Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
As owner/pilot of an N-reg PA46 with FAA IR flying within Europe on a regular basis, I might bring some insights into the discussion
.
To me the two most important questions are:
1) why was he flying at 5000 ft?
The distance between Nantes and Cardiff is around 270nm. Even though the winds were quite strong (>60kts headwind),
I would always choose an altitude between FL160 and FL240. This would allow for a 2h flight and give enough glide distance
in case of an issue. Also at that altitude I would be out of ice completely.
I fear he was aware not to comply with all rules and tried to play it low key:
Flying an N-reg aircraft IFR in Europe across two countries is only legally possible if you hold an FAA IR Licence and maybe
if he holds both French and UK EASA IR. Very unlikely.
Also the flight sounds to me like a commercial job more than a shared cost. You take a football star across the channel at night
during winter for fun? Very unlikely. To my knowledge, you can't operate a single piston IR commercially. Neither EASA nor FAA.
Possible supportive facts could be that
a) the transponder was off or at least no 7700
b) he did not declare an emergency on the radio
c) he did not turn on ELT (you can manually turn it on before impact)
2) what would make a pilot ask to go down from 5000 ft to 2300 ft over water?
There is only one reason coming to my mind: Ice. In case of engine or electrical failure, you are not asking for lower level, but vectors to nearest field (ie. Guernsey).
The PA 46 is equipped with a variety of deice systems, but you need to be very proficient to use theme properly. Especially following systems are critical, assuming that pitot/stall heat are working
a) Alternate Air: If you forget to open alternate air, the filter clogs and the manifold pressure drops => low power
b) Prop deice: If you forget to turn it on or it is not working properly, the aircraft will start to shake like hell => low power, less control
c) Wing deice: If you forget to turn it on, or at the right time or not working properly, the aircraft will become heavy quickly and the controls bad => less control
In any of theses cases, if the autopilot is still on, it might stall and/or disconnect at the worst possible moment => loss of control
But even the autopilot is off, you will need good stick/rudder, IFR proficiency and luck to come out of this...
.
To me the two most important questions are:
1) why was he flying at 5000 ft?
The distance between Nantes and Cardiff is around 270nm. Even though the winds were quite strong (>60kts headwind),
I would always choose an altitude between FL160 and FL240. This would allow for a 2h flight and give enough glide distance
in case of an issue. Also at that altitude I would be out of ice completely.
I fear he was aware not to comply with all rules and tried to play it low key:
Flying an N-reg aircraft IFR in Europe across two countries is only legally possible if you hold an FAA IR Licence and maybe
if he holds both French and UK EASA IR. Very unlikely.
Also the flight sounds to me like a commercial job more than a shared cost. You take a football star across the channel at night
during winter for fun? Very unlikely. To my knowledge, you can't operate a single piston IR commercially. Neither EASA nor FAA.
Possible supportive facts could be that
a) the transponder was off or at least no 7700
b) he did not declare an emergency on the radio
c) he did not turn on ELT (you can manually turn it on before impact)
2) what would make a pilot ask to go down from 5000 ft to 2300 ft over water?
There is only one reason coming to my mind: Ice. In case of engine or electrical failure, you are not asking for lower level, but vectors to nearest field (ie. Guernsey).
The PA 46 is equipped with a variety of deice systems, but you need to be very proficient to use theme properly. Especially following systems are critical, assuming that pitot/stall heat are working
a) Alternate Air: If you forget to open alternate air, the filter clogs and the manifold pressure drops => low power
b) Prop deice: If you forget to turn it on or it is not working properly, the aircraft will start to shake like hell => low power, less control
c) Wing deice: If you forget to turn it on, or at the right time or not working properly, the aircraft will become heavy quickly and the controls bad => less control
In any of theses cases, if the autopilot is still on, it might stall and/or disconnect at the worst possible moment => loss of control
But even the autopilot is off, you will need good stick/rudder, IFR proficiency and luck to come out of this...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) why was he flying at 5000 ft?
The distance between Nantes and Cardiff is around 270nm. Even though the winds were quite strong (>60kts headwind),
I would always choose an altitude between FL160 and FL240. This would allow for a 2h flight and give enough glide distance
in case of an issue. Also at that altitude I would be out of ice completely.
I fear he was aware not to comply with all rules and tried to play it low key:
Flying an N-reg aircraft IFR in Europe across two countries is only legally possible if you hold an FAA IR Licence and maybe
if he holds both French and UK EASA IR. Very unlikely.
Also the flight sounds to me like a commercial job more than a shared cost. You take a football star across the channel at night
during winter for fun? Very unlikely. To my knowledge, you can't operate a single piston IR commercially. Neither EASA nor FAA.
Possible supportive facts could be that
a) the transponder was off or at least no 7700
b) he did not declare an emergency on the radio
c) he did not turn on ELT (you can manually turn it on before impact)
2) what would make a pilot ask to go down from 5000 ft to 2300 ft over water?
There is only one reason coming to my mind: Ice. In case of engine or electrical failure, you are not asking for lower level, but vectors to nearest field (ie. Guernsey).
The PA 46 is equipped with a variety of deice systems, but you need to be very proficient to use theme properly. Especially following systems are critical, assuming that pitot/stall heat are working
a) Alternate Air: If you forget to open alternate air, the filter clogs and the manifold pressure drops => low power
b) Prop deice: If you forget to turn it on or it is not working properly, the aircraft will start to shake like hell => low power, less control
c) Wing deice: If you forget to turn it on, or at the right time or not working properly, the aircraft will become heavy quickly and the controls bad => less control
In any of theses cases, if the autopilot is still on, it might stall and/or disconnect at the worst possible moment => loss of control
But even the autopilot is off, you will need good stick/rudder, IFR proficiency and luck to come out of this...
The distance between Nantes and Cardiff is around 270nm. Even though the winds were quite strong (>60kts headwind),
I would always choose an altitude between FL160 and FL240. This would allow for a 2h flight and give enough glide distance
in case of an issue. Also at that altitude I would be out of ice completely.
I fear he was aware not to comply with all rules and tried to play it low key:
Flying an N-reg aircraft IFR in Europe across two countries is only legally possible if you hold an FAA IR Licence and maybe
if he holds both French and UK EASA IR. Very unlikely.
Also the flight sounds to me like a commercial job more than a shared cost. You take a football star across the channel at night
during winter for fun? Very unlikely. To my knowledge, you can't operate a single piston IR commercially. Neither EASA nor FAA.
Possible supportive facts could be that
a) the transponder was off or at least no 7700
b) he did not declare an emergency on the radio
c) he did not turn on ELT (you can manually turn it on before impact)
2) what would make a pilot ask to go down from 5000 ft to 2300 ft over water?
There is only one reason coming to my mind: Ice. In case of engine or electrical failure, you are not asking for lower level, but vectors to nearest field (ie. Guernsey).
The PA 46 is equipped with a variety of deice systems, but you need to be very proficient to use theme properly. Especially following systems are critical, assuming that pitot/stall heat are working
a) Alternate Air: If you forget to open alternate air, the filter clogs and the manifold pressure drops => low power
b) Prop deice: If you forget to turn it on or it is not working properly, the aircraft will start to shake like hell => low power, less control
c) Wing deice: If you forget to turn it on, or at the right time or not working properly, the aircraft will become heavy quickly and the controls bad => less control
In any of theses cases, if the autopilot is still on, it might stall and/or disconnect at the worst possible moment => loss of control
But even the autopilot is off, you will need good stick/rudder, IFR proficiency and luck to come out of this...
It's not about what went wrong...most of the pilots here can guess that. The question is, why was he commanding this flight in the first place?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is understood they used a company to organise the flight.
Mr Ibbotson, a gas engineer from Scunthorpe, was one of the roster of three or four pilots regularly used to fly footballers to France and may also have carried jockeys between race meetings.
Does anyone know what company this is?
Mr Ibbotson, a gas engineer from Scunthorpe, was one of the roster of three or four pilots regularly used to fly footballers to France and may also have carried jockeys between race meetings.
Does anyone know what company this is?
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hill’s FAA IR had lapsed, so had his UK IMC rating; his UK PPL was still valid. The aeroplane’s US registration had been cancelled three years previously; it was unregistered and stateless.
Needless loss of life as will be this case.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Girona
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will anything come of the results of the investigation?
I ask this in view of my interest in the Cork Airport Accident, much closer to 8 years ago than the 5 which I suggested in a previous post.
I quote from the central part of the press release issued by the Irish Board after that accident:
The Investigation identified the following factors as being significant:
The approach was continued in conditions of poor visibility below those required.
The descent was continued below the Decision Height without adequate visual reference being acquired.
Uncoordinated operation of the flight and engine controls when go-around was attempted.
The engine power-levers were retarded below the normal in-flight operational range, an action prohibited in flight.
A power difference between the engines became significant when the engine power levers were retarded below the normal in-flight range.
Tiredness and fatigue on the part of the Flight Crew members.
Inadequate command training and checking.
Inappropriate pairing of Flight Crew members, and Inadequate oversight of the remote Operation by the Operator and the State of the Operator.
Systemic deficiencies at the operational, organisational and regulatory levels were also identified by the Investigation. Such deficiencies included pilot training, scheduling of flight crews, maintenance and inadequate oversight of the operation by the Operator and the State of Registration.
In accordance with the Investigation’s objective of preventing future accidents and incidents, a total of 11 Safety Recommendations have been made to various entities as follows:
• Four are made to the European Commission Directorate responsible for Commercial Air Transport regarding Flight Time Limitations, the role of the ticket seller, the improvement of safety oversight and the oversight of Operating Licences.
• Three are made to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regarding the number of successive instrument approaches that can be conducted to an aerodrome in certain meteorological conditions, the syllabus for appointment to Commander and the process by which Air Operator Certificate (AOC) variations are granted.
• Two are made to the Operator, Flightline S.L., regarding its operational policy and training.
• One is made to Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea (AESA), the Spanish Civil Aviation Regulatory Authority, regarding oversight of air carriers.
• One is made to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), regarding the inclusion of the approach capability of aircraft/flight crew on flight plans.
I have highlighted those aspects above which most interest7worry me though they may not be the most salient.
¿ Can anyone assure me that these recommendations have been taken seriously by the bodies mentioned ?
I recall clearly that when the report was published it seemed apparent that the Spanish authorities were more than a little lenient on the multiplicity of Spanish-based companies involved at Cork
I quote from the central part of the press release issued by the Irish Board after that accident:
The Investigation identified the following factors as being significant:
The approach was continued in conditions of poor visibility below those required.
The descent was continued below the Decision Height without adequate visual reference being acquired.
Uncoordinated operation of the flight and engine controls when go-around was attempted.
The engine power-levers were retarded below the normal in-flight operational range, an action prohibited in flight.
A power difference between the engines became significant when the engine power levers were retarded below the normal in-flight range.
Tiredness and fatigue on the part of the Flight Crew members.
Inadequate command training and checking.
Inappropriate pairing of Flight Crew members, and Inadequate oversight of the remote Operation by the Operator and the State of the Operator.
Systemic deficiencies at the operational, organisational and regulatory levels were also identified by the Investigation. Such deficiencies included pilot training, scheduling of flight crews, maintenance and inadequate oversight of the operation by the Operator and the State of Registration.
In accordance with the Investigation’s objective of preventing future accidents and incidents, a total of 11 Safety Recommendations have been made to various entities as follows:
• Four are made to the European Commission Directorate responsible for Commercial Air Transport regarding Flight Time Limitations, the role of the ticket seller, the improvement of safety oversight and the oversight of Operating Licences.
• Three are made to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regarding the number of successive instrument approaches that can be conducted to an aerodrome in certain meteorological conditions, the syllabus for appointment to Commander and the process by which Air Operator Certificate (AOC) variations are granted.
• Two are made to the Operator, Flightline S.L., regarding its operational policy and training.
• One is made to Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea (AESA), the Spanish Civil Aviation Regulatory Authority, regarding oversight of air carriers.
• One is made to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), regarding the inclusion of the approach capability of aircraft/flight crew on flight plans.
I have highlighted those aspects above which most interest7worry me though they may not be the most salient.
¿ Can anyone assure me that these recommendations have been taken seriously by the bodies mentioned ?
I recall clearly that when the report was published it seemed apparent that the Spanish authorities were more than a little lenient on the multiplicity of Spanish-based companies involved at Cork
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
So what are the requirements?
If I suspect what is happening, exactly? All the flights I've been on like this were arranged by my client and I've never seen any of the relevant paperwork. I have a good relationship with the client and I would like to make sure, discreetly, that they are doing things by the book, for their sakes as well as mine.
My concerns differ for my various flights, too. On one, the concern was safety-related: as I said the takeoff amid incoming fog was over-hurried to my mind but I am not in the pilot's seat and not well-placed to provide anything other than an impression. On the other, the concern is regulatory. From what I'm reading here, I'm far from convinced the pilot of the N-registered aircraft had the appropriate certification for the flight, even though their passanger safety procedures appeared good.
I really can't tell whether either operation was 100% legal, but I don't have any compelling evidence and deem the type of arrangement I was invited to use was not by any means unusual in that part of the world. I had never given its legality a second thought before this event and this discussion and I suspect there are many others like me out there.
I also appreciate there may be some resentment on the part of full-time professionals about the "uberisation" of non-commercial flying. I suffer from this in my own way in my own line of business but would like to think I can distiguish criticism of unfair but not illegal competition from actual rule-breaking that would merit a call to the authorities.
So now my questions are:
- assuming I have assessed the technical risks of boarding a single-engine piston aircraft to hop to a Channel Island on business on a nice day and deemed them acceptable...
-> what are the minimum regulatory requirements a) for the pilot to make such a flight b) for them to legitimately take on board a paying passenger such that in the event of an incident, it could reasonably be argued that such a flight was legal?
For many jobs there is a minimum amount of paperwork or certification to be supplied (or at least declared) to the client. What does this list consist of here? What should SLF be asking for as a minimum?
My concerns differ for my various flights, too. On one, the concern was safety-related: as I said the takeoff amid incoming fog was over-hurried to my mind but I am not in the pilot's seat and not well-placed to provide anything other than an impression. On the other, the concern is regulatory. From what I'm reading here, I'm far from convinced the pilot of the N-registered aircraft had the appropriate certification for the flight, even though their passanger safety procedures appeared good.
I really can't tell whether either operation was 100% legal, but I don't have any compelling evidence and deem the type of arrangement I was invited to use was not by any means unusual in that part of the world. I had never given its legality a second thought before this event and this discussion and I suspect there are many others like me out there.
I also appreciate there may be some resentment on the part of full-time professionals about the "uberisation" of non-commercial flying. I suffer from this in my own way in my own line of business but would like to think I can distiguish criticism of unfair but not illegal competition from actual rule-breaking that would merit a call to the authorities.
So now my questions are:
- assuming I have assessed the technical risks of boarding a single-engine piston aircraft to hop to a Channel Island on business on a nice day and deemed them acceptable...
-> what are the minimum regulatory requirements a) for the pilot to make such a flight b) for them to legitimately take on board a paying passenger such that in the event of an incident, it could reasonably be argued that such a flight was legal?
For many jobs there is a minimum amount of paperwork or certification to be supplied (or at least declared) to the client. What does this list consist of here? What should SLF be asking for as a minimum?
I get really fed up reading about so called Grey Charters. There are either legal Charters run by companies with a valid Air Operating Certificate or illegal Charters. Using the word Grey might perhaps give them some validity. This is a very tragic situation and when the authorities come to their conclusions, all in the industry should be working to ensure that it never happens again.
I’m really cautious with the tar brush tho as I have come across some truly dedicated Charter pilots and their Charter operators and they work really hard to make it work brilliantly in a really tough business environment. But criminals (which is what we are referring to when using the term “grey”- and I am in no way suggesting that this really sad event was such a situation – it may be a far more sad but totally innocent scenario) have a real skill in seeming legit. After all, that’s precisely how any pro criminal makes their money! Hope that helps “Viking” – with a monkier like that – hate to upset you too much!
Oh, and H 'n' H is ususally broke - so can't make money "legit" and seems the "black market" for biros lifted from my employer is really flat right now. I've had both of biros in my pocket for months - but no-one down my local is interested in taking them off my hands! 
"Eutychus", really pleased to see that you are asking such pertinant questions to protect yourself! I'll defer to others better in the know to answer your question above re "evidence" as I'm a bit out of date now. If more people asked for such information, dubious operators would be put out of business. Sadly, such operators will bank on you being a very, very, very small minority - but for you own safety, "Good on yer!".
Last edited by Hot 'n' High; 24th Jan 2019 at 20:53. Reason: Adding last para.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A long way above is a post that lllustrates the rate that when the temperature is only just below freezing ice can accumulate on an aircraft, the person who was flying an aircraft with a far less critical wing entered cloud at 5000 ft in the decent and control was almost lost until the aircraft entered warm air and the ice melted. Being daylight and with full cooperation from ATC who had been put fully in the picture, disaster was narroly averted.
To me this looks simply like and aircraft that was flown into icing conditions that proved far beyond the capabilities of the aircraft to shed the ice and a pilot who failed to appreciate the rate that ice can accumulate.
To me this looks simply like and aircraft that was flown into icing conditions that proved far beyond the capabilities of the aircraft to shed the ice and a pilot who failed to appreciate the rate that ice can accumulate.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Guernsey
Age: 66
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not sure if anyone has considered the radar station at Crossma. They track all marine traffic in the Channel and Channel Islands water with very sensitive equipment. I would imagine a small aircraft, at low level, would have painted on their screens right up until it was shadowed by Alderney or the Casquets reef thus giving a pretty good position of the actual ditching. I stand to be corrected but there is more than ATC radar cover in this area especially with the sensitivity of a nuclear power plant on the coast.
Standing by!
Standing by!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a nasty smell and it is coming from a can of worms that has been opened. I don’t know if there will be any shortcomings in either the licence or the flying skills of the pilot, we will have to wait and see. However, what would worry me is if the pilot takes all the blame for this tragedy when there are others with a callous disregard for human life who simply melt away. I can’t recall another accident, except for Cork, where you can’t identify the owner/operator of the aircraft and there are so many people shaking their heads saying ‘Nothing to do with me’.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Paris
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responsibilities
There is a nasty smell and it is coming from a can of worms that has been opened. I don’t know if there will be any shortcomings in either the licence or the flying skills of the pilot, we will have to wait and see. However, what would worry me is if the pilot takes all the blame for this tragedy when there are others with a callous disregard for human life who simply melt away. I can’t recall another accident, except for Cork, where you can’t identify the owner/operator of the aircraft and there are so many people shaking their heads saying ‘Nothing to do with me’.
Also I would be interested to know more about the second, much more experienced pilot, that alledgedely decided to not go with them at the last minute (after passing Nantes’ airport controls.)
O
Thank you for calling out that key point. I'd just used the title text from the AAIB report. On checking I see the registration has since been reallocated. Goes to show that as mentioned in many posts above - if the aircraft looks the part, and the pilot talks the talk, why would the average person see anything as being 'risky' and start asking pointed questions?
Last edited by Strumble Head; 24th Jan 2019 at 20:56. Reason: first version posted incomplete in error
obviously not the correct place to start a discussion on helicopter accidents but you've stated 4 there. Yes there are more, mechanical failures account for so many. Pilot error a few. but put in context with the amount of helicopter flights taking place around the globe on a daily basis. Anyway, we digress. We can save this for another thread in Rotorheads I'm sure. As a full time helicopter pilot I have to trust it won't happen to me if I do all I possibly can to mitigate the risks. ie esp when spending hours searching the English Channel for downed fixed wing aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Sun so I have no way to verify whether this is true or not.
“Mr Ibbotson belonged to three “ferry flight” Facebook groups where companies advertise flying jobs and had worked for Mr McKay before using the same plane.
He flew Nice FC general manager Julien Fournier from Surrey to the French port of Marseille in the single-engined US-registered Piper last year.
A source said: “Pilots are offered cash, airline tickets and hotel rooms in exchange for flying brand new aircraft to customers, or flying customers.”
“Mr Ibbotson belonged to three “ferry flight” Facebook groups where companies advertise flying jobs and had worked for Mr McKay before using the same plane.
He flew Nice FC general manager Julien Fournier from Surrey to the French port of Marseille in the single-engined US-registered Piper last year.
A source said: “Pilots are offered cash, airline tickets and hotel rooms in exchange for flying brand new aircraft to customers, or flying customers.”
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not sure I am following you here: there is only one person in charge and it’s the pilot. He can always say “no”.
Also I would be interested to know more about the second, much more experienced pilot, that alledgedely decided to not go with them at the last minute (after passing Nantes’ airport controls.)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not sure I am following you here: there is only one person in charge and it’s the pilot. He can always say “no”.
Also I would be interested to know more about the second, much more experienced pilot, that alledgedely decided to not go with them at the last minute (after passing Nantes’ airport controls.)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Near EGSS
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading comments on this thread about people failing to find themselves or people they know on the FAA database, I decided to look myself up. Not there apparently. After a bit of experimentation I discovered that if I removed all of the search terms except my name the entry came up. Did bring to my attention the fact that the FAA certificate is linked to a UK licence number which is not the one I have now. Not sure what I have to do about that but I will wait until after Brexit before bothering to find out!
On April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century became Public Law 106-181. Section 715 of that law requires the Federal Aviation Administration to release names, addresses, and ratings information for all airmen after the 120th day following the date of enactment.
The law also requires that the airmen be given an opportunity to elect that their address information be withheld from release under this law. Accordingly, the FAA sent letters to all active airmen informing them of the provisions of the law, and giving them the option to withhold their address information. The FAA will be continuing this procedure for airmen who become active. Responses from the letters have been processed.
This file contains the names, addresses, and certificate information of those airmen who did not respond to indicate that they wished to withhold their address information.
The law also requires that the airmen be given an opportunity to elect that their address information be withheld from release under this law. Accordingly, the FAA sent letters to all active airmen informing them of the provisions of the law, and giving them the option to withhold their address information. The FAA will be continuing this procedure for airmen who become active. Responses from the letters have been processed.
This file contains the names, addresses, and certificate information of those airmen who did not respond to indicate that they wished to withhold their address information.