|
Originally Posted by Dog on Cat3
(Post 11147799)
I am thus curious as to why this mature, educated, former RAF man ... would be daft enough to engage in such risk taking,
|
Originally Posted by Richard Dangle
(Post 11148128)
Everyone here will have seen our fellow human beings do incredibly, incomprehensingly dumb stuff for no apparent meaningful reasons. And most of us will hold our hands up and admit we have done the same - I know I have. A lot of the time, the thing that has the biggest single influence on any given outcome is simply pure luck.
Summed up perfectly. Btw. one of the biggest Online Platforms exists mostly out of this (Yout*be), to prove your point. |
Read part 91!
Before posting about what 14 CFR part 91 allows and does not allow people should actually read it. Part 91 is applicable to commercial operation and there is no prohibition on being single crew conducting a commercial operation over age 60.
Please stop referring to commercial operation in general when the point you want to make is in reference to a very specific subset of commercial operation. |
Originally Posted by EXDAC
(Post 11148217)
Before posting about what 14 CFR part 91 allows and does not allow people should actually read it. Part 91 is applicable to commercial operation and there is no prohibition on being single crew conducting a commercial operation over age 60.
Please stop referring to commercial operation in general when the point you want to make is in reference to a very specific subset of commercial operation. Commercial operations were not permitted by either the FAA, EASA, or UK CAA. Licensing was based predominantly on EASA regulations. It is as much an academic discussion here on PPRuNe that pilots aged 60 or more, under EASA, cannot fly single crew commercial operations. He was illegal on multiple fronts, convicted & jailed for 18 months. Now appealing the sentence. |
The age limit of 60 applies to single public transport operations, which the type of flights under main discussion are. Generally speaking, if you approach an AOC holder and buy a seat, it’s public transport.
|
Deterrent needed?
Well, if it is deterrent you seek re' grey chartering perhaps this legal upgrade affecting Europe's coach and road haulage industries from February 2022 may bring hope:
" 7. Joint liability of shippers A joint liability principle was introduced, whereby shippers can be held liable for the infringements committed by the hauliers they use where they knew or ought to have known the transport services they commissioned involved infringements. " Were AOC law to include a similar principle it would become easier for CAA, etc, to go after all those in the background, at least in future cases. Perhaps more importantly the deterrent effect could well be significant, instantaneous and all at minimal cost. Just a thought... |
Originally Posted by Dog on Cat3
(Post 11148699)
" 7. Joint liability of shippers A joint liability principle was introduced, whereby shippers can be held liable for the infringements committed by the hauliers they use where they knew or ought to have known the transport services they commissioned involved infringements. " Just a thought... a. There are a few successful prosecutions based upon the “Joint liability “ principle outlined above. b. See an example of how it might be framed in UK law. The phrase “ought to have known “ would give me cause for concern and thus lead to yet another law on the statute book that is never applied. YS |
If not already done, the CAA legal dept need to explore the concept of Joint Liability so that when the likes of football agents etc need to hire an aircraft, they know full well that an AOC operator is the only option.
Perhaps when the MPs get involved, the Department of Transport can give ‘direction’ to the CAA to draw up proposals for new legislation. PPRuNers might consider writing to their MPs, and Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport with your concerns. |
So who might have been jointly liable here ?
Henderson ? Ibbotson ? McKay ? McKay Junior ? Southern Aircraft Consultancy ? Cardiff football club ? The CAA for looking the other way ? Sala ? Seems like a route to lawyers' riches. |
I remember a minor CAA campaign (about ten years ago?) where they produced leaflets for potential passengers, explaining the requirement to ensure that a proposed flight was sought from an AOC holder, rather than any old Joe Soap PPL holder who fancied illegally earning a bob or two and risking it.
These were placed on the desk at Battersea heliport and other places and handed out at major events. |
CAA launch consultation on cost-sharing
Cost sharing flights are flights shared by private individuals. The ‘cost-share’ element refers to the costs of the specific flight which can be shared between the pilot and others onboard the aircraft. These costs are the ‘direct costs’ which are directly incurred in relation to a specific flight such as fuel, airfield charges, or aircraft rental fees. One of the problems with cost sharing flights is where pilots and passengers of Illegal Commercial Air Transport collude to present illegal flights as legal cost shared flights. In 2021 we reviewed the cost sharing regulations. This consultation is focused on our proposals to update the regulations |
Originally Posted by WHBM
(Post 11148833)
So who might have been jointly liable here ?
Henderson ? Ibbotson ? McKay ? McKay Junior ? Southern Aircraft Consultancy ? Cardiff football club ? The CAA for looking the other way ? Sala ? Seems like a route to lawyers' riches. Adequate publicity will be needed with any changes in the law to make it abundantly clear that even ‘aiding & abetting’ such activity is an offence with fines/jail time. Deter the practice with beefed up legislation & the feeding frenzy of M’learned friends will be reserved for an occasional Crown Court appearance. |
Somewhat similar case reported from France: PA-46 accident passengers wrongly believed they were flying with airline | News – Intecaerospace
|
Rich people making mistakes that only rich people can make; trying to be cheap
And regulators turning a big, blind eye. Quelle surprise. |
Wow - unbelievable, especially as the KLM Loyalty programme is called "Flying Blue"
French investigation authority BEA has detailed its concern over the way the flight to Courchevel mountain airfield was arranged, after the passenger organising the trip believed the service was associated with Air France-KLM. The flight – on 8 February 2019 – was actually a private one, arranged through an internet platform called Bluewings which put passengers in contact with aircraft owners and pilots. Bluewings had been assisted by a start-up studio for new businesses, called BigBlank, which was a subsidiary of Air France-KLM created to incubate innovative travel projects. BigBlank helped create the Bluewings platform. The Bluewings website indicated, in small print, that it was not an airline and its purpose was to facilitate travel by connecting passengers with pilots and aircraft. But when the passenger paid for the hire of the aircraft and pilot, through a single invoice, the bank transfer details mentioned BigBlank and Air France-KLM, giving the impression that the airline group was involved. BEA adds that other services proposed on the website, such as hotel transfer, could “resemble” those of commercial transport, even while remaining in the scope of private operation. |
Like the concept of AIR TRANSPORT POLICE….
|
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metro...-15915539/amp/
Anyone got a current address or phone number? Coroner might appreciate a heads up if so. Mind you postal service has been a bit wobbly with Omicron fallout, so he might not have received the letter… |
David Henderson has been refused permission to appeal his 18 month sentence by the Court of Appeal.
|
Inquest began today
In Bournemouth Town Hall. With a jury.
Wiki says: "Since 1927, coroner's juries have rarely been used in England. Under the Coroners Act 1988, a jury is only required to be convened in cases where the death occurred in prison, police custody, or in circumstances which may affect public health or safety." 'Expected to last 5 weeks' says the report I read. Not allowed by this site to post a link, however |
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.