Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[S-Works]

Originally Posted by cessnapete

I have had a 61.75 for many years. Commercial Pilot, Single, MEP, Instrument Airplane. (I took the written IR exams in Frankfurt FAA office)
(No EASA IR)

You can't be a Commercial Pilot on a 61.75.......

[EXDAC]

61.75 - continued

Originally Posted by ChickenHouse

Absolutely correct! An FAA PLL 61.75 is a license on its own and handled as such. .

I don't understand how that position can be reconciled with 61.75 (e) Operating privileges and limitations. A person who receives a U.S. private pilot certificate that has been issued under the provisions of this section: ( 3) Is subject to the limitations and restrictions on the person's U.S. certificate and foreign pilot license when exercising the privileges of that U.S. pilot certificate in an aircraft of U.S. registry operating within or outside the United States; and

If a 61.75 issued PPL is subject to the limitation and restriction of the foreign licence then it is clearly not a licence on its own. (The 61.75 licence is not even valid unless the foreign licence is in the possession of the pilot.)

Can someone please point me to an example image of a UK PPL with no night rating. I was unable to find one.

[Above The Clouds]

What is obvious from the last few posts, there seems to be quite a few pilots out there who don't understand the privileges of the licence they have, and thats from some posting on here, I can now only imagine how many there actually might be out there.

[established28]

Validation

A 61.75 piggyback FAA PPL would probably be better described as a licence validation, rather than a licence in it’s own right

Originally Posted by EXDAC

I don't understand how that position can be reconciled with 61.75 (e) Operating privileges and limitations. A person who receives a U.S. private pilot certificate that has been issued under the provisions of this section: ( 3) Is subject to the limitations and restrictions on the person's U.S. certificate and foreign pilot license when exercising the privileges of that U.S. pilot certificate in an aircraft of U.S. registry operating within or outside the United States; and

If a 61.75 issued PPL is subject to the limitation and restriction of the foreign licence then it is clearly not a licence on its own. (The 61.75 licence is not even valid unless the foreign licence is in the possession of the pilot.)

Can someone please point me to an example image of a UK PPL with no night rating. I was unable to find one.

[flydive1]

Originally Posted by S-Works

You can't be a Commercial Pilot on a 61.75.......

Yes you can, I have one, but with all the restrictions on it you can't do much.

But true, they do not issue it anymore.

[Jonzarno]

Can someone please point me to an example image of a UK PPL with no night rating. I was unable to find one.

Me again

I no longer have an image of my old JAA licence but can confirm that it had no such rating / privilege. I did a separate night rating before going to the US to do the IR I referred to in my earlier post.

[Mike Flynn]

The old CAA PPL I received back in 1981 never had a night rating. It was an add on just like the IMC.

[ChickenHouse]

AFAIK there is no set handling by EASA on how to document a night rating, correct? Some countries put *Night* in Section XII of Part.FCL licenses, some put *no Night* if not, some document nothing at all in the license, some do for PPL, but do not when *IR* is added - a mess.

[runway30]

It seems to me that it is very difficult to get an FAA second-class medical certificate if you are colour blind and whatever UK ratings/licence were held, can I suggest the colour blindness is a red(?) herring?

The first of potentially many legal actions is threatened.

‘It is understood Nantes are threatening legal action if they do not receive a payment within 10 days. BBC have attempted to speak to Nantes for a comment.’

[what next]

Originally Posted by runway30

...can I suggest the colour blindness is a red(?) herring?

I wouldn't say so because if his alleged colour vision deficiency is a fact, then it would have prevented him from holding both the night and instrument ratings. Anywhere, UK, EASA and FAA. Unless he got an excemption of some kind (I once had a student who fought battles with the authorities for five years before he eventually got his night rating because of colour vision issues).

[S-Works]

It seems to me that it is very difficult to get an FAA second-class medical certificate if you are colour blind and whatever UK ratings/licence were held, can I suggest the colour blindness is a red(?) herring?

No it's not. You are just restricted to DAY VFR jus the same as a Class 2 in the UK is restricted. It is a fact that the pilot was unable to fly at night due to colour blindness.

Nope, there is no such as a 61.75 CPL. The 61.75 purely gives PPL privileges based on whatever the underlying licence states. This is made VERY clear by the FSDO when collecting the certificate. You can add ratings to it. I hold both a 61.75 and full FAA CPL/IR and I added ratings to the 61.75 before realising I was building it on a house of cards and went for the full certificate.

[runway30]

Originally Posted by what next

I wouldn't say so because if his alleged colour vision deficiency is a fact, then it would have prevented him from holding both the night and instrument ratings. Anywhere, UK, EASA and FAA. Unless he got an excemption of some kind (I once had a student who fought battles with the authorities for five years before he eventually got his night rating because of colour vision issues).

I’m suggesting that nobody has proved that the colour vision deficiency is a fact.

[ChickenHouse]

Originally Posted by runway30

I’m suggesting that nobody has proved that the colour vision deficiency is a fact.

The reputation of the several sources claiming it, in private and public, is enough for me. I am quite sure investigators do have proof by now, as I know these sources are in talks with them.

[runway30]

Originally Posted by ChickenHouse

The reputation of the several sources claiming it, in private and public, is enough for me. I am quite sure investigators do have proof by now, as I know these sources are in talks with them.

CH, thanks for confirming that.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

I no longer have an image of my old JAA licence but can confirm that it had no such rating / privilege. I did a separate night rating before going to the US to do the IR I referred to in my earlier post.

There is a huge difference between not having a rating/privilege to perform a flight operation and not being authorized to perform that flight operation because of a limitation or restriction on one's licence. For example, I am rated commercial multi-engine land and single engine sea. I am not authorized to fly multi-engine sea but my licence does not say "Flight in multi-engine sea prohibited".

This is why I am so interested in actually seeing a UK PPL with no night or instrument ratings. If it does have the actual words "Day VFR only", or similar, then flight in IMC would not be allowed using an FAA 61.75 with an instrument rating. It is not allowed, according to the regulation as written, because it is prohibited by a restriction / limitation of the base UK licence. If, however, the base UK licence grants Day VFR privileges solely because there is no night rating and no instrument rating then the 61.75 with IR would allow operation under IFR in IMC.

[2Donkeys]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

If, however, the base UK licence grants Day VFR privileges solely because there is no night rating and no instrument rating then the 61.75 with IR would allow operation under IFR in IMC.

Nope. If a 61.75 licence is issued on the back of a UK licence which is restricted to DAY VFR (for whatever reason), then the 61.75 will inherit those restrictions and will be endorsed with the phrase

"ALL LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE UNITED KINGDOM PILOT LICENSE APPLY."

If the holder subsequently passed a US IR, then the licence would be endorsed as such, and any IFR restriction would be removed. But this is all moot since the pilot of this aircraft did not hold any endorsement on his FAA licence that would permit flight under IFR. This much is a matter of public record. The privileges of his UK licence have been widely circulated, but are not in the public domain as a matter of fact. He is said to have an expired IMCr and a day VFR restriction by virtue of being colour blind.

Time will tell whether this is true or not.

[positiverate20]

On another note... it looks like the AAIB commissioned ship "Geo Ocean III" is making it's way back to port. Being the 3rd day of a 3 day search makes sense, but most assumed this would be extended. Possibly as a safe carriage of the persons on board, but this could also have been transported by helicopter? I've a sneaking suspicion that there were two bodies on board but for the sake of families involved they only confirmed finding one.

This is going to get awful messy- between insurers, football clubs, agents, donors etc. With police investigation continuing and CAA in the spotlight, every single word of the AAIB report is going to be forensically examined.

[Blackfriar]

Good to hear it. Improper activity will impact on everyone when deaths occur like this. The high profile of the passenger has made it seem more important but in reality anyone taking fare paying passengers without the skills is a serious problem. I don’t mind cost sharing with someone I know, but many of the activities mentioned in this thread go way beyond that.

[GeorgEGNT]

From WalesOnline

Body inside plane wreckage has been recovered

A spokesman for the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch has tonight said:

Following extensive visual examination of the accident site using the remotely operated vehicle (ROV), it was decided to attempt recovery operations.

In challenging conditions, the AAIB and its specialist contractors successfully recovered the body previously seen amidst the wreckage. The operation was carried out in as dignified a way as possible and the families were kept informed of progress.

Unfortunately, attempts to recover the aircraft wreckage were unsuccessful before poor weather conditions forced us to return the ROV to the ship. The weather forecast is poor for the foreseeable future and so the difficult decision was taken to bring the overall operation to a close. The body is currently being taken to Portland to be passed into the care of the Dorset Coroner.

Although it was not possible to recover the aircraft, the extensive video record captured by the ROV is expected to provide valuable evidence for our safety investigation.

We expect our next update to be an interim report, which we intend to publish within one month of the accident occurring.

[Mike Flynn]

It seems highly likely that the body is that of the passenger who would have been seated in the back. No pictures have emerged of the front section of the aircraft.

The AAIB have indicated they will not recover wreckage so I assume it is unlikely there will be any private effort to raise it.