Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
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
Seeing that illegal charter flights are un-insurable, maybe the authorities should be given the power to impound an aircraft used in these suspicious circumstances and the pilot and passengers taken to one side for interview. Such as occurs with an uninsured road vehicle. It wouldn't take long for word to get around if the passengers' cheap day out got spoiled.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing that illegal charter flights are un-insurable, maybe the authorities should be given the power to impound an aircraft used in these suspicious circumstances and the pilot and passengers taken to one side for interview. Such as occurs with an uninsured road vehicle. It wouldn't take long for word to get around if the passengers' cheap day out got spoiled.
How about CAA enforcement watching to see if the Pilot actually attends the event, instead of sleeping in Cabin, or flying off to pick up more victims? Ramp checks at events to see where these aircraft have been. 3 or 4 trips a week in a Saratoga/421 to non tourist locations is expensive for a lowly PPL. Even better if aircraft is on N reg, use Common Purpose, which according to latest FAA guidance states pilot decides he is going somewhere and is only supposed to invite close friends or family. Change rules when we leave EASA to Common Purpose and equal costs too.
This NEEDS stopping..
Just a few thoughts.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A thought
All the CAA need to do now is take note of the regular racegoers who now that there is no racing simply stop flying- those then are potentially the ones to watch in future..... 😉
Hang on we are over thinking this aren’t we? Apparently everyone knows who is at it. On which basis their aircraft have a registration, a transponder, home airfield, etc etc.
The problem is clearly evidence enough to prove that something is happening that goes beyond what is currently legal in terms of cost sharing. That is the issue and very sadly when you have an activity that in many cases people are prepared to pay 100% to do because they either enjoy it or think that with x number of hours it becomes something more. The prospect of paying something less than 100% is attractive, and currently you can pay 99.999999% less than a 100% and still be potentially legal and by the way nobody has defined what 100% is......
The problem is clearly evidence enough to prove that something is happening that goes beyond what is currently legal in terms of cost sharing. That is the issue and very sadly when you have an activity that in many cases people are prepared to pay 100% to do because they either enjoy it or think that with x number of hours it becomes something more. The prospect of paying something less than 100% is attractive, and currently you can pay 99.999999% less than a 100% and still be potentially legal and by the way nobody has defined what 100% is......
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
Cost sharing is one thing. It’s different when four are five passengers are paying 99.99% each.
An article from yesterday in the Guernsey Press:
https://guernseypress.com/news/2020/...grey-charters/
It would seem at least on Guernsey that something is being done though as others have said above it is difficult to make a case against the people who break the regulations.
Can I ask if a high profile AAIB report like this case would be shown to the SoS for transport Grant Chapps and if so would he push for investigating of this and other cases mentioned above ?
https://guernseypress.com/news/2020/...grey-charters/
PROGRESS is being made on tackling grey charters, but there is still more work to do, the Channel Islands’ civil aviation director Dominic Lazarus has said.The issue was brought into the spotlight following the death of footballer Emiliano Sala and pilot David Ibbotson in Channel Islands waters last year.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch report last week confirmed that Mr Ibbotson did not have the correct type of licence to fly the night journey or enough experience flying on just instruments in difficult weather conditions.
Mr Lazarus said there had not been any surprises in the report, since his organisation had helped provide the information.
He welcomed the fact that it highlighted the issue of grey charters – unlicensed charter flights – and the dangers that could be involved.
The Civil Aviation Authority has been working to raise the profile of the issue.
Mr Lazarus said the public had an important role to play.
‘It does not surprise me that people do not check when they get in an aircraft,’ he said.
‘You get in someone’s car [and you don’t ask] whether the driver has a licence, but with aircraft you have to be very careful. The Sala incident has brought the issue to the forefront.’
He said the best way was for the public to ask whether it was a private or commercial flight and, if private, to look carefully at what figures they are quoted for a journey.
A pilot should not be making a profit, unless they are operating a commercial operation.
That means they should be able to break down the costs of the flight.
Mr Lazarus said one of the common reasons people looked to use private charters was to move pets on and off the island.
However, some airlines operating into Guernsey have introduced the option to carry pets on some services and Mr Lazarus said people should look at that service,
‘People should be very, very careful,’ he said.
The local aviation authority has been working proactively to tackle the problem.
‘We had a sting operation at the end of last year when we stopped an aircraft coming in from Alderney, so it is going on,’ he said.
Mr Lazarus said his organisation had worked closely with the CAA and shared information about which journeys aircraft were making and how often.
Sometimes they will stop every aircraft coming in on a certain day and question the people aboard about the journey to make sure all documentation is approved.
‘It’s ongoing,’ Mr Lazarus said.
‘I think we are getting there and I think we are making progress, but there is still a long way to go. It is more prevalent when the weather is better, so we expect to get busier [in the summer].’
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch report last week confirmed that Mr Ibbotson did not have the correct type of licence to fly the night journey or enough experience flying on just instruments in difficult weather conditions.
Mr Lazarus said there had not been any surprises in the report, since his organisation had helped provide the information.
He welcomed the fact that it highlighted the issue of grey charters – unlicensed charter flights – and the dangers that could be involved.
The Civil Aviation Authority has been working to raise the profile of the issue.
Mr Lazarus said the public had an important role to play.
‘It does not surprise me that people do not check when they get in an aircraft,’ he said.
‘You get in someone’s car [and you don’t ask] whether the driver has a licence, but with aircraft you have to be very careful. The Sala incident has brought the issue to the forefront.’
He said the best way was for the public to ask whether it was a private or commercial flight and, if private, to look carefully at what figures they are quoted for a journey.
A pilot should not be making a profit, unless they are operating a commercial operation.
That means they should be able to break down the costs of the flight.
Mr Lazarus said one of the common reasons people looked to use private charters was to move pets on and off the island.
However, some airlines operating into Guernsey have introduced the option to carry pets on some services and Mr Lazarus said people should look at that service,
‘People should be very, very careful,’ he said.
The local aviation authority has been working proactively to tackle the problem.
‘We had a sting operation at the end of last year when we stopped an aircraft coming in from Alderney, so it is going on,’ he said.
Mr Lazarus said his organisation had worked closely with the CAA and shared information about which journeys aircraft were making and how often.
Sometimes they will stop every aircraft coming in on a certain day and question the people aboard about the journey to make sure all documentation is approved.
‘It’s ongoing,’ Mr Lazarus said.
‘I think we are getting there and I think we are making progress, but there is still a long way to go. It is more prevalent when the weather is better, so we expect to get busier [in the summer].’
Can I ask if a high profile AAIB report like this case would be shown to the SoS for transport Grant Chapps and if so would he push for investigating of this and other cases mentioned above ?
im not defending that I’m just highlighting the situation and the most likely rational for the lack of prosecutions - because you can’t get prosecuted on the spirit of the rules but the actual rules.
SND hasn’t given detail of his engagements with authority ( no doubt because he doesn’t want a CAA sword hanging over him ) but authority are clearly not minded to change things in this regard because they could have acted already.
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
It certainly appears that you are defending it.
I think Pittsextra is making the point that it can (probably is) very quickly so complicated that the chance of a successful prosecution falls below the required 'proceed' threshold.
In a perfect world there would be unlimited resources to do this, in our imperfect world they have to choose what to do on the basis of 'where is our energy/money most usefully applied'.
I remember working with a TA colleague a few years ago, who's real job was HMRC, and he said exactly the same - they went for the easy ones because the moment it got complicated:
1. It absorbed vast amounts of time and money.
2. They nearly always lost.
Real world v. ideal world.
In a perfect world there would be unlimited resources to do this, in our imperfect world they have to choose what to do on the basis of 'where is our energy/money most usefully applied'.
I remember working with a TA colleague a few years ago, who's real job was HMRC, and he said exactly the same - they went for the easy ones because the moment it got complicated:
1. It absorbed vast amounts of time and money.
2. They nearly always lost.
Real world v. ideal world.
Exactly and just like taxation if you look at things intelligently you can’t pick and choose which rules apply. So if someone wants to actually read what has been written and work to that it isn’t illegal. Perhaps outside of the spirit but not illegal.
Its not a defence of it - merely stating the facts of how things surely work and if the majority don’t like it then just change the rules, it isn’t hard.
If a hedge fund manager paying himself £1m a year pays minimal tax sure it jars but if not illegal he simply faces some boos but not criminal consequence.
If CPLs etc are struggling commercially that is surely for them to make the case and if the regulator isn’t listening then again it’s a reflection on them not someone who takes a mate of a mate to a horse race.
Its not a defence of it - merely stating the facts of how things surely work and if the majority don’t like it then just change the rules, it isn’t hard.
If a hedge fund manager paying himself £1m a year pays minimal tax sure it jars but if not illegal he simply faces some boos but not criminal consequence.
If CPLs etc are struggling commercially that is surely for them to make the case and if the regulator isn’t listening then again it’s a reflection on them not someone who takes a mate of a mate to a horse race.
Can I ask if a high profile AAIB report like this case would be shown to the SoS for transport Grant Chapps and if so would he push for investigating of this and other cases mentioned above ?
The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations is the prevention of future accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability. Accordingly, it is inappropriate that AAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose.
Unless otherwise indicated, recommendations in this report are addressed to the appropriate regulatory authorities having responsibility for the matters with which the recommendation is concerned. It is for those authorities to decide what action is taken. In the United Kingdom the responsible authority is the Civil Aviation Authority, Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4HD or the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, Postfach 10 12 53, D-50452 Koeln, Germany.
...... mainly in clearing their 6 o'clock given that it is their own support for "cost-sharing" by anyone (not just the family or friends of the PPL) and their support of the Winglies/Coavmies of this world that has actually helped generate the "Wild West" of the "Grey Charter" market - or at least made it a whole lot easier/more socially acceptable/abusable! You now have on-line booking engines for it!!!! 
And the SoS? Wasn't he a strong advocate of the "cost sharing" push outlined above? 
I can see some activity from the CAA on the Sala case as they have got a fairly flagrant breach of regs + unavoidable publicity which rather pins them down in a corner to do at least "something", tho, as some have said, will there be sufficient evidence for a prosecution or will it be all too expensive/difficult? As for seeing a sea-change in the area of policing "grey charters", not a hope if you ask me given the CAA made it easier for people to operate that way! I could go on about the way Winglies/Coavmies can easily be used to morph from what the original spirit was for "cost sharing" through all the shades of grey charter such as "benefit in kind" ... but we all know how that can be done so, good reader, I'll bore you not!!!!
Ah well - we will see!
H 'n' H
And the SoS? Wasn't he a strong advocate of the "cost sharing" push outlined above? I can see some activity from the CAA on the Sala case as they have got a fairly flagrant breach of regs + unavoidable publicity which rather pins them down in a corner to do at least "something", tho, as some have said, will there be sufficient evidence for a prosecution or will it be all too expensive/difficult? As for seeing a sea-change in the area of policing "grey charters", not a hope if you ask me given the CAA made it easier for people to operate that way! I could go on about the way Winglies/Coavmies can easily be used to morph from what the original spirit was for "cost sharing" through all the shades of grey charter such as "benefit in kind" ... but we all know how that can be done so, good reader, I'll bore you not!!!!
Ah well - we will see!
H 'n' H
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
So we may all just as well not bother with a commercial licence, Class 1 medicals or valid insurance and just get on with the more serious business of earning a living flying passengers wherever they wish to go.
And it's not that much of a leap for people to start to "chuck something in for the pilot" as they wanted to stay overnight, etc, etc.... As the Sala AAIB report states "As a PPL holder, the pilot was not permitted to be remunerated for the flight, yet there was significant evidence to show that he was expecting to be paid." (AAIB report, Page 66). Bet there was no PAYE Pay Slip expected along with any such payment!
But all that discussion has been done to death here on PPRuNe with no real response from the CAA apart from additional so-called "passenger education"! I wonder how many of those pax would even bother glancing at such advice - after all, how much "small print" do most of us actually read, let alone actually understand if we do bother to read it?
I'm sadly out of all that now but I've met a few real nice people in the Charter world over the years and talk about fighting a battle with your arms tied behind your backs!
Sorry for the doom and gloom but I do despair at times! Just call me "Victor" if you want - many have noticed the similarity!!! H 'n' H
Firstly the reason you have something called a commercial licence a class 1 medical and some relevant insurance is because it satisfies the relevant rules. You don’t have to satisfy the spirit of those rules but the actual rules. If one draws a conclusion that you can operate as you seek to operate without then naturally you don’t make things harder for yourself.
I don’t see many guys aspiring to fly a sub-70kg flexwing taking class 1 medicals and an ATPL with IR...
So now you have to get to the heart of why the rules around private cost sharing were relaxed and what (if any) resource was committed to policing and enforcing. It perhaps seems none if indeed it even figured in the thinking.
It certainly seems that if it did then the thinking was that any prosecution possibility would rest with the marketing of such flights. Which ignores all those private relationships - which this and many people complain about fall into.
Which brings us to the final complaint- that of money. I don’t think these flights necessarily take business away from commercial operators because the flight hasn’t been generated in a way that they would even be visible. This isn’t some company secretary booking flights for business owners. This is private individuals offering the opportunity to friends based upon individual relationships. Mis-guided or not that is how it is and because of that the cash flows become impossible to trace to a flight.
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
Pittsextra,
I don't understand what point you are trying to make with regard to this thread.
Are you really saying you would agree with a sub-70kg flexwing pilot (or any other) earning a living by flying in a way that he wasn't legally allowed to do and was unqualified and not experienced enough to undertake?
It's already been established that the pilot involved in this accident was by no means qualified to undertake the flight in the first place, let alone fly for financial gain. One can only wonder if this was the only instance where he had been in this situation.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make with regard to this thread.
Are you really saying you would agree with a sub-70kg flexwing pilot (or any other) earning a living by flying in a way that he wasn't legally allowed to do and was unqualified and not experienced enough to undertake?
It's already been established that the pilot involved in this accident was by no means qualified to undertake the flight in the first place, let alone fly for financial gain. One can only wonder if this was the only instance where he had been in this situation.
Shy in the race to condemn people miss the wider point.
The outrage and anger isn’t about his individual ability or aircraft type it’s all about the economics and a feeling that this is (and has been) extensive.
Im not sure it is and I’m not sure flights such as these are cutting the throats commercially of legacy operations because they aren’t procured in the same way. If they were then surely you’d see prosecutions and if not before this event then surely afterwards.
my point re: <70kg Pilot is he doesn’t get an ATPL with IR to fly his <70kg aircraft. The pilot of this aircraft was clearly of a mindset that felt he was if not doing the right thing his many 1000s of hours gave him comfort he was going to get away with it.
thats not a defence but I think it’s pretty obvious. We have a regulator and we have some pretty clear regulations and especially so in regard to the established transgressions. Go figure why this happens. I suspect that same body isn’t easy to criticise without identifying yourself and in the process blowing yourself up.
The outrage and anger isn’t about his individual ability or aircraft type it’s all about the economics and a feeling that this is (and has been) extensive.
Im not sure it is and I’m not sure flights such as these are cutting the throats commercially of legacy operations because they aren’t procured in the same way. If they were then surely you’d see prosecutions and if not before this event then surely afterwards.
my point re: <70kg Pilot is he doesn’t get an ATPL with IR to fly his <70kg aircraft. The pilot of this aircraft was clearly of a mindset that felt he was if not doing the right thing his many 1000s of hours gave him comfort he was going to get away with it.
thats not a defence but I think it’s pretty obvious. We have a regulator and we have some pretty clear regulations and especially so in regard to the established transgressions. Go figure why this happens. I suspect that same body isn’t easy to criticise without identifying yourself and in the process blowing yourself up.
Well now you are getting to the nub of the situation and not all necessarily linked..........
Which brings us to the final complaint- that of money. I don’t think these flights necessarily take business away from commercial operators because the flight hasn’t been generated in a way that they would even be visible. This isn’t some company secretary booking flights for business owners. This is private individuals offering the opportunity to friends based upon individual relationships. Mis-guided or not that is how it is and because of that the cash flows become impossible to trace to a flight.
Which brings us to the final complaint- that of money. I don’t think these flights necessarily take business away from commercial operators because the flight hasn’t been generated in a way that they would even be visible. This isn’t some company secretary booking flights for business owners. This is private individuals offering the opportunity to friends based upon individual relationships. Mis-guided or not that is how it is and because of that the cash flows become impossible to trace to a flight.
a) "This isn’t some company secretary booking flights for business owners." Yes, I agree so someone who regularly uses Charters for work and has been for some time would go to the likes of Netjets or one of the many other smaller but well established operators as they have always done. No problem there.
b) "private individuals offering the opportunity to friends based upon individual relationships." This is how Club-type arrangements operated whereby Club members shared flying (say 2 PPLs who can now afford a landaway as the trip cost is shared or even a PPL would maybe bring a couple of mates from home along (individual pre-existing relationships)) and they'd go flying with the mates chucking in money towards the cost. The descriptor "pre-existing" is key here IMHO. It's existing friends of the pilot who decide to have a jolly and thereby permit the PPL to spread their wings a bit more so to speak and the PPL perhaps to show them why they have been so "boring" all these months while doing their PPL.
c) Wingly/Coavmi actually don't do this. What they do is have "private individuals offering the opportunity to people previously unknown to them and put in touch by Wingly/Coavmi to go flying" and with whom there is a one-off relationship set up (ie for that flight). One could say some may stay in touch but the original "transaction" was actually between strangers who may not even have met until they all pitch up at the airfield on the allotted day and may never see each other again.
This is where it all starts to unravel if you ask me as "taking strangers for flights" is akin Charter work (yes, regular customers become known to Pilots but, essentially, there is no "personal relationship" pre-existing). In addition, the PPL can "offer" prospective passengers destinations or activities which the passengers "book" on a front end which looks quite like an airline booking engine and traditional been the preserve of Charter companies offering "sightseeing tours" etc. As I said before, it's quite easy to "fudge" the costs to make it look like everyone pays as, well, what's the likelyhood of the CAA checking? Since it so easy, such "offers" can appear as a regular offer. Many of the pilots on the sites say "I can do a trip to X and back any Saturday or Sunday for the next Y months". They even advertise "sightseeing flights"! Again, that looks like a "schedule" or a "charter" now. I've already dealt in a previous post with "benefit in kind" as the actual payment mechanism.
The only advantage is that it gives people who have never flown before a chance to go flying at a reduced cost "to promote aviation to the general public". Many Charter companies offered such people the chance but, of course, now they can do it cheaper but, tbh, this is a very minor benefit to the general public who have less protection than they would should the fly with a Charter company.
Finally, the case in point here (the Sala flight) could be generated when one of the people who takes a Wingly flight then passes it on to a friend of theirs. "Had this great trip with this Pilot, why don't you give him a go?" or even say "Look, that was a great day out. I'm off to the "name your event" next month, you wouldn't be free on that day to fly me and some friends there? Just set it up on Wingly and we'll get that sorted!". After all, we know how personal recommendations lead to loads of things happening in aviation (many of my students came to me that way when I was instructing!). Before long, your PPL is "well known" and poor Emiliano climbs aboard completely unaware of what is going on.
Like Shy, I was a bit confused by the earlier part of your Post but the above is my take (probably expressed poorly!) on your last para. There was always a bit of scope for "grey charters" but the Wingly/Coavmi setups make it so much easier. And while PPLs may start off in the spirit intended, well, one thing leads to another and hey, "grey charters"! Cynical? Maybe - but I've seen too much of human nature - sadly. "Del-boy" is always out there! Anyway, just my view - happy to discuss!
Cheers, H 'n' H