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.

The AAIB is a branch of the Department of Transport and report directly to him and he will read every report, as they are written under his jurisdiction. As to whether its up to him to press for prosecution - I doubt it as the AAIB's remit of impartiality will be jeopardised. The AAIB point this out with the following statement which appears in every report:

I'm sure the CAA will be taking great interest - it is directly addressed to them. The last paragraph of the accident report states:

However, it's up to the relevant regulatory authorities to conduct their own investigation in the aspects which violated regulations. The report itself should not/must not be used for prosecution. If it is, future investigations may be ineefective with key witnesses being unwilling to give evidence in an investigation in case it is used against them in a prosecution.

...... 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!!!! :ok: And the SoS? Wasn't he a strong advocate of the "cost sharing" push outlined above? :ugh:

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! :hmm:

H 'n' H

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.

Sadly, Shy, that seems the "buried suggestion" from the CAA from where I sit, especially when you factor in a bit of "creative costing" to generate the resultant benefit in kind from Wingly-type flights (and Wingly et al are only doing what they are allowed to do so absolutely no dig at them or other such platforms) thereby releasing funds in the bank account from the "day job" to be spent on other things rather than flying - while still flying. Bit like getting a pay rise really! :ok:

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! :eek:

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! :ugh:

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

Well now you are getting to the nub of the situation and not all necessarily linked.

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.

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.

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.

Hi Pitts. I think you are sort of right there but this is my take on it so interested in your views - and anyone else as well Shy.

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

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

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?

Hiya Pitts, yes, sadly, even commercial crews get it wrong - we have probably all had those "oh sh1t!" moments at some time or other - or maybe just me??!!!! :E

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

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 CAA are charging David Henderson on two counts

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)"

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.

Chris, easy enough to go and read the report

“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.”

Well, I suspect the effect it has on those who blamed the pilot is a heady mix of disappointment and fury...

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.

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.