Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Until the regulator takes a serious interest and actually catches a few people this sort of thing will continue
it's bad for individuals, bad for genuine companies and (when they crash ) bad for the whole industry
it's bad for individuals, bad for genuine companies and (when they crash ) bad for the whole industry
HnH Hi that wasn’t exactly my thinking but those elements cover at least part of it and I would agree.
In truth of all of the elements that go to making up the end result here the financial part seems to me to come down the list.
Commercial pressure is the cry but then in very recent memory the UK has lost fully serviceable 109 and a 139 aircraft with trained, respected commercial crew - the 139 two pilots on board and the CVR highlights that they were fully aware of the risks and dangers of their situation.
Still the AAIB are very confident in their report that significant evidence existed that the pilot was being renumerated and the CAA give a view that:-
CAA inspectors regularly visit airfields as well as public events where aviation operations involving aircraft or helicopters take place. During such visits or inspections, the CAA monitors for any possible illegal activity. The CAA also carries out regular spot checks of flight plans. Reports from the public, especially from those within the legitimate aviation community can also provide useful intelligence to the investigators.
Given all the checks and the significant evidence of payment it can’t have been going on all that long otherwise he’d have been caught beforehand?
In truth of all of the elements that go to making up the end result here the financial part seems to me to come down the list.
Commercial pressure is the cry but then in very recent memory the UK has lost fully serviceable 109 and a 139 aircraft with trained, respected commercial crew - the 139 two pilots on board and the CVR highlights that they were fully aware of the risks and dangers of their situation.
Still the AAIB are very confident in their report that significant evidence existed that the pilot was being renumerated and the CAA give a view that:-
CAA inspectors regularly visit airfields as well as public events where aviation operations involving aircraft or helicopters take place. During such visits or inspections, the CAA monitors for any possible illegal activity. The CAA also carries out regular spot checks of flight plans. Reports from the public, especially from those within the legitimate aviation community can also provide useful intelligence to the investigators.
Given all the checks and the significant evidence of payment it can’t have been going on all that long otherwise he’d have been caught beforehand?
..........
Still the AAIB are very confident in their report that significant evidence existed that the pilot was being renumerated and the CAA give a view that:-
CAA inspectors regularly visit airfields as well as public events where aviation operations involving aircraft or helicopters take place. During such visits or inspections, the CAA monitors for any possible illegal activity. The CAA also carries out regular spot checks of flight plans. Reports from the public, especially from those within the legitimate aviation community can also provide useful intelligence to the investigators.
Given all the checks and the significant evidence of payment it can’t have been going on all that long otherwise he’d have been caught beforehand?
Still the AAIB are very confident in their report that significant evidence existed that the pilot was being renumerated and the CAA give a view that:-
CAA inspectors regularly visit airfields as well as public events where aviation operations involving aircraft or helicopters take place. During such visits or inspections, the CAA monitors for any possible illegal activity. The CAA also carries out regular spot checks of flight plans. Reports from the public, especially from those within the legitimate aviation community can also provide useful intelligence to the investigators.
Given all the checks and the significant evidence of payment it can’t have been going on all that long otherwise he’d have been caught beforehand?
Re the oversight of the CAA and them capturing the problem children so to speak, that assumes the CAA are doing their job in respect of policing this lot. Those more experienced in the area of Ops suggest not and my own dealings with such Governmental organisations over 40 years suggests that what someone says they do and what someone actually does are quite often two totally different things. Lets face it, the CAA got told off for not even maintaining a FCL database correctly!
So we either have poor oversight with missed problems or good oversight and no problems. Depends where you put your money and, whatever it is, it's difficult to work out where we are along the line between the two extremes. The bit that rings alarm bells for me is that that the CAA themselves promoted "flight sharing" as described by me a couple of Posts above along with it's "quasi-airline" ability to "book flights".
Anyway, see what Shy (and others?) say. Good we are debating it even if the answer is probably almost impossible to identify so your views are most useful!
Cheers, H 'n' H
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: S. Wales
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard Stephenson, director at the Civilian Aviation Authority, said: "The UK Civil Aviation Authority has commenced a prosecution of David Henderson for offences associated with the fatal light aircraft accident over the English Channel in January 2019.
"The charges are: On the 18th and 19th of January 2019, acted in a reckless/negligent manner likely to endanger N264DB (Articles 240, 256 and Part 4 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016).
"On the 21st of January 2019, attempted to cause N264DB to discharge a passenger in the UK (Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Articles 250, 256 and Part 3 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016).
"It will be inappropriate for the CAA to say anything further until the case is concluded."
"The charges are: On the 18th and 19th of January 2019, acted in a reckless/negligent manner likely to endanger N264DB (Articles 240, 256 and Part 4 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016).
"On the 21st of January 2019, attempted to cause N264DB to discharge a passenger in the UK (Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Articles 250, 256 and Part 3 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016).
"It will be inappropriate for the CAA to say anything further until the case is concluded."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA are charging David Henderson on two counts
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ne-crash-death
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ne-crash-death
"On the 18th and 19th of January 2019, acted in a reckless/negligent manner likely to endanger N264DB (Articles 240, 256 and Part 4 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016);
On the 21st of January 2019, attempted to cause N264DB to discharge a passenger in the UK (Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Articles 250, 256 and Part 3 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016)"
On the 21st of January 2019, attempted to cause N264DB to discharge a passenger in the UK (Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Articles 250, 256 and Part 3 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016)"
According to Daily Fail today the investigation established that Sala had "High enough levels of Carbon Monoxide in his blood to kill him.
Before I ask, (OK, I am asking) is that true and if so what effect does that have on opinion about the cause of the crash, which up to now from what I have seen was largely blamed on pilot lack of training and incompetence.
Before I ask, (OK, I am asking) is that true and if so what effect does that have on opinion about the cause of the crash, which up to now from what I have seen was largely blamed on pilot lack of training and incompetence.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Daily Fail today the investigation established that Sala had "High enough levels of Carbon Monoxide in his blood to kill him.
Before I ask, (OK, I am asking) is that true and if so what effect does that have on opinion about the cause of the crash, which up to now from what I have seen was largely blamed on pilot lack of training and incompetence.
Before I ask, (OK, I am asking) is that true and if so what effect does that have on opinion about the cause of the crash, which up to now from what I have seen was largely blamed on pilot lack of training and incompetence.
“Causal factors
1. The pilot lost control of the aircraft during a manually-flown turn, which was probably initiated to remain in or regain VMC.
2. The aircraft subsequently suffered an in-flight break-up while manoeuvring at an airspeed significantly in excess of its design manoeuvring speed.
3. The pilot was probably affected by CO poisoning.”
I doubt it: the accident report lists a number of failings on the part of the pilot, notwithstanding the difficulties with the aircraft. Whilst he's sadly unable to mount a personal defence of his part in the process, the evidence is still there. A horrible tragic mess all round.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems a few here have lost the point somewhere.
Whatever happened in the air, the main errors, misjudgements, appalling airmanship and blind disregard for basic flight safety happened before the aircraft left the ground. The pilot(may he RIP) carries the can for much of that, as all pilots always will. In the eyes of the professional flying community on here, the people who facilitated the flight, and the current glaringly poor regulations, played a major role in this utterly avoidable accident. Now we (the aforementioned professional aviation community - or at least most of us) hope the ensuing legal action will at the very least provide impetus to a long overdue change to the ambigious regulations and dangers to the unknowing public that flow from them.
Whatever happened in the air, the main errors, misjudgements, appalling airmanship and blind disregard for basic flight safety happened before the aircraft left the ground. The pilot(may he RIP) carries the can for much of that, as all pilots always will. In the eyes of the professional flying community on here, the people who facilitated the flight, and the current glaringly poor regulations, played a major role in this utterly avoidable accident. Now we (the aforementioned professional aviation community - or at least most of us) hope the ensuing legal action will at the very least provide impetus to a long overdue change to the ambigious regulations and dangers to the unknowing public that flow from them.
Seems a few here have lost the point somewhere.
Whatever happened in the air, the main errors, misjudgements, appalling airmanship and blind disregard for basic flight safety happened before the aircraft left the ground. The pilot(may he RIP) carries the can for much of that, as all pilots always will. In the eyes of the professional flying community on here, the people who facilitated the flight, and the current glaringly poor regulations, played a major role in this utterly avoidable accident. Now we (the aforementioned professional aviation community - or at least most of us) hope the ensuing legal action will at the very least provide impetus to a long overdue change to the ambigious regulations and dangers to the unknowing public that flow from them.
Whatever happened in the air, the main errors, misjudgements, appalling airmanship and blind disregard for basic flight safety happened before the aircraft left the ground. The pilot(may he RIP) carries the can for much of that, as all pilots always will. In the eyes of the professional flying community on here, the people who facilitated the flight, and the current glaringly poor regulations, played a major role in this utterly avoidable accident. Now we (the aforementioned professional aviation community - or at least most of us) hope the ensuing legal action will at the very least provide impetus to a long overdue change to the ambigious regulations and dangers to the unknowing public that flow from them.
However, as well as CO appearing to be, possibly, the last link in the chain leading to this particular accident and the sad deaths of two people, what it ironically also revealed as a by-product, was a completely different can of worms involving one of them (as well as some people on the ground), namely, the legal basis for the flight itself and, quite probably, a host of other similar flights before it over the years.
No-one gloats over the death of people whatever the cause, particularly those of us who have lost several friends/workmates to flying accidents over the years. A majority of the discussion centres on why the flight took place at all. No-one knows exactly how/why the last few minutes played out as they did - some assessment has taken place based on ATC comms and Radar plots etc. To an extent, that is academic. However, much more of the focus of this thread has been on the "cottage industry" of such flights. You can read my views in earlier posts.
alphaman sums it up well - "A horrible tragic mess all round."
I do feel the (unprovable) carbon monoxide issue is being seized on by those, from the organiser to the regulator, to cover their own issues. Quite apart from everything else already described, it's more than a coincidence that, in the whole round trip, it chanced to incapacitate the pilot just at the one point in the flight when they encountered adverse meteorological conditions and got away from the VFR he was licensed for.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do feel the (unprovable) carbon monoxide issue is being seized on by those, from the organiser to the regulator, to cover their own issues. Quite apart from everything else already described, it's more than a coincidence that, in the whole round trip, it chanced to incapacitate the pilot just at the one point in the flight when they encountered adverse meteorological conditions and got away from the VFR he was licensed for.
"Post-mortem tests on the passenger showed a blood carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) level of 58%, and the pathologist considered that he would almost certainly have been ‘deeply unconscious’ at impact."
Do you really think it possible for the passenger to be so badly affected and the pilot not? See page 48k - that's the page in the PDF.
Footnote 35 on that page says "The pathologist confirmed that the COHb level could be relied upon despite the length of time the body had been under water."
https://assets.publishing.service.go...4DB_Lo_res.pdf
I do feel the (unprovable) carbon monoxide issue is being seized on by those, from the organiser to the regulator, to cover their own issues. Quite apart from everything else already described, it's more than a coincidence that, in the whole round trip, it chanced to incapacitate the pilot just at the one point in the flight when they encountered adverse meteorological conditions and got away from the VFR he was licensed for.
Emiliano:- Dave, I'm feeling a bit cold, (as they approach the front or whatever - the freezing level was 3 - 4k) can we have some heating on if possible?
Dave:- Yeh, sure! No problems! {Cabin heating to "On"}.
Sadly, I think this is "Swiss Cheese" at it's best (or worst) in action. Just maybe Dave was in the position where, not only were the flight conditions getting on top of him, but the final straw was the cabin heating going on and CO taking over. Recovery of the plane (and I've seen nothing to say it has so please correct me if wrong on that) would prove the physical state of the heating controls.
But we have to go back to the main argument here; what were they even doing in the air at all that evening? As you say WHBM, some people are using it as the only "cause" when, in fact, neither of them should have been up there that evening. What a shame someone had not flown it earlier and reported it after feeling "unwell". And, thank goodness they were not 6 up over a built up area if it was CO. But, ultimately, what a shame Dave convinced himself that "It's fine, I can do this!" to himself!
Of course, the legal beagles will just be seeing who they can sue for max $$$'s which will ensure common sense gets thrown out the window..... That, dear reader, is another story......
Not an expert but I understand CO is likely to have effects long before it leads to unconsciousness. And even with enough to eventually kill, you may be still active for some time.
At what point might the pilot not be acting in his normal way? I don't think that can be ascertained.
At what point might the pilot not be acting in his normal way? I don't think that can be ascertained.
Just thinking that the 'always' search for anything administrative, paperwork, license, etc is important but not looking for the cause of an accident.
The cause here, from the report, would appear to be CO poisoning and/or loss of control and /or pilot inexperience and/or weather..
I always feel that the actual lack of a certificate is not a cause. A pilot may have experience but no certificate or he may have a certificate gained only three or four hours flight time before. It is the lack of experience rather than the paperwork, surely, that is the hole in the cheese.
A couple of times I have been to airshows where pilots boasting that they got their PPL a couple of months before have been giving charity rides to people, even kids. My personal thought is "Are you stark raving mad?" Yes, technically the certificate says you can fly passengers (Non paying) around but other peoples' kids?
Sorry, thread drift for hobby horse.
The cause here, from the report, would appear to be CO poisoning and/or loss of control and /or pilot inexperience and/or weather..
I always feel that the actual lack of a certificate is not a cause. A pilot may have experience but no certificate or he may have a certificate gained only three or four hours flight time before. It is the lack of experience rather than the paperwork, surely, that is the hole in the cheese.
A couple of times I have been to airshows where pilots boasting that they got their PPL a couple of months before have been giving charity rides to people, even kids. My personal thought is "Are you stark raving mad?" Yes, technically the certificate says you can fly passengers (Non paying) around but other peoples' kids?
Sorry, thread drift for hobby horse.
ChrisVJ,
But a very relevant hobbyhorse
But a very relevant hobbyhorse
...... I always feel that the actual lack of a certificate is not a cause. A pilot may have experience but no certificate or he may have a certificate gained only three or four hours flight time before. It is the lack of experience rather than the paperwork, surely, that is the hole in the cheese. .......................
What the "paperwork" does do is try and put in checks and balances (additional layers of cheese) such as currency/recency requirements to ensure all ticket holders of whatever licence it is meet, as a minimum, certain standards/currency levels in attempt to to set a safety baseline and that baseline differs from a "private" operation compared to "commercial" operation to further reduce the risks for operations in the commercial world. So, if through ignoring the licences, this resulted in a pilot getting out of their depth, yes, it was an "airmanship" contribution to the accident for Emiliano as that particular hole was allowed to line up along with all the rest of the holes (late departure, poor weather, CO, etc, etc, etc). B&W limits, even just "paperwork", were ignored! Indeed, if the "paperwork" had not been ignored (and assuming the pilot had oodles of IFR/Night/Type experience), the irony is that this flight would not have departed just on the strength the "paperwork" was incorrect so this accident would not have happened. Purely by chance it would have been blocked by simple "paperwork admin". But, as I said previously, another accident may have happend at some other time to some other people - who knows!!! It is an absolute mess!!!!
I think many who have contributed to this thread have agreed we'll never know exactly why this accident happened, but that there were lots of things wrong with this flight and all we can do is learn as much from it as we each can. What many are saying is that, what this tragic event also flagged up by chance was the issue of "grey charters", graphically exposing another significant issue which, again, no-one knows quite how big an Industry problem it is (ie in the law being broken/insurance being invalidated etc, etc). We have argued this as well in previous posts so I don't want to re-run that hare again here! So, we have two distinct lines to this thread running in parallel which, actually, seem to affect each other - a bit like cross-coupling between two wires; no direct connection but "mutual EMC interference".
If the flight had been a simple PPL and his friend Emiliano heading back from a couple of days in France, this thread would have been a few sad pages long tops - even allowing for the football aspect. If it had been a commercial accident, again, a few (more?) sad pages long tops. The fact it was seemingly an illegal flight is why so much interest has been generated here. And, as Richard Dangle said, "....... Now we (the aforementioned professional aviation community - or at least most of us) hope the ensuing legal action will at the very least provide impetus to a long overdue change to the ambiguous regulations and dangers to the unknowing public that flow from them." is what this is all about now on that score. As for the rest of the sorry tale, just make the most of the real/possible learning points. Best that can be done - which won't suit the legal beagles one bit - but will provide them with endless fees as, unlike here on PPRuNe, they get paid to argue - we do it for free!!!!
Last edited by Hot 'n' High; 19th Oct 2020 at 14:58. Reason: To make it clear which David I'm talking about
Just thinking that the 'always' search for anything administrative, paperwork, license, etc is important but not looking for the cause of an accident.
The cause here, from the report, would appear to be CO poisoning and/or loss of control and /or pilot inexperience and/or weather..
I always feel that the actual lack of a certificate is not a cause. A pilot may have experience but no certificate or he may have a certificate gained only three or four hours flight time before. It is the lack of experience rather than the paperwork, surely, that is the hole in the cheese.
A couple of times I have been to airshows where pilots boasting that they got their PPL a couple of months before have been giving charity rides to people, even kids. My personal thought is "Are you stark raving mad?" Yes, technically the certificate says you can fly passengers (Non paying) around but other peoples' kids?
Sorry, thread drift for hobby horse.
The cause here, from the report, would appear to be CO poisoning and/or loss of control and /or pilot inexperience and/or weather..
I always feel that the actual lack of a certificate is not a cause. A pilot may have experience but no certificate or he may have a certificate gained only three or four hours flight time before. It is the lack of experience rather than the paperwork, surely, that is the hole in the cheese.
A couple of times I have been to airshows where pilots boasting that they got their PPL a couple of months before have been giving charity rides to people, even kids. My personal thought is "Are you stark raving mad?" Yes, technically the certificate says you can fly passengers (Non paying) around but other peoples' kids?
Sorry, thread drift for hobby horse.
The UK advice for PPL holders offering charity flights is here: https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviati...arity-flights/ - I expect that similar advice is offered elsewhere, in which case, pilots who adhere to it are presumed to be mature enough to understand the implications & act accordingly. If you feel that's not happening, perhaps make representations to the appropriate authorities to find out why?
Flying has always been an activity that requires a very clear understanding of the rules: ignorance is no excuse, & if people choose to ignore them, then I'm afraid then they're accountable for the consequences of their actions. In this case, the buck stops with the pilot, & the people who allowed him into the cockpit, & the paper trail will determine who that is.
