Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

Old 5th Mar 2019, 23:25
  #1641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShropshirePilot
Good Business Sense how do you arrive at that conclusion? I'm reading that AOC is the way to go but that the cost prohibitive nature of operating under them is the issue? Maybe you're seeing things I'm not....
The cost of the AOC is the cost of putting in place safe flying practice, of doing things properly.

I have read a lot here about a new CPL IR being no better under IFR than someone who has done 3700 hours of para dropping or glider towing which is clear nonsense. I did a lot of glider towing, but it was the CPL IR course that taught me how to manage a flight under the exact circumstances of the one about which we speak.

A further thought about pilots possessing an instrument rating. Not only have they received the training, but they have passed the test. Not everyone gets that far and some never reach the standard. In that way the IR is also a filter that stops those who do not have the natural ability to ever fly an aircraft in instrument conditions and points them towards a different path.
VerdunLuck is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 08:43
  #1642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
What makes flight safety is that the pilot or the organisation imposes to themselves safety rules, and well thought safety rules.
For an AOC holder, 95% of these rules are imposed on the organisation by regulation.
For a private pilot, regulations also imposes some rules but most of the safety comes from the good judgement of the pilot, something which is optional.
Some of the rules imposed on AOC holders are hardly available to the private pilot, like flying in crew (with MCC training) for all flights at night.

Unfortunately, several common safety rules have been broken on that flight.

Last edited by Luc Lion; 6th Mar 2019 at 08:55.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 11:02
  #1643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Summary of facts and other information regarding the legality of the flight:

The Pilot

Fact: a private pilot, his licence did not allow him to pilot a revenue earning flight, whether or not he was himself paid. Even having his hotel room paid for him was not allowed under the FAA rules for private pilots.

Information: according to a post on this forum his EASA medical contained a restriction to day flying only due to colour vision problem, and by extension the same day restriction applied to his FAA piggyback licence because "all restrictions on the foreign licence apply".

The Aircraft

Fact: as a single engine piston aircraft it could not be legally operated commercially at night. A bona fide private flight at night (with a pilot who was allowed to fly at night), would have been legit, but not a commercial flight.

Information: according to leaked messages from the passenger it was always going to be a return night flight.

Jurisdiction

Fact: The aircraft was USA registered but UK based. If flying outside the UK, the pilot had to have an FAA licence and operate to the more restrictive of FAA rules and/or the rules of the country in which the aircraft was flying.

The Type of Operation

Facts: if commercial, the operator would need either an Air Operator Certificate from the UK CAA or a Part 129 Certificate from the FAA. According to the AAIB interim report this aircraft did not have permission for commercial operation form either the CAA or FAA. Nor would any of that permit the aircraft to be flown commercially at night anyway.

Information: it has not been established officially whether the flight was private or commercial. However, statements from Willie McKay as well as leaked messages from Sala, indicate that the flight was de facto commercial.

From the above it follows that: the only potential legal scenario is if the flight was a bona fide private flight (contradicted by the statements of Willie Mckay), the report on this forum of the pilot's medical restriction to day flight is wrong, and the pilot held at least an EASA night rating (unkown). More likely, the flight was illegal for some/all of the following reasons:

The pilot was NOT allowed to fly at night (based on reports of medical restriciton).
The pilot was NOT permitted to operate commercially (fact according to the regulations and airman database).
The flight was NOT private therefore it was an illegal charter (based on reports of Willie MaKay).
The aircraft was NOT permitted to operate commercially at night (fact according to the regulations).
The aircraft was NOT permitted to operate commercially by day anyway (fact according to the Interim Report due absence of requisite certificate).
oggers is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 12:34
  #1644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by captainspeaking
Mods - if you're going to delete every one of my posts then just go the whole hog and delete me from the ******* forum.
I think often posts are deleted due to legal reasons or rude/hurtful choice of words. Perhaps try to repost taking both into account?
vanHorck is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 15:33
  #1645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nantes
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShropshirePilot
A and C He could have and should have diverted to Guernsey and none of us would have heard of him or his passenger again. Or he could have routed via Southampton all in VMC.
He could also have continued on autopilot at FL 55 to cross the storm cell. Illegal but it would still be alive.
deltafox44 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 17:22
  #1646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Is it just me but don't we read this afternoons posts and think this is ridiculous?

The pilot is dead. The passenger is dead. The aircraft is at the bottom of the sea never to return. The agent who gets quoted will obviously at some point modify his statement to "clarify" who was doing what for whom and on what basis... and what the accident pilot told him he was able to do and what was legal to do.. because hey I'm just an agent and this guy I trusted as the pilot, blah, blah.

So we are twisting ourselves in knots to give a 100 reasons why the flight was illegal under EASA, CAA, FAA, to what end? If a flight ends in death and destruction through 1 illegality is that less deadly than if it has 10x the number of illegal factors? Will you be able to stone the pilot? I suppose you could if you find the body. Again to what end? The whole thing is utterly utterly meaningless.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 17:54
  #1647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
The whole thing is utterly utterly meaningless.
Not entirely I think. Unfortunately in aviation a lot of knowledge gained over the years comes from analysing accidents. In case of that accident itself there is, in all probability, nothing new to be learned here. A pilot not trained and/or not current for what he was doing lost control. That has happened to professionals too and the lesson learned is always the same: More/better training and don't do what you are not qualified to do.

But here there is something extra that we all who fly should think about when we take the controls of an aircraft next time: Before pushing that "Start" button ask yourself: "Am I covered for what I will be doing the next few hours?" Will my familiy have to live under a bridge if it goes wrong? Was that budddy of mine really sayng the truth when he asked me to fly that plane for him and everything would be OK? Am I really supposed to take the buddies of my flying students in the back seats? Am I really allowed to fly a turboprop in Europe only because my Australian license says so? ... If one or two or three pilots will answer questions like these with "No!" in the future then this thread is worth being kept alive!
what next is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 18:13
  #1648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
What next - no because those diligent pilots can already read a truck load of accident reports that give you the same, can already subscribe to CHIRP, GASCo, perhaps do a safety evening that are ongoing currently, do a bit of time with an instructor etc etc.

Those with no care will not. Yet while we look in the rear view mirror with perfect knowledge take a look at a recent yak52 fatal accidemt and how our very own ETPS had engaged with an entitity that couldnt have delivered what they were...

Indeed the more likely thing to come from this is evidence that the accident pilot and agent had been doing similar work for a while, well publicised and gone unchallenged... whilst the tangled web of regulation is just that. It certainly isnt helpful.

Pittsextra is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 18:27
  #1649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,110
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
Is it just me but don't we read this afternoons posts and think this is ridiculous?

Snip

Again to what end? The whole thing is utterly utterly meaningless.
Well most forums/posts are meaningless in the scheme of the world revolving, so you don’t have to post, it’s not compulsory. I think it highly likely there are prosecutions to come for some of the participants in the chain of events.
The other outcome of this accident may be that some future charterers look more closely at whom, and what services are being provided. If that prevents a future accident, fatal or otherwise, that can only be a good thing.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 18:33
  #1650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by what next
Not entirely I think. Unfortunately in aviation a lot of knowledge gained over the years comes from analysing accidents. In case of that accident itself there is, in all probability, nothing new to be learned here. A pilot not trained and/or not current for what he was doing lost control. That has happened to professionals too and the lesson learned is always the same: More/better training and don't do what you are not qualified to do.

But here there is something extra that we all who fly should think about when we take the controls of an aircraft next time: Before pushing that "Start" button ask yourself: "Am I covered for what I will be doing the next few hours?" Will my familiy have to live under a bridge if it goes wrong? Was that budddy of mine really sayng the truth when he asked me to fly that plane for him and everything would be OK? Am I really supposed to take the buddies of my flying students in the back seats? Am I really allowed to fly a turboprop in Europe only because my Australian license says so? ... If one or two or three pilots will answer questions like these with "No!" in the future then this thread is worth being kept alive!
Very well put by What Next.

What sort of a legacy for those left behind is the one that reverberates for me from another PA46 accident that occurred many years ago, took six lives, and a trail of devastation in its wake. It had many similarities to this one.

To say it is meaningless is abject naivety. Piloting aircraft is first and foremost about judgment, if that is no longer required, the quicker we get computers and electronic wizardry to do it the better for us all.
Chronus is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 20:10
  #1651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As the last examiner to fly with him and having a copy of his licence sat in front of me I can tell you he had no night Rating and was restricted to day only. I have shared this with the AAIB and CAA enforcements. If any moderator wishes to see the evidence please feel free to PM me.
S-Works is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 21:57
  #1652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by S-Works
As the last examiner to fly with him and having a copy of his licence sat in front of me I can tell you he had no night Rating and was restricted to day only. I have shared this with the AAIB and CAA enforcements. If any moderator wishes to see the evidence please feel free to PM me.
Thankyou S-Works. That is helpful information which some posters on here seem to wish to deny.

Now I am going to make some predictions based on the facts and the other information that have surfaced so far. When the dust settles and the powers that be have concluded their inquiries it will be established that:

Ibottson did not have night privileges.
The flight was not a private flight.
The accident flight and the flight to Nantes were both illegal charters.
oggers is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 07:10
  #1653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Craven Arms
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by S-Works
As the last examiner to fly with him and having a copy of his licence sat in front of me I can tell you he had no night Rating and was restricted to day only. I have shared this with the AAIB and CAA enforcements. If any moderator wishes to see the evidence please feel free to PM me.
That changes a lot of the debate and it circles back to the fact that the pilot was clearly at fault for embarking on this flight that night. So there we have it, pilot error is the ultimate conclusion. But really we knew that at the outset really, like almost all crashes in GA. It is outrageous that someone could, without the rating, even consider flying at night in bad weather regardless of other legalities of the charter aspects. I pity his family who I can only assume had no idea?
ShropshirePilot is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 08:28
  #1654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another question then. When a pilot submits his flight plan does he have to show his Flight Crew Licence?
Hipper is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 09:17
  #1655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nope - many flight plans are submitted on line. In thirty years of flying (PPL) I have only been asked to show my licence once- ironically in France on departure from La Rochelle.
22/04 is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 09:33
  #1656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: S.E.Asia
Posts: 1,953
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by S-Works
As the last examiner to fly with him and having a copy of his licence sat in front of me I can tell you he had no night Rating and was restricted to day only. I have shared this with the AAIB and CAA enforcements. If any moderator wishes to see the evidence please feel free to PM me.
Would I be correct in assuming you are near Gamston where the aircraft was based?

I would assume David Henderson was aware of Ibbotsen’s licence restrictions and his limited ability to fly the Malibu?

I guess it must be common knowledge at Gamston as to who did all the flying in that aircraft.


Mike Flynn is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 09:39
  #1657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,110
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Hipper
Another question then. When a pilot submits his flight plan does he have to show his Flight Crew Licence?
As above, no.

UK ATC and briefing providers are not ‘policemen’ and have no power / legal authority to act as such, so have no requirement to check crew/aircraft documents. I suspect that’s the same through out the world. A crew change for a variety of operational reasons is not uncommon, ideally where required, a CHG message for field 18 or 19 would cover that.
jumpseater is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 15:50
  #1658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronus
Very well put by What Next.

What sort of a legacy for those left behind is the one that reverberates for me from another PA46 accident that occurred many years ago, took six lives, and a trail of devastation in its wake. It had many similarities to this one.

To say it is meaningless is abject naivety. Piloting aircraft is first and foremost about judgment, if that is no longer required, the quicker we get computers and electronic wizardry to do it the better for us all.
We are in furious agreement about judgement and the general wisdom of accident reporting but I don't agree that taking several years to produce a report that suggests flying an aircraft beyond your ratings, attempting a VFR flight in IMC or flight in an aircraft that holds a number of unfamiliar pieces of kit adds hugely to the value of that which could already be read from the vast library of existing reports. And I'm pretty certain that a near 4000hr pilot is likely to know the hazards, the reason why he couldn't be bothered to take heed / come to his senses is a human factor - the likes of which are actually very rarely investigated fully because at some point there surely becomes a fine line to tread with regard blame...
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 18:44
  #1659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
And I'm pretty certain that a near 4000hr pilot is likely to know the hazards, the reason why he couldn't be bothered to take heed / come to his senses is a human factor - the likes of which are actually very rarely investigated fully because at some point there surely becomes a fine line to tread with regard blame...
Yes of course human factors have been a significant factor in many air accidents. Sydney Dekker is one of the authorities on the subject. A most interesting and revealing talk by him was :

The human factor: Pursuing success and averting drift into failure - Sidney Dekker - DDD Europe 2018.

It may be found at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fwJ9xgvu3A

Here is an extract from

Handbook of Human Factors in Air Transportation Systems

edited by Steven James Landry

Page 337-" Human Error" Is a Judgment, contributed by Cees Jan Meeuwis and Sydney W.A. Dekker.
" Judging behaviour to be Human Error stands in the way of learning from failure. "

So far as blame is concerned let it be a judge sitting in his court decide. For those who are engaged in aviation at all levels, it must be the learning from failure that they must be concerned with.
Chronus is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 20:14
  #1660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Chronus
For those who are engaged in aviation at all levels, it must be the learning from failure that they must be concerned with.
Yes. But the failure in this case was (or rather: seems to have been) the inability or unwillingness of an individual to say NO when it would have been appropriate to do so. There is a lot of human factor involved there, no doubt. We all have been in that situation (even those of us flying in the seemingly controlled environment of airlines and commercial GA operations) and have either said "no" or gotten away with it with either luck or skill or both. For me this is less about blame or judgement but rather a question whether the lessons learnt here will help me to give the correct answer to the next difficult question my job will throw at me.
what next is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.