Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[oggers]

As anticipated, the report clarifies that this WAS an illegal flight. At the very least it was an illegal private flight by Ibbotson. It is also clear that the flight cannot have been operated legally as a charter, even though we shall have to wait to see if - as seems likely - and to what extent this was an illegal charter by an uncertified operator using a private pilot.

I'm not sure there will be a definitive cause established for the accident itself. But if by lifting the lid on this sordid arrangement the cowboy operators get their wings clipped, that will be a significant contribution to flight safety.

[Mike Flynn]

Originally Posted by oggers

As anticipated, the report clarifies that this WAS an illegal flight. At the very least it was an illegal private flight by Ibbotson. It is also clear that the flight cannot have been operated legally as a charter, even though we shall have to wait to see if - as seems likely - and to what extent this was an illegal charter by an uncertified operator using a private pilot.

I'm not sure there will be a definitive cause established for the accident itself. But if by lifting the lid on this sordid arrangement the cowboy operators get their wings clipped, that will be a significant contribution to flight safety.

Agreed and that must include ‘Wingly’ type flights and the N reg grey area.

The latter operate behind US trusts etc and often UK limited companies.

I feel sorry for the legitimate UK AOC operators who see these cowboys undercutting their rates.

[positiverate20]

Originally Posted by oggers

As anticipated, the report clarifies that this WAS an illegal flight. At the very least it was an illegal private flight by Ibbotson. It is also clear that the flight cannot have been operated legally as a charter, even though we shall have to wait to see if - as seems likely - and to what extent this was an illegal charter by an uncertified operator using a private pilot.

I'm not sure there will be a definitive cause established for the accident itself. But if by lifting the lid on this sordid arrangement the cowboy operators get their wings clipped, that will be a significant contribution to flight safety.

Exactly, the fact that the interim report focuses attention to the illegality of the flight is reassuring. I feared that the AAIB might 'cop-out' and merely investigate the mechanics of the crash. They have provided substantial insight into the direction of their investigation. In light of the fact that the pilot is still missing and his family still grieving, they've made a very a strong statement.

The legality of the flight is a very important aspect- if you fly illegally or in a "grey area" you will be brought to book. The fact that this operation was carried out 'under pressure', as part of a substantial 'commercial contract', at night, by a PIC with only a PPL without night or instrument certification during VMC, in an N registered plane without an AOC, without 'common purpose' while the pilot was 'all expenses paid' plus presumable remuneration. If any one of those factors were different then this may not have happened. If the pilot wasn't under that pressure his decision making might/should have been substantially different. The radar track in itself is likely to provide the technical explanation for the crash. Pilot was out of his depth.

What's the difference between this and an unlicensed car driver high on drugs driving into roadworks- the technical cause of death may be improper airbag function etc etc. The root cause was that the driver was not qualified to undertake that journey. He didn't see the signs, or take the necessary avoiding action, that if he were properly qualified (and without additional stress) would have been expected to have taken.

If you don't think legality is an issue, then why should anyone bother paying for flight lessons to begin with, paying insurance, adhering to regulations, paying for Certification as an Air Operator? Are they simply just 'costs' for the sake of it? Or do they ensure that those certified have an adequate level of training, adequate adherence to relevant regulations and an assurance to operate only with safety (and the safety of any passengers) as a priority?

[ChickenHouse]

Wow, that pilot had approximately 3,700 hours, so he definitely did know what he was doing. Nobody could ignore all things told over so many hours.

And why the F<self-censored> did he descent instead of going through the rain or turn back to Guernsey?
Yes, it would be nasty and one would have to apologize later, but he was low enough to be clear of icing and had a capable aircraft.
This flight path ... failure of the autopilot followed by spatial disorientation of the untrained pilot?
Where was the autopilot mounted in the aircraft, any chance in this mess to determine the final setting?

[golfbananajam]

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

The UK night rating is easy to obtain if you only fly near built up areas. However flying over the sea or mountains at night is a different scenario. It appears in this case the pilot was very experienced in day paradropping where most of his hours were acquired.

I got my UK night rating with only five hours experience at Cardiff back in 1982. Amazingly that allowed me to fly from Guernsey to Cardiff at night with no visual reference to the surface.I say none because it is often difficult to see the sea at night and certainly from a safe altitude in a small hand flown aircraft.
F

Mike Flynn are you sure that's correct, I understood the UK night rating on a PPL to be UK FIR only, same as the IMC

[Arkroyal]

Originally Posted by ChickenHouse

Wow, that pilot had approximately 3,700 hours, so he definitely did know what he was doing. Nobody could ignore all things told over so many hours.

3,700 hours or the same hour of VFR 3,700 times?

Sad story. Poor Sala.

[ianf100]

Hi Positiverate20

Where did all that come from? The AAIB report said nothing about “The fact that this operation was carried out 'under pressure', as part of a substantial 'commercial contract', “ unless I missed something. The AAIB report confirms that the pilot held an FAA licence, so flight in an N registered aircraft across an international border was Ok, and the FAA doesn’t prohibit cost sharing flights. The only questions are whether the pilot’s licence and ratings were valid and how much of the cost was he planning to pay? If at least half then it’s within the FAA regulations.

As for pilots taking passengers flying, if examiners think that a GST candidate isn’t fit to take non-pilots flying then they shouldn’t give a pass on the GST.

What would you do, make PPL solo flying only? They don’t do that with cars, so why aircraft?

[Mike Flynn]

Originally Posted by ChickenHouse

Wow, that pilot had approximately 3,700 hours, so he definitely did know what he was doing. Nobody could ignore all things told over so many hours.

And why the F<self-censored> did he descent instead of going through the rain or turn back to Guernsey?
Yes, it would be nasty and one would have to apologize later, but he was low enough to be clear of icing and had a capable aircraft.
This flight path ... failure of the autopilot followed by spatial disorientation of the untrained pilot?
Where was the autopilot mounted in the aircraft, any chance in this mess to determine the final setting?

It appears most of his hours were routine parachute dropping over the same site in fine VFR daylight.

[runway30]

Originally Posted by ianf100

Hi Positiverate20

Where did all that come from? The AAIB report said nothing about “The fact that this operation was carried out 'under pressure', as part of a substantial 'commercial contract', “ unless I missed something. The AAIB report confirms that the pilot held an FAA licence, so flight in an N registered aircraft across an international border was Ok, and the FAA doesn’t prohibit cost sharing flights. The only questions are whether the pilot’s licence and ratings were valid and how much of the cost was he planning to pay? If at least half then it’s within the FAA regulations.

As for pilots taking passengers flying, if examiners think that a GST candidate isn’t fit to take non-pilots flying then they shouldn’t give a pass on the GST.

What would you do, make PPL solo flying only? They don’t do that with cars, so why aircraft?

No, no, no. Do you understand ‘common purpose’? Did Dave Ibbotson have an appointment for football training on Tuesday morning? Did Sala insist on being taken to Cardiff Football Club or could they have gone to some other football club of Dave Ibbotson’s choosing?

[deltafox44]

Originally Posted by vanHorck

It makes for painful reading. The track and altitudes suggest to me a possible scenario of spatial disorientation (the Kennedy accident springs to mind) , perhaps due to IMC conditions, unless he decided to turn back to land at an alternate? 180 degrees turn to the right, a climb prior to the crash. I hope they will find the iPad and perhaps recover data from it.

I am happy the AAIB seems to also be looking into the legislative part of the flight.

I am also happy the AAIB have confirmed for non commercial on an N register an equal part cost sharing and common purpose are required. No ambiguity here! EASA should in my view adopt the same common purpose for cost sharing.

The last 30 seconds show a tight 180° turn to the right and a 2500' descent. This is neither a turn to land nor an engine failure, it can only be a disorientation, a pilot attack, or a stall/spin due to icing.

[portmanteau]

Some detective work will find out the pilot's recent flying hours in the absence of his log book.. The airfields he flew from and to will have a record in ATC of the actual departure and arrival times of his aircraft. Maintaining night recency for instance can be done by simply doing three night takeoffs and landings in quick succession at one airfield.

[ChickenHouse]

Originally Posted by ianf100

The AAIB report confirms that the pilot held an FAA licence, so flight in an N registered aircraft across an international border was Ok, and the FAA doesn’t prohibit cost sharing flights. The only questions are whether the pilot’s licence and ratings were valid and how much of the cost was he planning to pay? If at least half then it’s within the FAA regulations.

That points to one thing I find surprising. The electronic FAA IACRA system is a rather strict system to keep records of issuance, initial activation and all check rides for licenses. I wonder why they did not put the investigation results on the US history in the report, as they must have the data by now. We know from the database a FAA piggyback 61.75 license was issued, but when was it first activated by an initial flight review - mandatory to render the license valid, and what comments show the records of subsequent BFR check rides - mandatory to keep the license valid? If there would be surprisingly no entries in the database, the 61.75 would have never been enabled for flying.

[Olympia463]

Originally Posted by Arkroyal

3,700 hours or the same hour of VFR 3,700 times?

Sad story. Poor Sala.

How true, I was an engineer, and led large projects which involved hiring people. Often I encountered applicants who had 20 or 30 years of 'experience' , but who on deeper enquiry had obviously had the same years 'experience' 20 or 30 times. Airline pilots with many thousands of hours may have only actually handled the controls for a tiny fraction of that time. I am a glider pilot with over a thousand hours during which my hands were seldom off the controls for more than a minute or two. There is increasing evidence that this lack of hands on is a contributary cause of some of the accidents we see to commercial flights.

[martinebrangan]

Did he enter the sea in a spin?

Reading about the outer aspects of wings, tailane and fin off main bodies (connected by the cables running through) of wreckage, and looking at suggested rate of final descent it suggests to me that this may perhaps have resulted from a spinning entry to the water. The ascents and descents suggest to me that the pilot was disorientated and distracted in his quest to avoid weather and remain visual, and probably seriously distracted/disorientated by a heavy shower blocking his visibility. I would imagine such might result from little training or experience in night flying. He did admit, per FB, to being a little rusty on the autopilot, which would not have helped the situation. The investigation will find the likely cause, whatever it was. Even if no payment was involved, other than basic the cost of hiring the aircraft, airport fees and fuel, I should imagine any private pilot would be most enthusiastic about flying a sports or any VIP in a beautiful, and airworthy aircraft from abroad to back home, with every hope of being able to remain visual on a route which doesn’t traverse high mountains. RIP to them both.

[S-Works]

Originally Posted by golfbananajam

Mike Flynn are you sure that's correct, I understood the UK night rating on a PPL to be UK FIR only, same as the IMC

No, the Night rating has no restrictions. However he did not have one so its a moot point.....

[Steepclimb]

Actually being a skydive pilot myself, your stick and rudder skills improve enormously so I doubt the pilot was lacking in that regard. It's hands on flying all the way.
However I did find that others skills withered from lack of use. I sure wouldn't like to to find myself over the Channel at night in weather without recent practice and I actually held an Instrument rating with plenty of hours in actual IMC.

The possibility of spatial disorientation followed by in flight break up is what the report seems to imply. It's a common enough outcome, inadvertent entry into IMC on a VFR flight.

​​​​​

[OPENDOOR]

The FAA issued legal interpretations in 200917 and 201418 making clear that a pilot must not pay less than the pro rata share for the flight. If the flight involves the pilot and one passenger, then the pilot must pay half the operating expenses. The ruling also made clear that the pilot must have a bona fide purpose (also known as common purpose) for making the flight and must dictate when the flight is to go. The flight must not be made for the purpose of merely transporting the passenger

So basically, whatever other information comes to light, it was not a legal flight.

[vanHorck]

Originally Posted by Steepclimb

The possibility of spatial disorientation followed by in flight break up is what the report seems to imply. It's a common enough outcome, inadvertent entry into IMC on a VFR flight.
​​​​​

I am not so sure about the inflight break up. The sonar seemed to show the wings were still attached and he was pretty low, rather spatial disorientation and high speed impact with the sea, causing the engine to break off and the tail to collapse on the fuselage. Figure 7 seems to show more damage on the right, so perhaps still in a right turn, possibly a spiral dive? Not sure what to make of the outward parts of the wings having broken off, perhaps someone has an idea? Inflight breakup would likely sheer-off an entire wing?

[positiverate20]

Originally Posted by vanHorck

I am not so sure about the inflight break up. The sonar seemed to show the wings were still attached and he was pretty low, rather spatial disorientation and high speed impact with the sea, causing the engine to break off and the tail to collapse on the fuselage

Yes I agree entirely. It's chilling in a way... the old saying, in IMC a VFR pilot has only got 3 minutes to survive. This pilot requested descent to return to VMC.

The initial radar return in the AAIB's track was at 2013:32, 3 minutes 2 seconds later at 2016:34 was the last radar return at the crash site.

[Chronus]

Here is an extract from the PA46 Malibu Pilots Operating Handbook.
2.34 ICING INFORMATION "WARNING" Severe icing may result from environmental conditions outside of those for which the airplane is certified. Flight in freezing rain, freezing drizzle, or mixed icing conditions (supercooled liquid water and ice crystals) may result in ice build-up on protected surfaces exceeding the capability of the ice protection system, or may result in ice forming aft of the protected surfaces. This ice may not be shed using the ice protection systems, and may seriously degrade the performance and controllability of the airplane. During flight, severe icing conditions that exceed those for which the airplane is certificated shall be determined by the following visual cues. If one or more of these visual cues exists, immediately request priority handling from Air Traffic Control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the icing conditions. Unusually extensive ice accumulation on the airframe and windshield in areas not normally observed to collect ice. Accumulation of ice on the upper surface of the wing, aft of the protected area. Accumulation of ice on the engine nacelles and propeller spinners farther aft than normally observed. Since the autopilot, when installed and operating, may mask tactile cues that indicate adverse changes in handling characteristics, use of the autopilot is prohibited when any of the visual cues specified above exist, or when unusual lateral trim requirements or autopilot trim warnings are encountered while the airplane is in icing conditions. All wing icing inspection lights must be operative prior to flight into known or forecast icing conditions at night.

May be of interest to a previous post about auto pilot malfunction. AS the above reminds us more to the point is pilot`s knowledge about the use and limitations of the auto pilot.