alfaman

No: not different qualification levels.

What I have been saying is that THE SAME PILOT would probably have the same result whether being paid or not. I acknowledge fully that a CPL is a higher qualification and that a properly conducted genuine charter is safer that a grey charter.

Following on from Hipper, you might wish to google COMED AVIATION LTD where one Robert George Murgatroyd operated an airline that ceased trading in 2003.

It is unlikely that a professional pilot on a charter would use a single engined piston aircraft across water at night. Even if the pilot was qualified in all respects, would the AOC permit a flight across the English Channel?
That is what would separate a professional operation from a cowboy operation.

Had CO poisoning not occurred, and the AP remained serviceable, I would suggest that Sala would have arrived at Cardiff.

Ok, so I admit I'm confused: I can't see how that circumstance can arise? How would a CPL find him/herself in that position in the first place?

If the same pilot in this instance wasn’t being paid, would he have have attempted the flight at all?

OK: one last try.

A PPL/IR Pilot WITHOUT a commercial licence (CPL) flies a friend from Nantes to Cardiff in a SEP. He is not paid anything. Although the flight carries a level of risk associated with flying in a SEP over water, this flight is perfectly legal.

A few days later, the same pilot, in the same aircraft, flies a different passenger on the same route in identical weather conditions but this time he is operating a grey charter and charges his passenger £500 for the flight. This flight is illegal because the pilot is not allowed to charge for it.

Although it is clearly illegal: why is the second flight inherently more dangerous than the first?

Who knows? Getthereitis is a disease that can strike for all sorts of reasons and money can be one of them for sure, but is far from being the only one. There are plenty of pilots in the cemeteries who have taken on flights they shouldn’t have for all sorts of reasons.

Ah, OK now I think I'm with you: in that instance, I agree, it probably isn't dangerous for those two flights in isolation. But perhaps if we remove the IR element, both might be considered foolhardy? The AAIB report states - A loss of control was made more likely because the flight was not conducted in accordance with safety standards applicable to commercial operations. This manifested itself in the flight being operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) at night in poor weather conditions despite the pilot having no training in night flying and a lack of recent practice in instrument flying.

I suspect the answer lies in the perception of rule adherence/rule breaking. If your pilot is prepared to break the rules to make some cash, what other rules is he also prepared to break? Landing below limits? Controlled airspace boundaries? Weather limits? We've stepped beyond ignorance of the law, into knowingly breaking it - from there, it's a slippery slope. So, yes, perhaps those flights will be conducted effectively & without incident, but at some point in the future, all those cheese holes will line up.

In the sad example which generated this thread, the final flight was the culmination of a series of transgressions, accumulating like flotsam on a beach: sure, no doubt previous flights were flown without incident (although there's evidence not totally without), but at any point, the pilot may have been presented with a situation that his skills & experience couldn't handle: tragically for Mr Sala, that flight was the one he was on.

"A PPL/IR Pilot WITHOUT a commercial licence (CPL) flies a friend from Nantes to Cardiff in a SEP. He is not paid anything. Although the flight carries a level of risk"
Would that pilot do so in the weather forecast for this flight, in an aircraft he was unfamiliar with?
Would the friend, knowing him, accept without questions?
Sala was NOT a friend of any of the people involved. He was a trusting innocent, betrayed by the system he trusted

Alfaman sums up the situation in a clear & concise manner.
It is very unfortunate that CO poisoning occurred. The maintenance quality of the ac is clearly called into question.
The deadly Swiss Cheese model rears its ugly head…usually there are something like 10 events in the ‘chain’ leading to an accident. Break the chain at any point and the accident would not have occurred.
We await sentencing on 12 November, & the Inquest February 2022.

If you make the comparison specific to this flight, then yes, you are right! Paradoxically, if Mr Ibbotson had been a “plain vanilla” PPL with no instrument training at all, he might (should!) have declined the flight as obviously being beyond him.

But that said: see also the JFK junior accident:

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

JFK junior wasn’t being paid, but died (and killed his passengers) in an accident not completely dissimilar to this one (no CO poisoning but VFR Pilot, and SEP over water)

No argument from me on that! What’s even more painful is that he was clearly frightened yet continued to trust both pilot and aircraft.

That is a strong argument for intensifying enforcement against grey charters.

Thank you, appreciated.

Indeed - the pressure to get to destination due to letting family down, even though the flying circumstances have changed, perhaps not dissimilar to the situation Ibbotson found himself in. JFK jnr didn't break the law as such, but the flight was perhaps unwise in those changed circumstances without having previously attained sufficient training & experience to conduct the flight safely. Perhaps it shows that money isn't necessarily the only driver that can compromise sound decision making, rather than that money isn't one, though?

My point is, Ibbotson wasn’t flying to Nantes and back because he simply wanted to do the flight. He only went because he was to be paid.

Yes, that’s quite right!

That’s quite right, but my earlier posts weren’t about his motivations, but about whether the fact that he was being paid for an illegal flight IN AND OF ITSELF made that flight more dangerous than if he - the same pilot in the same aircraft - was not being paid for that specific flight.

Ok, I appreciate we're in the world of "what ifs..?" - but I'm not clear on how the payment aspect can exist in isolation, without being motivational; & so without increasing the commercial pressure, & therefore the risk? For example, if the previously mentioned pilot were to fly his friend for no reward on the first, then fly the grey charter on the second, without being aware he was going to be paid until he was presented with a brown envelope at destination, why would he be there - what other reason could there be? Surely the payment is part of the motivation for the second flight, in the same way the friendship is part of the motivation for the first .The risk of killing a friend may lead to a more cautious approach to risk for the first, whilst the motivation of losing a fee & letting a paying customer down, with no repeat business forthcoming for the second, may increase the risk for the second? I don't understand how the pay aspect can ever exist in a vacuum?

It is not more dangerous, the rules are just more relaxed for a private flight, presumably because each person has made a personal choice to go on the flight, have seen passengers refuse to take a private single engine flight. On a private flight all the passengers will have a personal relationship with the pilot, on a charter the passenger, likely as not, wouldn't know the pilot from the proverbial bar of soap. The regulations require a higher standard of care for fare paying passengers. In my day single engine aircraft were not permitted to be used for a charter requiring over water flight, IMC, or night flying. All because of the associated risk, but a private pilot and passengers have the ability to accept those very same risks. UK regulations are the same are they not? US rules I know not, in any event, does the UK allow US registered aircraft to engage in charter operations within its borders, I doubt it.

^^^ What Megan said.

Remember that the regulator sees its responsibility first to regulate on behalf of the "public". Thereafter, and to a lesser degree, for "private" individuals. So, if a service is "publicly" available (meaning that the prospective passenger has no "private" relationship to the pilot), it'll be more heavily regulated as a "commercial" flight. The regulator can hardly account for every permutation of flights, so they draw a line. A PPL is taught which side of that line to stay on (pilot cannot be paid), CPL's are taught additional requirements associated with commercial operation expectations.

If a person is boarding a flight, does not know the pilot personally, and is paying for the flight, it's a commercial flight. The pilot is required to be at least a CPL. Other OC requirements may apply too - but it is not a "Private" flight.