Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[POBJOY]

HIGH PROFILE and MONEY

There are two factors here that will ensure finding a 'responsibility trail '.When substantial amounts of money are concerned there will be parties that require that 'someone pays' and the legal 'chasers' will then get to deal with it in their own way.
Eventually someone will be held financially responsible which may THEN lead to a further legal battle with the relevant authorities.
With few actual witnesses or corroborated information then the process will be protracted and complicated.
As alluded before this could well be the equivalent of a 'Shoreham Showdown' for non scheduled quasi commercial operations, and ramifications for many operations including genuine clubs.
The CAA have as part of their mandate a responsibility to ensure safe passage for commercial passengers both scheduled and 'charter' but it is unreasonable to expect them to police the entire aviation spectrum with current resources, and with the latitude now being shown via EASA regs prosecutions are frequently only possible with substantial intelligence led information, and or input from other parties.
I hope this does not reduce the level of 'cause investigation' with regard to the recent loss of two UK pilots in Spain, because there may well be some useful lessons to be learnt from that.

[Chronus]

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.

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.

What`s that bit above about complex aircraft to which cost sharing does not apply.

[ATC Watcher]

Guys, a Malibu is not a "complex aircraft " in the EASA terminology meant here . Check the definition on google if you do not believe me.
And why focusing on cost sharing ?We have no proof that this was the case here, it could be just transporting someone for free. Period. This is allowed on an N registered aircraft, "family and friends" is the correct US phraseology I believe.

[The Old Fat One]

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 !

spot on...excellent post.

[lilflyboy262...2]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

If you enforce this, there are easy way to go around this as hours are self declarative for PPL .
And even if you regulate that you have to bring a cerified log book when going to renew your medical , Pilots log books can be altered easily and even the highly regulated aircraft maintenance books can be "tuned in" to fit the purpose if you own the aircraft,
as to the name on a flight plan , not sure a data base on this is possible, but if it did and you wanted to avoid being flagged, just phone the plans or file on internet and write what you want on that field.
Do not underestimate the ingenuity of those that want to beat the system.
Spending a bit of time in Africa opens the mind to what is possible

These are all things that can easily be picked up from ramp checks.
If you are doctoring your logbook, then you are committing fraud. When you sign the little bit in the corner saying "true and correct."

Stricter regulation is not required. Just stricter and more proactive enforcement.

From my experience, you can get away with a lot in Africa and Indonesia by slipping a few bills with the logbook.

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Guys, a Malibu is not a "complex aircraft " in the EASA or FAA terminology meant here . Check the definition on google if you do not believe me.
And why focusing on cost sharing ?We have no proof that this was the case here, it could be just transporting someone for free. Period. This is allowed on an N registered aircraft, "family and friends" is the correct US phraseology I believe.

I am more than happy to take your word for it, but am bit puzzled that a high performance single capable of cruise at 25000` in pressurised comfort is not listed as complex. Nevertheless I do remember the introduction of HPA for the likes of such machines. Here is an article from the archives on the subject.

https://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/st...PA_revised.pdf

If this remained a current requirement had DI undergone such training.

[ve3id]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Ok , let me try this story . I have to say that I am not a lawyer nor an expert in UK rules, but I guess this story is universal .If not then I'll be happy to be corrected.

You own a car , I am a good friend of yours and ask you if I can borrow your car for the week end as mine is U/S, and later tell you my son will drive it up and sown to France to pick up someone . You say yes and give me the cars papers and the keys.
My son comes to me later and says, I cannot do the trip buy my friend John that you know very well, will do it ; you say Ok , not ideal, but OK...
X gets an accident because he drove well above the speed limit and kills someone.

If no money changed hands, it is only the driver who is responsible., not the owner of the car, me who arranged the trip, or,my son who was supposed to drive.

Not true. Any good lawyer would try to sue the owner, the garage that last fixed it, and anybody that had anything to do with it.

[GotTheTshirt]

I have not seen the reason for the delay to the original 0900 flight plan.
A morning departure, I would have thought, would obviously be what Mr Ibbotson would have preferred, so the delay, I would not think, had been his decision

[Vilters]

Backtrack :
For a Flight from Nantes to Cardiff……… What is he doing at 5.000 ft in a plane that can go in the higher Flight levels avoiding any bad weather and ice in the first place?????

Being at 5.000, and being in ice, got him to request the lower altitude of 2.500. What happened afterwards is pure speculation.

But for a flight from Nantes to Cardiff? ? ? Why on planet Earth choose a low cruising altitude and ending up at 5.000 ft over the Channel????

Me in my Jodel 120 at 5.000 ft, that's an understandable cruise. But in that airframe? ? ? ? For that distance? ? ? In that weather? ? ?
Sorry, don't get it.

[Ant T]

Guys, a Malibu is not a "complex aircraft " in the EASA or FAA terminology meant here .

ATCwatcher - A Malibu certainly is a complex aircraft under the FAA definition - "A complex airplane is defined by the United States Federal Aviation Administration as an aircraft that has all of the following: A retractable landing gear, a controllable-pitch propeller, and movable or adjustable flaps."

Edit - to add, I took the above definition from Wikipedia, but have just taken the time to look up the current definition on the FAA website, FAR 61.1
"Complex airplane means an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, including airplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control."

And why focusing on cost sharing ?We have no proof that this was the case here, it could be just transporting someone for free. Period. This is allowed on an N registered aircraft, "family and friends" is the correct US phraseology I believe.

Sala certainly wasn't family, and I somewhat doubt they were "friends" in any normally accepted sense.

[DaveReidUK]

[helimutt]

Originally Posted by Silver_Light

What is the general theory here as to where David Ibbotson's body is, as I believe there is a crowdfunding page set up to raise enough money to try and find him?

On other forums the fact that the AAIB have called off the search and trying to raise the wreck has caused an outcry on the grounds of inequality and that if it hadn't been Sala that they found, it would be ongoing.

His family don't want to give up but do they honestly think they will find him after all this time?

And one last final question- it's a difficult one I know... who is really responsible for this tragedy? Should someone be held to account?

With the prevailing wind and currents around that date, I would be searching the coastlines around Sark, North East Guernsey, Herm, Possibly Jethou and then the French coast Le Manche area from approximately Le Brisay area up to Clairfontaine. Unfortunately searching in the vicinity of the Nuclear Plant at Flamanville may prove problematic. Use a helicopter. Go slow and low and have maybe two spotters looking out as well as the pilots. Many of the Channel island coves and rocks around say Sark etc, are very difficult to see from the water or the land/cliffs. Only a slow methodical search by helicopter or drone would be suitable in my opinion. I know of one instance where a car going over the cliff in Guernsey could not be seen by land or sea, but a helicopter spotted it straight away.
Apart from doing that, you'd only be extending the search for the 'needle in the haystack'

[Capt Scribble]

Vilters. You might have an aircraft that can fly in upper airspace but the do you have the rating to operate there.

[runway30]

Very interesting article about David Mearns and the search for the aircraft.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...4e160437e71292

[RatherBeFlying]

Water temperature is the main factor in whether a body will come to the surface.

Six boys in 1995 stole a couple boats for a joyride in Lake Ontario and have never been found.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/5...-in-pickering/

[jolihokistix]

Surely a record of someone's bank account should show who paid what to whom, in an electronically leaky and intrusive society like ours.

[ATC Watcher]

Ant T :

ATCwatcher - A Malibu certainly is a complex aircraft under the FAA definition - "A complex airplane is defined by the United States Federal Aviation Administration as an aircraft that has all of the following: A retractable landing gear, a controllable-pitch propeller, and movable or adjustable flaps."

Ok my bad regarding FAA, obviously 2 different sets of definitions , did not know . I will correct my earlier post . But the quote that started this discussion was taken from EASA regulations on sharing .
The EASA definition of "Complex aircraft" in their regulations is the following :

The term non-complex aircraft refers to aircraft that do not meet any of the criteria for classification as «complex aircraft», which means:

• they have a certified maximum take-off weight below 5,700 kg and
• they have a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of 19 and
• they are certified for operation by only 1 pilot and
• they are not equipped with jet engines.

Examples of non-complex aircraft include the Pilatus PC 12 and the Cessna Caravan.

[DaveReidUK]

As ever with PPRuNe, there is a previous thread on the subject, in this case debating the (various) meanings of "complex single", both in the previous generally-accepted sense of "variable-pitch prop, retractable gear, etc" (still a valid distinction in the CPL training/testing world) and with reference to EASA's somewhat unhelpful hijacking of the term to mean something completely different :

Complex Non-High Performance

From that thread:

Cobalt is not making it up. This is the meaning of "complex motor-powered aircraft" as defined by EASA in Basic Regulation 3(j).

It is unfortunate that they chose the word complex as it creates confusion with the common understanding of VP+RG+flaps. However it is important to understand the new definition as it has implications on Ptf, maintenance requirements, etc.

[Mach Tuck]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

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.

Well he’s alleged to have undertaken a revenue flight without a commercial endorsement, a night flight without a night endorsement and an instrument flight without an instrument endorsement so is there any reason to assume he had a complex endorsement? It has also been alleged that he is a very experienced pilot so why wouldn’t someone give him the keys to the Malibu?

[arketip]

Originally Posted by lilflyboy262...2

If you are doctoring your logbook, then you are committing fraud. When you sign the little bit in the corner saying "true and correct."

Is it mandatory to write in all the hours?