Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ this exactly, so no need to for me to repeat it.
But I will fall back on the p-word again. You can be a professional (as in a noun) in an occupation because you are paid for doing it. Of you can be professional (as in an adjective) in the manner in which you conduct yourself within an occupation, whether you are paid or not. Anybody involved in aviation (in any of its forms) who operates with a disregard to regulations, compliance and such things as licencing are unprofessional.
Period.
"Paperwork" implies such things are mere bureaucracy, which they most certainly are not.
Apologies for labouring the point, but I don't think the waters are remotely muddy here so personally I'd rather the key issues are kept clear of any form of obscuration, however well-intentioned.
But I will fall back on the p-word again. You can be a professional (as in a noun) in an occupation because you are paid for doing it. Of you can be professional (as in an adjective) in the manner in which you conduct yourself within an occupation, whether you are paid or not. Anybody involved in aviation (in any of its forms) who operates with a disregard to regulations, compliance and such things as licencing are unprofessional.
Period.
"Paperwork" implies such things are mere bureaucracy, which they most certainly are not.
Apologies for labouring the point, but I don't think the waters are remotely muddy here so personally I'd rather the key issues are kept clear of any form of obscuration, however well-intentioned.
Alfaman,
With respect, your direction to the directions for UK charity flights is almost exactly what I am talking about.
In principle, the gaining of a PPL license, or here a PPL, a Recreational Permit or, for instance, an Ultralight license in the USA, grants the owner the right to carry some/a passenger. I am sure most of us know pilots who are steady and reliable hands when they get their license but I'm sure some of us know pilot's who have plenty of hours we wouldn't trust with our lives. The directions lay out the paperwork (and I do not denigrate paperwork,) required and suggested. It does not even suggest that waivers be in writing.
A while ago I was invited to an event where flights were being offered to kids belonging to an organisation that fostered youth interest in aviation. Being a low time mature pilot I declined. Later I read that they had given a record number of flights that day. One of the pilots was quoted as saying that he was happy he got his license three months previously as he had always wanted to give flights at one of those events. This not in a Colt or C150 but in something a good deal more demanding.
I have no idea whether the parents who signed the waiver allowing the kids to fly that day were advised that their kid might be flying with a pilot who had 60 hours total. We have signed waivers for our kids to go on camps and in hindsight we knew very little of the activities and supervision so I won't blast the parents. Life and growing up are not risk free anyway, but I would not want to be the organiser who had to say, "Well, he was qualified . . . ."
Our kids all got 30 min Flight School flights when they were 13 or 14. When we took the two eldest boys they did not both go up at the same time. (Could not do that to MrsVJ) They are both helicopter pilots now! RCAF put them in the same squadron and they even flew together. (I did not think they'd do that.) Now one of them is civilian I worry a little less..
With respect, your direction to the directions for UK charity flights is almost exactly what I am talking about.
In principle, the gaining of a PPL license, or here a PPL, a Recreational Permit or, for instance, an Ultralight license in the USA, grants the owner the right to carry some/a passenger. I am sure most of us know pilots who are steady and reliable hands when they get their license but I'm sure some of us know pilot's who have plenty of hours we wouldn't trust with our lives. The directions lay out the paperwork (and I do not denigrate paperwork,) required and suggested. It does not even suggest that waivers be in writing.
A while ago I was invited to an event where flights were being offered to kids belonging to an organisation that fostered youth interest in aviation. Being a low time mature pilot I declined. Later I read that they had given a record number of flights that day. One of the pilots was quoted as saying that he was happy he got his license three months previously as he had always wanted to give flights at one of those events. This not in a Colt or C150 but in something a good deal more demanding.
I have no idea whether the parents who signed the waiver allowing the kids to fly that day were advised that their kid might be flying with a pilot who had 60 hours total. We have signed waivers for our kids to go on camps and in hindsight we knew very little of the activities and supervision so I won't blast the parents. Life and growing up are not risk free anyway, but I would not want to be the organiser who had to say, "Well, he was qualified . . . ."
Our kids all got 30 min Flight School flights when they were 13 or 14. When we took the two eldest boys they did not both go up at the same time. (Could not do that to MrsVJ) They are both helicopter pilots now! RCAF put them in the same squadron and they even flew together. (I did not think they'd do that.) Now one of them is civilian I worry a little less..
Chris VJ - you're talking about something different to this accident, & to a certain extent, it's a red herring. The pilot in this aircraft is reported as having approximately 3500 hours total time, approximately 30 hours on type. He wasn't inexperienced at flying; he was also reasonably experienced on this aircraft. The issue stems from his lack of qualification to conduct the flight in the conditions he flew under. Had he complied with his licence, the aircraft would not have been where it was, therefore it would not have crashed. The aircraft was not certified or maintained in accordance with the requirements to conduct that flight either, therefore the opportunities to address the mechanical defects with it weren't available. The whole point of having a more robust licencing system, & more aggressive maintenance regime for aircraft carrying paying passengers, is to make sure such issues are caught & addressed before a passenger ever steps foot inside the aircraft. By ignoring them all, every single chance of keeping this aircraft safe was missed. No system can ever protect against wilful disregard of the rules & regulations by those who know them but chose to ignore them.
The issue of low hours pilots conducting charity flights does indeed have risks attached to it, the legislation & guidance is clear on that. It is still the licence holders responsibility to understand the requirements of the flight they are conducting, & to do so appropriately. Whether there is more risk attached than if the pilot was flying a friend or family member - I'm not sure why there would be - if they're conducting the flight correctly, why would their relationship with the other passengers make any difference? Surely someone offering assistance to a charitable event is already demonstrating a social conscience - they're donating their time for a good cause, after all. That doesn't strike me as the behaviour of someone who's likely to fly recklessly. You say you'd be uncomfortable to fly under such circumstances - that's fine, the guidance makes clear provision for that by placing an obligation on the pilot & the organiser to make sure you're aware of the circumstances - if you're unhappy, then you don't take part. Unfortunately, in this accident the poor passenger was denied that option & denied the protections of the system he had every right to believe he would be protected by - not because the aircraft wasn't fit to be flown, but because it should never have been airborne in the first place.
As an aside, I (pre pandemic) take part in charity driving events: these involve passenger rides around one of our race tracks - coned as a road circuit, so not at race speeds, but with the opportunity of stretching the car & showing some of it's capabilities, traffic permitting. The insurance, risk assessment, & briefings, both written & verbal, are very thorough. The rules are very clear & punishment for transgressing them is swift & final with no right of appeal. I've also run the events occasionally & have exercised the option to remove drivers for misbehaving: it's very well policed, very well marshalled, after all, there's no room for error when you're dealing with safety. I've no reason to believe flying events wouldn't be operated to the same criteria, I'd be horrified if they weren't.
The issue of low hours pilots conducting charity flights does indeed have risks attached to it, the legislation & guidance is clear on that. It is still the licence holders responsibility to understand the requirements of the flight they are conducting, & to do so appropriately. Whether there is more risk attached than if the pilot was flying a friend or family member - I'm not sure why there would be - if they're conducting the flight correctly, why would their relationship with the other passengers make any difference? Surely someone offering assistance to a charitable event is already demonstrating a social conscience - they're donating their time for a good cause, after all. That doesn't strike me as the behaviour of someone who's likely to fly recklessly. You say you'd be uncomfortable to fly under such circumstances - that's fine, the guidance makes clear provision for that by placing an obligation on the pilot & the organiser to make sure you're aware of the circumstances - if you're unhappy, then you don't take part. Unfortunately, in this accident the poor passenger was denied that option & denied the protections of the system he had every right to believe he would be protected by - not because the aircraft wasn't fit to be flown, but because it should never have been airborne in the first place.
As an aside, I (pre pandemic) take part in charity driving events: these involve passenger rides around one of our race tracks - coned as a road circuit, so not at race speeds, but with the opportunity of stretching the car & showing some of it's capabilities, traffic permitting. The insurance, risk assessment, & briefings, both written & verbal, are very thorough. The rules are very clear & punishment for transgressing them is swift & final with no right of appeal. I've also run the events occasionally & have exercised the option to remove drivers for misbehaving: it's very well policed, very well marshalled, after all, there's no room for error when you're dealing with safety. I've no reason to believe flying events wouldn't be operated to the same criteria, I'd be horrified if they weren't.
Why is it so long to wait for justice? It will be nearly 3 years since the crash before the trial starts.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: S. Wales
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Bad attitudes" are just as dangerous (or maybe more so???) as "bad flying skills"! Back in my time as an Instructor I have banned fully qualified and experienced (on paper) people undergoing an initial Club Check Flight from flying Club aircraft just based on their attitude - I just showed them the door (and rang ahead to the other Clubs on the field to warn them of what I had done!). The fact their flying was sometimes relatively poor was very much a secondary reason. You can train out poor flying skills with a bit of coaching - a poor attitude is far more difficult to correct!
It also looks very much like "experience" bred "complacency" here, something that commercial operations work hard to prevent, hence why regular check flights etc are so important. As you said further on in your post,
........ By ignoring them all ["them all" being defined earlier in your Post], every single chance of keeping this aircraft safe was missed. No system can ever protect against wilful disregard [there's the "attitude" bit] of the rules & regulations by those who know them but chose to ignore them. ......
Ddraig Goch because there is a huge backlog in the courts with simple cases waiting up to 2 years for something simple and the whole system threatening to collapse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54737289
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54737289
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's pleaded guilty...another trial and inquest to come.
Due process will - one hopes - take care of the legal specifics on the flight. The bigger question (for me) is will commercial aviation learn the lessons of inadequate regulation and clamp down for good on the loopholes between commercial operation and leisure flying? One can only hope.
RIP and thoughts still with all the families involved.
Due process will - one hopes - take care of the legal specifics on the flight. The bigger question (for me) is will commercial aviation learn the lessons of inadequate regulation and clamp down for good on the loopholes between commercial operation and leisure flying? One can only hope.
RIP and thoughts still with all the families involved.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: S. Wales
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The charge of attempting to discharge a passenger without valid permission or authorisation (namely Emiliano Sala on January 21, 2019) was put to the defendant - and he spoke to confirm his guilty plea.
A trial will take place in respect of count one, namely communicating information to endanger / likely to endanger safety of an aircraft, on January 18 and 19, 2019.
Henderson has pleaded not guilty to this charge.
I can't post the URL to the article but it's on WalesOnline
A trial will take place in respect of count one, namely communicating information to endanger / likely to endanger safety of an aircraft, on January 18 and 19, 2019.
Henderson has pleaded not guilty to this charge.
I can't post the URL to the article but it's on WalesOnline
As I read it he has pled NOT guilty and the case (likely to last 2 weeks) has been pushed back to February 2023.
As far as the remainder of the accuracy of the reporting in the post above goes, it deserves the usual caveat of don't believe a word the media says about flying. Precising the AAIB report arrived at "the pilot had been flying too fast for the plane's design limits".
As far as the remainder of the accuracy of the reporting in the post above goes, it deserves the usual caveat of don't believe a word the media says about flying. Precising the AAIB report arrived at "the pilot had been flying too fast for the plane's design limits".
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He has pleaded guilty to "trying to arrange a flight for a passenger without permission or authorisation", which was what today's trial was about. He is denying "a separate charge of endangering the safety of an aircraft." which is what the trial in February is all about.
As for the second part of my post, that has nothing to do with this accident specifically(or any media reporting thereof); it's my (ex) professional opinion as someone who worked in aviation professionally, civilian and military for 30 years and it is an opinion shared by any number of AOC operators (including some who have posted in this thread.)
So I'm not sure where you are going with this...
?????????
PS I am as big a critic of the media as the next man, but they are required by UK law to report court cases accurately, so you can "usually" be confident on the reporting of any court activity from a reputable source. Mine is the BBC today.
As for the second part of my post, that has nothing to do with this accident specifically(or any media reporting thereof); it's my (ex) professional opinion as someone who worked in aviation professionally, civilian and military for 30 years and it is an opinion shared by any number of AOC operators (including some who have posted in this thread.)
So I'm not sure where you are going with this...
As far as the remainder of the accuracy of the reporting in the post above goes, it deserves the usual caveat of don't believe a word the media says about flying.
PS I am as big a critic of the media as the next man, but they are required by UK law to report court cases accurately, so you can "usually" be confident on the reporting of any court activity from a reputable source. Mine is the BBC today.
My comment was based on the quality of media reporting from www.rte.ie in the post above yours which said that "the crash was caused by the pilot flying too fast". The content under the link above has been seriously updated and radically altered since it was posted this morning.
At that point it said "Henderson denied all charges" and "the trial will be held in full over 2 weeks in Feb 2023." and somehow linked "illegally landing a person in the UK" .. an immigration offence, with the aeroplane being flown in excess of it's design limits. It made no mention of a guilty plea or about a current trial.
At that point it said "Henderson denied all charges" and "the trial will be held in full over 2 weeks in Feb 2023." and somehow linked "illegally landing a person in the UK" .. an immigration offence, with the aeroplane being flown in excess of it's design limits. It made no mention of a guilty plea or about a current trial.
It wasn't me !!
Oh!, Dave Gittens, be forgiving. Not all of us media types are bad blokes, and very few deliberately mislead. But, it is tricky being "first with the news" in a world that demands the same; not least because we are charged with the difficult job of being first with the news. But I digress...
It has long struck me, and many others, the only real thread of interest is, how did this come about? Yes, there are valid - in my humble journalistic and piloting position - paperwork issues. And, yes, lives have been lost with terrible consequences for family, etc. And there is much valuable and interesting reading to be garnered by those willing to trawl through all the above. Yet one thing is still missing: admission. No-one, as far as I can see, is yet to admit to anything.
I, for one, hope the coming days will teach us all more; if only what one guilty plea really means?
We watch and learn...and if we fail we are all screwed
It has long struck me, and many others, the only real thread of interest is, how did this come about? Yes, there are valid - in my humble journalistic and piloting position - paperwork issues. And, yes, lives have been lost with terrible consequences for family, etc. And there is much valuable and interesting reading to be garnered by those willing to trawl through all the above. Yet one thing is still missing: admission. No-one, as far as I can see, is yet to admit to anything.
I, for one, hope the coming days will teach us all more; if only what one guilty plea really means?
We watch and learn...and if we fail we are all screwed
I'm happy to be forgiving of genuine human error (BTW it's Gittins not Gittens 
) but less so of (I speak of the original RTE posting now at least twice updated) poor, hasty, inaccurate, reporting, which characterised the Sala crash as the pilot flying faster than the plane was designed to do. We know why it crashed but it wasn't because Ibbotson deliberately oversped it. It wasn't mischaracterised by a bad person, just a hasty and maybe ill informed person.
I didn't come here to do anything other than sympathise with a footballer who lost his life due to, what I think in summary was greed which enlisted the help of poor maintenance, unqualified piloting and inadequate oversight. I wanted to know how it came about, what errors in the chain or holes in the cheese were allowed to build up and cause it, and what is being done to stop it happening again.
I guess the true lesson is that lots of people knows that grey charters occur, but too few, if any, are willing to be grasses.
) but less so of (I speak of the original RTE posting now at least twice updated) poor, hasty, inaccurate, reporting, which characterised the Sala crash as the pilot flying faster than the plane was designed to do. We know why it crashed but it wasn't because Ibbotson deliberately oversped it. It wasn't mischaracterised by a bad person, just a hasty and maybe ill informed person.I didn't come here to do anything other than sympathise with a footballer who lost his life due to, what I think in summary was greed which enlisted the help of poor maintenance, unqualified piloting and inadequate oversight. I wanted to know how it came about, what errors in the chain or holes in the cheese were allowed to build up and cause it, and what is being done to stop it happening again.
I guess the true lesson is that lots of people knows that grey charters occur, but too few, if any, are willing to be grasses.
The non aviation public don't know all the ins and outs of commercial versus private flying and if this helps to inform then it is worth doing.