Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a reminder it was one of Willie McKays sons Mark who's probably the agent making the money.
Although his father seems to have had these 'contacts' via Mr Henderson its been suggested.
Although his father seems to have had these 'contacts' via Mr Henderson its been suggested.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The football agent Willie McKay arranged for the flight to take Emiliano Sala from Nantes to Cardiff but claims he had no involvement in selecting the plane or pilot,"
As McKay has confirmed they have done the same on many previous occasions, it would be interesting to know what other aircraft they have been using in the past.
The lies of McKay can pretty quickly unravel, if he is trying to suggest that he is massively surprised with the choice of aircraft and pilot, as it seems to contradict previous statements. But should be easy to find records of previous used aircraft and pilots in the past.
As McKay has confirmed they have done the same on many previous occasions, it would be interesting to know what other aircraft they have been using in the past.
The lies of McKay can pretty quickly unravel, if he is trying to suggest that he is massively surprised with the choice of aircraft and pilot, as it seems to contradict previous statements. But should be easy to find records of previous used aircraft and pilots in the past.
SND
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't possible to be high enough to glide to land if the engine calves for the entire segment between Guernsey and the on track shore crossing point. I may be missing your point, but two things. We know he wasn't "planning" to fly at MSA because he filed for higher. That aside, what is wrong with crossing the channel at MSA when IFR, or 100 feet when VFR? It's 75 miles from Guernsey to the far shoreline. He couldn't maintain 5000 and had to request lower to 2000, so the only glide to shore places were at best max 10 northwest of Guernsey, and no more than 10 short of the intended shore crossing point. I have flown a bit from Biggin Hill VFR to the Channel Islands, and sometimes that was at 1000 due to weather. Mind you, it was in a 310.
The assumption is they are down near Guernsey, and that is a good assumption. The truth may be they are five miles from Cardiff or really anywhere between Guernsey and Cardiff, including in the Bristol Channel. Sure, 80% in the search area, but in all of these circumstances, buck shee chisel chartering, the questionable legality of the flight if an emergency had been declared and questions asked, it is possible that this was a guy ducking down to get home, but IFR and unable to ask for lower than the MSA.
It doesn't seem that the pilot was fully at the races with IFR.
The assumption is they are down near Guernsey, and that is a good assumption. The truth may be they are five miles from Cardiff or really anywhere between Guernsey and Cardiff, including in the Bristol Channel. Sure, 80% in the search area, but in all of these circumstances, buck shee chisel chartering, the questionable legality of the flight if an emergency had been declared and questions asked, it is possible that this was a guy ducking down to get home, but IFR and unable to ask for lower than the MSA.
It doesn't seem that the pilot was fully at the races with IFR.
I perhaps should have been a little more eloquent in explaining that.
When I said "plan", I was meaning that at the point where he requested descent, surely he did not think that it was a good idea to continue on across the channel at 2300' in the current conditions.
You state that its perfectly fine to cross the channel at MSA, or at minimum VFR altitudes.
I'm sorry, but no. I have flown both piston and turbine singles in some of the most inhospitable places on earth and there is no way that this flight profile fits any form of flight safety given the conditions. You cannot compare flying a C310 at 1000' in what I am assuming was day VFR in good conditions to what transpired on this flight.
As a pilot carrying passengers, whether it be private or commercial, you have a duty of care for your passengers. Part of this, is always leaving yourself an out. Especially in a single engine aircraft.
The conditions that night made that flight profile beyond acceptable, the end result of which we have tragically witnessed.
The fact that he has requested descent and not a diversion to a nearby field is suggestive that he did not appreciate the danger that he was in at that point.
Looking at the situation that night, the pilot allowed the flight to continue into a situation where he had no alternatives.
I fear that he has been placed into a situation that he is not used to, and as murphy's law would have it, it was the worst possible night for it to happen. This pilot had just enough experience, and therefore confidence in his abilities, to get himself deeply into trouble.
Purely speculation here....
But the absence of Mode S may have made him think that higher altitudes were not available to him.
Commercial pressures that he has no experience with may have made him depart into unfavourable weather.
Night IMC and being unfamiliar in icing conditions may have lead him to push further into icing before realising that he had ice building up on the aircraft.
A fairly unfamiliar aircraft flying in conditions that he has most likely not experienced recently.
A somewhat cavalier approach to flying (As noted in his Facebook post) may have led to less than adequate preparation. Particularly in regards to weather.
There is also some change of some sort happening as per the text message exchange on the day of the flight. It was important enough to warrant a phone call. The reassuring text of "It is the same company" means (to me) either an aircraft change, or a pilot change. This may indicate why there is some confusion to the name of the pilot on the flight plan.
Has anyone confirmed that the Malibu was the actual aircraft that he flew to Nantes on? He requested leaving Cardiff at 1100 and the N264DB aircraft didn't leave until 1215 and was not direct as earlier inferred.
Whether this is an illegal commercial flight, or a private flight, is completely irrelevant in the cause of the crash. That is purely up to the lawyers and the validity of insurance cover. It will most likely come out that this was a legitimate private charter. I can only hope that this has put enough of a spotlight onto this type of charter and makes some passengers think twice before getting onto one.
I think that the assumption that they are anywhere but the channel islands is far fetched to say the least. Given that the UK is one of the worlds leading military super powers, I would be highly concerned if they couldn't pick up a malibu sized aircraft crossing the English channel at 2300', let alone it managing to fly all the way to Wales.
Last edited by lilflyboy262...2; 26th Jan 2019 at 23:15.
Hold on Aux. Willy McKay has BY HIS OWN CONFESSION been using illegal public transport to move unsuspecting footballers around and has been doing it for years and there are people on these boards who have been aware of it. So lets’s not fall for the very clever, calculating, cynical PR campaign to portray him as the victim.
It will be a pleasure to hear his ludicrous defense of his absence of due diligence and failure to recognise the criminality involved in the numerous reported previous times he's arranged this sort of scam.
Own goal, leming!
True. The risk assessment part of this is about making a well-informed judgement about whether that risk is worth taking. Being a generally risk-averse person I think about that kind of thing even when I fly commercial.
Personally, having thought about it, and having read this thread, in terms of acceptable risk I think I personally would still be willing to fly passenger on an SEP flight to the CI from France (a lot less water than from the UK) - in VMC and by day - if I was confident that the pilot was experienced with - and confident in - their aircraft and familiar with the locality.
What makes me uneasier is the apparent ease with which the impression can be given that doing so in exchange for payment is legal and insured when it very possibly is neither, all the more so if the flight is taking place for business purposes.
I think that apart from ethical issues, this makes me uneasy because what has been described as "commercial pressure" can really skew the pilot's risk assessment, especially of weather, and as a passenger I could be both a perpetrator and a victim in that. In one of the flights I mentioned I saw this in action and realise, after the fact, that I contributed to it. The thing that would most discourage me from flying that way again is the potential distortion caused by this "commercial pressure" in a neither-fish-nor-fowl situation where the pilot is neither a trusted friend nor a detached professional.
Also, while it is clearly madness to attempt to fly IFR if one is only qualified for VFR, it seems to me that qualifications alone do not a good pilot make. At least that's the impression I get from those on the commercial aviation boards talking about "children of the magenta line"...
For me this issue is really complicated because there are several interlinked but different questions - regulation, experience, pilot ability, business practices...
You make a good point, which many people don't often see I think, that legislation is ideally intended to protect us. I understand your frustration. However, while you and others are "making it known" on this thread, and I for one have learned a lot reading you (which is why I come here), it is unfortunately not realistic to expect yer average potential grey charter customer to come looking here. Time will tell whether this accident will result in any tightening of the rules or changes in popular perspective; it has certainly changed mine.
Personally, having thought about it, and having read this thread, in terms of acceptable risk I think I personally would still be willing to fly passenger on an SEP flight to the CI from France (a lot less water than from the UK) - in VMC and by day - if I was confident that the pilot was experienced with - and confident in - their aircraft and familiar with the locality.
What makes me uneasier is the apparent ease with which the impression can be given that doing so in exchange for payment is legal and insured when it very possibly is neither, all the more so if the flight is taking place for business purposes.
I think that apart from ethical issues, this makes me uneasy because what has been described as "commercial pressure" can really skew the pilot's risk assessment, especially of weather, and as a passenger I could be both a perpetrator and a victim in that. In one of the flights I mentioned I saw this in action and realise, after the fact, that I contributed to it. The thing that would most discourage me from flying that way again is the potential distortion caused by this "commercial pressure" in a neither-fish-nor-fowl situation where the pilot is neither a trusted friend nor a detached professional.
Also, while it is clearly madness to attempt to fly IFR if one is only qualified for VFR, it seems to me that qualifications alone do not a good pilot make. At least that's the impression I get from those on the commercial aviation boards talking about "children of the magenta line"...
For me this issue is really complicated because there are several interlinked but different questions - regulation, experience, pilot ability, business practices...
You make a good point, which many people don't often see I think, that legislation is ideally intended to protect us. I understand your frustration. However, while you and others are "making it known" on this thread, and I for one have learned a lot reading you (which is why I come here), it is unfortunately not realistic to expect yer average potential grey charter customer to come looking here. Time will tell whether this accident will result in any tightening of the rules or changes in popular perspective; it has certainly changed mine.
Finally the cells dissipated and I landed back home, perfect landing at dusk with wet runway perfectly visible due water and reflected light from cloudy horizon. I wanted to kiss the ground. Passengers had no idea. Despite note to maintenance, plane crashed a week later due to 'freezing of controls. as PIC said at time. Fortunately none was injured.
So, no commercial pressure, incident involving plane later lost. Just trying to impress.
Last edited by ve3id; 26th Jan 2019 at 23:43.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its pointless using any cash.
The plane is likely in 75 plus m of water off the North of Alderney.
Guernsey Harbour Master doesn't have access to the hardware to find it. To find it will take a few days with a side scan sonar. To lift it will need 2-3 days with a saturation equipped diving vessel which will have to come down form the North sea. Your looking at half a million. AAIB won't pay for it and neither will Guernsey. And to be honest nothing will be solved if it is found and lifted.
Personally if I was the pilot I would want left down there.
The plane is likely in 75 plus m of water off the North of Alderney.
Guernsey Harbour Master doesn't have access to the hardware to find it. To find it will take a few days with a side scan sonar. To lift it will need 2-3 days with a saturation equipped diving vessel which will have to come down form the North sea. Your looking at half a million. AAIB won't pay for it and neither will Guernsey. And to be honest nothing will be solved if it is found and lifted.
Personally if I was the pilot I would want left down there.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie McKay, has allegedly said Cardiff FC were also aware of the travel arrangements for the missing player. In regards to the booking of the flight, Willie McKay has claimed he contacted David Henderson who has flown the McKay's and many of their players all over Europe on countless occasions in a statement that also included a declaration that the McKay's " had no involvement in selecting a plane or a pilot and wish to make clear we do not own the plane that Emiliano flew on.”
I am sure that somewhere the aircraft is loosely connected to the McKay family, over the years the McKay's have owned aircraft.
G-EEJE PA31 was owned by Mark McKay (Excelfoot ltd) between Sept 2015 & Oct 2017 and was operated by DH & a few other pilots who seem to be within the DH clique who regularly flew Jockeys & Football players around...... there is a pattern of risk within these pilots.
I am sure that somewhere the aircraft is loosely connected to the McKay family, over the years the McKay's have owned aircraft.
G-EEJE PA31 was owned by Mark McKay (Excelfoot ltd) between Sept 2015 & Oct 2017 and was operated by DH & a few other pilots who seem to be within the DH clique who regularly flew Jockeys & Football players around...... there is a pattern of risk within these pilots.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rickmansworth
Age: 74
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it's been some considerable time since I posted on here - this sad event has prompted me to look in. I'm quite frankly gobsmacked by reading through everything above!
The thing that amazes me most, is the fact that so many seemingly knowledgeable pilots and aviation folk have passed angry comments that the flight shouldn't have been comtemplated and go into detailed arguments concerning the many possible irregularities and contraventions to both law and commonsense.
A few of the truly angry comments come from folk who bemoan how they have been strangled by rules and regulations. Hmm.. For most of my working life, I've been in charge of large building sites and can't help but make some comparisons:- this single engined aircraft obviously flew into and landed at an airfield - who's job was it to check out both it and the driver? You may have all noticed that building sited have very obvious safety signage EVERYWHERE! And admission is strictly monitored - anyone arriving HAS to be checked, why they are there? What they intend doing, are they qualified to do it. All big sites have turnstile entry! All workers have to be signed in and have obligatory induction on safety and site awareness which has be signed up - this has to be in date. Workers MUST be in possession of all their "tickets" for the trade or job they intend to carry out and it is illegal for them to be inside the gate without them. Ultimately, it was MY responsiblity to see that everyone obeyed the rules and worked safe (not to mention the £multimillion expense and profits!) Any infringements would have been laid firmly at my feet! Woe betide any Site Agent who has a worker, visitor or passer by, killed or injured!! The sky literally falls.
The thing that amazes me most, is the fact that so many seemingly knowledgeable pilots and aviation folk have passed angry comments that the flight shouldn't have been comtemplated and go into detailed arguments concerning the many possible irregularities and contraventions to both law and commonsense.
A few of the truly angry comments come from folk who bemoan how they have been strangled by rules and regulations. Hmm.. For most of my working life, I've been in charge of large building sites and can't help but make some comparisons:- this single engined aircraft obviously flew into and landed at an airfield - who's job was it to check out both it and the driver? You may have all noticed that building sited have very obvious safety signage EVERYWHERE! And admission is strictly monitored - anyone arriving HAS to be checked, why they are there? What they intend doing, are they qualified to do it. All big sites have turnstile entry! All workers have to be signed in and have obligatory induction on safety and site awareness which has be signed up - this has to be in date. Workers MUST be in possession of all their "tickets" for the trade or job they intend to carry out and it is illegal for them to be inside the gate without them. Ultimately, it was MY responsiblity to see that everyone obeyed the rules and worked safe (not to mention the £multimillion expense and profits!) Any infringements would have been laid firmly at my feet! Woe betide any Site Agent who has a worker, visitor or passer by, killed or injured!! The sky literally falls.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that D. Henderson flew the Saturday outbound client run and arranged (for whatever reason and at short notice) for D. Ibbotson to collect from Nantes Monday.
Hence the 'assurance ' text....
4.23pm -McKay: "He said that it is the same company."
Hence the 'assurance ' text....
4.23pm -McKay: "He said that it is the same company."
Certainly seems like this McKay fella arranged the flight to me.
Question on for my European counterparts: is cost-splitting the only reg you guys have dealing with this sort of "semi-commercial" op? In the colonies (ie the States), you have to:
a) share costs equally, to the penny. The pilot can't pay a cent less than his share.
b) only share DIRECT operating costs of the flight: aircraft rental, fuel, oil, etc. (no hangar fees, hourly kick-in for the engine overhaul, etc.)
and here is the bigly one:
c) COMMON purpose - the pilot not only has to have his own reason to be making that flight (an event, visiting family/friends, sightseeing, etc.), but it has to be COMMON between the pilot and the passengers. I as the pilot can't be going for lunch at the destination airport while my passenger goes to a meeting nearby.
You guys don't have any of that? I am literally flabbergasted that the EASA allows this stuff to go on. It will kill people, there is no doubt.
Question on for my European counterparts: is cost-splitting the only reg you guys have dealing with this sort of "semi-commercial" op? In the colonies (ie the States), you have to:
a) share costs equally, to the penny. The pilot can't pay a cent less than his share.
b) only share DIRECT operating costs of the flight: aircraft rental, fuel, oil, etc. (no hangar fees, hourly kick-in for the engine overhaul, etc.)
and here is the bigly one:
c) COMMON purpose - the pilot not only has to have his own reason to be making that flight (an event, visiting family/friends, sightseeing, etc.), but it has to be COMMON between the pilot and the passengers. I as the pilot can't be going for lunch at the destination airport while my passenger goes to a meeting nearby.
You guys don't have any of that? I am literally flabbergasted that the EASA allows this stuff to go on. It will kill people, there is no doubt.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: scotland
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole episode is absolutely unacceptable.The non aviation (Passport,etc) shenanigans combined with the aviation outrage has to be investigated.What's needed is a special prosecutor to Slowly and methodically go after all those involved.And hopefully those who are responsible for this wrongdoing can enjoy no milk, no sugar, just oats and water at W12 0AE. P.O. Box 757.
Wingly is basically exactly what was going on here. Small private plane travel by who knows what kind of pilots with none of the protections extended to passengers by commercial regulations, and 99% of the paying passengers have absolutely no idea what they're getting themselves into. That's why.
Didn’t Henderson say he had not been there the last year?
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His facebook entry would imply he flew N264DB from Cardiff to Nantes direct but perhaps he dropped into Guernsey on the inbound flight to collect either DH or some documents as there are references to N264DB being flightplanned to Guernsey initially?
Everything points to David Ibbotson being the PIC for the departure from Cardiff & as the PIC for the departure from Nantes.
Where Dave Henderson fits into this all is a conundrum, it seems he is the organiser of both the chosen aircraft and chosen pilot, Willie McKay has admitted that he contracted Dave Henderson to sort out the logistics, the bit that seems sketchy is whether Dave Henderson was actually in Nantes in person or maybe some of his documents were there?
This looks like something that will be a long drawn out investigation where there are now so many names in the frame that the truth may never come to light.
The worrying bit is that Dave Henderson has now gone into hiding, Willie McKay has changed his story a few times ( if journo's are to be believed ) and so many things point to the Malibu possibly being loosely connected to the McKay's in some way.
All conjecture until the full facts come to light.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isn't about wingly, cost sharing etc. For sure, there are people who use the cost sharing 'rules' such that Joe Public pays for all direct costs less £0.01; the pilot getting paid in hours for his logbook. Whilst Wingly etc may be entirely legal, one must question the ethics and the original intent of the legislation which presents far too many loopholes.
Those of us who have been kicking around for a while are completely aware of the cash-for-flights sub-culture, especially in the sporting venue/celebrity environment. The fact that this aircraft was an N reg, flown by a pilot whose qualifications are being questioned (no facts yet, just rumour) just adds a bit of spice to the discussion. In the helicopter world, the CAA tends to keep a very close eye on aircraft arriving at events such as Ascot, Cheltenham etc; they have not done so in the less well known and prevalent fixed wing environment.
For clarity, I don't know whether this particular flight was a cash-filled brown envelop transaction but it certainly bears all the hallmarks. The ambulance chasers will be salivating.
Those of us who have been kicking around for a while are completely aware of the cash-for-flights sub-culture, especially in the sporting venue/celebrity environment. The fact that this aircraft was an N reg, flown by a pilot whose qualifications are being questioned (no facts yet, just rumour) just adds a bit of spice to the discussion. In the helicopter world, the CAA tends to keep a very close eye on aircraft arriving at events such as Ascot, Cheltenham etc; they have not done so in the less well known and prevalent fixed wing environment.
For clarity, I don't know whether this particular flight was a cash-filled brown envelop transaction but it certainly bears all the hallmarks. The ambulance chasers will be salivating.
Sorry, I missed this reply CNCPC.
I perhaps should have been a little more eloquent in explaining that.
When I said "plan", I was meaning that at the point where he requested descent, surely he did not think that it was a good idea to continue on across the channel at 2300' in the current conditions.
You state that its perfectly fine to cross the channel at MSA, or at minimum VFR altitudes.
I'm sorry, but no. I have flown both piston and turbine singles in some of the most inhospitable places on earth and there is no way that this flight profile fits any form of flight safety given the conditions. You cannot compare flying a C310 at 1000' in what I am assuming was day VFR in good conditions to what transpired on this flight.
As a pilot carrying passengers, whether it be private or commercial, you have a duty of care for your passengers. Part of this, is always leaving yourself an out. Especially in a single engine aircraft.
The conditions that night made that flight profile beyond acceptable, the end result of which we have tragically witnessed.
The fact that he has requested descent and not a diversion to a nearby field is suggestive that he did not appreciate the danger that he was in at that point.
Looking at the situation that night, the pilot allowed the flight to continue into a situation where he had no alternatives.
I fear that he has been placed into a situation that he is not used to, and as murphy's law would have it, it was the worst possible night for it to happen. This pilot had just enough experience, and therefore confidence in his abilities, to get himself deeply into trouble.
Purely speculation here....
But the absence of Mode S may have made him think that higher altitudes were not available to him.
Commercial pressures that he has no experience with may have made him depart into unfavourable weather.
Night IMC and being unfamiliar in icing conditions may have lead him to push further into icing before realising that he had ice building up on the aircraft.
A fairly unfamiliar aircraft flying in conditions that he has most likely not experienced recently.
A somewhat cavalier approach to flying (As noted in his Facebook post) may have led to less than adequate preparation. Particularly in regards to weather.
There is also some change of some sort happening as per the text message exchange on the day of the flight. It was important enough to warrant a phone call. The reassuring text of "It is the same company" means (to me) either an aircraft change, or a pilot change. This may indicate why there is some confusion to the name of the pilot on the flight plan.
Has anyone confirmed that the Malibu was the actual aircraft that he flew to Nantes on? He requested leaving Cardiff at 1100 and the N264DB aircraft didn't leave until 1215 and was not direct as earlier inferred.
Whether this is an illegal commercial flight, or a private flight, is completely irrelevant in the cause of the crash. That is purely up to the lawyers and the validity of insurance cover. It will most likely come out that this was a legitimate private charter. I can only hope that this has put enough of a spotlight onto this type of charter and makes some passengers think twice before getting onto one.
I think that the assumption that they are anywhere but the channel islands is far fetched to say the least. Given that the UK is one of the worlds leading military super powers, I would be highly concerned if they couldn't pick up a malibu sized aircraft crossing the English channel at 2300', let alone it managing to fly all the way to Wales.
I perhaps should have been a little more eloquent in explaining that.
When I said "plan", I was meaning that at the point where he requested descent, surely he did not think that it was a good idea to continue on across the channel at 2300' in the current conditions.
You state that its perfectly fine to cross the channel at MSA, or at minimum VFR altitudes.
I'm sorry, but no. I have flown both piston and turbine singles in some of the most inhospitable places on earth and there is no way that this flight profile fits any form of flight safety given the conditions. You cannot compare flying a C310 at 1000' in what I am assuming was day VFR in good conditions to what transpired on this flight.
As a pilot carrying passengers, whether it be private or commercial, you have a duty of care for your passengers. Part of this, is always leaving yourself an out. Especially in a single engine aircraft.
The conditions that night made that flight profile beyond acceptable, the end result of which we have tragically witnessed.
The fact that he has requested descent and not a diversion to a nearby field is suggestive that he did not appreciate the danger that he was in at that point.
Looking at the situation that night, the pilot allowed the flight to continue into a situation where he had no alternatives.
I fear that he has been placed into a situation that he is not used to, and as murphy's law would have it, it was the worst possible night for it to happen. This pilot had just enough experience, and therefore confidence in his abilities, to get himself deeply into trouble.
Purely speculation here....
But the absence of Mode S may have made him think that higher altitudes were not available to him.
Commercial pressures that he has no experience with may have made him depart into unfavourable weather.
Night IMC and being unfamiliar in icing conditions may have lead him to push further into icing before realising that he had ice building up on the aircraft.
A fairly unfamiliar aircraft flying in conditions that he has most likely not experienced recently.
A somewhat cavalier approach to flying (As noted in his Facebook post) may have led to less than adequate preparation. Particularly in regards to weather.
There is also some change of some sort happening as per the text message exchange on the day of the flight. It was important enough to warrant a phone call. The reassuring text of "It is the same company" means (to me) either an aircraft change, or a pilot change. This may indicate why there is some confusion to the name of the pilot on the flight plan.
Has anyone confirmed that the Malibu was the actual aircraft that he flew to Nantes on? He requested leaving Cardiff at 1100 and the N264DB aircraft didn't leave until 1215 and was not direct as earlier inferred.
Whether this is an illegal commercial flight, or a private flight, is completely irrelevant in the cause of the crash. That is purely up to the lawyers and the validity of insurance cover. It will most likely come out that this was a legitimate private charter. I can only hope that this has put enough of a spotlight onto this type of charter and makes some passengers think twice before getting onto one.
I think that the assumption that they are anywhere but the channel islands is far fetched to say the least. Given that the UK is one of the worlds leading military super powers, I would be highly concerned if they couldn't pick up a malibu sized aircraft crossing the English channel at 2300', let alone it managing to fly all the way to Wales.
I never said it was "perfectly fine" to be crossing the channel at MSA or VFR minimums. Flying across that much water requires careful planning and measurement of the risks. This pilot could have planned to cross at MSA. It would have been a bad decision, and illegal without at least life vests, but that's it. He could have gone at 500 feet if that worked for him. He abandoned the idea of being able to glide to shore, so he was staking his and his passenger's life on the reliability of the engine. Same thing if its night and you go Vancouver to Pemberton or up to Williams Lake in a single, IFR or VFR. Unless you can glide to a lighted airport along the way, you are in great peril if the noise stops.
Putting aside all the "yeah, buts..." that this Wingly ****e raises, this was for all intents an illegal flight. This pilot would have known that. So he was already engaged in something illegal and stupid. He may have had ice problems and deice not working or some bits of it not working, the autopilot might not have been working, he may have known all of that before the flight, and for whatever reasons drive a guy like that, he gave it a lash anyways. You are right, you or I would not plan to cross in those circumstances, but it isn't out of the question that someone who makes bad decisions would.
I am certainly not riding any dipped down low and headed for Cardiff horse. I think the odds are pretty good that this problem happened soon after the last transmission. However, I wouldn't discount he went farther idea based on beliefs in the capabilities of military primary radar on the south coast of England. I don't know what there is for primary radar heads on the south coast, but it would be Trumpian to think that the Brits are worried about an air attack from France. If there are military radars, they will be lobed up for jet attack aircraft at altitude. I doubt anybody is looking at low level light aircraft in the channel. I don't think a Malibu heading at the south coast would present much of a radar cross section. Shore based ship radar might pick up a low level aircraft.
Flight should have been a doddle. Straight line 200nm, little more than an hour, low level. Easy altitude, lots of turn around or enroute alternates. We all fly in light icing, moderate needs some equipment, heavy you don’t fly in. Lots of beef about single engine -who cares, it is only a statistical consideration. Lots of Malibu and other single-engine fly night IFR all over, if the fan quits you’re a deadman. In a twin if the engine quits then you play the stats against the coincidence of the second one quitting, and there is the same probability it will quit. Over water doesn’t matter, outcome won’t be good but chances are a little better in daylight. Anyway, no indication of engine problems have surfaced, so for now it is simply a platform for the “only twins should be allowed to fly” chestbeaters. Nothing on pilot qualification or experience to indicate a boy was sent out to do a man’s (or woman’s) job. FAA PPL is an easy FLV for an EASA licenced pilot, and the licence (UK) it is based on could be up to an ATPL. All speculation.
One thing that we take for granted in all our aircraft these days is satellite tracking, usually 2.5 minute intervals. Unlimited tracking for a year costs less than an hour of fuel a year. Is this unheard of in EASAland? Seems Stone Age to be depending on radar pings in the 21st century. Always wonder if these unsuccessful searches would have been more successful if they could focus the assets on a few square miles.
One thing that we take for granted in all our aircraft these days is satellite tracking, usually 2.5 minute intervals. Unlimited tracking for a year costs less than an hour of fuel a year. Is this unheard of in EASAland? Seems Stone Age to be depending on radar pings in the 21st century. Always wonder if these unsuccessful searches would have been more successful if they could focus the assets on a few square miles.
Last edited by malabo; 27th Jan 2019 at 06:42.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
COMMON purpose - the pilot not only has to have his own reason to be making that flight (an event, visiting family/friends, sightseeing, etc.), but it has to be COMMON between the pilot and the passengers. I as the pilot can't be going for lunch at the destination airport while my passenger goes to a meeting nearby
[edited to correct alphabet blunder]
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts