I see the DM still hasn't managed to get the owner's name right.

As an example, we used to run a early Seneca as a taxi, back in the 70s. On a trip with px, the first indication of a problem was the front seat passenger threw up suddenly. The pilot guessed the cause and shut off the heating while diverting to the nearest airfield. He then bought the a/c back to base for us to look at it. I found a hole in the stb engine cowling in front of the intake for the heating. The exhaust had cracked and the gas had burned it's way through the GRP on it's way to the intake. Since we needed the a/c the next day, I pulled the manafold for the approved welder to fix and worked late into the night at home remoulding the cowling with a slight bump to give a bit more clearance over the pipe. I told the CAA area surveyor, but I can't remember now if it resulted in any action.
I expect modding the cowling would be a no-no now.

Maintenance on an FAA registered aircraft has to be signed off by either an FAA licenced mechanic or an FAA Approved Repair Station. Be interesting to see which in this case.

I am surprised and very impressed that it was possible to quantify CO-Hb in a body that had been underwater for so long - I trust they are really confident. I would have expected all the post mortem changes of pH and osmolarity to mess-up the protein 3d structure and destroy the binding sites. I guess they measure the ratio of COHb : O2Hb, but they must break down at a differential rate depending on all sorts of factors. Of course it must be very cold at depth in the English Channel which will help. I am not doubting the result, but I must say a 2nd body with the same evidence would have greatly increased the confidence this this wasn't some kind of artifact.

At this point I don't think anyone cares. You could email the journalist to correct them if you're sure it's wrong.

I suspect that the AAIB, CAA and FAA do indeed care who owns the aircraft, particularly in light of the latest information that's emerging about its alleged condition.

But they probably don't read the Daily Mail. :O

Would this explain why it took so long for the AAIB to disclose these results? (i.e. the testing procedure in these circumstances is very protracted)

And yet so many people have died from CO in cars, on boats, without noticing anything else in time.
Empirically, your logic is wrong.

CO happens all the time. From our local paper yesterday ... https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2...r-in-a-garage/

DavidReidUK
 

I trained a few FAA pilots on the Do328jet and ALL of them had great respect for The FAA and intended to keep their path as per rules and regs . Obsessively so in some cases.
And the FAA Inspectors I trained was a Chapter of its own.
With that as my background dealing with the FAA, I find it rather odd the arrangement with the UK CAA.
Now this was from 1999 to 2004 , if I remember correctly and considering the latest development in FAA with regards to lack of oversight at the heavy end of things, I suspect this tragic and avoidable accident will have consequences. In a positive was for flight safety.

I suspect EASA might hold this accident against the FAA and UK CAA.
I certainly do.

Regards
Cpt B

The first chapter in this drama was about the credentials of the pilot. The second chapter has now started with the aircraft brought in to the drama. But by far it will be the third chapter which will be the climax, when its authors and editors are revealed to the audience.

The 2 empty properties associated with the Keelys being used as a Registered Address adds a certain air of mystery! Dark forces at play here, methinks.

Very possibly. I expect that they used multiple different assay methods, although it's a little odd that the value was given as a single number rather than a confidence range.

Double Barrel

If you use a single number in court you have to be precisely correct, if you use a confidence range the chances of it getting pulled apart by some smart lawyer are much reduced.

Considerations regarding ownership of the aircraft involve the reasons behind the choice for N registration for an aircraft based and operating in the EU. Here is an extract from am article published in Avbuyer, https://www.avbuyer.com/articles/ga-...n-trust-112085

"3. Non-US citizens may find it difficult to register their private aircraft in their home country.

The FAA has very favorable maintenance and registration requirements, and they are known for being supportive and understanding of private aviation. Some countries, however, have aircraft requirements that focus on the operations of commercial airliners. Their rules and regulations can be very onerous and burdensome to private aircraft owners. For this reason, owners may choose to register their aircraft outside of their home country. For example, in our interview with client Roger Harr, Roger pointed out that he was one of the first Cirrus owners in Europe. He bought his Cirrus before it was approved for purchase by EASA (the European Aviation Safety Agency), and the only way he could own and operate his new plane was to register it in the United States. Owners who live in countries with similar limitations on GA aircraft, may create a trust so that they can register their aircraft with the FAA in the United States."

Which then acutely aggravates the all too important question that has now arisen ,given the CAA report regarding the finding of high levels of CO on the remains of the passenger. What does very favourable, supportive and understanding mean. With the B737 MAX fiasco still unresolved, and today another big article about it in the Sunday Times, does it not perhaps cast more dark shadows over the FAA and our regulators in their role of guardians of public safety.

An FAA registered aircraft with a standard type certificate requires periodic inspection by an airframe and power plant mechanic with Inspection Authorization. That inspection is required at least once every 12 calendar months but may also be needed after 100 hours if that occurs first. What does, or does not, pass inspection is completely up to the IA performing the inspection. There is a huge range of "tolerance" for minor imperfections. I doubt any aircraft would ever pass inspection if every tiny discrepancy was grounds for failure.

My IA has also given my recent flight reviews. He signs off my airplane and he is prepared to fly in it. That's good enough for me.

The condition of a privately owned aircraft has little to do with FAA oversight or their concern with public safety.

A forty year old aircraft that FAA records apparently show has had no previous owners before the present shady one?
Despite being an aircraft that is alleged to have changed hands four times in one day? Four times? What possible reason can there be for that if not to cover up or obfuscate ownership and accountability?
An aircraft whose apparent owners' and close associates' addresses are all empty properties?
An aircraft involved in an fatal accident whose owner does not make themselves known?
An aircraft flown by an unlicenced pilot who appears to have identified himself at the airport of departure as someone else?

Never mind the entire operating environment surrounding the damn thing viz the whole business of football/racing charters, shady 'football managers' acting as charter brokers, maintenance organisations who have walked away from it etc.

To suggest this isn't an utter Pandora's Box of illegality from end to end is somewhat far-fetched, imo.