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 23rd Jan 2019, 14:28
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,747
All of these weather related incidents have the same basic ingredients.
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:30
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 134
@ runway30

There's no way to "ban/regulate" these unfortunate happenings.

Two other things come to mind;
a) About 1200 build and about 250 went down.

b) These long span but short cord wings are very efficient at altitude but not so good for ice.
What was that other aircraft that had the exact same issues with long span and short cord wings constantly icing over? ? The ATR if my mind is not letting me down. Most where finally sold to warmer climates.

If there is something to look into, it is the icing certification.
Vilters is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:32
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,949
Yet using the 'Wingly' principle, as long as this is a cost sharing and by that I mean the pilot contributes something towards the flight even though it is a few pounds, the UK CAA see this as legal.
I may not be up to date with the latest legislation but I thought with cost sharing the pilot had to pay at least 50% and there was a maximum all up weight permitted for such a flight. Perhaps someone will point us to the latest legislation?

I share the sense of outrage at this stupid loss of life. However, can you tell me what you would ban/regulate to stop it happening?
Better regulation by the relevant aviation authority but this means more infrastructure and staff = extra money required although I agree it's difficult to police. That said I believe CAA issued a leaflet some years ago about this issue so the passengers were more informed.

Without prejudice to this accident I always say a good yardstick is how you'd feel about next of kin being a passenger on a flight. If my son had called me on the phone and asked for advice about a flight such as this I would strongly warn against and advise him to hotac and go with a well known budget airline to Bristol and get a cab to Cardiff.

Also on this type of flight there is usually the human factor element of the pilot being under pressure to complete the mission. Non aviators often do not understand that flights sometimes have to be cancelled due weather etc. It's best to explain right from the onset that it might not go ahead and ask the passenger(s) what their plan B is. This primes them up if you have to cancel on the day.

Last edited by fireflybob; 23rd Jan 2019 at 14:43.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:33
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
So a football agent involved in the deal says I’ll lend the lad my aircraft together with a pilot/gas engineer he uses occasionally. No money changes hands other than the money in the football deal. The pilot is legal to fly Nantes/Cardiff. Although reckless, the single engined aircraft is legal to fly over water on a winter night. Now tell me what you would change to stop this happening?
runway30 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:33
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,747
Originally Posted by Vilters View Post
@ runway30

There's no way to "ban/regulate" these unfortunate happenings.

Two other things come to mind;
a) About 1200 build and about 250 went down.

b) These long span but short cord wings are very efficient at altitude but not so good for ice.
What was that other aircraft that had the exact same issues with long span and short cord wings constantly icing over? ? The ATR if my mind is not letting me down. Most where finally sold to warmer climates.

If there is something to look into, it is the icing certification.
Try telling that to the family of the terrified passenger who died in this accident. Clearly whoever put pilot and passenger together in this chain of events carries some responsibility?
Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:36
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by fireflybob View Post
I may not be up to date with the latest legislation but I thought with cost sharing the pilot had to pay at least 50% and there was a maximum all up weight permitted for such a flight. Perhaps someone will point us to the latest legislation?
Search google for ORS4 No.1274. It won't let me post URLs.
Edward Teach is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:37
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Liverpool
Age: 44
Posts: 468
There's no way to "ban/regulate" these unfortunate happenings.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. If you allow part-time pilots to take passengers into unfamiliar territory in unfamiliar conditions in the majority of these older a/c and add the element of time pressure and/or payment, then anyone on this board, PPL or CPL, who flies these genre of aircraft will know exactly what can happen.
clareprop is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:44
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 38
If it was a Wingly transaction - quite possible but not confirmed, they have the following on their website:

EU safety regulations only permit cost-shared flights by private individuals, if the direct cost (i.e. cost directly incurred in relation to the flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft) are shared between all parties, including the pilot. Cost-shared flights shall not have an element of profit. If a flight is not a cost-shared flight in accordance with EU safety regulations, the flight will be qualified as a commercial flight and commercial air operation rules will apply.

The cost-shared flight will be conducted under the sole responsibility of the pilot under the applicable regulation for non-commercial flights with light aircraft by private pilots. It is also the pilot’s responsibility to ensure the flight is insured for flights with passengers. See the Insurance page: https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=...page=insurance

Bad weather conditions are a primary reason for accidents in non-commercial General Aviation flights with light aircraft. Weather conditions can change quickly, as a result the pilot may cancel the flight. Therefore, the day before the actual flight, the pilot should inform the passenger of the weather forecast regarding the feasibility of the flight. The presence of the passenger on the day of the flight and their expectations that it will take place, shall not make the pilot reluctant to cancel a flight.
Cambridge172 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:45
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post


Try telling that to the family of the terrified passenger who died in this accident. Clearly whoever put pilot and passenger together in this chain of events carries some responsibility?
I try to stick to the facts and can see this with an open mind and ask many questions, but we "forumgang" can not be the pilots Judge.
Facts are pretty well known by now. The front was predicted and actual.
Type of aircraft for this type of flight is problematic too. => See point "b" of previous post.
All the rest is paperweight for the courtroom.
Vilters is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:45
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 38
Of course Wingly is based on EU oversight and this was an FAA, US-registered aircraft operating in EU airspace
Cambridge172 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:46
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Girona
Posts: 230
"Carrying responsibility" Ņ Or not ?

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn View Post


....Clearly whoever put pilot and passenger together in this chain of events carries some responsibility?
Which brings me, at least, back to my previous post re Cork accident.

There was an extremely long drawn out and meticulous investigation there.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet borne any legal responsibility whatsoever for a case which involved a regular scheduled flight, flown by an EU carrier (well "sort of") between 2 member states without any of the more obvious elements of danger which have been highlighted here.

Is there any reason, a priori, to think that this case will be different.
BigFrank is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:50
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,030
The presence of the passenger on the day of the flight and their expectations that it will take place, shall not make the pilot reluctant to cancel a flight.
Oh my goodness. Was there ever such few words that have run through the minds of a pilot as they wished they were 'down there' rather than 'up here'?
strake is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:57
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NY
Posts: 27
Sort of a tangent, but I've read plenty of accident reports with up and up charters in very capable aircraft where the pilots had some very sketchy (dodgy as you guys would say) piloting backgrounds: lost jobs, washing out of training, failing checkrides. And hey, anyone can blow an IR checkride, but I'm talking a history of failed rides and being relieved of their job for lack of ability. And they latch on somewhere else because there is always a need for pilots.

I just wonder if the pilot shortage is going to make this worse and worse. And these things like Wingly are just accidents waiting to happen. The traveling public truly has no idea. I have a very close friend who has done quite well for himself, he flies private now and again. I tell him, whatever you do, never, ever take the lowest bid. Get the most reputable company your ca, and really, just fly commercial if you can.

The longer I'm around aviation the more I realize how little the traveling public knows about issues that directly affect their safety.
mryan75 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:58
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by anchorhold View Post
Yet using the 'Wingly' principle, as long as this is a cost sharing and by that I mean the pilot contributes something towards the flight even though it is a few pounds, the UK CAA see this as legal. If it is hire and reward, then it is simply illegal. Flying for 'expenses', is another complex issue.
I have a feeling that "cost sharing" on the road in that way might be frowned upon by the authorities.



mbriscoe is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 15:00
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 38
Spec for aircraft says it had no ADS-B, no suprise for that
Cambridge172 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 15:04
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Bristol
Posts: 159
The issue of Wingly was covered in an earlier thread under 'Instructors and Examiners'

As Whopity stated:

The following statement is from the CAA's website and authored by Tony Rapson Head of GAD
Quote:
Opportunities for UK private pilots to clock-up more flying time have greatly increased with the emergence over the last few years of online services such as Wingly and Coavmi. For a fee, these companies offer to connect general aviation pilots with passengers who are willing to share the costs of a recreational flight - fuel, landing fees etc. Until recently, pilots could only share those costs with friends or fellow flying club members, who all had to chip in.
I have an email from Dianne Park at the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept in which she states that Wingly is perfectly legal.

Other countries like France have applied a bit more common sense than the UK CAA and specified pilot experience requirements for such flights.

Whopity goes on the state that the contribution from the pilot need only be one pence.

Like Fireflybob, I had originally thought that it was cost sharing equally divided (1/2. 1/3, 1/4) until corrected by Whopity, who seems to be credible source over the years on PPRuNe.
anchorhold is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 15:10
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by clareprop View Post
I am very sorry for the families involved but I dread to think where this is going to go.

Just put the fact that Mr Sala was a £15m signing to one side for a moment, I wonder who on this board would allow a loved one to fly across the channel in an unknown 35 year old single-engine piston a/c, in winter, at night with no mode c using the services of a part-time pilot?
Once again, the innocence and lack of knowledge of the non-flying public puts them at risk.
Where did you get the idea that they had no ModeC on this aircraft?
airpolice is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 15:17
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 630
Someone mentioned earlier that he was on an IFR plan.
What height would they allow him down to around there whilst remaining IFR? I was just there yesterday but can't say I looked at that information other than MSA at EGJB was around 1500' in the North and West.
The ILS into EGJB starts at 2000' and he wasn't far from the IAF. Around 15nm or so from EGJB.
Surely he wasn't planning to cross the Channel at MSA?

I think the discussion with ATC about the decent will shed a lot of light on this. The guys are usually really good and would potentially query the choice as it's odd.

If he was VFR.... My law knowledge regarding single engine ops is a bit patchy, but I believe there is no commercial vfr night ops for single engine piston. However, do these rules apply to N registered aircraft?

It's upsetting to think that I was sitting down to enjoy a nice meal, with a brand new light business jet sitting on the apron, while this was all unfolding for him.
A few thousand more £ and he'd be training with his mates in Cardiff right now. Footballers are regular customers of mine.
We were certainly available at the time.

If the agent organised this for him, he needs to be strung up.
​​​​​​

​​​​

Last edited by lilflyboy262...2; 23rd Jan 2019 at 15:46.
lilflyboy262...2 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 15:21
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Leatherhead
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
So a football agent involved in the deal says Iíll lend the lad my aircraft together with a pilot/gas engineer he uses occasionally. No money changes hands other than the money in the football deal. The pilot is legal to fly Nantes/Cardiff. Although reckless, the single engined aircraft is legal to fly over water on a winter night. Now tell me what you would change to stop this happening?
And if the Agent does indeed own the aircraft as reported then I suspect that is exactly what happened. A private flight and poor Sala had no idea about the risk he was taking in accepting the "kind" offer from someone he knew.
GAPU is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 15:38
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 513
Originally Posted by fireflybob View Post
I'm not intending to be political but is the relaxation of cost sharing rules due to change to EU regulations? Maybe if or when we Brexit the UK CAA could change the legislation which I see as too lax. I hate to say this as the last thing I want are more restrictions but surely passengers need more protection?



I say this without prejudice but it could be if the right lawyers get hold of it. I wonder what type of life insurance the passenger (and indeed the pilot) had as the insurance companies regard private flying as a high risk activity which is excluded from cover unless you pay extra premium.
Insurance experts on here have said that private flying would be covered. Surely for the sort of bespoke contract we are talking about here, you can include anything in the cover. I know from my own experience that once you start removing the exclusions, you get hefty premiums added.

There are a number of possible outcomes
1) Cardiff City insured him and paid a premium for private flying
2) Cardiff City were reckless and didnít insure him
3) Cardiff City were reckless, they did insure him without paying a premium for private flying, then lost control of his travel arrangements
4) Cardiff City have lost £15m and will sue everybody.
runway30 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.