Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island

[Dan Winterland]

pilot error is the ultimate conclusion.

The AAIB report will look at the factors up the chain and not just at operator actions. I guess regulation will be cited as a factor - we can expect to see changes from the CAA in the way ad-hoc charters are performed and regulated. But even then, there will be people who put profit over safety and break the rules. In this case, a fare paying passenger who should have been protected by the rules died because the rules were disregarded. The CAA don't have enough resources for complete regulation and I suspect that the AAIB will recommend the CAA make improvements in the way such flights are controlled.

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.

Absolutely. The AAIB report will not apportion blame - something that many, particularly those who have lost as a result of an incident want to see 'justice done' have an issue understanding. There are going to be legal ramifications and it's probable the judge will not allow the AAIB report or any evidence collected by the AAIB to be used as admissible evidence in the legal case. This is what is occurring in the Shoreham case. The AAIB report will concern itself with the facts and make recommendations. I suspect the CAA will be expecting another 'reaming' as in the Shoreham report.

Sydney Dekker is one of the authorities on the subject.

Dekker is currently one of the best brains in safety. His ideas have heralded the introduction of new safety concepts - or 'Safety Two' as it's commonly called. A compilation of all his ideas is in 'The Field-guide to Understanding Human Error". It's a must read for all those working in safety or airline management. Or for anyone who manages complex systems for that matter

[Pittsextra]

Originally Posted by Chronus

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.

Nice film, pretty tough crowd but interesting and yet again furious agreement. I've not been advocating blame. I'm suggesting the process of investigation takes too long (timeliness is surely important if we are intending to learn from all of this?) , its distribution is not certain (so who learns what?), the mechanism and forum for learning is poorly developed (so you learn, but do I learn?), indeed if we refocus on aviation it isn't even clear that any actions suggested from the investigator are implemented by the regulator (rules and guidance developed from the past in a format that may consider what works or does not?) ...and what role for the regulator? (i.e. aviation is not the dutch town square model and all these AOC holders are not happy to highlight their failures... they absolutely are counting the risk free!!).

We can have a philosophical debate about if any of that is a good thing but if we are putting the armour where there are no holes, to use the jingoistic phase of the film, it surely validates the fact that focus on who was paying what to whom doesn't really matter. The aircraft was likely capable of flight in the conditions found and on the basis of the autopilots ability to automate the phase of flight this pilot [via evidence of his ratings] was not formally able to do, and perhaps not actually able to do given the outcome. So if we are looking at this from a purely scientific perspective we might suggest - throw all those EASA, FAA, CAA rule in the bin. Can you get the aircraft in the air? OK good. So for the middle bit read the hell out of that autopilot manual and learn that....Then you can at least have the accident on landing in Cardiff..

UK aviation currently has a no rules area. The sub 70kgs SSDR. You don't need a licence, the aircraft doesn't need registration, I've no idea if that category has a lot of accidents...Arh but hang on now I'm counting failure. Indeed now I think about it that's what the AAIB is doing. Isn't that what court cases do? Lets be honest we are going to reflect attitudes that seem to suggest a successful outcome. Yes we don't want to crash.... but now having crashed what are we going to do then? Take Shoreham. I remember when Shoreham happened the great cry even from the CAA, from BADA and the AAIB report all mention X death free airshows since... Good grief in the final report there are tables to the ying yangs on failure and that is before all of the formal rules and regulations that get quoted. In reporting this accident aren't many of the safety recommendations reflecting existing rules and regulations? and indeed here there seems a different of opinion between two national bodies, the CAA and AAIB as reflected here, which in themselves seem to suggest that the aims and aspirations are somewhat confused. Be lucky.

Safety Recommendation 2016-042: It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority publish a list of occurrences at flying displays, such as ‘stop calls’, that should be reported to it, and seek to have this list included in documentation relevant to Regulation (EU) No 376/2014.
The CAA responded as follows: ‘The CAA does not accept this recommendation.
The CAA is developing a positive reporting culture - a Just Culture – for the air display community. Within the air display sector the CAA believes that this is the most effective way to identify and address potential safety issues before they lead to accidents. In support of this, from April this year the CAA required all event organisers and FDDs to submit, within seven days, a post-air display report to the CAA. This report must include what went well at the display, as well as information on any lapses or breaches from the required standards. Pilots must also report any aspect of their display that could have caused a significant safety risk. The CAA will record all this information. Key information will be shared with the civil air display community through briefings, the pre- and post-season seminars that the CAA jointly hosts with BADA1 and the MAA, and the annual seminar that the CAA organises for DAEs.’

The AAIB has categorised the response to Safety Recommendation 2016-042 as ‘Partially adequate – closed’.

Safety Recommendation 2016-043: It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority introduce a process to immediately suspend the Display Authorisation of a pilot whose competence is in doubt, pending investigation of the occurrence and if appropriate re-evaluation by a Display Authorisation Evaluator who was not involved in its issue or renewal.
The CAA responded as follows: ‘The CAA accepts this recommendation. In its final report of its Review of UK Civil Air Displays, published in April 2016, the CAA announced that where a stop is called because an FDD, or member of the Flight Control Committee, has reason to doubt the fitness or competence of a pilot that pilot will be subject to a provisional suspension of their display authorisation pending an investigation by the CAA of the circumstances leading to the stop being called. In its investigation, the CAA will determine whether the suspension of the display authorisation should be withdrawn or further regulatory enforcement action taken against the pilot concerned.’
The AAIB has categorised the response to Safety Recommendation 2016-043 as ‘Adequate – closed’.

Safety Recommendation 2016-044: It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority establish and publish target safety indicators for United Kingdom civil display flying.
Following the publication of FACTOR F4/2016 Issue 2, the CAA’s response is as follows: ‘The CAA will undertake a study to identify and publish meaningful safety indicators for civil display flying. The CAA will conclude this study and publish safety indicators by September 2017.’
The AAIB has categorised the response to Safety Recommendation 2016-044 as ‘Adequate – closed’.

[Luc Lion]

Originally Posted by Dan Winterland

In this case, a fare paying passenger who should have been protected by the rules died because the rules were disregarded.

No.
Read the thread.

[Jonzarno]

The CAA don't have enough resources for complete regulation and I suspect that the AAIB will recommend the CAA make improvements in the way such flights are controlled.

Whilst I agree with the intention of this point, I don’t really see how they can do that in practice.

If the conclusion that many here have reached that this was a good example of an illegal charter are right (and I have to say that I am one of them!) then just making another rule won’t stop the next person willing to break it, and I can’t see an inspector interviewing the pilot of every aircraft departing with more than one person on it.

Realistically, the only practical (but not easy) solution is to identify some individual bent charters and come down on the pilots involved, and those organising or facilitating the flights, like a ton of bricks and invoking sanctions that are a true deterrent in a very well publicised way.

[Pittsextra]

Jon I think that this element is the key to the issue. Once you get away from having healthy debate with those willing to have it about flight safety there is inevitably going to be some form of enforcement of rules and here the situation in this accident the trail goes cold.

Early on the question was asked of someone who was reflecting an exchange he had as an AOC holder with the CAA. The silence is deafening.

It would seem quite logical that if individual pilots and flying clubs as a whole have identified things that go on that have raised concern - which include things they have identified online - it is reasonable to assume that authority would also have access to that information. As has been stated on the basis authority has not been taking pilots to task - I can only find the Manchester PA28 pilots who has been taken to court - don't you conclude that authority don't see this as an issue? Because the alternative is that someone has been screaming very loudly at Gatwick to do something for years and nothing has been done.

[Jonzarno]

Originally Posted by Pittsextra

Jon I think that this element is the key to the issue. Once you get away from having healthy debate with those willing to have it about flight safety there is inevitably going to be some form of enforcement of rules and here the situation in this accident the trail goes cold.

Early on the question was asked of someone who was reflecting an exchange he had as an AOC holder with the CAA. The silence is deafening.

It would seem quite logical that if individual pilots and flying clubs as a whole have identified things that go on that have raised concern - which include things they have identified online - it is reasonable to assume that authority would also have access to that information. As has been stated on the basis authority has not been taking pilots to task - I can only find the Manchester PA28 pilots who has been taken to court - don't you conclude that authority don't see this as an issue? Because the alternative is that someone has been screaming very loudly at Gatwick to do something for years and nothing has been done.

I agree with the analysis, but think we need to be careful how we address it.

Perhaps understandably, the problem only seems to get the attention of the authorities when there is an serious accident. This also applies to licensing issues where there is no illegal charter such as the Colin McRae helicopter accident where he was found not to have had a valid licence.

I suppose that the problem is that deploying the level of resources needed to police these things thoroughly in a pro-active way would both be expensive for the authorities (who would end up paying?) and, given their talent for incompetent bureaucracy, cause a great deal of inconvenience to the vast majority of clean pilots. Perhaps we should probably be careful what we wish for.

All that said, a couple of exemplary penalties for those caught breaking the rules (and anyone facilitating that) would surely help.

[Pittsextra]

The McRae licence issue was always going to be difficult to capture because of the nature of licence revalidation and him flying his own aircraft and the accident flight was a private affair effectively with his mate, son and his best friend. Utterly tragic and capturing those things almost needs a wife/father/mother to be given a heads up on the details to keep you safe and they can nag at you if dates pass etc.

Yet if the CAA were truly concerned just how hard did they need to look?? post 971

Council Van & SND=left
Exactly the point I’m making.The PA46 flight was not a one off.=left
Look at the September 2018 newsletter for the Jersey Aero Club.They had a presence at Air Expo 2018, look what they say about Wingly, “ it’s basic principle is to unite Pilots with people who wish to travel and the conveyance of Cats and Dogs”=left
Please don’t suggest that this is done for free.=left
The tip of the iceberg has started to melt.

As a for example and one assumes that this post reflects the posters contact with the CAA

Or the bloke on the Wingly site offering lunch at various different Gloucestershire hotels in his R22 at prices that mean he's more than covering his flying costs. His picture of him all dressed up in 4 stripes made me a touch queasy.=left
=left
VeeAny and I had quite a run in with Wingly a couple of years ago. They seem to have done no risk assessments for their involvement, when someone gets hurt I'd really love to see a Wingly director in the dock explaining the company's attitude..=left
=left
The fact that you can now "request a flight" on their site, or buy a gift card tells me that they've moved right into AOC charter territory, without any of the several levels of compliance, risk assessment, training, or experience those of us involved in AOC ops are subject to.=left
=left
From rumblings I've heard this week I believe that the Belgrano is stirring as one or two AOC operators have kicked the beast within, really quite hard.=left
=left
SND

I have to say how those at the CAA can claim in March 2019 that they have suddenly become aware of something that they themselves published guidance upon as recently as August 2018 goodness knows. Fly a single seater!

[Arkroyal]

Originally Posted by Luc Lion

No.
Read the thread.

Erm....... probably Yes! Someone was paying unless you think the pilot was doing this weekend in France and 5 hours or so flights out of the goodness of his heart.

Sala didn’t pay for his flight. But someone either did or was going to on completion.

I rather expect it was the latter. And therein will lie a huge problem in proving any illegality.

[Geriaviator]

The EASA ruling goes against all the regs I remember from my flying days. There were illegal charters galore; I remember one PPL doing six return trips to the IoM in one day during TT week, and his friend killing himself south of Port Erin while on his way to collect the passengers at the end of race week. The CAA sent a warning letter to the airfield but it made no difference, and the legal air-taxi on the field went bust. The one thing that did stop it was the advent of Jersey European and its new SD3-30s, undercutting the illegal charters.

Had anyone else died rather than Mr Sala we would never have heard a thing about it. I hadn't heard of Wingly until now, and I am horrified by its implications. Maybe it's time to educate the public with regard to insurance. I don't know if aircraft insurance covers hire or reward, mine certainly excluded it but that was 30+ years ago. Similarly my life assurance excluded flying other than in commercial aircraft with more than one engine. My company did cover me at an extra 20% on my premiums.

All very boring I admit, but the mortgage companies insist on life cover as a condition of the policy. What happens if/when the next fatal occurs? One of the big companies today charges an extra £12 per month per £100,000 life cover for light aviation, so a typical £250,000 mortgage would require an extra £30 per month. Does this apply to passengers? How do the insurance companies view this charter business, and shouldn't the public know about it?

[Dan Winterland]

Originally Posted by Dan Winterland

In this case, a fare paying passenger who should have been protected by the rules died because the rules were disregarded

Originally posted by Arkroyal
No.
Read the thread.

Semantics. Emiliano Sala was ultimately the customer, regardless of who paid for the flight. There are regulations in force to protect passengers. These were broken and sadly, a talented sports star through no fault of his own, lost his life. These are the facts.

[Luc Lion]

Dan, any flight is eventually paid for by someone.

What constitutes a fare paying flight (or commercial flight) is that the beneficial owner or someone representing him pays a compensation for the flight.
What constitutes a non fare paying flight is that the pilot or the operator of the flight bear the whole cost of the flight.
A cost sharing flight is somewhere in between.the two.

A flight whose cost is wholly paid by the operator can be flown under FAR 91 and have a PPL at the controls if the pilot is the operator or if there is no transportation of passengers or goods.
If these conditions are not fulfilled, the pilot must be a CPL.
This flight with a CPL pilot is then validly flown under FAR 91 with the condition that the pilot and the plane have not been brought together to the person paying and organising the flight.
If they have been brought together, the middle man must be considered as the real flight operator and proposing a commercial transport service under FAR 135.

So, it is not the fact that the flight was made for the sole purpose of transporting a passenger that necessarily makes it a commercial flight.
If you, as a pilot, make a flight just for transporting a friend at no charge, that's not a commercial flight.

[ATC Watcher]

Luc Lion :

So, it is not the fact that the flight was made for the sole purpose of transporting a passenger that necessarily makes it a commercial flight.
If you, as a pilot, make a flight just for transporting a friend at no charge, that's not a commercial flight.

Absolutely.
We all have suspicions as to what this flight really was and who directed who, , but as said before a few times already , the actual facts are showing it was a private flight ( i.e. Flight plan , no contract, no money involved, passenger confirming by SMS it was for free, etc..)
and unfortunately as it is for some people , unless something new comes up , when judging this case in court it will be the rules of private flights that will apply and not those of a commercial flight.

[positiverate20]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Luc Lion :
Absolutely.
We all have suspicions as to what this flight really was and who directed who, , but as said before a few times already , the actual facts are showing it was a private flight ( i.e. Flight plan , no contract, no money involved, passenger confirming by SMS it was for free, etc..)
and unfortunately as it is for some people , unless something new comes up , when judging this case in court it will be the rules of private flights that will apply and not those of a commercial flight.

Sorry but disagree, and also believe Luc Lion may have some vested interest by his constant denial. The passenger believed this was a commercial charter just for him- when did he ever think otherwise?! He also assumed it would cost him money and offered to pay, but McKay junior told him he'd look after payment if Sala repaid him by helping him score goals. McKay senior has since stated it was a commercial operation and he was paying for it all, just as he's paid for previous flights. McKay also said something along the lines of "can't pay all that money for a player and put him in a Ryanair flight"- what he was insinuating was that this was some kind of luxurious and more expensive means of travel.

So, I have no idea how you can paint this picture that all those involved thought it was a private flight? You really think Sala got on that plane after being bought for £15m believing that the pilot was an amateur who was unqualified to make the flight in those conditions, was flying him out of the goodness of his heart and that the pilot was paying??! "It's great to have such good mates Mr Pilot, I dont know how I'd ever have got to Cardiff without you, barely enough money for a bite to eat". 🧐

Note, they didn't even know eachother prior to this charter arrangement.

Take a step back and look at the situation, there is no way that the passenger believed this was anything other than a chartered flight booked exclusively for him. He chose what time to leave etc. Flight plan was made to suit Sala's arrangements, hence that's why the original morning flight didn't leave, because Sala wanted to go at night!

[Eutychus]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

We all have suspicions as to what this flight really was and who directed who, , but as said before a few times already , the actual facts are showing it was a private flight ( i.e. Flight plan , no contract, no money involved, passenger confirming by SMS it was for free, etc..).

This perhaps makes sense of why a third party's credit card was apparently used throughout the journey.

However, Luc Lion also mentions the criterion of passenger and pilot being brought together by a middle man. who as far as I can see from the above two posts is, by virtue of being a middle man, the de facto operator. Isn't that the case here?

(For the flights I keep referring to, on which I was a passenger, I never paid anything, but that doesn't mean no money changed hands: it undoubtedly did).

[cross-post]

[2unlimited]

Originally Posted by Luc Lion

If you, as a pilot, make a flight just for transporting a friend at no charge, that's not a commercial flight.

So you believe Sala was friends with D.I?

[Chronus]

In April 1998 a R44, G-POWE went down claiming the lives of its pilot and three passengers. The accident left three young children orphaned.

Here is the link to the AAIB report: https://assets.publishing.service.go...pdf_502209.pdf

Of particular note is the Parliamentary debate of this tragedy, below.

"Westminster Hall

Tuesday 8 May 2001

[Mrs. Sylvia Heal in the Chair]

Light Aircraft Insurance and Regulation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.--[Mr. Hill.]

9.30 am

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of helicopter and light aircraft insurance and regulation. I look forward to hearing the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not least because all the information at my disposal has been put at his disposal, so that he can give an informed response. I shall be focusing on a particular tragic accident in Leicestershire just over three years ago, when a helicopter crashed killing all on board."

The full text is at : https://publications.parliament.uk/p...t/10508h01.htm

Here are a few extracts:

"In the Linhart case in Leicestershire, the pilot, Coulter, seems to have been seriously irresponsible in many respects, and my constituents were the innocent victims. I understand that when the coroner announced the verdict of accidental death, those present at the inquiry gasped in astonishment.

Coulter had hired the helicopter from a local company, Heli Air Ltd., on a self-fly, hire-only basis. As such, he was neither allowed nor qualified to give instruction to others, yet it emerged during the coroner's inquiry that he had offered shares in the helicopter and had received more than £3,400 from various sources, including Mr. Andrew Byrne, who paid £3,400 in cash, which was receipted. In return, those who had paid received a part share in the aircraft or helicopter, as well as instruction from Coulter. Although it is accepted practice for pilots to take petrol money, that does not seem to be the case in this instance. Mr. Coulter, under the name Helitravel Ltd., advertised services of sales-hire-charter-pilot training through local leaflet drops. He was, therefore, flouting the rules, just as he went on to do at the controls of the helicopter when he took off at night in breach of regulations."

I wouldn`t be at all surprised if this particular tragedy does not come up in another parliamentary debate.

[Dan Winterland]

Dan, any flight is eventually paid for by someone.

What constitutes a fare paying flight (or commercial flight) is that the beneficial owner or someone representing him pays a compensation for the flight.
What constitutes a non fare paying flight is that the pilot or the operator of the flight bear the whole cost of the flight.
A cost sharing flight is somewhere in between.the two.

A flight whose cost is wholly paid by the operator can be flown under FAR 91 and have a PPL at the controls if the pilot is the operator or if there is no transportation of passengers or goods.
If these conditions are not fulfilled, the pilot must be a CPL.
This flight with a CPL pilot is then validly flown under FAR 91 with the condition that the pilot and the plane have not been brought together to the person paying and organising the flight.
If they have been brought together, the middle man must be considered as the real flight operator and proposing a commercial transport service under FAR 135.

So, it is not the fact that the flight was made for the sole purpose of transporting a passenger that necessarily makes it a commercial flight.
If you, as a pilot, make a flight just for transporting a friend at no charge, that's not a commercial flight.

All very interesting. The AAIB have stated the investigation will

'Consider the regulatory requirements surrounding the flight including airworthiness requirements, aircraft permissions and flight crew licencing'.

If it transpires that Mr Ibbotson and Snr Sala were previously acquainted and had decided to share the cost of the flight, then everything was legal and there's nothing to see here. However, like many others, I seriously doubt this was the case.

[ATC Watcher]

Dan :

All very interesting. The AAIB have stated the investigation will
Quote:
'Consider the regulatory requirements surrounding the flight including airworthiness requirements, aircraft permissions and flight crew licencing'.
.

The AAIB or any independent Accident investigation bureau will not look into legal liabilities. Not they job and against Annex 13 spirit. , they will assess if the aircraft was airworthy, all AD,s were done maintenance records, , what it was allowed to do and check the licences of the pilot in command .. you will find all this in final report. .

If it transpires that Mr Ibbotson and Snr Sala were previously acquainted and had decided to share the cost of the flight, then everything was legal and there's nothing to see here. However, like many others, I seriously doubt this was the case

Me too , but there is another option : the owner ( or user) of the aircraft asked a friend pilot to do a favor and fly someone from A to B , all for free. that is also allowed under Private flights.
When John Travolta flew his 707 around and took people in it , it was all for free, John covered the costs all on his own , and it also met the definition of private flights.
I guess it he did the same for its last flight to Australia when he donated the 707 to Qantas. A few people were on that aircraft .and it was definitively not a commercial flight. .
But OK, the huge difference there is that John knew what he was doing and never flew alone. The guy on the right seat was not a novice either..but the principle is the same .

The problem I see here with Sala, if that we all have strong suspicions this was a commercial operation covered up and botched. But if everyone involve keep to their story and indeed no money changed hands,and the use of the credit card was just a loan from a friend, etc..all the facts support the Private flight theory. And if it ends up in a court , the judge will likely look only at the facts .

[Albino]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Dan :
The AAIB or any independent Accident investigation bureau will not look into legal liabilities. Not they job and against Annex 13 spirit. , they will assess if the aircraft was airworthy, all AD,s were done maintenance records, , what it was allowed to do and check the licences of the pilot in command .. you will find all this in final report. .

Me too , but there is another option : the owner ( or user) of the aircraft asked a friend pilot to do a favor and fly someone from A to B , all for free. that is also allowed under Private flights.
When John Travolta flew his 707 around and took people in it , it was all for free, John covered the costs all on his own , and it also met the definition of private flights.
I guess it he did the same for its last flight to Australia when he donated the 707 to Qantas. A few people were on that aircraft .and it was definitively not a commercial flight. .
But OK, the huge difference there is that John knew what he was doing and never flew alone. The guy on the right seat was not a novice either..but the principle is the same .

The problem I see here with Sala, if that we all have strong suspicions this was a commercial operation covered up and botched. But if everyone involve keep to their story and indeed no money changed hands,and the use of the credit card was just a loan from a friend, etc..all the facts support the Private flight theory. And if it ends up in a court , the judge will likely look only at the facts .

I can't see any court finding that this was a private flight. There is far too much evidence for them to spin it otherwise and the statement from McKay sinks it completely IMO.

[tescoapp]

I wonder if there has been a significant reduction in high powered singles and light twin movements since this has kicked off.