Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Originally Posted by deltafox44

When VFR on top you cannot see the ground either.

No such thing in EASA land. You may be VMC on top, but, VFR requires sight of the ground, two very different sets of in-flight conditions.

SND

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by oggers

He was NOT rated to fly an N reg either IMC or at night. Check the FAA airman database yourself. He held an FAA private without Instrument Rating. Even if there turned out to be UK IR(r) or IMC/Night Rating that did not allow him to fly at night outside the UK.

Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL. The argument put forward before was that he could not do so because he had no night rating on his base UK licence. Now you say he couldn't do it even with a UK night rating.

[Cows getting bigger]

Originally Posted by Sir Niall Dementia

No such thing in EASA land. You may be VMC on top, but, VFR requires sight of the ground, two very different sets of in-flight conditions.

SND

Wrong. Very wrong. The SERA:

[Luc Lion]

Sir Niall Dementia,
even considering you meant Night VFR, your statement that sight of the ground is mandatory is still wrong.
SERA.5005(c)(3) only mandates sight of the ground when the aircraft is below 3000 ft AMSL or 1000 ft above terrain, whichever is higher.

Originally Posted by SERA.5005

c) When so prescribed by the competent authority, VFR flights at night may be permitted under the following conditions:
...(iii)in airspace classes B, C, D, E, F and G, at and below 900 m (3 000 ft) AMSL or 300 m (1 000 ft) above terrain, whichever is the higher, the pilot shall maintain continuous sight of the surface; and’;

So you can be VMC at night and have to control your airplane by sole reference to the instruments.
A consequence of that is that you must be above 3000 ft AMSL for flying at night in conditions where the sight of the surface is impossible.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Apologies for that, I was thinking of the old rules. BUT re-read the extract above, a1and b rely on flying at speeds allowing avoidance of other traffic or OBSTACLES, OBSTACLES tend to be terrain based, they are rarely hanging around at FL90. The terminology is poor in 5005, but sight of the surface is implicit in the avoidance of obstacle wording. The UK ANO and JAR were clearer on this, SERA 5005 gives intent in it's wording, but needs clarity.

SND

[Mach Tuck]

Originally Posted by Luc Lion

I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4) where the operating costs are borne by the operator "for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". That's private carriage operation.

A moot point. When in an interview the agent (who isn’t the operator) has stated that he’d paid for the flight whilst separately in a published text exchange the player intimated he’d accepted responsibility for payment, the status of the flight isn’t in question.

[Luc Lion]

Sir Niall Dementia,
the requirement of flying higher than 1000 ft above terrain (2000 ft in mountainous areas) when not having sight of the surface is also there to ensure that obstacles are not hanging around at altitude.
Grid MORA are there exactly for that purpose.

However, personally, I tend to think that NVFR is there for leisure flights performed in calm clear skies, with the moon providing an eerie lighting.
And for a journey from A to B, at night, the flight should be IFR.
And if an IFR flight can't be made safely under prevailing meteorological conditions, then the flight should be made through an airline.

[Luc Lion]

Mach Tuck, you lost me.
Whom was Mr Sala the guest of ?
And who paid the flight ?
I read interviews of the agent where he stated that he bore the whole costs of the flight.
And I understand that whoever hired the aircraft (on a dry lease) became the operator.

[oggers]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL. The argument put forward before was that he could not do so because he had no night rating on his base UK licence. Now you say he couldn't do it even with a UK night rating.

Because, as S Works explained, his EASA medical restricted him to daytime. He had a piggyback FAA private certificate based on his UK licence and all restrictions on the base licence apply.

[meleagertoo]

The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality?
Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really?
Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did?
Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before?
Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it?
Wake up!
Get real people!
Puhleese!

There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA.
We need to do something about this!

[positiverate20]

Originally Posted by meleagertoo

The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality?
Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really?
Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did?
Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before?
Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it?
Wake up!
Get real people!
Puhleese!

There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA.
We need to do something about this!

Exactly, maybe now the public will themselves seek out legitimate operators (whom might finally see some fruit for their labours) The strict adherence to the relevant rules and the cost implications thereof has put legitimate operators at a substantial disadvantage to those exploiting the grey area- a grey area that has often been too easily navigated by VFR pilots holding a PPL. I wonder if many realise the sheer amount of documentation (rules, multitude of policies, insurance, worthiness etc.) that genuine operators have to maintain and keep current.

Unfortunately, in this case, the grey area proved to be the undoing of this flight, in more ways than one. Hopefully the conclusions of the investigation into this tragedy will shed some light, provide clarity to all, and prevent all involved in aviation from getting lost in the mist of uncertainty going forward.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by oggers

Because, as S Works explained, his EASA medical restricted him to daytime. He had a piggyback FAA private certificate based on his UK licence and all restrictions on the base licence apply.

Actually S-Works said "He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY."

Was the restriction on his UK PPL or on his EASA medical? I believe the distinction is important in terms of limitations/restriction that are rolled over to the FAA PPL.

[Mike Flynn]

BBC reporting that David Ibbotson studied for a CPL at Cranfield but never completed the course.

Mr Ibbotson studied for a commercial pilot's licence (CPL) qualification from December 2012 until July 2014 through Cranfield Aviation Training School in Luton, but dropped out of the course without qualifying after failing to complete his theoretical training.


Dr Stuart E Smith, head of training for the school, said: "It is common for middle-aged private pilots to undertake the CPL theoretical knowledge course so that they may then complete CPL flight training and be able to earn money as a pilot or flight instructor."

He said Mr Ibbotson returned in 2016 with the intention of resuming his training, but never followed it further.

He added that he had sent a report to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) soon after

AOPA have issued a statement highlighting the dangers of using ‘grey charters’ clearly pointing to the role David Henderson played in organising the flight.

Martin Robinson, chief executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, said it was concerned about the use of so-called grey charters, which are unlicensed flights and the use of foreign-registered planes for air taxi work, since the incident.

"UK air charter companies pay a lot of money to the government for air operator certificates, without which they can't run commercial air taxi operations," said Mr Robinson.

"They know they're being undercut by competitors who in some cases are not fully compliant with the law.

"It's the responsibility of the person who organised the flight to have a suitably qualified pilot at the controls and to ensure the pilot had sufficient flying experience for this kind of flight and for the weather conditions that may be encountered.

"Mr Sala would have had no knowledge of David Ibbotson's licence but the person organising it should have known about that.

"They've let this man down."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47417434

[oggers]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Actually S-Works said "He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY."

S-Works, post 1559:

His EASA medical had a no night flying restriction on it.

[Mike Flynn]

So why did David Henderson pass him the job to fly Sala home at night?

[vanHorck]

Is there a record of the CAA/FAA ever "reconstructing" (parts of) a logbook based on interviews of checking logbooks of planes, landing records to see if there was a pattern of "grey" flights? If so it could show malicious intent rather than a one-off possibly on the part of the pilot(s), plane operators or "agents".

[oggers]

Luc Lion

Oggers,
I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4)

Well, I am not sure why you are referring to that regulation. The airplane was not a Large or Multi-engine Turbine. Are you saying it was part of a 91-K fractional ownership program?

Subpart F—Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft

[Hipper]

Originally Posted by meleagertoo

The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality?
Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really?
Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did?
Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before?
Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it?
Wake up!
Get real people!
Puhleese!

There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA.
We need to do something about this!

I generally agree with the 'rules is rules' concept and that they should be followed as I presume they are designed for safe flying, but I'd like to ask, are there more accidents involving 'grey area' flying then in fully legal flying in relation to small aircraft carrying passengers here in the UK?

[runway30]

Originally Posted by Hipper

I generally agree with the 'rules is rules' concept and that they should be followed as I presume they are designed for safe flying, but I'd like to ask, are there more accidents involving 'grey area' flying then in fully legal flying in relation to small aircraft carrying passengers here in the UK?

How are you going to establish the number of hours of illegal flying because nobody is going to admit to it? I’m sure we can recall accidents that many on here think were illegal but were never labelled as such.

[Mike Flynn]

Originally Posted by vanHorck

Is there a record of the CAA/FAA ever "reconstructing" (parts of) a logbook based on interviews of checking logbooks of planes, landing records to see if there was a pattern of "grey" flights? If so it could show malicious intent rather than a one-off possibly on the part of the pilot(s), plane operators or "agents".

I doubt there was any “malicious intent” on the part of any of those who played a part in this tragedy.

To answer your question it is relatively easy to reconstruct the days and weeks leading up to this accident.. So far no one else has come forward on this thread to admitting to having flown N264DB so perhaps it is safe to surmise the aircraft was rented from the owners on a dry lease by one person.

The only pilot linked to that aircraft is David Henderson who refuses to talk and has made efforts to silence press reports to no avail.



Given the agents admission that he was their regular pilot it is safe to assume that his log books and those of the aircraft will be scrutinised by the CAA. I imagine they will also want to look at bank transfers between the parties involved. The pilots family will also be questioned on how when and where he flew that aircraft as will ground staff at Gamston.

The movements of the N264DB leading up to the accident will also be cross referenced to those who paid for the flights etc.

In short it is easy to build a picture of how and when and for who the aircraft was flown for.

The AAIB had an opportunity to recover the aircraft but declined so we can assume they know enough to surmise it was not a mechanical fault that caused the accident.

It is worth mentioning that this ‘grey area’ of flying extends to the movement of jockeys around racecourses in the UK.

There was a recent accident at Haydock Park that just luck on the day prevented fatalities.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/horse...he-racecourse/