Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
”a contributing factor was that the driver undertook that journey when he was not qualified to do so”
Then we get an obvious “WHY?” to ask. Maybe he thought he could get away with it. Why? Maybe he was under pressure. WHY? Maybe he was doing a favour for someone. WHY? Maybe he was unaware of the risks. WHY?
... and so on. You see my point. It opens up the causal tree, rather than closing it down. We then get more questions. Usually it will start with the kit and its operations and slowly focus in on organizational and human factors.
What about life insurance?
These illegal charters are hard to detect and stop, so should there be an education campaign by CAA and perhaps the insurance companies? From reading Wingly posts it appears that most people think this is a brilliant facility and have no idea of the financial risk they are running as well as obvious risks from pilot incompetence such as the sad example being discussed.
When I began flying 55 years ago I had a mortgage secured against an endowment insurance policy which would pay off the mortgage on maturity. That policy excluded any form of flying except as a passenger on a commercial flight by a multi-engined aircraft. Sun Life refused to vary this so I had to arrange a new policy at considerable expense, with a 10% premium loading to cover my PPL activities. A similar loading was imposed 20 years later when my business partner and I took out a policy to cover the death of each other.
Today one of the big insurance companies imposes a £12 per month per £100,000 cover loading on PPLs' life insurance policies. It follows that this company recognises the greater risks involved. I would like to know if other companies also restrict their life cover to commercial flights. Since most if not all mortgage companies insist on their customers having life insurance to clear the mortgage in the event of their deaths, maybe people should be aware of the financial consequences if they are aboard the next 'cost-sharing' charter that goes down?
When I began flying 55 years ago I had a mortgage secured against an endowment insurance policy which would pay off the mortgage on maturity. That policy excluded any form of flying except as a passenger on a commercial flight by a multi-engined aircraft. Sun Life refused to vary this so I had to arrange a new policy at considerable expense, with a 10% premium loading to cover my PPL activities. A similar loading was imposed 20 years later when my business partner and I took out a policy to cover the death of each other.
Today one of the big insurance companies imposes a £12 per month per £100,000 cover loading on PPLs' life insurance policies. It follows that this company recognises the greater risks involved. I would like to know if other companies also restrict their life cover to commercial flights. Since most if not all mortgage companies insist on their customers having life insurance to clear the mortgage in the event of their deaths, maybe people should be aware of the financial consequences if they are aboard the next 'cost-sharing' charter that goes down?
I don't know what answers those querying CI flights are expecting. A rash of "yes I do it but have got away with it up to now" answers? Never going to happen.
M9 (flew completely legally to Jersey with two pax on cost share basis last weekend)
M9 (flew completely legally to Jersey with two pax on cost share basis last weekend)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
...
That seems entirely sensible. You believe it isn't because you have the benefit of hindsight now but on the face of it what is to be worried about? Pilots around the world would simply take on face value that an experienced pilot filing a VFR flight was capable of making the weather decision.
...
That seems entirely sensible. You believe it isn't because you have the benefit of hindsight now but on the face of it what is to be worried about? Pilots around the world would simply take on face value that an experienced pilot filing a VFR flight was capable of making the weather decision.
...
I would quite probably have requested to see the TAF and METAR for destination and for Jersey and I would probably have declined the offer.
Because the plan was unnecessarily accumulating several risk factors.
After reading the TAF, I would probably have asked what about delaying the departure so as to cross the Channel behind the weather.
(not familiar with Cardiff opening hours though)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
Pitts, surely as a licence holder yourself, and you were good friends with another pilot you might be aware of the limitations of his licence?
Having said that, in my younger day whilst an RAF pilot I was possibly a little too trusting of others on a few rare occasions. Thankfully, although I have a tale or two to tell, those occasions didn't result in an accident.
Having said that, in my younger day whilst an RAF pilot I was possibly a little too trusting of others on a few rare occasions. Thankfully, although I have a tale or two to tell, those occasions didn't result in an accident.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 68
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce Dickinson is the Chairman and a pilot of the company that flew Sala to Cardiff in their Eclipse demonstrator. From their website.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough, in the military they do all they can to avoid carrying either crew log books or aircraft documents in the aircraft. If more than one aircraft is flying to another airfield, each carries the other's tech log.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Eutychus (...) Certainly if I lived on an island, had a plane and flew it a lot, I'd want to fill the seats whether for a contribution or not BUT only with people that I knew and knew well.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From someone who works in compliance (including legal contract compliance) and the software/finance industry, its pretty hard to think this discussion about logbooks and license validation is taking place in 2019...it sounds more like it belongs to 1979. Kinda ironic given the relentless technical advance in some aspects of aviation, that other parts seem mired in the dark ages and for no obvious reason.
If I had been invited to take a passenger seat on that journey I'd have declined on four seperate reasons.
1) I don't fly at my employer's behest except on a (minimum) twin turbine aircraft.
2) I don't fly at my employer's behest except on a Perf Cat A aircraft.
3) I don't fly at my employer's behest with less than a CPL (IR) at the controls.
4) I don't fly at my employer's behest if any of the flight is IMC/IFR without two pilots properly trained in 2 crew ops.
And I'd recommend anyone who values their own skin to do the same. But of course I only know that as a pilot. Joe public can't make judgements like that because he has no knowlege of how aviation works. That's why it is so important that the lesson that comes out of this sorry business is that the public must be made aware of what is acceptable practice charter-wise and what isn't.
Following that dreadful accident where an entire positioning crew was lost in a piston twin some time ago (Was it British Midland?) my last employer - a notoriosly stingy loco - didn't even try to argue when we got BALPA to ask them to stop piston twin transfers. Their duty of care was evidently explained by their lawyers to good effect.
1) I don't fly at my employer's behest except on a (minimum) twin turbine aircraft.
2) I don't fly at my employer's behest except on a Perf Cat A aircraft.
3) I don't fly at my employer's behest with less than a CPL (IR) at the controls.
4) I don't fly at my employer's behest if any of the flight is IMC/IFR without two pilots properly trained in 2 crew ops.
And I'd recommend anyone who values their own skin to do the same. But of course I only know that as a pilot. Joe public can't make judgements like that because he has no knowlege of how aviation works. That's why it is so important that the lesson that comes out of this sorry business is that the public must be made aware of what is acceptable practice charter-wise and what isn't.
Following that dreadful accident where an entire positioning crew was lost in a piston twin some time ago (Was it British Midland?) my last employer - a notoriosly stingy loco - didn't even try to argue when we got BALPA to ask them to stop piston twin transfers. Their duty of care was evidently explained by their lawyers to good effect.
Last edited by meleagertoo; 27th Feb 2019 at 12:04.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
MelEager, It think you mean the Cessna 404 Titan G-ILGW accident, near Glasgow on September 3rd ,1999.
The positioning crew was from Airtours International Airways and was to fly a charter B757 from Aberdeen to Palma de Malorca.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...001_G-ILGW.pdf
By the way, what is a "Perf Cat A aircraft" ?
My understanding is that a CAT A aircraft is one having a final approach speed lower or equal to 90kt.
So, it's a small aircraft and it looks to conflict with your other criteria.
The positioning crew was from Airtours International Airways and was to fly a charter B757 from Aberdeen to Palma de Malorca.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...001_G-ILGW.pdf
By the way, what is a "Perf Cat A aircraft" ?
My understanding is that a CAT A aircraft is one having a final approach speed lower or equal to 90kt.
So, it's a small aircraft and it looks to conflict with your other criteria.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not in the aviation industry, just interested, and I would like to ask a couple of questions please.
1. In relation to VFR and IR flying, firstly, I presume it is reasonable to assume that a VFR only pilot will have a fair knowledge of the cockpit instruments and how to use them, but not so much of instrument landing techniques.
When flying over sea on a moonless night, is that still considered a VFR flight?
2. Not being a commercial pilot, he will be restricted to 6,000 feet. If there was an emergency would he be allowed to fly higher then 6,000 feet to deal with that emergency?
3. I've read the interim AAIB report and it says that 'at 1958 hrs, the controller asked the pilot to check if the aircraft’s altimeter pressure setting was correctly set to 1013 hPa, because the information on the radar indicated FL53. The pilot acknowledged and, shortly afterwards, the aircraft climbed to FL55'. I also notice wayward height movements of the aircraft as seen by radar in the last three minutes of flight.
If flying into foul weather can the pressure as seen by the aircraft vary enough to give wrong readings?
1. In relation to VFR and IR flying, firstly, I presume it is reasonable to assume that a VFR only pilot will have a fair knowledge of the cockpit instruments and how to use them, but not so much of instrument landing techniques.
When flying over sea on a moonless night, is that still considered a VFR flight?
2. Not being a commercial pilot, he will be restricted to 6,000 feet. If there was an emergency would he be allowed to fly higher then 6,000 feet to deal with that emergency?
3. I've read the interim AAIB report and it says that 'at 1958 hrs, the controller asked the pilot to check if the aircraft’s altimeter pressure setting was correctly set to 1013 hPa, because the information on the radar indicated FL53. The pilot acknowledged and, shortly afterwards, the aircraft climbed to FL55'. I also notice wayward height movements of the aircraft as seen by radar in the last three minutes of flight.
If flying into foul weather can the pressure as seen by the aircraft vary enough to give wrong readings?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not in the aviation industry, just interested, and I would like to ask a couple of questions please.
1. In relation to VFR and IR flying, firstly, I presume it is reasonable to assume that a VFR only pilot will have a fair knowledge of the cockpit instruments and how to use them, but not so much of instrument landing techniques.
When flying over sea on a moonless night, is that still considered a VFR flight?
2. Not being a commercial pilot, he will be restricted to 6,000 feet. If there was an emergency would he be allowed to fly higher then 6,000 feet to deal with that emergency?
3. I've read the interim AAIB report and it says that 'at 1958 hrs, the controller asked the pilot to check if the aircraft’s altimeter pressure setting was correctly set to 1013 hPa, because the information on the radar indicated FL53. The pilot acknowledged and, shortly afterwards, the aircraft climbed to FL55'. I also notice wayward height movements of the aircraft as seen by radar in the last three minutes of flight.
If flying into foul weather can the pressure as seen by the aircraft vary enough to give wrong readings?
1. In relation to VFR and IR flying, firstly, I presume it is reasonable to assume that a VFR only pilot will have a fair knowledge of the cockpit instruments and how to use them, but not so much of instrument landing techniques.
When flying over sea on a moonless night, is that still considered a VFR flight?
2. Not being a commercial pilot, he will be restricted to 6,000 feet. If there was an emergency would he be allowed to fly higher then 6,000 feet to deal with that emergency?
3. I've read the interim AAIB report and it says that 'at 1958 hrs, the controller asked the pilot to check if the aircraft’s altimeter pressure setting was correctly set to 1013 hPa, because the information on the radar indicated FL53. The pilot acknowledged and, shortly afterwards, the aircraft climbed to FL55'. I also notice wayward height movements of the aircraft as seen by radar in the last three minutes of flight.
If flying into foul weather can the pressure as seen by the aircraft vary enough to give wrong readings?
1. Yes
2. Not restricted to 6000'. Ironically, a private flight could have been undertaken legally (although this wasn't) but a commercial flight with pax in that aircraft is illegal at night.
3. Yes sort of. But the reason for the instruction to check 1013 was because he was flying to a "flight level" eg he sets 1013 and then FL55 is when the altimeter reads 5500'. The controller could see he was either low or had the wrong setting. Above a certain altitude known as transition altitude, aircraft always fly flight levels. The height of the transition altitude varies from place to place.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ...01:0066:EN:PDF
1. The flight must remain at least 1000 ft above terrain (2000 ft in designated mountainous ares)
2. The vertical distance from airplane to clouds must be at least 1000 ft (so a total ground cloud distance of 2000 ft)
OR the plane must be clear of clouds and with the surface in sight (which is not possible over the sea on a moonless night) and the clouds must be at least 1500 ft above the ground surface.
Practically, for flying legally over the sea at night, the cloud ceiling must be way above 2000 ft.
But "legal" doesn't mean "safe".
There is no altitude restriction on non-commercial flights.
However, VFR flights are restricted to altitudes lower or equal to 19,500 ft.
And VFR flights may not fly in controlled airspaces of class A.
In UK, the airways are class A airspaces.
Yes, but hardly more than 1 hPa at a time (1 hPa ~= 30 ft)