How do we know he wasn’t instrument rated?

He’s right, a trust is the legal owner.

I think it does matter because there are parties involved that owe a duty of care to their client/player. There are parties involved that have a duty to not take actions that may invalidate their insurance cover. My prophecy is a good pay day for the lawyers.

Yes, she's an accountant, but that doesn't preclude owning an aircraft.

Interestingly, Cool Flourish Ltd owned Gamston-based Cherokee Six G-FAVS from 2012 to 2017.

N264DB was also based at Gamston.

You have mentioned this several times, two D. Ibbitson’s, and now claim somewhat authoritively that he was “ not properly licenced”.

You are aware, are you not, that one can opt out of having your personal details published on the FAA Airman website?

Let us break this down, one bit at a time.

1) The fact the passenger was a well-paid footballer has no direct bearing on the flight or how he chooses to travel. James May is a well-paid tv personality who flies himself in a single and the Duke of Edinburgh chooses to drive himself. If someone suggested this flight when a more redundant option might be considered appropriate that is far outside the realm of pilot speculation.

2) It is entirely reasonable in itself for a private pilot to fly a single engine aircraft from Nantes to Cardiff, and to take a passenger. And with a valid night rating to do so at night. I personally happen to fly a twin and have taken my IR but I have many times crossed the channel in a single, and not just from Lydd to Le Touquet, carrying friends and family, in the past and I expect virtually every qualified pilot here has done so.

3) A PA46 is far from an entry level aircraft and is eminently suitable for such a flight.

4) So there are perfectly reasonable and legal circumstances under which that plane on that route with those people on board might have flown that route. So let’s not damn the whole thing.

5) Now, it sounds like the pilot may not have had an IR rating and was flying into weather where VFR conditions were not certain. That’s not good. If in fact the pilot was flying in conditions for which he was not qualified, that is covered by existing legislation and no further regulation is needed.

6) It sounds like snow and icing conditions were likely and the aircraft had basic de-icing but may or may not have been cleared for severe icing or FKI. This seems at least like poor judgement of conditions.

7) The flight was planned at night over a long stretch of open winter water and the assumption is immersion suits weren’t worn. That was lacking caution.

8) It seems quite possible that this was a commercial flight conducted at best on the margins of what was legally permissible. Whilst legality has no direct bearing on the intrinsic safety of a flight it does have a bearing on the passenger expectations and likelihood of pressure to continue into conditions beyond either a pilot’s legal qualification or prudent judgement. Again rules exist to prevent such flights.

9) It seems likely given the absence of a mayday that control was lost suddenly quite possibly due to a combination of icing and pilot failing to handle the conditions.

10) If conditions ahead or at the time were less than favourable a prudent decision to abort and divert to one of the Channel Islands might have avoided disaster.

11) The decision to fly at only 5000 ft (didn’t check Class A base) and to descend was not necessarily the best.

12) Most of us would probably agree if even some of the assumptions are true that the flight was not simply unfortunate but unwise and quite possibly an avoidable accident.

Tragically if, as it seems, there were infringements the pilot is not in a condition to face prosecution. And his famous and unfortunate passenger is not around to comment on his knowledge of the decision process.

This is not a reason to jump on a press bandwagon to call for more regulation or assert that all single engine flights should be banned etc.

it’s like the hysteria when someone 5 times over the limit driving at 90 in a cul de sac kills someone there is a clamour to reduce alcohol limits or speed limits.

If some of the above assumptions prove correct then we should all calmly say various regulations exist to reduce the risk of such incidents and tragically this flight seems to have been conducted in contravention of regulations.

But that’s just my take.

It’s still tragic for all involved. What we should all remember is with slightly different circumstances it might have all been ok. I would be very surprised if any pilot at some point hasn’t taken a decision thinking it will probably be ok, and fortunately it was.

I don’t care how competent you are, if you aren’t current then you may not be as competent as you think you are. We don’t know at the moment.

Even if you are competent, you have a responsibility to make your passengers aware of the risks of single engine over water at night.