Quite well known by pilots, same box of silence as the N-reg DME quest.

It is not entirely irrelevant for the cause of the crash. As there would most likely have been a pressure on both the Pilot to get the player to Cardiff on this day, equally for the Sala to arrive on time for starting his new contract with Cardiff.

The aircraft could have crashed for X, Y or Z reasons, end of the day Sala should NEVER have been onboard this aircraft as a passenger. And its very likely that D.I would have NEVER flown this flight privately. Result would have been most likely both the Pilot and Sala still enjoying their lives.
Without a wreckage all those X, Y and Z reasons will never be determined, there will be guesses based on the most likely scenario, based on weight of the aircraft, weather conditions and any possible technical issues from the past.

Hopefully more details like photos of Salas luggage will help to see, it's serious amount of back peddling being made by McKay. The actual cause of the crash is unfortunately considering the circumstances less important for this investigation, more important is how this all came about and how widespread this is in the GA world.

I can agree to the legality of the flight being not relevant for the accident itself per se.
But, we are posting in a pilots forum here.
My view, main purpose to discuss possibilities and what-if's for continuous improvement.
My target, openly discuss errors and decision making topics for the future, not the past.
My resumé, let blaming flaming to the ordinary ground folks.

Interesting that Henderson's LinkedIn page has endorsments from a certain charter broker. As a private aviator flying private aircraft not on AOCs, one wonders why he'd have a particular relationship with a charter broker? Charter brokers more than anyone know the rules, at least they should. With a bulging portfolio of contacts from the sports personality world, one wonders how often the odd jocky, golfer or footballer, or their agents, PRs etc. still go through a friendly charter broker but get a cheap, non-AOC deal, off the balance sheet so to speak.

Like estate angents, charter brokers are not regulated, litterally anyone can sell 'charters' from their kitchen. You have charter industry representative bodies like BACA with 'Codes of Conduct' and no doubt members of such organisations are legitimate and behave themselves, but for every 'good guy' there are probably ten 'bad'. Caveat Emptor.

I know there are many here who believe a flight of this nature should never have taken place in a piston single at night.

That said, the aircraft type was designed for this type of mission when flown IFR by a suitably qualified and licenced pilot.

If this flight had been planned using this aircraft, but IFR using the airways at a sensible flight level, it would almost certainly have ended uneventfully.

How difficult would it have been in practice to have found a suitably qualified CPL/IR to captain this flight?

Probably not difficult ( but more money). However that still wouldnt make the flight legal with regard it being a charter and a fare paying customer. So it poses the question if you are prepared to pay the extra for a suitably qualified pilot - why not pay for a legal charter ?

Has been asked before on this thread, but who would be investigating this aside from the UK AAIB? Who takes the lead on the legal front? Are the US FAA doing an independent investigation to the UK CAA, indeed are the UK CAA doing anything? Are the UK Police interviewing the likes of the McKays, Dave Henderson, the beneficial owner(s) of the aircraft? Has someone gone down to Nantes already to ascertain exactly what was going on there the day the aircraft set-off with contradictions in pilot names, flight plans, passports etc.? Has someone spoken to people at Gamston, the maintenance outfit etc? No indication that there is any other investigation aside from the AAIB alone which will be entirely focused on the cause of the accident not the illegality of the flight?

Bottom line, aside from AAIB, is there a specific entity taking the lead on everything else?

In the 80's I used to fly light twins on an AOC , the customers were often people of high net worth , cricketers, some pop stars, CEOs etc. 90% was single crew ( there being no legal requirement for two crew - just a request from the the individual company due the HNW of the individual pax).
I can think of at least 10 " friends" who were keen to take my business ( customers) in their rented N registered ( sometimes G reg) aircraft because they could offer what they perceived to be the same service but cheaper ( with no AOC). I often had some heated discussions with them arguing the loophole which they believed exonerated them.
None of them are now pilots.
They were probably correct in some of their views and arguments - who is going to stop them in an N reg aircraft and ask to check their licence and qualification - hardly an FAA rep flying over for the sole purpose ... ( admittedly there was the chance of a ramp check in Europe , but they considered it a risk worth taking - probably a small fine for not having their licence with them ( if they had one).
I am not sure how much has changed - I suspect very little.
This accident has brought this illegal flying to the forefront - will anything change ? - Probably not - there is no oversight

I think the tops that evening exceeded the PA46 - probably around 28-30,000 ft

Have to agree,If the plane was full of ice,he was stuffed anyways,descend,climb You do the hokey pokey. And you turn yourself around.Too late for anything,doomed flight.

piperboy84 A quick Gramet check before departure would have given him some ideas, but without a PIREP it would remain the computer's best guess.

Total speculation, but it could be he was slow in noticing ice accretion (at night with AP engaged he'd have fewer visual clues and not feel anything untoward), and couldn't get down quickly enough to warmer climes. Not much fun, but if he'd been able to maintain 1500' over the water any ice would melt and there are no mountains to hit... Not discussing the legalities, just the practicalities.

I think you are wrong. This elephant, or as somebody said nicely better some posts ago: mammoth for its age of knowledge, is being targeted by task forces now. There is an agreement between FAA and EASA to ramp checks on N-reg by the usual EASA personnel. My bet we widely will see checks on N-reg this year, already and unrelated to this accident.

Formality , Crash investigation.
 

I have followed this accident with some interest and have a few questions to pilots here with proper knowledge of GA.

1 Who is conducting the Investigation ( UK or France)?
2 Will NTSB be involved as it was a N- registered AC?
3 What is the likely reaction from FAA, if any?
4 In the case of it being a UK matter , what is the likely CAA reaction or recommendation?
5 What would be France involvement and possible action?
6 What is the chance of the responsible people being taken to criminal court?

For those of You who are not familiar with me and my postings, here is a heads up!
I say it as I see it, and I have been in the industry for 30 years.
I resent that there is private pilots in Europe doing professional work like this!
It is dangerous, as proven here, and takes work away from young commercial pilots.
I particularly hate seeing innocent people die due to other peoples greed and incompetence!!

I am familiar with aircraft investigation ,and have been involved I all levels of Instructing.
I have experience with instructing in Canada, Norway, Europe and under the FAA system.
So, It intrigues me that this kind of stuff is allowed to go on.
I do believe that this would not be tolerated in the US by the FAA ,and in Canada by the MOT, correct me if I am wrong. It has been some time since I was in Canada.

The fact that UK CAA lets this go on does not surprise me one bit, as my experience and observation of them can be summed up in one word: Disappointing!

The Regulations and Legal limits here are obviously complicated, this is why I ask some rather basic questions.
The operational limits are in hindsight broken on just about every level, I would think.

I hope this high profile accident can end with the UK CAA and EASA getting the boots on the ground and finally do the Duty assigned them!

Regards
Cpt B

BluSdUp,


The answers to some of your questions are covered by a recent UK AAIB statement:-

See link:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...ircraft-n264db

The straight line distance is 264nm ( broken down into 89nm before coasting out.....then a potential 131nm across the water to the UK Coastline & then a further 43nm to Cardiff ) on the 131nm sector after 54nm Guernsey would have been under them on a straightline course, but I think we have all realised that the routing on the Flightplan would have included IFR waypoints like BRILL ( which would explain it being near Casquets in some reports ).

I am at a loss where Malabo got his 200nm figure from? It is still conjecture that the route would have been a straight line so the 264nm could quite easily be a 300+nm journey, at this time nobody knows ( well, Cardiff ATC & Nantes ATC will have the Flightplans filed & will know exactly what route was filed )

I think now it is assumed that Sala was collected from Nantes to fly to Cardiff on the 18th by N531EA Eclipse & then as he wanted to return on the 19th the Malibu N264DB was organised to do the 'jolly' to say " Goodbye " to his ex team mates etc.

Supposition would be that having had the Eclipse Jet on the 18th Sala was probably expecting the same class of aircraft on the 19th & when being given the Malibu he possibly thought " Ah well, not as nice as that jet but will do? " Which would back up the message of: " It is the same company operating the flight " from the flight organiser

It is Horses for courses because if Sala had been flown across in a PA32 on the 18th he would have thought " This Malibu is an upgrade " on the 19th but because he had been in the Eclipse on the 18th he would think the Malibu was a downgrade.

Anyway, it will all be investigated & I am sure some heads will roll.... it looks like a case of buck passing, somewhere Dave Henderson & Willie McKay will be made accountable and I think I know who will end up the 'scapegoat'

When I took out a life policy 30 years ago I'm pretty certain the wording was more like "flying of any kind other than as a fare paying passenger in multi-engined aircraft". The policy was nothing special, being the endowment policy that (eventually) failed to pay off a modest mortgage.

Mine said something to the effect of excluding: "flying other than as a passenger in commercial aircraft". I had to query it, as my job requied me to fly occasionally as a passenger in certain non-commercial aircraft.