Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
I am surprised by some comments here that assume that the interim report states the illegality of the flight.
I don't read any of that in the report.
It says that, if the flight was organised as a cost sharing flight, the FAA rules would apply ; i.e. pro-rata cost sharing and common purpose.
However, it is pretty obvious that the costs were neither borne by the pilot nor by the passenger.
Possibly by the operator or by a third person.
As the operator does not hold an air carrier certificate, this is a PART 91 flight.
As per FAR §61.113, in such a situation and if the aircraft transports passengers or goods, the pilot MUST hold a CPL licence.
If the aircraft were not carrying passenger or goods (eg: a ferry flight) and the pilot were not receiving any compensation, the flight would have been legal.
So the conclusion is the same : the flight was very probably illegal because the pilot was not holding a commercial licence.
However, this is inferred from other elements than just the report contents.
I don't read any of that in the report.
It says that, if the flight was organised as a cost sharing flight, the FAA rules would apply ; i.e. pro-rata cost sharing and common purpose.
However, it is pretty obvious that the costs were neither borne by the pilot nor by the passenger.
Possibly by the operator or by a third person.
As the operator does not hold an air carrier certificate, this is a PART 91 flight.
As per FAR §61.113, in such a situation and if the aircraft transports passengers or goods, the pilot MUST hold a CPL licence.
If the aircraft were not carrying passenger or goods (eg: a ferry flight) and the pilot were not receiving any compensation, the flight would have been legal.
So the conclusion is the same : the flight was very probably illegal because the pilot was not holding a commercial licence.
However, this is inferred from other elements than just the report contents.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Warks
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised by some comments here that assume that the interim report states the illegality of the flight.
I don't read any of that in the report.
It says that, if the flight was organised as a cost sharing flight, the FAA rules would apply ; i.e. pro-rata cost sharing and common purpose.
However, it is pretty obvious that the costs were neither borne by the pilot nor by the passenger.
Possibly by the operator or by a third person.
As the operator does not hold an air carrier certificate, this is a PART 91 flight.
As per FAR §61.113, in such a situation and if the aircraft transports passengers or goods, the pilot MUST hold a CPL licence.
If the aircraft were not carrying passenger or goods (eg: a ferry flight) and the pilot were not receiving any compensation, the flight would have been legal.
So the conclusion is the same : the flight was very probably illegal because the pilot was not holding a commercial licence.
However, this is inferred from other elements than just the report contents.
I don't read any of that in the report.
It says that, if the flight was organised as a cost sharing flight, the FAA rules would apply ; i.e. pro-rata cost sharing and common purpose.
However, it is pretty obvious that the costs were neither borne by the pilot nor by the passenger.
Possibly by the operator or by a third person.
As the operator does not hold an air carrier certificate, this is a PART 91 flight.
As per FAR §61.113, in such a situation and if the aircraft transports passengers or goods, the pilot MUST hold a CPL licence.
If the aircraft were not carrying passenger or goods (eg: a ferry flight) and the pilot were not receiving any compensation, the flight would have been legal.
So the conclusion is the same : the flight was very probably illegal because the pilot was not holding a commercial licence.
However, this is inferred from other elements than just the report contents.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
skyrangerpro,
the interim report confirms that
the interim report confirms that
Originally Posted by AAIB Interim Report
...
The pilot of N264DB held an EASA PPL, issued by the CAA in the UK, and an FAA PPL, issued on the basis of his EASA PPL
...
The pilot of N264DB held an EASA PPL, issued by the CAA in the UK, and an FAA PPL, issued on the basis of his EASA PPL
...
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Warks
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you're right of course, this wasn't a cost-sharing flight, but that's not to say it it wasn't being flown under the auspices of being one. The FAA state for a cost sharing flight that the direct costs are borne by the OCCUPANTS of the craft (up to a maximum of six) on a pro-rata basis. A third party paying for the direct costs would not meet the cost-sharing criteria. But then the corollary of your point is that the pilot knowingly flew a commercial flight and portrayed it as such without the necessary licence which I find extraordinary.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have been saying for years that the laws requiring licences and log books to be carried on board the aircraft are bonkers, precisely because this means they're likely to be unavailable when they'd be of most interest.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 68
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More information in the Sunday papers. The aircraft owner has been named as Cool Flourish Ltd. by the Daily Mail. The name will have been known to the Daily Mail for some time (they probably read it here).
The pilot of the Eclipse which brought Sala inbound to CWL on the Friday has been named by The Telegraph as David Hayman, CEO of Aeris Aviation. Willie McKay says that the unavailability of David Henderson and David Hayman to fly the Eclipse was the reason that Dave Ibbotson was drafted in to fly the PA46 (but he took no part in that decision of course).
The pilot of the Eclipse which brought Sala inbound to CWL on the Friday has been named by The Telegraph as David Hayman, CEO of Aeris Aviation. Willie McKay says that the unavailability of David Henderson and David Hayman to fly the Eclipse was the reason that Dave Ibbotson was drafted in to fly the PA46 (but he took no part in that decision of course).
The Mail make much of the aircraft changing hands 4 times on the same day in 2015 but this is probably quite usual in the case of a N reg going into trust. I am not sure how the Mail can be certain that Cool Flourish Ltd are the beneficial owners, company returns do not readily confirm this as likely, no great change in the asset situation in 2015 as I recall.
Last edited by Rory166; 25th Feb 2019 at 21:47.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nantes
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to keep clear of the clouds means putting A/P off, turning and banking, which increases the risk of spatial disorientation. Had the pilot be asleep with autopilot, the aircraft would probably have reached Cardiff by itself...
What a total waste of time and energy this whole thing will become. No doubt we can spin our wheels for the next - what? 2, 3 years before a final report gets published and all for what exactly?
The AAIB and others will consume huge resource and present a lovely comprehensive report to tell us what? The Met looked marginal for his planned flight and his ratings and the cost sharing element is parallel to that. BUT to what end is all of this? Cost sharing pros/cons have been done to death, pilots are aware of the rules, the CAA are aware of the rules and even if there is some item of question in this flight so what the pilot is dead.
What would be a better use of time and resource would be free the AAIB to investigate the remainder of what is on their book in a more timely manner and any resource impact for the CAA to spend time and energy going through the rules they have to ensure they say what they think they mean, oh and maybe do the odd ramp check.
The AAIB and others will consume huge resource and present a lovely comprehensive report to tell us what? The Met looked marginal for his planned flight and his ratings and the cost sharing element is parallel to that. BUT to what end is all of this? Cost sharing pros/cons have been done to death, pilots are aware of the rules, the CAA are aware of the rules and even if there is some item of question in this flight so what the pilot is dead.
What would be a better use of time and resource would be free the AAIB to investigate the remainder of what is on their book in a more timely manner and any resource impact for the CAA to spend time and energy going through the rules they have to ensure they say what they think they mean, oh and maybe do the odd ramp check.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From experience you have absolutely no external references, you cannot see the surface from any height, you cannot see clouds to avoid them, there’s just inky blackness in every direction and you cannot control an aircraft without total reliance on instruments. His descent might have put him clear of cloud but it wouldn’t have put him in VMC.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the cost of the aircraft was invoiced 30 days later... pilot is dead, invoice just becomes due how does he pay or how do you prove his intention to pay?? All this is irrevelant noise. Pilot porked it in poor weather for all the crazy reasons people do that same as the instructor in Glos. Reported on recently... AAIB saying same things changes nothing
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Craven Arms
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAF and METAR for Cardiff and Jersey were:
EGFF 211644Z 2116/2212 22012KT 9999 SCT035 TEMPO 2116/2120 7000 -RA TEMPO
2120/2124 23016G26KT 6000 RA BKN010 PROB30 TEMPO 2120/2124 27020G30KT 4000 RA
BKN006 BECMG 2121/2124 28012KT TEMPO 2208/2212 6000 SHRA BKN010 PROB30 TEMPO
2208/2210 3000 SHRA SHRASN BKN008 PROB30 TEMPO 2210/2212 SHRA TSGS BKN008
EGFF 211820Z AUTO 22011KT 9999 -RA BKN021 OVC034 07/05 Q1014
EGFF 211850Z AUTO 23012KT 9999 -RA BKN020 BKN026 OVC045 07/05 Q1013
EGFF 211920Z AUTO 22011KT 9999 BKN033 BKN044 07/05 Q1013
EGFF 211950Z AUTO 22013KT 9999 BKN033 07/05 Q1012
EGFF 212020Z AUTO 22012KT 9999 SCT026 BKN034 07/05 Q1011
EGFF 212050Z AUTO 20012KT 9999 BKN023/// BKN039/// //////TCU 07/05 Q1010
EGFF 212120Z AUTO 20012KT 9999 -RA SCT024 BKN033 BKN040 07/05 Q1009
EGFF 212150Z AUTO 21012KT 6000 -RA BKN020/// OVC026/// //////TCU 07/06 Q1008
EGJJ 211707Z 2118/2203 20010KT 9999 FEW015 BKN030 TEMPO 2118/2124 -RA BKN015
PROB30 TEMPO 2118/2121 7000 SHRA BKN012 BECMG 2121/2123 22020KT BECMG 2202/2203
31017KT NSW SCT015
EGJJ 211820Z 22010KT 9999 SCT014 SCT025 BKN040 06/04 Q1019
EGJJ 211850Z 22011KT 9999 FEW018 SCT021 07/04 Q1018
EGJJ 211920Z 22011KT 9999 FEW016 SCT018 07/04 Q1018
EGJJ 211950Z 22012KT 9999 FEW018 SCT020 06/04 Q1017
EGJJ 212020Z 22013KT 9999 R26/1400 SCT014 07/04 Q1017
EGJJ 212050Z AUTO 22015KT 9999 1200 R26/1200 BR SCT014/// SCT018/// BKN033///
07/05 Q1016
EGJJ 212120Z AUTO 22015KT 9999 1400 FEW013/// OVC028/// 07/05 Q1016 RERA
EGJJ 212150Z AUTO 21015KT 9999 1400 FEW014/// SCT017/// BKN032/// 07/05 Q1015
RERA
EGFF 211644Z 2116/2212 22012KT 9999 SCT035 TEMPO 2116/2120 7000 -RA TEMPO
2120/2124 23016G26KT 6000 RA BKN010 PROB30 TEMPO 2120/2124 27020G30KT 4000 RA
BKN006 BECMG 2121/2124 28012KT TEMPO 2208/2212 6000 SHRA BKN010 PROB30 TEMPO
2208/2210 3000 SHRA SHRASN BKN008 PROB30 TEMPO 2210/2212 SHRA TSGS BKN008
EGFF 211820Z AUTO 22011KT 9999 -RA BKN021 OVC034 07/05 Q1014
EGFF 211850Z AUTO 23012KT 9999 -RA BKN020 BKN026 OVC045 07/05 Q1013
EGFF 211920Z AUTO 22011KT 9999 BKN033 BKN044 07/05 Q1013
EGFF 211950Z AUTO 22013KT 9999 BKN033 07/05 Q1012
EGFF 212020Z AUTO 22012KT 9999 SCT026 BKN034 07/05 Q1011
EGFF 212050Z AUTO 20012KT 9999 BKN023/// BKN039/// //////TCU 07/05 Q1010
EGFF 212120Z AUTO 20012KT 9999 -RA SCT024 BKN033 BKN040 07/05 Q1009
EGFF 212150Z AUTO 21012KT 6000 -RA BKN020/// OVC026/// //////TCU 07/06 Q1008
EGJJ 211707Z 2118/2203 20010KT 9999 FEW015 BKN030 TEMPO 2118/2124 -RA BKN015
PROB30 TEMPO 2118/2121 7000 SHRA BKN012 BECMG 2121/2123 22020KT BECMG 2202/2203
31017KT NSW SCT015
EGJJ 211820Z 22010KT 9999 SCT014 SCT025 BKN040 06/04 Q1019
EGJJ 211850Z 22011KT 9999 FEW018 SCT021 07/04 Q1018
EGJJ 211920Z 22011KT 9999 FEW016 SCT018 07/04 Q1018
EGJJ 211950Z 22012KT 9999 FEW018 SCT020 06/04 Q1017
EGJJ 212020Z 22013KT 9999 R26/1400 SCT014 07/04 Q1017
EGJJ 212050Z AUTO 22015KT 9999 1200 R26/1200 BR SCT014/// SCT018/// BKN033///
07/05 Q1016
EGJJ 212120Z AUTO 22015KT 9999 1400 FEW013/// OVC028/// 07/05 Q1016 RERA
EGJJ 212150Z AUTO 21015KT 9999 1400 FEW014/// SCT017/// BKN032/// 07/05 Q1015
RERA
This set of weather data, available before the flight SCREAMS to any sane PPL, even with IMC and Night ratings, and current, and experienced etc etc "Don't Go!" Or at least it does to me. My ex CFI friend says to me that my competence exceeds my confidence and that is the way I like it! If and I say if I had been slightly tempted to do this journey at this time, I would have routed via SAM in clear air, and had a get out of jail free option there. Alas the pilot had a chance to change his mind when overflying Guernsey and didn't take it. In general I like a direct routing but in weather like this, it's best to chunk the journey into safe sectors and be prepared to abandon at any time. I have, of course, had get home-itis in my flying career but this accident reminds us that we all must have a the willingness to "just say NO".
Yes, I am all in agreement with everyone talking about the legalities or lack thereof in this journey but let's learn from this and examine ourselves whether flying privately or commercially.... If you have any nagging hesitancy about any element of a flight, stay on the ground!! And stay on the right side of the competence Vs confidence equation, it's served me well and I intend for it to continue to keep me and my friends alive a long while yet.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
No they are not the pilot is dead so the person with the greatest need to learn cant. Everyone and anyone with any sense in the chain will claim to know nothing and unless commanded by a greater authority than the CAA financial transactions will stay private. You know and i know what was going on we dont need a multi year paper trail to tell us. Nor does it help the CAA to know the facts. They cant seek redress from a dead man and they have no resource or authoity for things gping forward.
Ibbotson knew exactly why the accident occurred, if only for a few brief seconds, obviously by then it was far too late for him to get a second chance.
However, others might learn from the investigation, which btw is not to apportion blame.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nor does it help the CAA to know the facts
Just a numbered other
As for cost sharing, the bulletin simply points out that is the only way this flight could have been legal. As the AAIB don’t apportion blame it is for the reader to join up the dots.
The pilot spent the weekend in Nantes. Unless he hob-nobbed with Sala and his mates all weekend there is no ‘common purpose’. As Henderson’s credit card seems to have been used to cover all costs, it would take quite a stretch of the imagination to find any cost sharing.
Getting to the truth of who paid what to whom will be difficult and probably outside the AAIB’s remit, but by pointing out that the flight was illegal they may spur the CAA and police to take it further.
Greater enforcement might discourage this kind of operation, but the good will remain good and the bad will mostly stay bad.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
I thought that the following applied : (ANO 235) During the period of two years beginning with the date of the last entry in it every person required by article 228 to keep a personal flying log must cause it to be produced to an authorised person within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by that person.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not actually a requirement to carry a logbook, or even to keep one. The requirement is to keep a record of the flight, which could be an entry in a diary. The record only has to have a small amount of information, nothing like the number of columns that are in most log books.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you. It's the same as EASA also introducing genuine common purpose for cost sharing. I've said so twice here, without a response.
We're all quick at pointing fingers when things go wrong but we seem reluctant to tighten up the rules which make grey commercial flying possible, maybe all of us have a friend who sometimes gets to fly a jockey, a football player or a star....
