Many thanks for the clarification ChickenHouse. I still don’t fully understand though why people don’t appear on the database. Obviously those who have never held an FAA licence will not appear but for example, I myself had an FAA Airman Certificate, admittedly rather a long time ago, issued on the basis of a CAA licence and I have no entry in the database. Others whom I know did their initial licence in the US are not there; I have searched even for one who I know did his ATPL in the States and there is no entry. It could of course, (most likely!), be that I am just using the search function wrong.

Two non reciprocating ones.

If you look up N921GG, another PA46, it is still showing a piston Lyco TIO-540-AE2A, whereas I know for a fact that it had undergone a JetProp conversion to a turboprop. It is now powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT6A, FAA doesn't seem to update the engine information.

After reading conflicting information in press reports ("Piper Malibu" with a "single turbine engine") I have checked on the JetProp webpage listing all past JetProp conversions and haven't found the accident aircraft registration there. Having said that, a few conversions on their list have the aircraft identification redacted. Having said that in turn, had it been converted to a turboprop, we would have probably seen by now a photo showing the accident aircraft with a changed look. On conversion the engine cowling length increases dramatically, to accommodate for the turbine PT6A engine length.

Where is this aircraft's normal home base? Nobody in this entire thread seems to have clarified that? Is it Gamston? Identified owner (Cool Flourish / Fay Keely?) had another aircraft at Gamston?

I added it to the post above. If you did not give permission to publish the data, there will be no entry in the public database. When you did your validation before the IACRA portal and never got into it again, they will have no permit to publish and respect that.

From all we know and all pictures on the net, some are quite recent, there appears to be no turbine conversion for the aircraft in question.
Doing a conversion and not following the obligation to update the registry is rather a bad indication for the shop putting a PT6 in a PA46 ...
Btw, the increase in cowling length is more due to weight & balance as the turbine is much lighter than the reciprocating engine.

Fair enough, that's what I thought.
Not my aircraft - it was just to illustrate the engine conversion might have been carried out without the FAA database showing it.
OK, I thought it was a combination of reasons - length and W&B; I do remember the conversion "creates" an additional cargo compartment behind the engine to increase the engine's arm in the W&B situation.

Guernsey. They used to fly a "Donkey" copper to Alderney for a couple of hours once a week IIRC

I agree that Icarrus's post at #248 is one of the best summaries. My thoughts are that it is unlikely to be engine failure as there was no distress call. It would seem most likely to be a loss of control for one of the following reasons:

1) Ice contamination on control surfaces.
2) Ice affecting pitot static system resulting in inaccurate airspeed and altitude indications, essential in IMC and could lead to disorientation.
3) A loss of primary AI gyro, vacuum pump failure etc could result in immediate upset.
4) Pilot incapacitation. The passenger would not have a hope.

The Malibu is quite a hot ship. I have no doubt reliance would have been put on the autopilot for night IMC flying. The first three possibilities above could all result in the autopilot either disconnecting or deviating from its intended path. This would need prompt manual intervention with instrument rating skills to avoid rapid loss of control. The JFK junior PA-32 accident at Martha's Vineyard is a good example of disorientation and loss of control. I doubt we will ever know the real cause of this tragic accident as the plane will probably never be found.

If they had to ditch they were stuffed.
Weather was solid force 6 from the SW at the Channel Light Vessel at the time, varying between 23&30knots if I remember correctly. Dull and overcast/cloudy in Guernsey during the afternoon. Later in the evening (10pm?) I noticed the weather deteriorate as a front came through (gusty, sleet/hail/rain). Sea state at the CLV was 2m waves every 6-7 seconds - a very heavy 'chop' as opposed to a swell. Would have been classed as 'rather rough or rough' I suspect. It's 'spring tides' with a decent run of current in the area.
When CIAS first started searching at 9pm they had over 10 miles visibility, although I don't know what the cloud base was. It got worse and they had to give up as the cloudbase dropped too low. This is from pilots who regularly fly below clifftop height (100mASL).
Even if they managed to 'land' nicely on the water they'd have been swamped within a minute and almost certainly sunk. Alderney Lifeboat have some footage from yesterday's search on their facebook page when the weather was nicer than disappearance night. Proper horrible. I've fished up round that way a fair bit in nice weather, on that night it would have been apocalyptic to be bobbing around in the sea. If by some freak of luck they managed to get out alive and get to the Casquets or other reefs off Alderney they'd have been smashed up in the breakers trying to get out the water. I'm amazed at the amount of effort put into the search, had it been a fishing boat with two crew that disappeared they'd have given up by lunchtime the day after.

It's a 6-seat aeroplane - how much luggage makes a 6-seat aeroplane overweight when only carrying two people?

​​​​​​​PDR

I see from the 2015 BBC Ferry Pilot video that features the accident aircraft N264DB, was fitted with what looks like an Artex ELT.

SARs have not indicated whether this was activated/ detected during the initial search.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....910761fcad.jpg

He was en-route to a new home so may have feasibly been carrying quite an amount of possessions/weight - so also interested in the payload of that variant.

Whilst the aircraft involved was displaying N6645Y, at the time of the accident it was being flown unregistered and stateless.

Very sad story and once you cut through the inaccuracies it looks as though there is going to be some serious fall-out from this (presumed) accident on various fronts.

Yes, of course you're right in everything you say Icaruss at #278 The media have always been very unpopular on this website. But those hacks are actually right in what they say. Journalists aren't interested in facts, they're interested in stories. They're under heavy pressure to get stories from their editor; and file them to very tight deadlines. Why? Because we, the people, are interested in reading them. That is their job. The Daily Star has some nonsense about a throwaway comment Sala's ex-girlfriend made about this being a 'mafia hit'. A lot of rubbish and it's a nice story for that small constituency of people who read the Daily Star over their greasy spoon breakfast. Journalists aren't pilots and they don't have that expert knowledge that pilots have, which is why it's interesting to read threads like this when something like this happens. (I'm not a pilot.)

We're all complicit in the rush to jump to conclusions and speculate; and rely on unverified information. Especially in the information age. It just means that the discerning observer has to spend a bit of time cutting through the rubbish. And let's be honest - pilots wouldn't really want the press to get every detail right every time would they? If they did there'd be nothing to rant on here about. ;)

Anyway - I really hope they find some wreckage soon. Must be terrible for the families.

WWW
Then I suggest you look at FAR61.3 a (1)
So it is perfectly legal under US Law. FAR 61.75 which you quoted has nothing to do with it.

I would have expected anyone with any knowledge of operating N Reg outside the US would be familiar with this. The FSDO ruling was that "a current pilots licence valid in the foreign state" was covered under the existing law, even if it was not in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 i.e. IMC Ratings and NPPLs.

Vac Pump
 

Question for those Malibu pilots on here, does the Vac Pump also inflate the boots on this aircraft ? I used to fly a Cessna twin with TSIO-520 engines where the Vac pumps did the instruments and boots. Thankfully twins have two Vac pumps, presumeably the Malibu only has one and its failure in IMC and icing conditions could spoil your day.

Eutychus, you’ll be glad to hear “chalk from cheese” when comparing this sad event (or what appears to be the operation behind it) to the good old days of the Tris out there. As you said, from your experience of those flights “… the overall experience is similar compared to a larger aircraft.”. The reason for that is that both Aurigny and Blue Island operated the Tris as an Airline with all that entails; initial Line Training on the routes to be flown, regular refresher training, full flight planning including diversions and diversion fuel, full weight and balance, full safety briefings on every flight…. The overall setup was absolutely identical to any other routes operated by larger aircraft. There are a whole raft of hoops to go through to run an Airline. Such hoops do not come cheap, but ensure the highest possible safety standards are maintained through strict adherence to a raft of processes and regulations – sadly, even that does not result in zero accident rates.

Before I go on, many, many “Charter Operations” are just as rigorous as any “Airline” and are perfectly competent /safe in their operations – indeed many Airlines do charter work as well. Where it all starts to unravel is where people set up “charter operations” (note the careful change to lower case there!), a field which has been referred to elsewhere as “grey charters”. Now, without knowing the details, I’m not saying this was one of those. But aviation is littered with people setting up “grey charters” on the cheap, or even just “doing friends a favour”. Such operators simply do not go through all the hoops Airlines or reputable Charters go through, both to set up and then maintain a safe operation. Hoops are often missed through lack of knowledge or even through deliberate avoidance and, before you know it, you are then in bandit country – with possibly a smooth-talking pilot in a reasonably well equipped plane hiding that fact. The difficulty, especially to a lay person, is sorting one from the other in that transition from “Charter Operations” to “charter operations” – sadly, there is no illuminated red dividing line. Maybe the best guide is “If it seems too good to be true….it probably is!”.

The references to the Graham Hill accident are from a historic accident where the main issue was a miscalculated approach into Elstree, the knock on effect from the accident was that Graham Hill was a well known racing car celebrity who had his life managed by an agent who should have kept all aircraft records in currency & also advise Graham Hill of his licence revalidation requirements. Sadly his agent wasn't clued up in Aviation & his incompetence caused the Hill family a lot more distress than just losing a family member.

The same circumstances came to light in the Colin McCrae Helicopter accident, so it would seem whilst the agents of Hill & McCrae believed they had their clients best interests at heart, they just didn't understand Aviation sufficiently to keep their aviation concerns fully covered.

I have flown celebrities & flown with celebrities and they are just happy to be getting where they want to be, they really don't care whether it is a Cessna 150 or a Kingair as long as they get to their destination.