PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Accidents and Close Calls (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls-139/)
-   -   Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/617514-cardiff-city-footballer-feared-missing-after-aircraft-disappeared-near-channel-island.html)

Midlifec 1st Nov 2021 13:17

The football agent was well aware of what was going on, he had his own aircraft doing the same type of flights as far back as 2016….. flown by Henderson and Murgatroyd amongst others before it was crash landed having substantially overflown its maintenance check period. The CAA weren’t interested then and I doubt they will be now- too much historic face to lose.

WHBM 1st Nov 2021 19:11


Originally Posted by jumpseater (Post 11135395)
Sala was likely under ‘commercial pressure’ too. He was due in Cardiff for his first training session on a multi million pound deal. It’s reasonable to assume he wouldn’t want to let down everyone in the football side of the chain, particularly as the trip was a private one to say goodbye to previous Nantes players, rather than part of the commercial deal.

At the time :

KLM depart Nantes 1715 arrive Amsterdam 1900
KLM depart Amsterdam 2120 arrive Cardiff 2140

Sala arrived at the airport at 1830, they departed at 1900, ETA at Cardiff about 2100. Not a lot of difference.

biscuit74 1st Nov 2021 21:02


Originally Posted by Midlifec (Post 11135505)
The football agent was well aware of what was going on, he had his own aircraft doing the same type of flights as far back as 2016….. flown by Henderson and Murgatroyd amongst others before it was crash landed having substantially overflown its maintenance check period. The CAA weren’t interested then and I doubt they will be now- too much historic face to lose.


Strewth - another layer in the murky world this has revealed. Truly disgraceful if true that the CAA seems content to let this mess alone.

I understand about the 'face problem, but there must come a pint where the embarrassment plus potentially the threat of legal action will move them. Given their recently increased & somewhat aggressive seeming readiness to drop heavily on misdemeanours by ordinary private pilots going about relatively routine activities and making what in many cases are evidently honest mistakes, this is poor, to say the least.

WHBM 1st Nov 2021 21:34


Originally Posted by biscuit74 (Post 11135725)
Given their recently increased & somewhat aggressive seeming readiness to drop heavily on misdemeanours by ordinary private pilots going about relatively routine activities and making what in many cases are evidently honest mistakes, this is poor, to say the least.

This is called "going for the low hanging fruit". A common sign of a poor administration.

. flown by Henderson and Murgatroyd amongst others before it was crash landed having substantially overflown its maintenance check period.
Can someone link to an AAIB report for this.

Midlifec 1st Nov 2021 22:22

The AAIB report was based on information provided by the pilot…….. no proper field investigation and no interest in the legality of the operation. No doubt difficult for the AAIB to follow through but the CAA were aware. If only it had been nipped in the bud back then.

Jonzarno 1st Nov 2021 22:54


This is called "going for the low hanging fruit". A common sign of a poor administration.
If the fruit hung any lower than this “operation” they’d trip over it!

Hipper 2nd Nov 2021 17:30


Originally Posted by WHBM (Post 11135672)
At the time :

KLM depart Nantes 1715 arrive Amsterdam 1900
KLM depart Amsterdam 2120 arrive Cardiff 2140

Sala arrived at the airport at 1830, they departed at 1900, ETA at Cardiff about 2100. Not a lot of difference.

Say half hour booking in at Amsterdam makes it double the time. And what if he did arrive at Nantes for a commercial flight departure at 1830, could he have got a flight then (he seems to have been delayed for his flight so perhaps it also was not possible to arrive earlier then 1830).

parkfell 2nd Nov 2021 21:05


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 11135443)
… if I fly friends for free on my PPL/IR it doesn’t make me or them any safer than if I was charging them for the flight: same pilot, same aircraft, same risks. FTAOD that’s not intended as any kind of defence for grey charters!

Think of this as a possible analogy: no NHS exists. 100% private medicine

You need your appendix removed (job offer in Antarctica).

Do I go to a qualified surgeon for a straightforward operation, or go with a failed medical student (Ibbotson failed to complete his CPL groundschool course) to performs surgery for half the price. The failed medical student had performed similar operations: they were essentially successful although there had been some post operative complications (CAA correspondence to ac owner)in the past.

So far as your friends are concerned they go flying with you in the full knowledge (hopefully?) you are not a professional pilot who is subject to jumping through the prescribed hoops every 6 monthly. They weigh up that ‘risk’ and make a decision. As statistically small as it might be, a sudden loss of power [Engine fail of the one engine just after lift off] on a single pilot multi engined piston will invariably prove fatal. Loss of Control.
It would require a serious level of skill given the sudden reduction (90%) in Performance. This critical situation is unlikely to be practiced.

I didn’t fully appreciate the serious reduction in performance until I started undertaking C of A renewal flight tests on the Seneca 3 at PIK last century. The single engine 5 minute climb sequence certainly opened my eyes as to just what a loss of power just after rotation would involve. You need to be mentally prepared on every launch.

sirAlex 2nd Nov 2021 22:39


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 11134649)

If I take three people I don’t know for a flight in my aircraft, for example flying veterans and their helpers to Project Propeller, and don’t charge them, that is deemed to be legal and, by implication, to offer an acceptable level of safety. If I charge them for the flight illegally, it doesn’t change the level of the danger they face even though I would be committing an offence.

As a fare paying pasenger on commercial flights only (pre-covid; none since) I would respectfully suggest your analysis is wrong at the point I have highlighted.

The 2 scenarios you outline are in no way symmetrical/ analogous.

In the first scenario, you are the boss. If you say that the flight is off, disappointment apart, there is no pressure on you not to exercise your judgement.

In the second case, the punters didn't pay you to cry off at the last minute. They're paying you good money, maybe in cash, for you to get them there and they don't take kindly to last minute hitches.

Even more importantly perhaps, you know that if you call the flight off, the financial repercussions for you are real.

Hence, I submit, the danger of a non-professional decision over the decision to fly or not to fly is much higher in the second case than in the first.

'So far, so abstract'

One real issue I have seen alluded to in the last few pages but not developped, I reckon, is the element of teaching or instilling what I might call professional judgement in the more advanced licence examinations which the pilot involved in this sad case had not undertaken .

My worry is not with the issue of teaching but rather with the issue of the ability of commercial pilots to exercise this judgement in the real world of national/ international aviation.

The posts which I have seen here have taken it as read that the commercially trained pilot has imbibed these principles and that there is no pressure not to exercise professional judgement when needed.

As a less than enthusiatic flyer, I would love to believe this was the case. But it does seem a somewhat idealised picture given the commercial pressures involved.

Jonzarno 3rd Nov 2021 09:08


The 2 scenarios you outline are in no way symmetrical/ analogous.

In the first scenario, you are the boss. If you say that the flight is off, disappointment apart, there is no pressure on you not to exercise your judgement.

In the second case, the punters didn't pay you to cry off at the last minute. They're paying you good money, maybe in cash, for you to get them there and they don't take kindly to last minute hitches.
Actually they are. There is a direct comparison because in both cases there is a risk of “gethereitis” causing a bad decision, it’s just driven by different motivating factors.

In the one case a desire not to deprive a 95 year old veteran of what may be his last reunion with old comrades with whom he risked his life 70+ years ago, in the other pressure from a type alpha passenger whose attitude is: “I’ve paid and want to fly”. (FWIW, in my case the former would probably be the harder to resist, but I’d resist anyway! :))

My ability or inability to make the right decision is the same in either case and depends only on my ADM skills, willingness to use those skills to make an objective decision and the determination to implement it.

Note: this is NOT a comparison between a pilot with a CPL and all its associated training vs a PPL/IR, it is the latter either being paid or not for the same flight and, again, I stress: this is in no way in support of grey charters which are illegal and should be stamped on.

And, by the way, even an ATPL doesn’t necessarily immunise a pilot against this kind of bad decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk_air_disaster


Jonzarno 3rd Nov 2021 09:45


Do I go to a qualified surgeon for a straightforward operation, or go with a failed medical student
Whilst I agree with this analogy: that’s not the comparison I made.

I simply said that, given a non-CPL licensed pilot, in the same aircraft, in both cases the risks are the same.

In other words: the appendectomy done by the (failed) medical student carries the same level of risk whether they are being paid for it or not.

Yet again, I stress: this is not in support of grey charters!

alfaman 3rd Nov 2021 10:30


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 11136509)
Whilst I agree with this analogy: that’s not the comparison I made.

I simply said that, given a non-CPL licensed pilot, in the same aircraft, in both cases the risks are the same.

In other words: the appendectomy done by the (failed) medical student carries the same level of risk whether they are being paid for it or not.

Yet again, I stress: this is not in support of grey charters!

I don't think the data supports your view: objectively, the measure of risk is surely the accident rate per number of flights: this is just one article, but it quotes Eurostat data on fatalities, still somewhat simplistic because it doesn't seem to take account of the difference in hours flown, but it's a start. I would hazard a guess that the number of commercial hours flown against private would swing the data even more in commercials favour. https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/flyi...an-commercial/

In the tragic case here, surely Sala would not have been in that aircraft in that piece of sky, if it were properly chartered & flown? There would be no need for it to be desperately trying to stay VMC fighting the weather, a commercial crew would plan to avoid such circumstances anyway?

Jonzarno 3rd Nov 2021 11:03

alfaman

Please read what I have now written in three separate posts.

FTAD (and please excuse my use of caps, no offence is intended! THEY ARE FOR EMPHASIS ONLY) :)

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A GREY CHARTER IS AS SAFE AS A PROPERLY CHARTERED AND FLOWN AIRCRAFT

ALL I am saying is that a flight undertaken by ANY pilot is neither safer nor less safe PURELY AS A RESULT of whether the pilot is being paid or not.

It is the same aircraft, whether safe or unsafe, the same pilot, whether competent or not, with the same NON-CPL (i.e. PPL or PPL/IR) qualification, flying in the same bit of sky, in good weather or bad, at the same time and subject to the same ADM considerations as discussed in my earlier post.

In the one case the pilot is being paid (illegally!) and in the other he / she is not. That is the only difference.



WHBM 3rd Nov 2021 11:20


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 11136558)

ALL I am saying is that a flight undertaken by ANY pilot is neither safer nor less safe PURELY AS A RESULT of whether the pilot is being paid or not.

I think we understand your point, but don't believe it is quite correct. The decision whether to cancel a flight or not is quite different where you are just giving your mates a joy ride, and can say "weather not good enough, lets go and have a drink in the clubhouse and come back next weekend", compared to paying 'passengers' turning up and expecting to be taken - particularly if you need the money, and are concerned about the 'fixer' saying they won't use you again.

I do remember quite some years ago when BA ran helicopters in the North Sea, pilots aborting an approach to a platform where there was a parked second chopper at one end and the lit flare stack was blowing over the other end. The oil company platform manager wrote to BA ops saying they were obviously unreliable and they wouldn't renew the contract. This got up to the BA Chairman, who wrote to the oil company Chairman putting things straight, and all hell let loose at the oil company, with the platform manager back home in Houston quicker than you could turn around.

Can you imagine McKay accepting that from Henderson ?

Jonzarno 3rd Nov 2021 12:03


The decision whether to cancel a flight or not is quite different where you are just giving your mates a joy ride, and can say "weather not good enough, lets go and have a drink in the clubhouse and come back next weekend", compared to paying 'passengers' turning up and expecting to be taken
Each to his own I guess.

I have never flown any kind of commercial flight as a pilot, legal or otherwise, but have never once had a problem cancelling a flight for weather or technical reasons and have done so several times in very pressing circumstances.

I am also absolutely sure I would have no problem doing so if I was being paid.




megan 3rd Nov 2021 12:08

I've flown with ATPL's and PPL's, individuals in both have exhibited traits where I would be happy to fly with them any time, and others no way in the world if I could help it. For a commercial pilot the standard is set by the employer, it may be good, or it may be the absolute pits. There are no guarantees with what you're getting, other than by due diligence checking of who you wish to employ. Buyer beware.

WHBM 3rd Nov 2021 12:25


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 11136586)
I am also absolutely sure I would have no problem doing so if I was being paid.

Always bearing in mind, of course, that as with much of aviation, if you don't do the flight, you don't get paid ...

alfaman 3rd Nov 2021 12:43


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 11136558)
alfaman

Please read what I have now written in three separate posts.

FTAD (and please excuse my use of caps, no offence is intended! THEY ARE FOR EMPHASIS ONLY) :)

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A GREY CHARTER IS AS SAFE AS A PROPERLY CHARTERED AND FLOWN AIRCRAFT

I did thanks, & no offence taken, but nowhere have I said your view is in support of grey charters. My point relates to the risks of private vs commercial. If I've understood you correctly, your point seems to be that the same circumstances with pilots of different qualification level would meet the same fate: but different qualification directly relates to whether paid or not, hence my reference to the data. Competence isn't being used here as a term to describe whether one is a fantastic flyer or not: it means the individual has had their professional skills assessed as meeting or exceeding a set standard.

ALL I am saying is that a flight undertaken by ANY pilot is neither safer nor less safe PURELY AS A RESULT of whether the pilot is being paid or not.

It is the same aircraft, whether safe or unsafe, the same pilot, whether competent or not, with the same NON-CPL (i.e. PPL or PPL/IR) qualification, flying in the same bit of sky, in good weather or bad, at the same time and subject to the same ADM considerations as discussed in my earlier post.

In the one case the pilot is being paid (illegally!) and in the other he / she is not. That is the only difference.
My point is that a) that ain't necessarily the case, because b) the qualification may well mean the aircraft should never be in that same circumstance, because c) the qualified pilot should know better than to ever put it there - by dint of the skills demonstrated by their qualifications. Even if by some quirk of fate, they do find themselves in that same piece of sky, & fate decides to be a b!tch, then the qualified pilot has been trained & assessed to be able to handle that situation effectively, & successfully. That's not to say a PPL/PPL/IR wouldn't have a successful outcome, just that the odds are significantly less, & perhaps rely more on luck than judgement - that is the difference.

Bergerie1 3rd Nov 2021 12:51

In a former life, when I was a chief pilot in an airline, I always emphasised to newly promoted captains that they were 'long stop', and that one of their more difficult decisions would be when they needed to say, 'No'. I emphasised that if they did so, and even if they were wrong, I would always back them up. One of the strengths of a properly run AOC operation is for captains to know they would have the backing of the company when making these difficult decisions.

Hipper 3rd Nov 2021 15:26


Originally Posted by WHBM (Post 11135737)
This is called "going for the low hanging fruit". A common sign of a poor administration.

Can someone link to an AAIB report for this.

Edit - wrong report!

Now we are getting somewhere!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/u...plane-20468815

https://assets.publishing.service.go...BAKH_06-19.pdf


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:44.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.