Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But seriously is this not the problem. The passenger just sees the outcome (land at destination) and has not idea how ‘good’ the operation was that got them there.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we go quiet it would be nice to know that someone other than the AAIB are investigating. The police will investigate an accidental/suspicious death but do the Guernsey Police have anything other than a missing person’s inquiry at the moment? Are the police even certain who has jurisdiction at the moment given the uncertainty over the crash location?
I do wonder on what basis the Cardiff City Manager can assess DI as a fabulous pilot.
What utter dribble some people speak.
What utter dribble some people speak.
However, there is always the chance he may have confused his pilots........
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
I would be reluctant to even consider a day VFR x-Channel hop in a SEP. We did once half-consider something from JER-UK ... and decided the risk was simply too great. BA, A-319, JER-LGW, even if it means the Red-Eye at 0705 before a longggg TATL ex-LHR later in the morning.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was a Director of Cardiff City Football Club, every 12 months I would ask to see the Risk Register. In the Risk Register as a Risk should be Loss of Key Persons (Sporting and Management), then under Mitigation it should say that all travel will be undertaken with fully licensed organisations.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Trislander01 and/or jsypilot , would either of you care to comment on the kind of flights to and around the CI I've mentioned upthread?
I'm still wondering which regulatory/certification boxes my VFR-day flights as a passenger fit into (or don't). One, joining a UK-Guernsey flight at a specifically arranged stopover in France on an N-registered SEP, no common purpose, some sort of payment arranged by third party; the other, a Guernsey-France flight that was unmistakably a 'taxi' run, G-registered SEP, paid for in the same manner as the other flight by the same third party (my client). Is one of these 'greyer' than the other, and if so, why?
Can you confirm/deny that either or both of these flights with passengers paying something would be common practice in the CI and what the thinking there, if any, is about safety/risk/compliance issues? Is it an example of hoping that longstanding custom establishes a legal precedent?
I'm still wondering which regulatory/certification boxes my VFR-day flights as a passenger fit into (or don't). One, joining a UK-Guernsey flight at a specifically arranged stopover in France on an N-registered SEP, no common purpose, some sort of payment arranged by third party; the other, a Guernsey-France flight that was unmistakably a 'taxi' run, G-registered SEP, paid for in the same manner as the other flight by the same third party (my client). Is one of these 'greyer' than the other, and if so, why?
Can you confirm/deny that either or both of these flights with passengers paying something would be common practice in the CI and what the thinking there, if any, is about safety/risk/compliance issues? Is it an example of hoping that longstanding custom establishes a legal precedent?
runway30 wrote:
That is incorrect - from the 23 Jan 2019 edition of the EASA type rating and licence endorsement list flight crew:
So for anyone who hasn't flown a PA-46-310P before, the only requirement is for 'variant familiarisation' - which doesn't even need to be with an instructor.
The PA46 310P is on the EASA list as requiring a specific type rating.
Class rating SEP (land) for PA-46-310P (Malibu), PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage), and PA-46R-350T (Malibu Matrix).
Difference levels for the PA-46R-350T (Malibu Matrix) have not been evaluated.
Differences training which is not further specified, was established by the JAA between the Piper PA-46-310P (Malibu)/PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage) and the PA-46-500TP (Malibu Meridian) aircraft.
Difference levels for the PA-46R-350T (Malibu Matrix) have not been evaluated.
Differences training which is not further specified, was established by the JAA between the Piper PA-46-310P (Malibu)/PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage) and the PA-46-500TP (Malibu Meridian) aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
runway30 wrote:
That is incorrect - from the 23 Jan 2019 edition of the EASA type rating and licence endorsement list flight crew:
So for anyone who hasn't flown a PA-46-310P before, the only requirement is for 'variant familiarisation' - which doesn't even need to be with an instructor.
That is incorrect - from the 23 Jan 2019 edition of the EASA type rating and licence endorsement list flight crew:
So for anyone who hasn't flown a PA-46-310P before, the only requirement is for 'variant familiarisation' - which doesn't even need to be with an instructor.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: WILTSHIRE
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF Dibbo descended into what he thought would be warmer air ( we know he was cleared down from 5000 ft) - We know he disappeared from radar at 2300 ft _ how do we know he didnt continue on track for many miles ( perhaps hitting the water at low level and a shallow angle with no horizon for a VFR pilot to follow / see) and the aircraft is MUCH nearer the mainland coast ?
Given its very odd that we have no radar traces - I thought CI radar could " see" us on SVR clearances " not above 1500 ft ".............
Given its very odd that we have no radar traces - I thought CI radar could " see" us on SVR clearances " not above 1500 ft ".............
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Outside the 12 mile limit
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF Dibbo descended into what he thought would be warmer air ( we know he was cleared down from 5000 ft) - We know he disappeared from radar at 2300 ft _ how do we know he didnt continue on track for many miles ( perhaps hitting the water at low level and a shallow angle with no horizon for a VFR pilot to follow / see) and the aircraft is MUCH nearer the mainland coast ?
Given its very odd that we have no radar traces - I thought CI radar could " see" us on SVR clearances " not above 1500 ft ".............
Given its very odd that we have no radar traces - I thought CI radar could " see" us on SVR clearances " not above 1500 ft ".............
ATC never said he went below radar coverage. They said they lost him off radar which is different. May be wrong, but I think radar coverage goes lower than 2,300 off Alderney. Certainly the Aurigny flights to Alderney don't come off secondary radar, if they did they would not be tracked on say FR24. . Can't speak for primary radar.
This would imply he went down pretty close to the loss of radar contact.
edited to say, thinking about this further, Alderney is visible from North of Jersey, therefore around Alderney radar coverage must be at or nearly at sea level
Last edited by radiosutch; 28th Jan 2019 at 21:19. Reason: add more
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone highlighted that there have been 228 Malibu accidents as a statistic, now statistics are there to be used or abused for whatever purpose.
If the flight had taken place in a King Air you would all be saying " The King Air is a very capable aircraft well suited to this kind of trip " but if you look at the accident statistics of the King Air it shows 410 King Air accidents in the same database as the 228 Malibu accidents are listed in.
If the flight had taken place in a King Air you would all be saying " The King Air is a very capable aircraft well suited to this kind of trip " but if you look at the accident statistics of the King Air it shows 410 King Air accidents in the same database as the 228 Malibu accidents are listed in.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from the Cardiff City Manager saying he wished the footballer hadn’t travelled to Nantes.
“I do keep thinking back, I said to him ‘why don’t you come up to Newcastle and watch us play tomorrow and have a look?’
“You’re now asking yourself should I have made him come up, because it’s after the event, but he wanted to go back and see his teammates, and family, and get his belongings for the following week so that’s what happened.
“I just thanked him and off we went, you know.”
A Premiership football club isn’t a corner shop. They have a duty of care to their employees. If they drove him from the airport to the training ground in a company car they should have checked the licence of the driver and given him a set of rules related to the use of the car. So how is aviation any different, how can you just absolve yourself of any responsibility? I know the club position is that they aren’t responsible because the player made his own arrangements. However all the parties involved had contractural relationships with each other. I have also read the argument that passengers don’t have enough knowledge to know when they are at risk. Well these are multi million pound organisations, so if you don’t have enough knowledge to know what a licensed air carrier is or don’t want to buy in that expertise, then send your employees by scheduled flight.
“I do keep thinking back, I said to him ‘why don’t you come up to Newcastle and watch us play tomorrow and have a look?’
“You’re now asking yourself should I have made him come up, because it’s after the event, but he wanted to go back and see his teammates, and family, and get his belongings for the following week so that’s what happened.
“I just thanked him and off we went, you know.”
A Premiership football club isn’t a corner shop. They have a duty of care to their employees. If they drove him from the airport to the training ground in a company car they should have checked the licence of the driver and given him a set of rules related to the use of the car. So how is aviation any different, how can you just absolve yourself of any responsibility? I know the club position is that they aren’t responsible because the player made his own arrangements. However all the parties involved had contractural relationships with each other. I have also read the argument that passengers don’t have enough knowledge to know when they are at risk. Well these are multi million pound organisations, so if you don’t have enough knowledge to know what a licensed air carrier is or don’t want to buy in that expertise, then send your employees by scheduled flight.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have a duty of care to their employees
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every company has a duty of care to its employees, rarely would that extend to oversight of an employees travel arrangements during off duty hours. I think it is way too early to seek to apportion blame. I think I agree with Chicken House now...and I would not worry that anything is going to get over-looked. There is absolutely zero chance of any sort of cover up whatsoever with this one.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a chartered accountant and a PPL - I was asked to work for him (in my professional capacity) and refused. He's never asked me to work for him in my other capacity
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am also aware of people who have been told to not drive to work if the company thinks they are not fit to drive and that is in their own car, in their own time. The duty of care extends to the employee’s own time if their is any connection to employment and I would say that going to clear up loose ends at the club that has just transferred your contract is definitely related to employment.
Last edited by runway30; 28th Jan 2019 at 22:58.
Someone highlighted that there have been 228 Malibu accidents as a statistic, now statistics are there to be used or abused for whatever purpose.
If the flight had taken place in a King Air you would all be saying " The King Air is a very capable aircraft well suited to this kind of trip " but if you look at the accident statistics of the King Air it shows 410 King Air accidents in the same database as the 228 Malibu accidents are listed in.
If the flight had taken place in a King Air you would all be saying " The King Air is a very capable aircraft well suited to this kind of trip " but if you look at the accident statistics of the King Air it shows 410 King Air accidents in the same database as the 228 Malibu accidents are listed in.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brentwood Essex
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luc Lion ... I'm just a PPL and have flown across the channel many times. From what I've read this pilot is also a PPL and I'm not sure he was instrument rated. (I don't get it where a PPL is flying a pro. footballer when the footballer could very likely afford any kind of flight by any carrier with any kind of pilot.)
My main point though is, this pilot's planned route from Nantes to Cardiff. From Nantes as a PPL holder flying a single engined aircraft I would have flown for as long as possible over land making the sea crossing as short as possible.
I ask myself why he didn't consider flying at a height which would give him the ability to glide to be over land from any point during that flight. This raises several questions of course ... was he IFR rated? i.e. could he fly in an airway? ... Icing conditions at the time and the anti-icing capabilities of the aircraft.
Assuming IFR rated and icing not being an issue ... he'd have been better crossing the channel at around 20,000 feet which would have given him 'friendly' height in the event of an engine failure and allowing him to glide to be over land. I assume this plane can glide for at least 2 miles for each 1,000 feet of height. I haven't accurately measured it but the shortest channel crossing on that route was about 60 miles and from Omonville-la Petite to Portland island in Hampshire, this route not taking them very far from a direct route to Cardiff.
Assuming the worst everywhere here... glide distance with full tanks and two on board, for each 1000 feet of height being just 2 miles (probably a little more) ... a minimum height of 15,000 feet, plus at least 1,000 feet of 'fat' at the point of arrival over land at Portland was required ... as said, 20,000 being ample.
To be at 5,000 feet and then request to fly at just over 2,000 feet for that Channel crossing, presumably in order to be able to fly VFR, is in my opinion irresponsible in a single engine aircraft flying in winter and at night.
As said I am just a private pilot and there are far more experienced pilots who will have a far better grasp of the situation than myself ... it's just my take on it.
Edit: I forgot to add that the reported position of where this aircraft was lost indicates that the route flown was directly from Nantes to Cardiff .... thus avoiding the safer option of staying close to land and when considering that the aircraft was single engined.
My main point though is, this pilot's planned route from Nantes to Cardiff. From Nantes as a PPL holder flying a single engined aircraft I would have flown for as long as possible over land making the sea crossing as short as possible.
I ask myself why he didn't consider flying at a height which would give him the ability to glide to be over land from any point during that flight. This raises several questions of course ... was he IFR rated? i.e. could he fly in an airway? ... Icing conditions at the time and the anti-icing capabilities of the aircraft.
Assuming IFR rated and icing not being an issue ... he'd have been better crossing the channel at around 20,000 feet which would have given him 'friendly' height in the event of an engine failure and allowing him to glide to be over land. I assume this plane can glide for at least 2 miles for each 1,000 feet of height. I haven't accurately measured it but the shortest channel crossing on that route was about 60 miles and from Omonville-la Petite to Portland island in Hampshire, this route not taking them very far from a direct route to Cardiff.
Assuming the worst everywhere here... glide distance with full tanks and two on board, for each 1000 feet of height being just 2 miles (probably a little more) ... a minimum height of 15,000 feet, plus at least 1,000 feet of 'fat' at the point of arrival over land at Portland was required ... as said, 20,000 being ample.
To be at 5,000 feet and then request to fly at just over 2,000 feet for that Channel crossing, presumably in order to be able to fly VFR, is in my opinion irresponsible in a single engine aircraft flying in winter and at night.
As said I am just a private pilot and there are far more experienced pilots who will have a far better grasp of the situation than myself ... it's just my take on it.
Edit: I forgot to add that the reported position of where this aircraft was lost indicates that the route flown was directly from Nantes to Cardiff .... thus avoiding the safer option of staying close to land and when considering that the aircraft was single engined.
Last edited by keni010; 28th Jan 2019 at 23:31.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: LONDON
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ask myself why he didn't consider flying at a height which would give him the ability to glide to be over land from any point during that flight. This raises several questions of course ... was he IFR rated? i.e. could he fly in an airway? ... Icing conditions at the time and the anti-icing capabilities of the aircraft.
Assuming IFR rated and icing not being an issue ... he'd have been better crossing the channel at around 20,000 feet which would have given him 'friendly' height in the event of an engine failure and allowing him to glide to be over land. I assume this plane can glide for at least 2 miles for each 1,000 feet of height. I haven't accurately measured it but the shortest channel crossing on that route was about 60 miles and from Omonville-la Petite to Portland island in Hampshire, this route not taking them very far from a direct route to Cardiff.
Assuming the worst everywhere here... glide distance with full tanks and two on board, for each 1000 feet of height being just 2 miles (probably a little more) ... a minimum height of 15,000 feet, plus at least 1,000 feet of 'fat' at the point of arrival over land at Portland was required ... as said, 20,000 being ample.
To be at 5,000 feet and then request to fly at just over 2,000 feet for that Channel crossing, presumably in order to be able to fly VFR, is in my opinion irresponsible in a single engine aircraft flying in winter and at night.
As said I am just a private pilot and there are far more experienced pilots who will have a far better grasp of the situation than myself ... it's just my take on it.
Edit: I forgot to add that the reported position of where this aircraft was lost indicates that the route flown was directly from Nantes to Cardiff .... thus avoiding the safer option of staying close to land and when considering that the aircraft was single engined.
Assuming IFR rated and icing not being an issue ... he'd have been better crossing the channel at around 20,000 feet which would have given him 'friendly' height in the event of an engine failure and allowing him to glide to be over land. I assume this plane can glide for at least 2 miles for each 1,000 feet of height. I haven't accurately measured it but the shortest channel crossing on that route was about 60 miles and from Omonville-la Petite to Portland island in Hampshire, this route not taking them very far from a direct route to Cardiff.
Assuming the worst everywhere here... glide distance with full tanks and two on board, for each 1000 feet of height being just 2 miles (probably a little more) ... a minimum height of 15,000 feet, plus at least 1,000 feet of 'fat' at the point of arrival over land at Portland was required ... as said, 20,000 being ample.
To be at 5,000 feet and then request to fly at just over 2,000 feet for that Channel crossing, presumably in order to be able to fly VFR, is in my opinion irresponsible in a single engine aircraft flying in winter and at night.
As said I am just a private pilot and there are far more experienced pilots who will have a far better grasp of the situation than myself ... it's just my take on it.
Edit: I forgot to add that the reported position of where this aircraft was lost indicates that the route flown was directly from Nantes to Cardiff .... thus avoiding the safer option of staying close to land and when considering that the aircraft was single engined.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not going to post on this particular subject again, because it is irrelevant to any aspect of flight safety which is the only reason a lot of us will be posting here in the first place. R30, if you want to continue this...
...extremely random speculation, which nobody can possible know the truth of at this stage, then I guess its the internet and you can do so (assuming ofc the Mods don't step in)
CH sums it up imo...
I'll rest until something less speculative comes up.
I am also aware of people who have been told to not drive to work if the company thinks they are not fit to drive and that is in their own car, in their own time. The duty of care extends to the employee’s own time if their is any connection to employment and I would say that going to clear up loose ends at the club that has just transferred your contract is definitely related to employment.
CH sums it up imo...
I think now is a moment to stop speculating, keep quiet and leave some time to the investigators. The public surfaced facts are already enough to hold breath.