Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[Sam Rutherford]

I think that fails the commonality of purpose. Presumably your passenger at C is not going to B for the same reason as the pilot.

If, though, they're both going to the same lunch then you're okay (at least for the C to B part).

[10 DME ARC]

I have been out of the UK over 10 years and as an ATCO and PPL holder I am shocked at the extent of this 'sub' regulated charter flying! Yes I have experienced 'cost' sharing between pilots but this!! I have witnessed the flying 'N' circus the riding industry used but they always seemed to be piloted by commercial pilots, well the ones I meet!?
I am also shocked that someone who earned more per week than the average person earns in a year would be happy to be flown around by these type pilots and aircraft and you cannot say they didn't know what was happening!!!

[Eutychus]

Sam Rutherford thanks, yes, that's what I thought you'd say.

Another thing that's emerging for me is the huge disparity between my outbound and return flight on the occasion in question for a "service" which was essentially presented to me (as a third party passenger with arrangements made for me) as being the same thing.

(N-reg vs G-reg, safety harness, "taxi service" vs "hitching a lift"... and that's without even knowing what the paperwork was (or wasn't).).

Which again is a (slight) similarity between my experience and that of the hapless Sala, it would seem.

[ChickenHouse]

Originally Posted by Eutychus

Thinking again about a flight I've been on, how would that apply in your jurisdiction to a flight in which the pilot had their own legitimate reason for flying from A to B but stopped only to pick up a passenger at C, C being an airport that can be reasonably said to be "on the way" from A to B?

A rather theoretical question, a PB answer will always fit - How could you possibly argue against the pilot precautionary pee landing or fighting the bee in cockpit at C? I would say landing at such C mentioned is a usual SOP, even on PPL private tracks.

[Eutychus]

Originally Posted by 10 DME ARC

I am also shocked that someone who earned more per week than the average person earns in a year would be happy to be flown around by these type pilots and aircraft and you cannot say they didn't know what was happening!!!

I'm not earning anything like that, but I think the whole problem here is that unsuspecting passengers don't know what is happening.

For my part I am used to my clients making appropriate travel arrangements on my behalf, often together with other participants in meetings. The point has been made many times here that Sala most probably simply trusted his agent to sweat the details, and indeed that is what agents are supposed to be there for.

As far as non-commercial aviation transportation goes, in my case I've learned everything I know about the technicalities in terms of regulations and qualifications from this one thread and a few e-mails resulting from it.

The public perception is, as was said upthread, that an airport is like a building site: one assumes one is entering a well-regulated area. While I certainly realised I would not have the same overall assurances as flying commercial, I never imagined something I perceive to be widespread practice being carried out in this kind of regulatory void.

[ChickenHouse]

Originally Posted by Eutychus

I'm not earning anything like that, but I think the whole problem here is that unsuspecting passengers don't know what is happening.

Key point, these 'passengers' are often not familiar with GA. Many times I have seen friends and relatives looking at an old steam gauge cockpit from the 60ies with mouth wide open. The f***ing news industry is their world and in that world an aircraft cockpit is full of screens as on the Enterprise-E bridge. Surprisingly they take movies showing steam gauge cockpits as fiction and glascockpits for norm now.
Do we now have evidence which plane took the guy to Nantes, was is the same or another from that 'flying circle'?

[LCYFlyer]

A Couple of Points


Illegal Charters

Emotional reaction usually comes before a logical reaction and a few things mentioned in this thread come under the emotional bracket.

This incident is high profile , the media reports are not waning the damage to the small plane sector brand is complete ( small plane in what the general public would call it )

The ones whom wrongly and deliberately brake the rules may get a wake up call in that either a) the CAA will be closing in OR b) the illegal charter persons' may fear a fatal accident could happen to them


Foul Play?

I am sure the pilot(s) 'feelings' in days leading up to the crash will be careful examined

January is know as the most depressing month of the year for persons' in financial hardship. source:

Financial hardship has in the past and will continue in the future to be 1 of 5 factors leading to suic..e

[Dr Jekyll]

Originally Posted by lilflyboy262...2

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.

Well said. Once the cause of the crash is determined then we can talk about relevant deficiencies in regulation or enforcement.

[Arkroyal]

Originally Posted by mryan75

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.

Looks like it just did! And hopefully the bright interrogation lamp will shine into every murky corner and regulations will be tightened up. And more importantly - enforced.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by malabo

Flight should have been a doddle. Straight line 200nm, little more than an hour, low level.

I make it 264 nm - where do you get 200 from ?

[Daysleeper]

Originally Posted by rog747

Is there no radar coverage either civil or military (including any RN ships in the area) that could have picked up any of the track of this aircraft>?
Or is that being assimilated as we speak?

I am not privy to the last radio transmission times - Is there any possibility the aircraft could be much further towards CWL rather than around the Channel Islands?

You can be assured that this has been thought about by the SAR and follow up investigators and there is a reasonably well trodden protocol for checking military and civil sources, feeding that data back into drift and tide models etc. However, it would be unusual for any further information of this sort will be released until (and if) the relevant authorities chose to do so. That said it tends to be a much slower process from here than the SAR response.

It does rather make me wonder what the private search is going to do that the State hasn't or won't. They has raised 300,000 euro, which is not an inconsiderable sum of money, (enough to run the Channel Islands Air Search for a couple of years) but is chickenfeed in underwater recovery terms. It says it's purpose is

through a specialized non-profit organization, is to help the family of Emiliano and pilot Dave Ibbotson continue the research

Does anyone know which "specialist non-profit" and what sort of search?

Airborne search? It's a lot of hours in a c172 , not quite as many in an S-92 with search fit. A sea search? While the UK/CI may have stopped the 'Search and Rescue' I haven't seen anything to suggest that the normal underwater search protocols won't carry on at the appropriate times and the Port of Jersey authority has the right boats, most of the right survey kit and local knowledge.

What the state won't do, without a really good reason, is underwater water recovery so maybe if it is close inshore in shallow waters then they may find a commercial dive team suitable. But if it's deep and needs a specialised DSV then I have news for them, they've funded about 2 days not including mobilisation charges.

[Mach Tuck]

Originally Posted by mryan75

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.

The most illuminating post so far, given the registry and licensing circumstances here.

[ChickenHouse]

Originally Posted by Daysleeper

What the state won't do, without a really good reason, is underwater water recovery so maybe if it is close inshore in shallow waters then they may find a commercial dive team suitable. But if it's deep and needs a specialised DSV then I have news for them, they've funded about 2 days not including mobilisation charges.

The waters there are not deep for sounding survey and the area has also been carefully charted, due to all the crap sitting down there. After WWII they dumped all kind of stuff and later charted it to get a grip where the most dangerous stuff is. Side-scan sounding could do the search in that quite small area in a matter of days, just think of the equipment used for the MH370 search. Maybe Putin already knows from his u-boats in the channel where the wreck is?

[ChickenHouse]

Originally Posted by Mach Tuck

The most illuminating post so far, given the registry and licensing circumstances here.

Quite well known by pilots, same box of silence as the N-reg DME quest.

[2unlimited]

Originally Posted by lilflyboy262...2

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.
.

It is not entirely irrelevant for the cause of the crash. As there would most likely have been a pressure on both the Pilot to get the player to Cardiff on this day, equally for the Sala to arrive on time for starting his new contract with Cardiff.

The aircraft could have crashed for X, Y or Z reasons, end of the day Sala should NEVER have been onboard this aircraft as a passenger. And its very likely that D.I would have NEVER flown this flight privately. Result would have been most likely both the Pilot and Sala still enjoying their lives.
Without a wreckage all those X, Y and Z reasons will never be determined, there will be guesses based on the most likely scenario, based on weight of the aircraft, weather conditions and any possible technical issues from the past.

Hopefully more details like photos of Salas luggage will help to see, it's serious amount of back peddling being made by McKay. The actual cause of the crash is unfortunately considering the circumstances less important for this investigation, more important is how this all came about and how widespread this is in the GA world.

[ChickenHouse]

I can agree to the legality of the flight being not relevant for the accident itself per se.
But, we are posting in a pilots forum here.
My view, main purpose to discuss possibilities and what-if's for continuous improvement.
My target, openly discuss errors and decision making topics for the future, not the past.
My resumé, let blaming flaming to the ordinary ground folks.

[sellbydate]

Interesting that Henderson's LinkedIn page has endorsments from a certain charter broker. As a private aviator flying private aircraft not on AOCs, one wonders why he'd have a particular relationship with a charter broker? Charter brokers more than anyone know the rules, at least they should. With a bulging portfolio of contacts from the sports personality world, one wonders how often the odd jocky, golfer or footballer, or their agents, PRs etc. still go through a friendly charter broker but get a cheap, non-AOC deal, off the balance sheet so to speak.

Like estate angents, charter brokers are not regulated, litterally anyone can sell 'charters' from their kitchen. You have charter industry representative bodies like BACA with 'Codes of Conduct' and no doubt members of such organisations are legitimate and behave themselves, but for every 'good guy' there are probably ten 'bad'. Caveat Emptor.

[Sillert,V.I.]

I know there are many here who believe a flight of this nature should never have taken place in a piston single at night.

That said, the aircraft type was designed for this type of mission when flown IFR by a suitably qualified and licenced pilot.

If this flight had been planned using this aircraft, but IFR using the airways at a sensible flight level, it would almost certainly have ended uneventfully.

How difficult would it have been in practice to have found a suitably qualified CPL/IR to captain this flight?

[red9]

Originally Posted by Sillert,V.I.

I know there are many here who believe a flight of this nature should never have taken place in a piston single at night.

That said, the aircraft type was designed for this type of mission when flown IFR by a suitably qualified and licenced pilot.

If this flight had been planned using this aircraft, but IFR using the airways at a sensible flight level, it would almost certainly have ended uneventfully.

How difficult would it have been in practice to have found a suitably qualified CPL/IR to captain this flight?

Probably not difficult ( but more money). However that still wouldnt make the flight legal with regard it being a charter and a fare paying customer. So it poses the question if you are prepared to pay the extra for a suitably qualified pilot - why not pay for a legal charter ?

[Winniebago]

Has been asked before on this thread, but who would be investigating this aside from the UK AAIB? Who takes the lead on the legal front? Are the US FAA doing an independent investigation to the UK CAA, indeed are the UK CAA doing anything? Are the UK Police interviewing the likes of the McKays, Dave Henderson, the beneficial owner(s) of the aircraft? Has someone gone down to Nantes already to ascertain exactly what was going on there the day the aircraft set-off with contradictions in pilot names, flight plans, passports etc.? Has someone spoken to people at Gamston, the maintenance outfit etc? No indication that there is any other investigation aside from the AAIB alone which will be entirely focused on the cause of the accident not the illegality of the flight?

Bottom line, aside from AAIB, is there a specific entity taking the lead on everything else?