Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
It appears to have come from here: Mirror: Emiliano Sala's final text messages with agent reveal flight confusion
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Amblesidel
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not think I have ever seen a definition of hire and reward in respect of UK pilots. In respect of aerial work such as banner towing, glider towing, parachute dropping and instructing whether a PPL, BCPL, CPL, ATPL holder, what is hire, what is reward. Hire would imply some formal arrangement with a verbal or written contract, which simply could be an email. Advertising services through social media or contacts could further imply hire. As for reward, if someone who flies part time and costs incurred for travel, hotac, renewels amount to £4000 p/a and income is £3999 p/a, then there is a loss of £1, so can it be argued that there was no financial reward. Again the problem here is, a district judge might consider a long weekend stopover in say Cannes with hotac, food and expenses provided is reward, when compared with the fact the pilot otherwise would have spent a wet weekend in Grimsby.
The problem here is that a definition of hire and reward is very subjective is that a district judge or circuit judge in a court (England and Wales) will work on the balance of probability, meaning they will take a guess on what is hire and reward and likely to take the UK CAA position given in court. The other thing that those operating with the correct licences and ratings, risk losing their assets (home, savings, etc.), or those of their survivors, in full. Again some might think they could protect as a limited company, yet that would imply there was a commercial arrangement in place. Personally, I see it as madness the risk your assets for borderline aerial activities.
The bottom line to this is I am doubtful if there is a definition of hire and reward under the ANO, and there will never be, until the matter becomes case law in the High Court, Appeal Court or Supreme Court.
The problem here is that a definition of hire and reward is very subjective is that a district judge or circuit judge in a court (England and Wales) will work on the balance of probability, meaning they will take a guess on what is hire and reward and likely to take the UK CAA position given in court. The other thing that those operating with the correct licences and ratings, risk losing their assets (home, savings, etc.), or those of their survivors, in full. Again some might think they could protect as a limited company, yet that would imply there was a commercial arrangement in place. Personally, I see it as madness the risk your assets for borderline aerial activities.
The bottom line to this is I am doubtful if there is a definition of hire and reward under the ANO, and there will never be, until the matter becomes case law in the High Court, Appeal Court or Supreme Court.
[Information from Companies House filings.]
Cool Flourish Limited was incorporated in February 1998 and dormant until December 1999 when it acquires a Golden Eagle for use in an “aircraft hire business”. The aircraft is written-off in an accident sometime in or around 2001.
I couldn’t find a Golden Eagle accident that appears to match the circumstances in the AAIB, NTSB, or ASN records. Perhaps registered in some other jurisdiction?
Insurance claim settled sometime between February 2007 and February 2008 – some six or seven years later.
All a bit odd. Another jigsaw piece, and certainly relevant to the discussion as it indicates the company that owns the missing PA46 was on the face of it set-up to run an aircraft hire business.
Cool Flourish Limited was incorporated in February 1998 and dormant until December 1999 when it acquires a Golden Eagle for use in an “aircraft hire business”. The aircraft is written-off in an accident sometime in or around 2001.
I couldn’t find a Golden Eagle accident that appears to match the circumstances in the AAIB, NTSB, or ASN records. Perhaps registered in some other jurisdiction?
Insurance claim settled sometime between February 2007 and February 2008 – some six or seven years later.
All a bit odd. Another jigsaw piece, and certainly relevant to the discussion as it indicates the company that owns the missing PA46 was on the face of it set-up to run an aircraft hire business.
Cool Flourish Limited was incorporated in February 1998 and dormant until December 1999 when it acquires a Golden Eagle for use in an “aircraft hire business”. The aircraft is written-off in an accident sometime in or around 2001. I couldn’t find a Golden Eagle accident that appears to match the circumstances in the AAIB, NTSB, or ASN records.
The accident/incident involving the C421 occurred much earlier than that - between March 2001 and February 2002, according to the note in that year's accounts - and it "curtailed aviation activities" of the company.
Whatever it was that happened, it doesn't seem to have attracted the attention of the AAIB or the CAA.
Whatever it was that happened, it doesn't seem to have attracted the attention of the AAIB or the CAA.
No, it was on the UK register, as was the company's later PA-32.
Incidentally, the Golden Eagle wasn't "written off" - it's still G-registered with a new owner, albeit based in Portugal.
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 26th Jan 2019 at 08:16.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I won't be at all surprised if it turns out that the aircraft had been hired and the pilot was volunteering -- flying for fun, as at any gliding club with a tug or at a jump club. Perfectly legal.
I do not think I have ever seen a definition of hire and reward in respect of UK pilots. In respect of aerial work such as banner towing, glider towing, parachute dropping and instructing whether a PPL, BCPL, CPL, ATPL holder, what is hire, what is reward. Hire would imply some formal arrangement with a verbal or written contract, which simply could be an email. Advertising services through social media or contacts could further imply hire. As for reward, if someone who flies part time and costs incurred for travel, hotac, renewels amount to £4000 p/a and income is £3999 p/a, then there is a loss of £1, so can it be argued that there was no financial reward. Again the problem here is, a district judge might consider a long weekend stopover in say Cannes with hotac, food and expenses provided is reward, when compared with the fact the pilot otherwise would have spent a wet weekend in Grimsby.
The problem here is that a definition of hire and reward is very subjective is that a district judge or circuit judge in a court (England and Wales) will work on the balance of probability, meaning they will take a guess on what is hire and reward and likely to take the UK CAA position given in court. The other thing that those operating with the correct licences and ratings, risk losing their assets (home, savings, etc.), or those of their survivors, in full. Again some might think they could protect as a limited company, yet that would imply there was a commercial arrangement in place. Personally, I see it as madness the risk your assets for borderline aerial activities.
The bottom line to this is I am doubtful if there is a definition of hire and reward under the ANO, and there will never be, until the matter becomes case law in the High Court, Appeal Court or Supreme Court.
The problem here is that a definition of hire and reward is very subjective is that a district judge or circuit judge in a court (England and Wales) will work on the balance of probability, meaning they will take a guess on what is hire and reward and likely to take the UK CAA position given in court. The other thing that those operating with the correct licences and ratings, risk losing their assets (home, savings, etc.), or those of their survivors, in full. Again some might think they could protect as a limited company, yet that would imply there was a commercial arrangement in place. Personally, I see it as madness the risk your assets for borderline aerial activities.
The bottom line to this is I am doubtful if there is a definition of hire and reward under the ANO, and there will never be, until the matter becomes case law in the High Court, Appeal Court or Supreme Court.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: This side of Heaven
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Information from Companies House filings.]
Cool Flourish Limited was incorporated in February 1998 and dormant until December 1999 when it acquires a Golden Eagle for use in an “aircraft hire business”. The aircraft is written-off in an accident sometime in or around 2001.
I couldn’t find a Golden Eagle accident that appears to match the circumstances in the AAIB, NTSB, or ASN records. Perhaps registered in some other jurisdiction?
Insurance claim settled sometime between February 2007 and February 2008 – some six or seven years later.
All a bit odd. Another jigsaw piece, and certainly relevant to the discussion as it indicates the company that owns the missing PA46 was on the face of it set-up to run an aircraft hire business.
Cool Flourish Limited was incorporated in February 1998 and dormant until December 1999 when it acquires a Golden Eagle for use in an “aircraft hire business”. The aircraft is written-off in an accident sometime in or around 2001.
I couldn’t find a Golden Eagle accident that appears to match the circumstances in the AAIB, NTSB, or ASN records. Perhaps registered in some other jurisdiction?
Insurance claim settled sometime between February 2007 and February 2008 – some six or seven years later.
All a bit odd. Another jigsaw piece, and certainly relevant to the discussion as it indicates the company that owns the missing PA46 was on the face of it set-up to run an aircraft hire business.
Surely if a "business activity" then "non-scheduled air transport" requires income of some sort. It's not a charity.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice the REACH website does not mention FAA approval. It does say that they can support Isle of Man and FAA registered aircraft.
This presumably means that just call in a freelance A & P mechanic or IA (Inspection Authorisation) guy as required.
This presumably means that just call in a freelance A & P mechanic or IA (Inspection Authorisation) guy as required.
Happy to be corrected, thanks – there is a reference in the 2002 accounts to a “loss on aircraft write off” but that must be a financial write off (write down) rather than a physical one.
To the wider thread: stop using the term “GA” to cover any non scheduled transport. EASA Commercial Air Transport requirements for operating under an AOC apply equally to scheduled and non-scheduled transport. Operators complying with the requirements to hold an AOC and operate in accordance with the law deserve better from the UK CAA and EASA NAAs.
Just a numbered other
It appears to have come from here: Mirror: Emiliano Sala's final text messages with agent reveal flight confusion
Touching that Sala asks how much it will cost. Whatever it would have cost for an above board AOC legitimately operated comfy jet would be small change to both him and his penny pinching agents.
So sad.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FRIDAY JANUARY 18
7:43pm - Jack McKay: "My dad has told me that you are going home tomorrow. He could organise a plane to take you direct to Nantes and to come back on Monday, at a time that suits you, so you can get to training on Tuesday."
7:51pm - Emiliano Sala: "Ah that is great. I was just in the middle of checking if there are some flights to get to Nantes tomorrow."
7:56pm - McKay: "He said he could organise a plane that would go direct to Nantes."
7:56pm - Sala: "How much will it cost?"
7:56pm - McKay: "Nothing. He said if you help me to score goals it's nothing."
7:59pm - Sala: "Hahaha with pleasure."
8:00pm: "We are going to score lots of goals."
8:01pm: "I want to leave tomorrow for Nantes at around 11am and come back on Monday night around 9pm to Cardiff if that is possible."
8:05pm - McKay: "Good. I'll send a message when that's sorted."
SUNDAY JANUARY 20
5:00pm - Jack McKay: "Hi there is it possible you could come back at seven in the evening on Monday night? Just because the pilot has to get home in the north after he gets to Cardiff."
5:01pm - Emiliano Sala: "Hi, Half past seven would be possible."
5:03pm - McKay: "Yes that's good."
5:05pm - Sala: [PICTURE OF LUGGAGE]: "Can you ask if I can bring this on the plane?"
5:06pm - McKay: "Good yeah."
5:07pm - Sala: "But is that going to be ok for the plane?"
McKay: "Yes there is space on the plane for your luggage."
5:12pm - Sala: "Ok."
MONDAY JANUARY 21
4:16pm - Jack McKay: "I'm going to call in a moment."
[Emiliano Sala voice message]
4.23pm - McKay: "He said that it is the same company."
4.27pm - Sala: "Ok thanks."
7:43pm - Jack McKay: "My dad has told me that you are going home tomorrow. He could organise a plane to take you direct to Nantes and to come back on Monday, at a time that suits you, so you can get to training on Tuesday."
7:51pm - Emiliano Sala: "Ah that is great. I was just in the middle of checking if there are some flights to get to Nantes tomorrow."
7:56pm - McKay: "He said he could organise a plane that would go direct to Nantes."
7:56pm - Sala: "How much will it cost?"
7:56pm - McKay: "Nothing. He said if you help me to score goals it's nothing."
7:59pm - Sala: "Hahaha with pleasure."
8:00pm: "We are going to score lots of goals."
8:01pm: "I want to leave tomorrow for Nantes at around 11am and come back on Monday night around 9pm to Cardiff if that is possible."
8:05pm - McKay: "Good. I'll send a message when that's sorted."
SUNDAY JANUARY 20
5:00pm - Jack McKay: "Hi there is it possible you could come back at seven in the evening on Monday night? Just because the pilot has to get home in the north after he gets to Cardiff."
5:01pm - Emiliano Sala: "Hi, Half past seven would be possible."
5:03pm - McKay: "Yes that's good."
5:05pm - Sala: [PICTURE OF LUGGAGE]: "Can you ask if I can bring this on the plane?"
5:06pm - McKay: "Good yeah."
5:07pm - Sala: "But is that going to be ok for the plane?"
McKay: "Yes there is space on the plane for your luggage."
5:12pm - Sala: "Ok."
MONDAY JANUARY 21
4:16pm - Jack McKay: "I'm going to call in a moment."
[Emiliano Sala voice message]
4.23pm - McKay: "He said that it is the same company."
4.27pm - Sala: "Ok thanks."
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
No vested interest.
I started following this thread because I couldn't understand why this plane was cruising at 5000 ft in Monday's meteorological conditions and, if a problem prevented the climb out, why the pilot didn't declare an emergency and land in Jersey.
These questions still remain open, even though there is now a hypothesis that the cruising altitude choice was deliberate and dictated by licencing issues.
If the deliberate choice is confirmed, to me this is akin to reckless flying.
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Amblesidel
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piperp2... as previously mentioned the three or four attempted take offs, were in fact indicated as attempted engine starts, nothing unusual in cold conditions on a fuel injected engine if you are either not familiar with the aircraft or POH!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
In a configuration with just 2 persons in the front seats, you must put some luggage in the aft compartment or limit the fuel load to remain within the loading envelope.
Given that the Malibu accommodates six, including the pilot, I'd be surprised if a 300 nm trip would have limited it to 2 up plus bag(s).
Re the "3 attempts to take off" (reportedly a comment in a message from Sala), it has been suggested in these pages that he may have meant 3 attempts required to start the engine, which sounds more likely.
Edit: Beaten to it by the two previous posts !
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way of looking at this is to ask the question "What would have happened if the accident had never taken place"; that is to say, suppose the pilot had resolved whatever issues he faced over Alderney and gone on to land uneventfully at Cardiff.
I'd suggest the answer is a big fat nothing.
And therein lies the heart of the problem; lack of effective oversight and accountability. Had the pilot believed that he would likely have had to explain his actions on landing at Cardiff, he just might have thought twice about taking off in the first place.
It's human nature for a minority of folks to bend the rules if they think there's little chance of getting found out.
If we want to make real improvements in safety, we need to take more effective enforcement action against those who break the rules and don't crash.
I'd suggest the answer is a big fat nothing.
And therein lies the heart of the problem; lack of effective oversight and accountability. Had the pilot believed that he would likely have had to explain his actions on landing at Cardiff, he just might have thought twice about taking off in the first place.
It's human nature for a minority of folks to bend the rules if they think there's little chance of getting found out.
If we want to make real improvements in safety, we need to take more effective enforcement action against those who break the rules and don't crash.
