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

Wikiposts
Search
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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10th Mar 2019, 11:45
  #1681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you have a valuable Grade A asset why not employ a Grade A operator to fly that asset around! The cost of an exec jet with experienced ATPLs flying it is peanuts compared with the value of someone like Sala. They would not have flown at 5,000 ft over the sea, VMC, at night but at FLs in controlled airspace. The radar plot of the final stage of the flight appears to indicate a classic spatial disorientation profile, a known problem in the prevailing conditions especially if a pilot is not instrument rated. AAIB will no doubt consider this possibility.
I am not up to date on the shared costs aspect but I believe that a pilot must be considered to be flying on his US licence for this type of sector, in which case the costs would have to be halved with two POB? As has been said the AAIB is not particularly interested in this apart from determining whether or not it is a commercial or private flight and what effect this had on safety,
Air Snoop is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 13:07
  #1682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 1,614
Received 135 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland
All very interesting. The AAIB have stated the investigation will 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.
Not so.

No common purpose and no evidence of equal shares being paid.
No night rating.
No Instrument rating.
meleagertoo is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 16:52
  #1683 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not so. No common purpose and no evidence of equal shares being paid.
No night rating. No Instrument rating.
No common purpose. Not necessary if the flight was completely free (i.e. paid by the owner) .
No evidence of shared costs ; not relevant if it was a free flight.. In addition in my part of the word you have to prove things to accuse people , not because there is lack of evidence. And the UK , as far as I know is still a democratic country .
No night rating : yes and aggravating circumstances reinforcing the responsibility of the pilot
No IR : not relevant as the flight was filed VFR..

Do not find things to fit your suspicions. Nobody liked what happened and we all have serious suspicions , but t after 85 pages here , and unless new facts are brought in , for me the responsibility for this accident is still on the Pilot in command of that flight.
mainly because he did not say NO . He was not an employee , nor forced to do this flight and , and the aircraft was a private one.. If you want to prove it was a commercial flight in disguise then you have to brings facts on the table , a signed contract, a mission order , a money transfer to the pilot, etc.. in absence of any of this, it is just suspicions.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 17:16
  #1684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You can in the UK now along with the rest or Europe. I think they changed it around 2014 to get everyone the same in EASA.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 17:46
  #1685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That was the case in the UK until quiet recently.

CPL holders were counting night flight towards IFR requirements for single crew ops and a few other things so the changed it to align with the rest of Europe.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 20:49
  #1686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As the holder of an FAA ATP and former chief Pilot of a part 135 charter company I find it absurd that people such as ATC Watcher are continuing to portray this flight as a private part 91 operation.
oggers is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 01:13
  #1687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
No common purpose. Not necessary if the flight was completely free (i.e. paid by the owner) .
No evidence of shared costs ; not relevant if it was a free flight.. In addition in my part of the word you have to prove things to accuse people , not because there is lack of evidence. And the UK , as far as I know is still a democratic country .
No night rating : yes and aggravating circumstances reinforcing the responsibility of the pilot
No IR : not relevant as the flight was filed VFR..

Do not find things to fit your suspicions. Nobody liked what happened and we all have serious suspicions , but t after 85 pages here , and unless new facts are brought in , for me the responsibility for this accident is still on the Pilot in command of that flight.
mainly because he did not say NO . He was not an employee , nor forced to do this flight and , and the aircraft was a private one.. If you want to prove it was a commercial flight in disguise then you have to brings facts on the table , a signed contract, a mission order , a money transfer to the pilot, etc.. in absence of any of this, it is just suspicions.

"Willie McKay said it was not a cost-sharing agreement as "Emi wasn't paying anything" and that he was going to pay "whatever Dave [Henderson] was going to charge".

"When you phone for a taxi you don't ask him if he has a driving licence," he said.

You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't change the fact that it was booked as a commercial flight. A decent legal eagle will rip the private flight argument to shreds.
Albino is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 10:56
  #1688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by oggers
As the holder of an FAA ATP and former chief Pilot of a part 135 charter company I find it absurd that people such as ATC Watcher are continuing to portray this flight as a private part 91 operation.
Well said, Oggers.
runway30 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 11:01
  #1689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,787
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
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'
These are the AAIB's own words from the preliminary report.

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.
The AAIB final report will state all the relevant factors. If they consider the manner in which the aircraft and pilot were procured for this flight were a factor in the accident, then they will say so. It is the up to the CAA to decide whether they act on the recommendations. If those recommendations are that the CAA tightens up it's regulation of private charter flights - then I suspect we can see that coming. The CAA will decide independently if they wish to pursue this further, and will only do that if they are sure of a successful conviction. They may or may not do that - they have had a couple of failures in that department recently and the do of course have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an infraction.

However, despite the claims of some on this forum who clearly have a vested interest that this was a private flight, thus passing all the blame onto the pilot, the whole thing is dodgier than a kosher pork pie and some wealthy people are out of pocket to the tune of 15 million. I suspect they will be looking at ways of recouping this in a civil case where the outcome will be decided on the balance of probabilities. If it comes to that, I don't think 'on balance' the odds are going to be in the defendants favour.

And I suspect the CAA will come down hard on the 'grey charter' market with increased regulation.
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 12:23
  #1690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
No common purpose. Not necessary if the flight was completely free (i.e. paid by the owner) .
No evidence of shared costs ; not relevant if it was a free flight.. In addition in my part of the word you have to prove things to accuse people , not because there is lack of evidence. And the UK , as far as I know is still a democratic country .
No night rating : yes and aggravating circumstances reinforcing the responsibility of the pilot
No IR : not relevant as the flight was filed VFR..

Do not find things to fit your suspicions. Nobody liked what happened and we all have serious suspicions , but t after 85 pages here , and unless new facts are brought in , for me the responsibility for this accident is still on the Pilot in command of that flight.
mainly because he did not say NO . He was not an employee , nor forced to do this flight and , and the aircraft was a private one.. If you want to prove it was a commercial flight in disguise then you have to brings facts on the table , a signed contract, a mission order , a money transfer to the pilot, etc.. in absence of any of this, it is just suspicions.
You will be surprised (although not others on this thread) of the information thats in the hands of the AAIB and CAA enforcements regarding this whole horrible mess. It was not a private flight in any shape or form, its was a purely commercial arrangement and the evidence is in the hands of the right people now. Its going to be an interesting couple of months coming up on this I think.

S-Works is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 13:29
  #1691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I will be very interested to see if the CAA take some sort of stance on the Jockey flights
. And how the aircraft operators on these "none" commercial flights justify them by bending the rules so that they can carry on regardless.
. Maybe more ramp checks at Racecourses or a not so discreet chat with those who facilitate such flights.
ak7274 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 13:35
  #1692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well if aircraft that were flying every weekend before this happened are now not flying regularly they can pretty much tell exactly which airframes that were being used for this sort of thing.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 16:52
  #1693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by S-Works
You will be surprised (although not others on this thread) of the information thats in the hands of the AAIB and CAA enforcements regarding this whole horrible mess. It was not a private flight in any shape or form, its was a purely commercial arrangement and the evidence is in the hands of the right people now. Its going to be an interesting couple of months coming up on this I think.
….interesting how? This exactly demonstrates why this mess (and you are quite right it is a mess) will merely reflect inwardly at Gatwick. First of all CAA enforcements are going to do what exactly? stick pins in a straw effigy? We probably all agree the situation that relates to this flight, we will probably read about it a year later from the Branch and in the meantime the pilot will clearly be the scapegoat by anyone investigating, which would need to be the police because unless they have some other interest in aviation the CAA are going to enforce what exactly? A football club, football agent are affected how? They probably wouldn't even respond to the voicemail.

Yet I suspect anyone else not involved in this accident might simply quote the CAA's own guidance in defence of similar actions. You can read them in CAP1590 and this summary here:-
https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviati...aring-flights/

I'm not sure who is sat around the table when these things get written but they are not the sharpest. Just see if you can spot the utter muddle in this and do you think that brighter minds might somehow manage to create a structure that sees the items included in Annual costs get rolled into the rental fee that suddenly become Direct costs.. or indeed if you rent an aircraft from a flying club their rental fee includes elements of annual costs? What happens if the flying club aircraft is owned by the pilot? and so on... You hit the nail on the head it is a mess and an entirely predictable one. That is causes a huge number of accidents I don't think it does but having had a high profile accident the nonsense of the situation is now of focus.

=leftDirect costs means the costs directly incurred in relation to a flight (e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft). There can be no element of profit.=leftAnnual costs which cannot be included in the cost sharing are the cost of keeping, maintaining, insuring and operating the aircraft over a period of one calendar year. There can be no element of profit.



Pittsextra is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 17:23
  #1694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland

And I suspect the CAA will come down hard on the 'grey charter' market with increased regulation.
Do you mean increased regulation or increased enforcement of existing regulation? The latter costs money which someone--- taxpayer or the regulated--- will have to pay. Conversations within Government are likely. There may be Parliamentary interest.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 23:47
  #1695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The big change will be when someone realises that they are going to lose £15M.

It will be the big organisations that will stop their footballers and jockeys flying in anything that isn't part of an AOC operation and probably with two pilots in a perf A aircraft.

In the end it is the insurance companies that will make the rules and make people stick to them.
VerdunLuck is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 09:27
  #1696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

=leftDirect costs means the costs directly incurred in relation to a flight (e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft). There can be no element of profit.=leftAnnual costs which cannot be included in the cost sharing are the cost of keeping, maintaining, insuring and operating the aircraft over a period of one calendar year. There can be no element of profit.
That is a funny one and one that has been raised before.

Case 1 - I rent an aircraft from a club or owner and my 'cost share' can be calculated on that cost which does include the full hourly cost of the direct and indirect costs
Case 2. - I use my own aircraft so suddenly the hourly rate reduces from £200 to around £80-100 or so.

Of course, what I could do is to buy an aircraft, set up a company to operate it and rent it back to me at the higher rate. Does it matter if the hourly rate my own company charges me includes admin fees and other indirect costs that puts a £172 to £400 per hour, if the market will bear it?
robin is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 12:34
  #1697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
""Of course, what I could do is to buy an aircraft, set up a company to operate it and rent it back to me at the higher rate. Does it matter if the hourly rate my own company charges me includes admin fees and other indirect costs that puts a £172 to £400 per hour, if the market will bear it?""

Without prejudice on my behalf and in no way accusing anyone, how else could it work in the Jockey, Grey charter world?
ak7274 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 13:21
  #1698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Technology is a great enabler, including the amazing ability to record moving images and some how make them available to others around the world.


2018 seemed a world away and here some salesman called Grant Shapps (50ish mins in) who is from the UK talks about the advantages of deregulation and the headline for the issues are labelled as "challenges to adoption".

You can hear 30mins of Q&A it doesn't seem the great and the good are that oblivious. No.1 question (1hr 10m ish) is about the passenger..."How do passengers with no experience about aviation know what is safe or not...." Oh the irony..





Pittsextra is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 20:42
  #1699 (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
Technology is a great enabler, including the amazing ability to record moving images and some how make them available to others around the world.

https://youtu.be/OR_rt9OOK4g

2018 seemed a world away and here some salesman called Grant Shapps (50ish mins in) who is from the UK talks about the advantages of deregulation and the headline for the issues are labelled as "challenges to adoption".

You can hear 30mins of Q&A it doesn't seem the great and the good are that oblivious. No.1 question (1hr 10m ish) is about the passenger..."How do passengers with no experience about aviation know what is safe or not...." Oh the irony..
Technology a great enabler and

"How do passengers with no experience about aviation know what is safe or not...." Oh the irony..[/QUOTE]

Well, once upon a time, in days of old there once was a telly series " Rogue Traders ". Let`s get Matt Allwright to impersonate a football player, he is too tall to pass off as a jockey, and take to the skies in a light plane with one of his traders from his hall of fame. That might do the trick.
Chronus is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 10:24
  #1700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Forget his politics he sounds like a cheap salesman in that video and his view on medicals was borderline idiotic because by extrapolation of his view nobody needs either medical, licence or any other checks or balance.

Chronos hits the nail on the head - just how difficult would it be to mystery shop those providing cost sharing flights?? Those whose remit it is are maxed out and someone needs to call time.
Pittsextra is offline  


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.