Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

Old 10th Feb 2019, 15:30
  #1241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Of course !, but how do you want to prove this if everyone involved ( still alive) says it was a private arrangement and no money was involved ? as I have read and heard so far.
Because they have left an audit trail with landing fees, fuel and hotel being paid for. There is a narrative being pushed that private pilots can accept expenses for operating commercial flights. They cannot. They can split expenses equally with their passengers. On a US registered aircraft it is even worse, the pilot has to have common purpose with the passengers. This would have meant that Ibbotson also wished to see Sala’s team mates and put Sala’s dog into kennels. He very clearly did not.
runway30 is online now  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 15:34
  #1242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,786
Received 129 Likes on 58 Posts
My take is that certain parties dug a hole into which Mr Ibbotson fell, for a variety of possible reasons (over-confidence, over-enthusiasm or even much-needed financial incentive). Whilst it could be argued, quite reasonably, that those certain parties are culpable for digging said hole, it was only Mr Ibbotson who flew into it.

A sad story, with many lessons to be hopefully highlighted by AAIB in due course.
MPN11 is online now  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 15:45
  #1243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just reading a telegraph article about transfers and tax and a thought comes to mind. It says traditionally football agent fees for representing a player are paid by the club but are a taxable benefit to the player. It says recently (some?) footballers have been ‘representing themselves’ and agents act as ‘consultants’ to the club. This meaning the fees become a business expense and not a benefit. (No benefit in kind, no 40% tax).

I wonder what HMRC’s view of this will be when it comes to all the emails, texts, and public statements that’s have been made about who did what and for what benefit.
Daysleeper is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 15:49
  #1244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MPN11
My take is that certain parties dug a hole into which Mr Ibbotson fell, for a variety of possible reasons (over-confidence, over-enthusiasm or even much-needed financial incentive). Whilst it could be argued, quite reasonably, that those certain parties are culpable for digging said hole, it was only Mr Ibbotson who flew into it.

A sad story, with many lessons to be hopefully highlighted by AAIB in due course.
If I started a bus service in my city without an Operating Licence, hired a driver with an ordinary driving licence, the bus crashed and killed the passengers, I would expect a visit by the police within hours to secure evidence and consideration given to a charge of manslaughter by negligence. The person who gave away the tickets would not be able to run a PR campaign to convince everyone what a terrible tragedy it is that he has absolutely no part in.
runway30 is online now  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 15:53
  #1245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MPN11
My take is that certain parties dug a hole into which Mr Ibbotson fell, for a variety of possible reasons (over-confidence, over-enthusiasm or even much-needed financial incentive). Whilst it could be argued, quite reasonably, that those certain parties are culpable for digging said hole, it was only Mr Ibbotson who flew into it.

A sad story, with many lessons to be hopefully highlighted by AAIB in due course.
Very true,
I would also add that this arrangement (financial or otherwise), would have probably put some quite considerable pressure on Mr. Ibbotson to "get the job done".
This is the only reason I can think of why he would have even considered flying outside his licensing priviledges.
Webby737 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 15:53
  #1246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,786
Received 129 Likes on 58 Posts
runway30 ... I have no doubt that ‘certain parties’ will come under the spotlight in due course. But sadly Mr Ibbotson was the one who drove into the hole created for him.
Webby737 ... acknowledged.
MPN11 is online now  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 15:55
  #1247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by runway30


Because they have left an audit trail with landing fees, fuel and hotel being paid for. There is a narrative being pushed that private pilots can accept expenses for operating commercial flights. They cannot. They can split expenses equally with their passengers. On a US registered aircraft it is even worse, the pilot has to have common purpose with the passengers. This would have meant that Ibbotson also wished to see Sala’s team mates and put Sala’s dog into kennels. He very clearly did not.


They cannot. They can split expenses equally with their passengers.
Can you explain what that is based on? On the basis that we are talking about the expenses of the flight, direct costs of making the flight can be shared between Pilot & Pax, no requirement for equality in that sharing under UK rules.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 15:57
  #1248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Warren Peace
They cannot. They can split expenses equally with their passengers.


Can you explain what that is based on? On the basis that we are talking about the expenses of the flight, direct costs of making the flight can be shared between Pilot & Pax, no requirement for equality in that sharing under UK rules.
Because it's an N reg aircraft and therefore must comply with the US rules.
Daysleeper is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 16:03
  #1249 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by runway30


Because they have left an audit trail with landing fees, fuel and hotel being paid for.
You have a good point there. But it would seem that he did pay himself those bills , just using someone else credit card. A lawyer might argue that he was merely borrowing a friend credit card and , just like cash being borrowed , and he intended to repay the owner of the credit card. Highly unlikely I grant you that and in addition in France at least using someone else credit card is illegal. But who is held responsible for using the card, the one that gave the card or the one using it ?

Anyway the AAIB will probably not going to investigate this as it falls outside their level of expertise and it is anyway outside the scope of ICAO Annex 13 , this is for the criminal investigation to do I would say, if there is a criminal investigation..
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 16:16
  #1250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think I said it before but.....

On the face of forum speculation, there doesn't appear to be a smoking gun. There is, however, a balance of probability that puts a number of people in the spotlight. I personally don't expect any criminal prosecutions for this event, but I fully expect a load of insurance company sponsored ambulance chasers in the civil courts. (Said as someone who occasionally does expert witness work for such occurrences).
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 16:30
  #1251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 59
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If it is discovered that this is illegal public transport then the illegal operator is also responsible.
If it is discovered that this is illegal public transport then, de facto, it is a private flight. If the pilot only had a PPL how can it be anything else? He could pretend he had a CPL, or ATPL, or fly rockets for NASA - doesn't change that fact.
CBSITCB is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 16:31
  #1252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Daysleeper
Because it's an N reg aircraft and therefore must comply with the US rules.
EASA regs allow the use of a foreign registered aircraft but FAA regs specify equally. In any event, you are not allowed to use a complex aircraft.

European and National regulations permit cost sharing as follows:

  • The flight is a cost-shared flight by private individuals.
  • The direct costs of the flight must be shared between all of the occupants of the aircraft, including the pilot, up to a maximum of 6 persons.
  • The cost-sharing arrangements apply to any other-than complex motor-powered EASA aircraft and this includes aircraft registered outside of the EASA area but operated by an operator established or residing in the Community.
  • Cost-sharing is also permitted in non-EASA (Annex II of the Basic Regulation) aircraft registered in the UK.


Direct costs means the costs directly incurred in relation to a flight (e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft). There can be no element of profit.



Annual costs which cannot be included in the cost sharing are the cost of keeping, maintaining, insuring and operating the aircraft over a period of one calendar year. There can be no element of profit.

Additional guidance

  • In the case of a jointly-owned aircraft, the CAA considers the hourly rate, normally payable by a joint owner, for use of their aircraft to be a 'direct cost'.
  • Cost shared flights can be advertised, including the use of online 'flight sharing' platforms.
  • It is recommended that any advertising or promotion of cost-sharing flights makes it clear that they are private arrangements and not conducted in accordance with commercial air transport or, where appropriate, public transport rules.
  • Passengers should be made aware that the pilot may amend or cancel the flight for any reason, including at short notice.
  • The proportion of the costs that must be shared by the pilot is not specified in the regulations; however, the pilot must make a contribution to the direct costs of the flight that he is conducting.
  • The General Exemption (ORS4 No.1274) which permits cost-sharing flights for Annex II aircraft only applies to flights conducted within the London and Scottish Information Regions.
runway30 is online now  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 16:36
  #1253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CBSITCB
If it is discovered that this is illegal public transport then, de facto, it is a private flight. If the pilot only had a PPL how can it be anything else? He could pretend he had a CPL, or ATPL, or fly rockets for NASA - doesn't change that fact.
Great, I’m off to start my air charter company. Can you guys form a queue outside my door, I’m hiring, but don’t forget when it all goes wrong you’re responsible and I’ll be in the Bahamas.
runway30 is online now  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 16:43
  #1254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 59
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by runway30
Great, I’m off to start my air charter company. Can you guys form a queue outside my door, I’m hiring, but don’t forget when it all goes wrong you’re responsible and I’ll be in the Bahamas.
And it will go wrong, because they will be illegal private flights - but private flights nevertheless.
CBSITCB is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 16:44
  #1255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The final outcome of this investigation will make an interesting read.
I can't help but feel sorry for Mr. Ibbotson, whilst I don't in any way condone his actions of deciding to fly that evening I can sort of understand why.
As others have mentioned, the hole was dug for him long before it got into that aircraft.
However, surely the root cause of this accident is the aviation industry, as an aircraft engineer I (thankfully) never had to go down the expensive, torturous route of trying to get a job flying a commercial aircraft.
Now, I don't know if Mr. Ibbotson was happy tootling around the skies with a PPL of if he had greater ambitions.
Assuming the latter, he would have (understandably) almost taken any opportunity to build up his hours.
IMHO, it's the system thats to blame, as far as I'm aware you don't hear of accountants, lawyers, surgeons etc. paying for their training, work experience, place of work etc.
Now I'll get off my soap box !

Last edited by Webby737; 10th Feb 2019 at 16:45. Reason: grammer
Webby737 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 17:08
  #1256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr Ibbotson was 59.

Lawyers etc. have internships where they don't get paid to get experience.
Hipper is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 17:19
  #1257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,786
Received 129 Likes on 58 Posts
Originally Posted by Hipper
Mr Ibbotson was 59.
Lawyers etc. have internships where they don't get paid to get experience.
Just so. But hardly an ideal time of life to start looking at CPL/ATPL etc.by racking up a few hours in borrowed aircraft.

MPN11 is online now  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 18:11
  #1258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Of course !, but how do you want to prove this if everyone involved ( still alive) says it was a private arrangement and no money was involved?
No money changed hands?

By all accounts this aircraft has been engaged in these activities for quite some time so an audit of the historic movements of money relating to its operation will reveal who is likely to have funded its fateful last flight.

I have no idea how much a Malibu costs to run but I am able to estimate that the fuel cost alone is some £150/hr. So what is the likelihood that the owner is a charitable organisation set up to provide free transportation to ridiculously wealthy footballers?

Mach Tuck is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 19:01
  #1259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 599
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
complex confusion

Originally Posted by runway30

EASA regs allow the use of a foreign registered aircraft but FAA regs specify equally. In any event, you are not allowed to use a complex aircraft.


Why would any EASA cost sharing regulation apply when an aircraft of US registry is operated by a pilot with an FAA license? The only requirement, of which I'm aware, is that the holder of an FAA PPL must have received training in a complex aircraft and have that endorsed in their log book - ref 61.31 (d). Is there any reason to assume that the accident pilot did not have a complex endorsement in his log book? I doubt someone just gave him the keys of the Malibu if he had never flown a complex aircraft before.

Last edited by EXDAC; 10th Feb 2019 at 19:06. Reason: added "cost sharing" to "any EASA regulation"
EXDAC is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2019, 19:20
  #1260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by EXDAC
I doubt someone just gave him the keys of the Malibu if he had never flown a complex aircraft before.
I have been working in general aviation for nearly 30 years and I don't doubt anything anymore.
what next is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.