Originally Posted by EXDAC
(Post 10391346)
The post I answered was not specific to the accident pilot. It was a statement with no context and demonstrably untrue in the context for which I responded. If you want to narrow the context to EASA rules perhaps you could provide a reference. The only EASA rules I have have found relating to age 60 single pilot operations apply only to Commercial Air Transport.
FCL.065 Curtailment of privileges of licence holders aged 60 years or more in commercial air transport (a) Age 60-64. Aeroplanes and helicopters. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 60 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport except as a member of a multi-pilot crew. "Commercial air transport" means the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire. How would this regulation apply to, for example, banner towing, crop spraying, or glider towing? Perhaps there is another EASA regulation that does apply? If people would rather take the view that a 59 year old pilot is building hours, spending perhaps a year or so passing exams, and spending tens of thousands of pounds on a CPL so that he can tow banners etc at, if he's lucky, £30 per hour that's absolutely fine and there lies my response. Now, if you wish to discuss FARs disregarding the thread topic and conversation then fill your boots. |
Originally Posted by Good Business Sense
(Post 10391573)
No context ? The subject matter of this thread is more than obvious and the conversation above, over the last few weeks, clearly indicates what we are talking about.
If people would rather take the view that a 59 year old pilot is building hours, spending perhaps a year or so passing exams, and spending tens of thousands of pounds on a CPL so that he can tow banners etc at, if he's lucky, £30 per hour that's absolutely fine and there lies my response. Now, if you wish to discuss FARs disregarding the thread topic and conversation then fill your boots. |
On the insurance , if is interesting to see there seem to be a lot of lawyers, insurance experts here , but the reality is a bit different .
I just looked in my insurance certificate on my aircraft (registered in Germany) and it is all there . . The insurance part has nothing to do with EASA( or FAA) in fact , it is up to each State in which you want to operate.into.,and it is the European Parliament that did set the rules in 2004 , ( Regulation EC no 785/2004 ) so , yes, in the EU , liability for 3rd party insurance it is mandatory and the minimum is set per weight (MTOW) . For my aircraft it is 1,5 Million SDR ( a SDR is a little bit more than 1 euro ) But individual states can ask for a higher amount , for instance in Austria it is 3 million. ( the highest in Europe) so if I want to fly only in my country and it only applies the legal minimum ( like in Germany) I can have an insurance of 1.5 Milion , but if I want to fly in the whole of Europe I must increase my insurance to cover 3 million, . It does not matter where the aircraft is registered , it is operating in the country that counts , because each country can set its own values, even inside the EU / EASA land.. Don't worry I leaned also something today :-) |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10391694)
On the insurance , if is interesting to see there seem to be a lot of lawyers, insurance experts here , but the reality is a bit different .
I just looked in my insurance certificate on my aircraft (registered in Germany) and it is all there . . The insurance part has nothing to do with EASA( or FAA) in fact , it is up to each State in which you want to operate.into.,and it is the European Parliament that did set the rules in 2004 , ( Regulation EC no 785/2004 ) so , yes, in the EU , liability for 3rd party insurance it is mandatory and the minimum is set per weight (MTOW) . For my aircraft it is 1,5 Million SDR ( a SDR is a little bit more than 1 euro ) But individual states can ask for a higher amount , for instance in Austria it is 3 million. ( the highest in Europe) so if I want to fly only in my country and it only applies the legal minimum ( like in Germany) I can have an insurance of 1.5 Milion , but if I want to fly in the whole of Europe I must increase my insurance to cover 3 million, . It does not matter where the aircraft is registered , it is operating in the country that counts , because each country can set its own values, even inside the EU / EASA land.. Don't worry I leaned also something today :-) I already linked all this information several posts back without being a lawyer or an insurance agent...... ;) |
Originally Posted by positiverate20
(Post 10391639)
So in any case- even if Henderson had have flown using his CPL, it would have been illegal as he's over 60. The only way to make it legal would be by having a 2nd pilot (multi-pilot crew). So... that brings us nicely back to the reported additional identification shown at Nantes? However, Ibbotson still only had a PPL so couldn't really have been part of a multi-pilot crew on a commercial flight (in order to legitimize Henderson being over 60).
|
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10391694)
On the insurance ... liability for 3rd party insurance it is mandatory
|
Originally Posted by positiverate20
(Post 10391639)
So in any case- even if Henderson had have flown using his CPL, it would have been illegal as he's over 60. The only way to make it legal would be by having a 2nd pilot (multi-pilot crew). So... that brings us nicely back to the reported additional identification shown at Nantes? However, Ibbotson still only had a PPL so couldn't really have been part of a multi-pilot crew on a commercial flight (in order to legitimize Henderson being over 60).
So the flight would have been legal if Henderson flew it, assuming he holds an FAA CPL and not an EASA one. It became illegal when a pilot without a commercial licence was somehow subcontracted to fly it. |
In non-commercial, private, flying, is the passenger a third-party? That seems to be the situation in road vehicle injury.
|
Originally Posted by runway30
(Post 10390955)
Sala signed on the Saturday before travelling back to Nantes. The Manager implied that this put him under their control because he stated that he could have insisted that Sala travel with the team to Newcastle rather than fly to Nantes. It is difficult to know the basis of the dispute with Nantes over payment but Cardiff seem to suggest that the registration of the contract with the Premier League hadn’t been completed before the accident. Their previous statements also seem to suggest negligence in the booking of the flight by the agent employed by Nantes Football Club. The Cardiff City insurance - if any - should cover the financial loss (transfer plus prejudice). Cardiff City has promised they would pay "what is due" once everything about the flight is clear. It seems they are just trying to gain time... |
Originally Posted by Maoraigh1
(Post 10392021)
In non-commercial, private, flying, is the passenger a third-party? That seems to be the situation in road vehicle injury.
|
Originally Posted by Gwyn_ap_Nudd
(Post 10392058)
I would suggest that in this case, since the passenger was not paying for the flight he was very much a third party as he was not a party to whatever contract existed between the provider and customer, whoever they may turn out to have been.
A passenger is defined as any person onboard who is not part of the flight or cabin crew, or undergoing formal training by a licensed instructor. Sala was a passenger. |
in my opinion no one goes down to Nantes in the middle of winter on a jaunt like this unless they are being paid. Trying to prove the pilot was paid is a different ball game if you pardon the pun. I doubt this was the first time Ibbotson did such a flight. |
As I predicted, the claim that Cardiff City Football Club intends to bring against Nantes Football Club appears to depend on a chain of causation. Dave Ibbotson is hired by the broker Dave Henderson, the McKays gave the job to the broker, Nantes Football Club appointed the McKays as their sales agent. There are weak links in this chain. If you approach an Air Charter Broker, you should be able to expect the broker to act in a professional way and only use licenced air carriers. However, if this activity had been going on for a long time, it then becomes more difficult for the McKays to claim that they didn’t know that Henderson was hiring private pilots. I also think there there is a problem in the link between the McKays and Nantes Football Club. The McKays were hired for the specific task of selling Sala, we don’t know that Nantes Football Club also asked them to provide transportation. |
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Henderson has approached the press watchdog to say that he’s not prepared to give interviews. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...17-h1bdcq.html |
Runway 30 is it any suprize no one will talk to the press, after all would you talk to the press if you had been unwise enough to get involved in this dubious enterprise ? |
Originally Posted by A and C
(Post 10392673)
Runway 30 is it any suprize no one will talk to the press, after all would you talk to the press if you had been unwise enough to get involved in this dubious enterprise ? |
Here is the story of another accident on a similar theme.
PILOT TO BLAME: Not qualified in crash plane, nervous when flying in clouds, 129 illegal flights in 11 weeks | The Tribune |
Here is another link relevant to discussion on this topic.
https://www.avweb.com/news/features/...-228750-1.html Here is an extract from it: "Moreover, such cost sharing applies only when the pilot and passenger share a common purpose for a flight. " |
Originally Posted by Chronus
(Post 10392748)
Here is another link relevant to discussion on this topic.
https://www.avweb.com/news/features/...-228750-1.html Here is an extract from it: "Moreover, such cost sharing applies only when the pilot and passenger share a common purpose for a flight. " I have copied this one paragraph because anyone who tries to manufacture some way in which this flight was legal is going to be beaten by that test. I am particularly annoyed by the public statements of the Ibbotson family who have raised a large amount of money by suggesting that Ibbotson was doing nothing wrong which is a deception. |
Further to Chronus's post
We acknowledge that the risk of the FAA seeking out and filing violation actions against VPOs and VPs is low. However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135. That finding could expose the VP to a certificate action and the VPO to significant fines under the civil penalty procedures of the FARs. In addition there is also, in our opinion after consulting with attorneys and insurance professionals, a significant risk that the insurers for the VPO and VP would refuse to pay any claims because the flight met the FAA’s definition of “for hire” rather than being conducted under Part 91. It would be a terrible situation if a passenger on a flight were hurt in an accident and it turned out no insurance was available to pay for her or his medical costs or other claims. Finally, we believe that directors and officers of those VPOs could find themselves facing legal action regarding their fiduciary responsibility.
|
Originally Posted by OwnNav
(Post 10392941)
We acknowledge that the risk of the FAA seeking out and filing violation actions against VPOs and VPs is low. However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135. That finding could expose the VP to a certificate action and the VPO to significant fines under the civil penalty procedures of the FARs. In addition there is also, in our opinion after consulting with attorneys and insurance professionals, a significant risk that the insurers for the VPO and VP would refuse to pay any claims because the flight met the FAA’s definition of “for hire” rather than being conducted under Part 91. It would be a terrible situation if a passenger on a flight were hurt in an accident and it turned out no insurance was available to pay for her or his medical costs or other claims. Finally, we believe that directors and officers of those VPOs could find themselves facing legal action regarding their fiduciary responsibility.
|
Fair point Runway30
But I'm sure the Feds will think thus: However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135
|
Now that the Sala funeral is over, it seems that Cardiff City’s complaints are going to get louder. This has come from the Sun so comes with an automatic reality check but is supposedly a list of questions that have been sent in reply to the claim from Nantes Football Club. 1. Was Sala a Nantes player when he stepped on to the fatal flight? 2. Who arranged the flight and why did that person put him on a single-engine plane at night in difficult conditions, without adequate emergency apparatus? 3. Who took the decision to put Sala on the plane? 4. Why won’t the owner of the aircraft come forward? 5. Was the plane licenced to take commercial passengers? 6. Was pilot David Ibbotson in possession of a licence to carry passengers? 7. Was Sala third-party owned? 8. Are Sala’s previous club Bordeaux due 50 per cent of the transfer fee as part of a sell-on clause negotiated when he moved to Nantes in 2015? 9. What was transfer broker Willie McKay’s cut? 10. Was McKay’s commission, or part of the transfer fee, due to be split between other parties involved in the deal and, if so, to who? |
This tread is going into an area which has not much to do with what it was supposed to be, . All these Sun questions are just looking for blame and pointing fingers, even starting unhealthy rumors (e.g. nr 10 ) is exactly what we hate in incident investigations . Apportion blame and responsibilities is for the police, they are trained for this , not for Aviation professionals . .
|
Originally Posted by OwnNav
(Post 10392977)
But I'm sure the Feds will think thus: However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135
Does the FAA work proactively to prevent accidents, or only retrospective? Interesting question. Would they pull the licenses of those flying N-reg such? |
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse
(Post 10393288)
Would the FAA start investigations, if one would file, against sites like Wingly?
Interesting question. Would they pull the licenses of those flying N-reg such? As for a complaint against Wingly, I imagine that the FAA would have less than zero interest. Why? Because under part 91 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. |
Excerpts from an interview McKay has had with the Daily Telegraph. ‘McKay confirmed, too, that he had spoken to the Air Accidents Investigations Branch about Sala’s fatal journey on Jan 21 and had produced a timeline of all previous private-jet trips arranged as part of the transfer. This timeline, which he shared with Telegraph Sport, shows his son had organised and paid for two earlier flights to Nantes for Cardiff manager Neil Warnock to watch the striker and two between the cities for the player himself, the first for contract talks and the second for his medical. McKay said: “The only flight everybody is talking about is the one that crashed, right? Cardiff knew everything [about every flight]. When are they going to come out and tell the truth?” McKay confirmed none of the four previous journeys used the same Piper Malibu plane or pilot, who was drafted in to take Sala back to Nantes to say his farewells before returning him to the Welsh capital. The Scot has repeatedly stressed he neither owns the doomed plane nor had any input into the selection of it or the pilot, Dave Ibbotson. Instead, he says, he simply asked one of his regular pilots, Dave Henderson, to make all the necessary arrangements. He claimed on Monday he still not to know who owned the plane or whether Ibbotson – who had £23,400 in County Court Judgments against him – was licensed to make a commercial flight or had been paid anything more than expenses. McKay said he routinely funded the flights and hotels of players he was contracted to sell – and even managers he was trying to sell them to – listing the practice among “gambles” he took in the hope of securing a lucrative payday.’ ‘Meanwhile, the AAIB confirmed on Monday its interim report into Sala’s plane crash would not be ready this week but that a publication date could be confirmed by Friday.’ |
|
Every time McKay speaks I just have more questions than answers. All the previous flights presumably were in the Eclipse. McKay is quite certain that he organised and paid for them. When it comes to the PA46, he asked Dave Henderson to ‘make all the necessary arrangements’. What does that mean? McKay says that he didn’t chose plane and pilot. In my experience, clients who regularly use air charter know the basics, prop or jet, one or two engines, one or two pilots. At some point somebody made a decision to use the PA46 after using the Eclipse for the previous flights. Wouldn’t McKay be annoyed by that? Wouldn’t the person who booked it know it wasn’t what he normally used? Suddenly McKay, although he didn’t chose the pilot, has become an expert on Dave Ibbotson’s qualifications. He uses the same form of words as the Ibbotson family, ‘he was licenced to carry passengers’. Well, yes he was in some other circumstances but not in this set of circumstances. Once again there is a cynical PR campaign going on. |
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger
(Post 10394481)
So a multitude of flights are "arranged". It can't be too difficult to find out what was the reward, who paid and who received, in which planes owned by whom etc. The big question is who will really delve into this. Apart from the high value of the passenger, authorities may consider this to be a normal "Accident". The "common purpose" required under FAA rules seems the crucial point, but will the FAA bother to investigate? Either way it would be excellent if EASA and CAA introduced the same "common purpose" rule, it would be a clear solution to a grey area. |
McKay told Sala that Cardiff were paying for the flights, now he says that his son paid for the flights. To investigate this will be like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Except for the PA46 which was ‘arranged’. |
Looking at the wider picture surely it is time for the FAA and CAA to legislate and abolish the abuse of this N flag of convenience. Clearly the reason many UK based light aircraft operate on the FAA register is to exploit the fact that it is cheaper and less regulated. Here is Asia there is a rule whereby foreign registered aircraft can only stay in the country for a limited period. Regarding agent’s part in the tragedy he clearly has passed the buck. The Scot has repeatedly stressed he neither owns the doomed plane nor had any input into the selection of it or the pilot, Dave Ibbotson. Instead, he says, he simply asked one of his regular pilots, Dave Henderson, to make all the necessary arrangements. |
Originally Posted by runway30
(Post 10394503)
At some point somebody made a decision to use the PA46 after using the Eclipse for the previous flights. Wouldn’t McKay be annoyed by that? Wouldn’t the person who booked it know it wasn’t what he normally used?
|
One thing that was puzzling me was where Sala’s personal agent went because he didn’t leave on the PA46 to Nantes on the Saturday. It has been revealed today that he left on the Friday afternoon on yet another PA46, N14EF. Altaclara Aviation Ltd. Nature of business (SIC)
|
The "common purpose" required under FAA rules seems the crucial point it may well be an illegal charter, but the “common purpose” provision has nothing to do with that. |
I got the impression that "common purpose" is a stupid blunt sword.
It only means the pilot has to have a reason at a A to B flight to be at B. You can always construct such, no way to really enforce that. |
Originally Posted by Jonzarno
(Post 10394662)
Only if this was claimed to be a cost sharing flight, which I don’t think it was. it may well be an illegal charter, but the “common purpose” provision has nothing to do with that. If it was a straightforward commercial flight the illegality is obvious, but I would suspect a cost sharing scheme will be claimed, making the flight "legal" |
Originally Posted by vanHorck
(Post 10394697)
If it was a straightforward commercial flight the illegality is obvious, but I would suspect a cost sharing scheme will be claimed, making the flight "legal"
|
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10394567)
Looking at the wider picture surely it is time for the FAA and CAA to legislate and abolish the abuse of this N flag of convenience. Clearly the reason many UK based light aircraft operate on the FAA register is to exploit the fact that it is cheaper and less regulated. Here is Asia there is a rule whereby foreign registered aircraft can only stay in the country for a limited period. Regarding agent’s part in the tragedy he clearly has passed the buck. I am not a legal expert but I imagine one of ‘ his regular pilots ‘ has played a significant part in all this. If there are costs to be saved by being on the N reg (whether for the aircraft or the pilot) then presumably that frees up cash to allow more time perfecting the skills flying the machinery. More hours flying tends, for me, to mean better skills and safer operations. Personally I prefer the discussion about causes, or possible causes of issues within aviation rather than legal conjecture on all sorts of things reported in the Sun newspaper! |
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10394567)
Looking at the wider picture surely it is time for the FAA and CAA to legislate and abolish the abuse of this N flag of convenience. Clearly the reason many UK based light aircraft operate on the FAA register is to exploit the fact that it is cheaper and less regulated. Here is Asia there is a rule whereby foreign registered aircraft can only stay in the country for a limited period. Regarding agent’s part in the tragedy he clearly has passed the buck. The CAA is required to have oversight of all flying occurring in the UK FIR regardless of the registry of the aircraft concerned. If there is an issue with questionable charters, the issue is a lack of oversight in general, unless you are suggesting that the CAA somehow watches G reg ops like a hawk and ignores the N reg ops. There are, in my view, two reasons why there is a proliferation of N reg in Europe, neither (directly) associated with cost. 1. The FAA flight crew licensing regime has been rock steady whilst we in the Uk have watched a dogs dinner unfold as we’ve moved from CAA to JAA to EASA to whatever next. 2. The FAA has historically been far faster to approve new technologies, making the register far more attractive to those operating more advanced aircraft. The accident rate on the N reg fleet globally is far better than the G reg fleet (so far as these things can be compared) and the FAA has not been slow to act when circumstances require. In situations like this, it is easy to point at the registry and claim that it has something to do with the events concerned. Right now, I see no link. Tell me why I am wrong. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.