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 9th Mar 2019, 07:03
  #1681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Belfast
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Luc Lion :
Absolutely.
We all have suspicions as to what this flight really was and who directed who, , but as said before a few times already , the actual facts are showing it was a private flight ( i.e. Flight plan , no contract, no money involved, passenger confirming by SMS it was for free, etc..)
and unfortunately as it is for some people , unless something new comes up , when judging this case in court it will be the rules of private flights that will apply and not those of a commercial flight.
Sorry but disagree, and also believe Luc Lion may have some vested interest by his constant denial. The passenger believed this was a commercial charter just for him- when did he ever think otherwise?! He also assumed it would cost him money and offered to pay, but McKay junior told him he'd look after payment if Sala repaid him by helping him score goals. McKay senior has since stated it was a commercial operation and he was paying for it all, just as he's paid for previous flights. McKay also said something along the lines of "can't pay all that money for a player and put him in a Ryanair flight"- what he was insinuating was that this was some kind of luxurious and more expensive means of travel.

So, I have no idea how you can paint this picture that all those involved thought it was a private flight? You really think Sala got on that plane after being bought for 15m believing that the pilot was an amateur who was unqualified to make the flight in those conditions, was flying him out of the goodness of his heart and that the pilot was paying??! "It's great to have such good mates Mr Pilot, I dont know how I'd ever have got to Cardiff without you, barely enough money for a bite to eat". 🧐

Note, they didn't even know eachother prior to this charter arrangement.

Take a step back and look at the situation, there is no way that the passenger believed this was anything other than a chartered flight booked exclusively for him. He chose what time to leave etc. Flight plan was made to suit Sala's arrangements, hence that's why the original morning flight didn't leave, because Sala wanted to go at night!

Last edited by positiverate20; 9th Mar 2019 at 07:47.
positiverate20 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2019, 07:07
  #1682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
We all have suspicions as to what this flight really was and who directed who, , but as said before a few times already , the actual facts are showing it was a private flight ( i.e. Flight plan , no contract, no money involved, passenger confirming by SMS it was for free, etc..).
This perhaps makes sense of why a third party's credit card was apparently used throughout the journey.

However, Luc Lion also mentions the criterion of passenger and pilot being brought together by a middle man. who as far as I can see from the above two posts is, by virtue of being a middle man, the de facto operator. Isn't that the case here?

(For the flights I keep referring to, on which I was a passenger, I never paid anything, but that doesn't mean no money changed hands: it undoubtedly did).

[cross-post]
Eutychus is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2019, 10:55
  #1683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,568
Originally Posted by Luc Lion View Post
If you, as a pilot, make a flight just for transporting a friend at no charge, that's not a commercial flight.
So you believe Sala was friends with D.I?
2unlimited is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2019, 19:53
  #1684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 73
Posts: 0
In April 1998 a R44, G-POWE went down claiming the lives of its pilot and three passengers. The accident left three young children orphaned.

Here is the link to the AAIB report: https://assets.publishing.service.go...pdf_502209.pdf

Of particular note is the Parliamentary debate of this tragedy, below.
"Westminster Hall
Tuesday 8 May 2001
[Mrs. Sylvia Heal in the Chair]
Light Aircraft Insurance and Regulation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.--[Mr. Hill.]

9.30 am




Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of helicopter and light aircraft insurance and regulation. I look forward to hearing the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not least because all the information at my disposal has been put at his disposal, so that he can give an informed response. I shall be focusing on a particular tragic accident in Leicestershire just over three years ago, when a helicopter crashed killing all on board."

The full text is at : https://publications.parliament.uk/p...t/10508h01.htm

Here are a few extracts:

"In the Linhart case in Leicestershire, the pilot, Coulter, seems to have been seriously irresponsible in many respects, and my constituents were the innocent victims. I understand that when the coroner announced the verdict of accidental death, those present at the inquiry gasped in astonishment.

Coulter had hired the helicopter from a local company, Heli Air Ltd., on a self-fly, hire-only basis. As such, he was neither allowed nor qualified to give instruction to others, yet it emerged during the coroner's inquiry that he had offered shares in the helicopter and had received more than 3,400 from various sources, including Mr. Andrew Byrne, who paid 3,400 in cash, which was receipted. In return, those who had paid received a part share in the aircraft or helicopter, as well as instruction from Coulter. Although it is accepted practice for pilots to take petrol money, that does not seem to be the case in this instance. Mr. Coulter, under the name Helitravel Ltd., advertised services of sales-hire-charter-pilot training through local leaflet drops. He was, therefore, flouting the rules, just as he went on to do at the controls of the helicopter when he took off at night in breach of regulations."

I wouldn`t be at all surprised if this particular tragedy does not come up in another parliamentary debate.
Chronus is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 04:11
  #1685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,740
Dan, any flight is eventually paid for by someone.

What constitutes a fare paying flight (or commercial flight) is that the beneficial owner or someone representing him pays a compensation for the flight.
What constitutes a non fare paying flight is that the pilot or the operator of the flight bear the whole cost of the flight.
A cost sharing flight is somewhere in between.the two.

A flight whose cost is wholly paid by the operator can be flown under FAR 91 and have a PPL at the controls if the pilot is the operator or if there is no transportation of passengers or goods.
If these conditions are not fulfilled, the pilot must be a CPL.
This flight with a CPL pilot is then validly flown under FAR 91 with the condition that the pilot and the plane have not been brought together to the person paying and organising the flight.
If they have been brought together, the middle man must be considered as the real flight operator and proposing a commercial transport service under FAR 135.

So, it is not the fact that the flight was made for the sole purpose of transporting a passenger that necessarily makes it a commercial flight.
If you, as a pilot, make a flight just for transporting a friend at no charge, that's not a commercial flight.
All very interesting. The AAIB have stated the investigation will
'Consider the regulatory requirements surrounding the flight including airworthiness requirements, aircraft permissions and flight crew licencing'.
If it transpires that Mr Ibbotson and Snr Sala were previously acquainted and had decided to share the cost of the flight, then everything was legal and there's nothing to see here. However, like many others, I seriously doubt this was the case.
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 07:50
  #1686 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,922
Dan :
All very interesting. The AAIB have stated the investigation will
Quote:
'Consider the regulatory requirements surrounding the flight including airworthiness requirements, aircraft permissions and flight crew licencing'.
.
The AAIB or any independent Accident investigation bureau will not look into legal liabilities. Not they job and against Annex 13 spirit. , they will assess if the aircraft was airworthy, all AD,s were done maintenance records, , what it was allowed to do and check the licences of the pilot in command .. you will find all this in final report. .
If it transpires that Mr Ibbotson and Snr Sala were previously acquainted and had decided to share the cost of the flight, then everything was legal and there's nothing to see here. However, like many others, I seriously doubt this was the case
Me too , but there is another option : the owner ( or user) of the aircraft asked a friend pilot to do a favor and fly someone from A to B , all for free. that is also allowed under Private flights.
When John Travolta flew his 707 around and took people in it , it was all for free, John covered the costs all on his own , and it also met the definition of private flights.
I guess it he did the same for its last flight to Australia when he donated the 707 to Qantas. A few people were on that aircraft .and it was definitively not a commercial flight. .
But OK, the huge difference there is that John knew what he was doing and never flew alone. The guy on the right seat was not a novice either..but the principle is the same .

The problem I see here with Sala, if that we all have strong suspicions this was a commercial operation covered up and botched. But if everyone involve keep to their story and indeed no money changed hands,and the use of the credit card was just a loan from a friend, etc..all the facts support the Private flight theory. And if it ends up in a court , the judge will likely look only at the facts .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 09:28
  #1687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Dan :
The AAIB or any independent Accident investigation bureau will not look into legal liabilities. Not they job and against Annex 13 spirit. , they will assess if the aircraft was airworthy, all AD,s were done maintenance records, , what it was allowed to do and check the licences of the pilot in command .. you will find all this in final report. .

Me too , but there is another option : the owner ( or user) of the aircraft asked a friend pilot to do a favor and fly someone from A to B , all for free. that is also allowed under Private flights.
When John Travolta flew his 707 around and took people in it , it was all for free, John covered the costs all on his own , and it also met the definition of private flights.
I guess it he did the same for its last flight to Australia when he donated the 707 to Qantas. A few people were on that aircraft .and it was definitively not a commercial flight. .
But OK, the huge difference there is that John knew what he was doing and never flew alone. The guy on the right seat was not a novice either..but the principle is the same .

The problem I see here with Sala, if that we all have strong suspicions this was a commercial operation covered up and botched. But if everyone involve keep to their story and indeed no money changed hands,and the use of the credit card was just a loan from a friend, etc..all the facts support the Private flight theory. And if it ends up in a court , the judge will likely look only at the facts .
I can't see any court finding that this was a private flight. There is far too much evidence for them to spin it otherwise and the statement from McKay sinks it completely IMO.
Albino is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 10:26
  #1688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 55
Posts: 0
I wonder if there has been a significant reduction in high powered singles and light twin movements since this has kicked off.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 12:45
  #1689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 18
If you have a valuable Grade A asset why not employ a Grade A operator to fly that asset around! The cost of an exec jet with experienced ATPLs flying it is peanuts compared with the value of someone like Sala. They would not have flown at 5,000 ft over the sea, VMC, at night but at FLs in controlled airspace. The radar plot of the final stage of the flight appears to indicate a classic spatial disorientation profile, a known problem in the prevailing conditions especially if a pilot is not instrument rated. AAIB will no doubt consider this possibility.
I am not up to date on the shared costs aspect but I believe that a pilot must be considered to be flying on his US licence for this type of sector, in which case the costs would have to be halved with two POB? As has been said the AAIB is not particularly interested in this apart from determining whether or not it is a commercial or private flight and what effect this had on safety,
Air Snoop is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 14:07
  #1690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland View Post
All very interesting. The AAIB have stated the investigation will If it transpires that Mr Ibbotson and Snr Sala were previously acquainted and had decided to share the cost of the flight, then everything was legal and there's nothing to see here. However, like many others, I seriously doubt this was the case.
Not so.

No common purpose and no evidence of equal shares being paid.
No night rating.
No Instrument rating.
meleagertoo is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 17:52
  #1691 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,922
Not so. No common purpose and no evidence of equal shares being paid.
No night rating. No Instrument rating.
No common purpose. Not necessary if the flight was completely free (i.e. paid by the owner) .
No evidence of shared costs ; not relevant if it was a free flight.. In addition in my part of the word you have to prove things to accuse people , not because there is lack of evidence. And the UK , as far as I know is still a democratic country .
No night rating : yes and aggravating circumstances reinforcing the responsibility of the pilot
No IR : not relevant as the flight was filed VFR..

Do not find things to fit your suspicions. Nobody liked what happened and we all have serious suspicions , but t after 85 pages here , and unless new facts are brought in , for me the responsibility for this accident is still on the Pilot in command of that flight.
mainly because he did not say NO . He was not an employee , nor forced to do this flight and , and the aircraft was a private one.. If you want to prove it was a commercial flight in disguise then you have to brings facts on the table , a signed contract, a mission order , a money transfer to the pilot, etc.. in absence of any of this, it is just suspicions.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 18:16
  #1692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 55
Posts: 0
You can in the UK now along with the rest or Europe. I think they changed it around 2014 to get everyone the same in EASA.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 18:46
  #1693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 55
Posts: 0
That was the case in the UK until quiet recently.

CPL holders were counting night flight towards IFR requirements for single crew ops and a few other things so the changed it to align with the rest of Europe.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 21:49
  #1694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 712
As the holder of an FAA ATP and former chief Pilot of a part 135 charter company I find it absurd that people such as ATC Watcher are continuing to portray this flight as a private part 91 operation.
oggers is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 02:13
  #1695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
No common purpose. Not necessary if the flight was completely free (i.e. paid by the owner) .
No evidence of shared costs ; not relevant if it was a free flight.. In addition in my part of the word you have to prove things to accuse people , not because there is lack of evidence. And the UK , as far as I know is still a democratic country .
No night rating : yes and aggravating circumstances reinforcing the responsibility of the pilot
No IR : not relevant as the flight was filed VFR..

Do not find things to fit your suspicions. Nobody liked what happened and we all have serious suspicions , but t after 85 pages here , and unless new facts are brought in , for me the responsibility for this accident is still on the Pilot in command of that flight.
mainly because he did not say NO . He was not an employee , nor forced to do this flight and , and the aircraft was a private one.. If you want to prove it was a commercial flight in disguise then you have to brings facts on the table , a signed contract, a mission order , a money transfer to the pilot, etc.. in absence of any of this, it is just suspicions.

"Willie McKay said it was not a cost-sharing agreement as "Emi wasn't paying anything" and that he was going to pay "whatever Dave [Henderson] was going to charge".

"When you phone for a taxi you don't ask him if he has a driving licence," he said.

You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't change the fact that it was booked as a commercial flight. A decent legal eagle will rip the private flight argument to shreds.
Albino is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 11:56
  #1696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 559
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
As the holder of an FAA ATP and former chief Pilot of a part 135 charter company I find it absurd that people such as ATC Watcher are continuing to portray this flight as a private part 91 operation.
Well said, Oggers.
runway30 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 12:01
  #1697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,740
All very interesting. The AAIB have stated the investigation will.....Quote: 'Consider the regulatory requirements surrounding the flight including airworthiness requirements, aircraft permissions and flight crew licencing'
These are the AAIB's own words from the preliminary report.

The AAIB or any independent Accident investigation bureau will not look into legal liabilities. Not they job and against Annex 13 spirit. , they will assess if the aircraft was airworthy, all AD,s were done maintenance records, , what it was allowed to do and check the licences of the pilot in command .. you will find all this in final report.
The AAIB final report will state all the relevant factors. If they consider the manner in which the aircraft and pilot were procured for this flight were a factor in the accident, then they will say so. It is the up to the CAA to decide whether they act on the recommendations. If those recommendations are that the CAA tightens up it's regulation of private charter flights - then I suspect we can see that coming. The CAA will decide independently if they wish to pursue this further, and will only do that if they are sure of a successful conviction. They may or may not do that - they have had a couple of failures in that department recently and the do of course have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an infraction.

However, despite the claims of some on this forum who clearly have a vested interest that this was a private flight, thus passing all the blame onto the pilot, the whole thing is dodgier than a kosher pork pie and some wealthy people are out of pocket to the tune of 15 million. I suspect they will be looking at ways of recouping this in a civil case where the outcome will be decided on the balance of probabilities. If it comes to that, I don't think 'on balance' the odds are going to be in the defendants favour.

And I suspect the CAA will come down hard on the 'grey charter' market with increased regulation.
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 13:23
  #1698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
No common purpose. Not necessary if the flight was completely free (i.e. paid by the owner) .
No evidence of shared costs ; not relevant if it was a free flight.. In addition in my part of the word you have to prove things to accuse people , not because there is lack of evidence. And the UK , as far as I know is still a democratic country .
No night rating : yes and aggravating circumstances reinforcing the responsibility of the pilot
No IR : not relevant as the flight was filed VFR..

Do not find things to fit your suspicions. Nobody liked what happened and we all have serious suspicions , but t after 85 pages here , and unless new facts are brought in , for me the responsibility for this accident is still on the Pilot in command of that flight.
mainly because he did not say NO . He was not an employee , nor forced to do this flight and , and the aircraft was a private one.. If you want to prove it was a commercial flight in disguise then you have to brings facts on the table , a signed contract, a mission order , a money transfer to the pilot, etc.. in absence of any of this, it is just suspicions.
You will be surprised (although not others on this thread) of the information thats in the hands of the AAIB and CAA enforcements regarding this whole horrible mess. It was not a private flight in any shape or form, its was a purely commercial arrangement and the evidence is in the hands of the right people now. Its going to be an interesting couple of months coming up on this I think.

S-Works is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 14:29
  #1699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 65
Posts: 238
I will be very interested to see if the CAA take some sort of stance on the Jockey flights
. And how the aircraft operators on these "none" commercial flights justify them by bending the rules so that they can carry on regardless.
. Maybe more ramp checks at Racecourses or a not so discreet chat with those who facilitate such flights.
ak7274 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 14:35
  #1700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 55
Posts: 0
Well if aircraft that were flying every weekend before this happened are now not flying regularly they can pretty much tell exactly which airframes that were being used for this sort of thing.
tescoapp 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.