA enforcements. If any moderator wishes to see the evidence please feel free to PM me.
S-Works is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 21:57
  #1664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 638
Originally Posted by S-Works View Post
As the last examiner to fly with him and having a copy of his licence sat in front of me I can tell you he had no night Rating and was restricted to day only. I have shared this with the AAIB and CAA enforcements. If any moderator wishes to see the evidence please feel free to PM me.
Thankyou S-Works. That is helpful information which some posters on here seem to wish to deny.

Now I am going to make some predictions based on the facts and the other information that have surfaced so far. When the dust settles and the powers that be have concluded their inquiries it will be established that:

Ibottson did not have night privileges.
The flight was not a private flight.
The accident flight and the flight to Nantes were both illegal charters.
oggers is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 07:10
  #1665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Craven Arms
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by S-Works View Post
As the last examiner to fly with him and having a copy of his licence sat in front of me I can tell you he had no night Rating and was restricted to day only. I have shared this with the AAIB and CAA enforcements. If any moderator wishes to see the evidence please feel free to PM me.
That changes a lot of the debate and it circles back to the fact that the pilot was clearly at fault for embarking on this flight that night. So there we have it, pilot error is the ultimate conclusion. But really we knew that at the outset really, like almost all crashes in GA. It is outrageous that someone could, without the rating, even consider flying at night in bad weather regardless of other legalities of the charter aspects. I pity his family who I can only assume had no idea?
ShropshirePilot is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 08:28
  #1666 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 66
Posts: 276
Another question then. When a pilot submits his flight plan does he have to show his Flight Crew Licence?
Hipper is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 09:17
  #1667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 882
Nope - many flight plans are submitted on line. In thirty years of flying (PPL) I have only been asked to show my licence once- ironically in France on departure from La Rochelle.
22/04 is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 09:33
  #1668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,763
Originally Posted by S-Works View Post
As the last examiner to fly with him and having a copy of his licence sat in front of me I can tell you he had no night Rating and was restricted to day only. I have shared this with the AAIB and CAA enforcements. If any moderator wishes to see the evidence please feel free to PM me.
Would I be correct in assuming you are near Gamston where the aircraft was based?

I would assume David Henderson was aware of Ibbotsen’s licence restrictions and his limited ability to fly the Malibu?

I guess it must be common knowledge at Gamston as to who did all the flying in that aircraft.


Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 09:39
  #1669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Hipper View Post
Another question then. When a pilot submits his flight plan does he have to show his Flight Crew Licence?
As above, no.

UK ATC and briefing providers are not ‘policemen’ and have no power / legal authority to act as such, so have no requirement to check crew/aircraft documents. I suspect that’s the same through out the world. A crew change for a variety of operational reasons is not uncommon, ideally where required, a CHG message for field 18 or 19 would cover that.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 15:50
  #1670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,085
Originally Posted by Chronus View Post
Very well put by What Next.

What sort of a legacy for those left behind is the one that reverberates for me from another PA46 accident that occurred many years ago, took six lives, and a trail of devastation in its wake. It had many similarities to this one.

To say it is meaningless is abject naivety. Piloting aircraft is first and foremost about judgment, if that is no longer required, the quicker we get computers and electronic wizardry to do it the better for us all.
We are in furious agreement about judgement and the general wisdom of accident reporting but I don't agree that taking several years to produce a report that suggests flying an aircraft beyond your ratings, attempting a VFR flight in IMC or flight in an aircraft that holds a number of unfamiliar pieces of kit adds hugely to the value of that which could already be read from the vast library of existing reports. And I'm pretty certain that a near 4000hr pilot is likely to know the hazards, the reason why he couldn't be bothered to take heed / come to his senses is a human factor - the likes of which are actually very rarely investigated fully because at some point there surely becomes a fine line to tread with regard blame...
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 18:44
  #1671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 687
Originally Posted by Pittsextra View Post
And I'm pretty certain that a near 4000hr pilot is likely to know the hazards, the reason why he couldn't be bothered to take heed / come to his senses is a human factor - the likes of which are actually very rarely investigated fully because at some point there surely becomes a fine line to tread with regard blame...
Yes of course human factors have been a significant factor in many air accidents. Sydney Dekker is one of the authorities on the subject. A most interesting and revealing talk by him was :

The human factor: Pursuing success and averting drift into failure - Sidney Dekker - DDD Europe 2018.

It may be found at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fwJ9xgvu3A

Here is an extract from

Handbook of Human Factors in Air Transportation Systems

edited by Steven James Landry

Page 337-" Human Error" Is a Judgment, contributed by Cees Jan Meeuwis and Sydney W.A. Dekker.
" Judging behaviour to be Human Error stands in the way of learning from failure. "

So far as blame is concerned let it be a judge sitting in his court decide. For those who are engaged in aviation at all levels, it must be the learning from failure that they must be concerned with.
Chronus is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 20:14
  #1672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by Chronus View Post
For those who are engaged in aviation at all levels, it must be the learning from failure that they must be concerned with.
Yes. But the failure in this case was (or rather: seems to have been) the inability or unwillingness of an individual to say NO when it would have been appropriate to do so. There is a lot of human factor involved there, no doubt. We all have been in that situation (even those of us flying in the seemingly controlled environment of airlines and commercial GA operations) and have either said "no" or gotten away with it with either luck or skill or both. For me this is less about blame or judgement but rather a question whether the lessons learnt here will help me to give the correct answer to the next difficult question my job will throw at me.
what next is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 04:23
  #1673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,670
pilot error is the ultimate conclusion.
The AAIB report will look at the factors up the chain and not just at operator actions. I guess regulation will be cited as a factor - we can expect to see changes from the CAA in the way ad-hoc charters are performed and regulated. But even then, there will be people who put profit over safety and break the rules. In this case, a fare paying passenger who should have been protected by the rules died because the rules were disregarded. The CAA don't have enough resources for complete regulation and I suspect that the AAIB will recommend the CAA make improvements in the way such flights are controlled.

So far as blame is concerned let it be a judge sitting in his court decide. For those who are engaged in aviation at all levels, it must be the learning from failure that they must be concerned with.
Absolutely. The AAIB report will not apportion blame - something that many, particularly those who have lost as a result of an incident want to see 'justice done' have an issue understanding. There are going to be legal ramifications and it's probable the judge will not allow the AAIB report or any evidence collected by the AAIB to be used as admissible evidence in the legal case. This is what is occurring in the Shoreham case. The AAIB report will concern itself with the facts and make recommendations. I suspect the CAA will be expecting another 'reaming' as in the Shoreham report.

Sydney Dekker is one of the authorities on the subject.
Dekker is currently one of the best brains in safety. His ideas have heralded the introduction of new safety concepts - or 'Safety Two' as it's commonly called. A compilation of all his ideas is in 'The Field-guide to Understanding Human Error". It's a must read for all those working in safety or airline management. Or for anyone who manages complex systems for that matter
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 05:24
  #1674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,085
Originally Posted by Chronus View Post
Yes of course human factors have been a significant factor in many air accidents. Sydney Dekker is one of the authorities on the subject. A most interesting and revealing talk by him was :

The human factor: Pursuing success and averting drift into failure - Sidney Dekker - DDD Europe 2018.

It may be found at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fwJ9xgvu3A

Here is an extract from

Handbook of Human Factors in Air Transportation Systems

edited by Steven James Landry

Page 337-" Human Error" Is a Judgment, contributed by Cees Jan Meeuwis and Sydney W.A. Dekker.
" Judging behaviour to be Human Error stands in the way of learning from failure. "

So far as blame is concerned let it be a judge sitting in his court decide. For those who are engaged in aviation at all levels, it must be the learning from failure that they must be concerned with.
Nice film, pretty tough crowd but interesting and yet again furious agreement. I've not been advocating blame. I'm suggesting the process of investigation takes too long (timeliness is surely important if we are intending to learn from all of this?) , its distribution is not certain (so who learns what?), the mechanism and forum for learning is poorly developed (so you learn, but do I learn?), indeed if we refocus on aviation it isn't even clear that any actions suggested from the investigator are implemented by the regulator (rules and guidance developed from the past in a format that may consider what works or does not?) ...and what role for the regulator? (i.e. aviation is not the dutch town square model and all these AOC holders are not happy to highlight their failures... they absolutely are counting the risk free!!).

We can have a philosophical debate about if any of that is a good thing but if we are putting the armour where there are no holes, to use the jingoistic phase of the film, it surely validates the fact that focus on who was paying what to whom doesn't really matter. The aircraft was likely capable of flight in the conditions found and on the basis of the autopilots ability to automate the phase of flight this pilot [via evidence of his ratings] was not formally able to do, and perhaps not actually able to do given the outcome. So if we are looking at this from a purely scientific perspective we might suggest - throw all those EASA, FAA, CAA rule in the bin. Can you get the aircraft in the air? OK good. So for the middle bit read the hell out of that autopilot manual and learn that....Then you can at least have the accident on landing in Cardiff..

UK aviation currently has a no rules area. The sub 70kgs SSDR. You don't need a licence, the aircraft doesn't need registration, I've no idea if that category has a lot of accidents...Arh but hang on now I'm counting failure. Indeed now I think about it that's what the AAIB is doing. Isn't that what court cases do? Lets be honest we are going to reflect attitudes that seem to suggest a successful outcome. Yes we don't want to crash.... but now having crashed what are we going to do then? Take Shoreham. I remember when Shoreham happened the great cry even from the CAA, from BADA and the AAIB report all mention X death free airshows since... Good grief in the final report there are tables to the ying yangs on failure and that is before all of the formal rules and regulations that get quoted. In reporting this accident aren't many of the safety recommendations reflecting existing rules and regulations? and indeed here there seems a different of opinion between two national bodies, the CAA and AAIB as reflected here, which in themselves seem to suggest that the aims and aspirations are somewhat confused. Be lucky.

Safety Recommendation 2016-042: It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority publish a list of occurrences at flying displays, such as ‘stop calls’, that should be reported to it, and seek to have this list included in documentation relevant to Regulation (EU) No 376/2014.
The CAA responded as follows: ‘The CAA does not accept this recommendation.
The CAA is developing a positive reporting culture - a Just Culture – for the air display community. Within the air display sector the CAA believes that this is the most effective way to identify and address potential safety issues before they lead to accidents. In support of this, from April this year the CAA required all event organisers and FDDs to submit, within seven days, a post-air display report to the CAA. This report must include what went well at the display, as well as information on any lapses or breaches from the required standards. Pilots must also report any aspect of their display that could have caused a significant safety risk. The CAA will record all this information. Key information will be shared with the civil air display community through briefings, the pre- and post-season seminars that the CAA jointly hosts with BADA1 and the MAA, and the annual seminar that the CAA organises for DAEs.’

The AAIB has categorised the response to Safety Recommendation 2016-042 as ‘Partially adequate – closed’.
Safety Recommendation 2016-043: It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority introduce a process to immediately suspend the Display Authorisation of a pilot whose competence is in doubt, pending investigation of the occurrence and if appropriate re-evaluation by a Display Authorisation Evaluator who was not involved in its issue or renewal.
The CAA responded as follows: ‘The CAA accepts this recommendation. In its final report of its Review of UK Civil Air Displays, published in April 2016, the CAA announced that where a stop is called because an FDD, or member of the Flight Control Committee, has reason to doubt the fitness or competence of a pilot that pilot will be subject to a provisional suspension of their display authorisation pending an investigation by the CAA of the circumstances leading to the stop being called. In its investigation, the CAA will determine whether the suspension of the display authorisation should be withdrawn or further regulatory enforcement action taken against the pilot concerned.’
The AAIB has categorised the response to Safety Recommendation 2016-043 as ‘Adequate – closed’.
Safety Recommendation 2016-044: It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority establish and publish target safety indicators for United Kingdom civil display flying.
Following the publication of FACTOR F4/2016 Issue 2, the CAA’s response is as follows: ‘The CAA will undertake a study to identify and publish meaningful safety indicators for civil display flying. The CAA will conclude this study and publish safety indicators by September 2017.’
The AAIB has categorised the response to Safety Recommendation 2016-044 as ‘Adequate – closed’.


Pittsextra is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 06:21
  #1675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 57
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland View Post
In this case, a fare paying passenger who should have been protected by the rules died because the rules were disregarded.
No.
Read the thread.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 07:37
  #1676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 843
The CAA don't have enough resources for complete regulation and I suspect that the AAIB will recommend the CAA make improvements in the way such flights are controlled.
Whilst I agree with the intention of this point, I don’t really see how they can do that in practice.

If the conclusion that many here have reached that this was a good example of an illegal charter are right (and I have to say that I am one of them!) then just making another rule won’t stop the next person willing to break it, and I can’t see an inspector interviewing the pilot of every aircraft departing with more than one person on it.

Realistically, the only practical (but not easy) solution is to identify some individual bent charters and come down on the pilots involved, and those organising or facilitating the flights, like a ton of bricks and invoking sanctions that are a true deterrent in a very well publicised way.


Jonzarno is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 07:57
  #1677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,085
Jon I think that this element is the key to the issue. Once you get away from having healthy debate with those willing to have it about flight safety there is inevitably going to be some form of enforcement of rules and here the situation in this accident the trail goes cold.

Early on the question was asked of someone who was reflecting an exchange he had as an AOC holder with the CAA. The silence is deafening.

It would seem quite logical that if individual pilots and flying clubs as a whole have identified things that go on that have raised concern - which include things they have identified online - it is reasonable to assume that authority would also have access to that information. As has been stated on the basis authority has not been taking pilots to task - I can only find the Manchester PA28 pilots who has been taken to court - don't you conclude that authority don't see this as an issue? Because the alternative is that someone has been screaming very loudly at Gatwick to do something for years and nothing has been done.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 08:49
  #1678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 843
Originally Posted by Pittsextra View Post
Jon I think that this element is the key to the issue. Once you get away from having healthy debate with those willing to have it about flight safety there is inevitably going to be some form of enforcement of rules and here the situation in this accident the trail goes cold.

Early on the question was asked of someone who was reflecting an exchange he had as an AOC holder with the CAA. The silence is deafening.

It would seem quite logical that if individual pilots and flying clubs as a whole have identified things that go on that have raised concern - which include things they have identified online - it is reasonable to assume that authority would also have access to that information. As has been stated on the basis authority has not been taking pilots to task - I can only find the Manchester PA28 pilots who has been taken to court - don't you conclude that authority don't see this as an issue? Because the alternative is that someone has been screaming very loudly at Gatwick to do something for years and nothing has been done.

I agree with the analysis, but think we need to be careful how we address it.

Perhaps understandably, the problem only seems to get the attention of the authorities when there is an serious accident. This also applies to licensing issues where there is no illegal charter such as the Colin McRae helicopter accident where he was found not to have had a valid licence.

I suppose that the problem is that deploying the level of resources needed to police these things thoroughly in a pro-active way would both be expensive for the authorities (who would end up paying?) and, given their talent for incompetent bureaucracy, cause a great deal of inconvenience to the vast majority of clean pilots. Perhaps we should probably be careful what we wish for.

All that said, a couple of exemplary penalties for those caught breaking the rules (and anyone facilitating that) would surely help.
Jonzarno is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:03
  #1679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,085
The McRae licence issue was always going to be difficult to capture because of the nature of licence revalidation and him flying his own aircraft and the accident flight was a private affair effectively with his mate, son and his best friend. Utterly tragic and capturing those things almost needs a wife/father/mother to be given a heads up on the details to keep you safe and they can nag at you if dates pass etc.

Yet if the CAA were truly concerned just how hard did they need to look?? post 971

[color=left=#333333]Council Van & SND[/color]=left
[color=left=#333333]Exactly the point I’m making.The PA46 flight was not a one off.[/color]=left
[color=left=#333333]Look at the September 2018 newsletter for the Jersey Aero Club.They had a presence at Air Expo 2018, look what they say about Wingly, “ it’s basic principle is to unite Pilots with people who wish to travel and the conveyance of Cats and Dogs”[/color]=left
[color=left=#333333]Please don’t suggest that this is done for free.[/color]=left
[color=left=#333333]The tip of the iceberg has started to melt.[/color]
As a for example and one assumes that this post reflects the posters contact with the CAA
[color=left=#333333]Or the bloke on the Wingly site offering lunch at various different Gloucestershire hotels in his R22 at prices that mean he's more than covering his flying costs. His picture of him all dressed up in 4 stripes made me a touch queasy.[/color]=left
=left
[color=left=#333333]VeeAny and I had quite a run in with Wingly a couple of years ago. They seem to have done no risk assessments for their involvement, when someone gets hurt I'd really love to see a Wingly director in the dock explaining the company's attitude..[/color]=left
=left
[color=left=#333333]The fact that you can now "request a flight" on their site, or buy a gift card tells me that they've moved right into AOC charter territory, without any of the several levels of compliance, risk assessment, training, or experience those of us involved in AOC ops are subject to.[/color]=left
=left
[color=left=#333333]From rumblings I've heard this week I believe that the Belgrano is stirring as one or two AOC operators have kicked the beast within, really quite hard.[/color]=left
=left
[color=left=#333333]SND[/color]
I have to say how those at the CAA can claim in March 2019 that they have suddenly become aware of something that they themselves published guidance upon as recently as August 2018 goodness knows. Fly a single seater!


Pittsextra is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 11:55
  #1680 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 67
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by Luc Lion View Post
No.
Read the thread.
Erm....... probably Yes! Someone was paying unless you think the pilot was doing this weekend in France and 5 hours or so flights out of the goodness of his heart.

Sala didn’t pay for his flight. But someone either did or was going to on completion.

I rather expect it was the latter. And therein will lie a huge problem in proving any illegality.
Arkroyal 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.