|
The colourblind isn’t a red herring. One presumes he knew of the limitation and he clearly ignored it. To me that is indicative of someone who chooses not to completely comply with the regulations. One could offer a similar argument about taking a brown-envelop payment - no harm, not the cause etc. Fine, tell that one to the insurance companies. |
S-Works, I believe you are right.
But it doesn't make a difference if the flight was illegal for one reason or for 2, 3 or 5 reasons. To me, as the flight was organised in the first place, it should have been manned with a CPL (IR) pilot. |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10403618)
Sala apparently paid for it as the person on the other end of the phone asked Sala if he arranged the price [with Willis Mc Kay] , , and Sala replied : yes , it is good .
FRIDAY JANUARY 18 7:43pm - Jack McKay: "My dad has told me that you are going home tomorrow. He could organise a plane to take you direct to Nantes and to come back on Monday, at a time that suits you, so you can get to training on Tuesday." 7:51pm - Emiliano Sala: "Ah that is great. I was just in the middle of checking if there are some flights to get to Nantes tomorrow." 7:56pm - McKay: "He said he could organise a plane that would go direct to Nantes." 7:56pm - Sala: "How much will it cost?" 7:56pm - McKay: "Nothing. He said if you help me to score goals it's nothing." 7:59pm - Sala: "Hahaha with pleasure." 8:00pm: "We are going to score lots of goals." 8:01pm: "I want to leave tomorrow for Nantes at around 11am and come back on Monday night around 9pm to Cardiff if that is possible." 8:05pm - McKay: "Good. I'll send a message when that's sorted." |
Originally Posted by S-Works
(Post 10403776)
He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY. He had NEVER been trained to fly out night due to this restriction. This could not be over ridden on his 61.75 certificate. So regardless of any of the other issues around the flight, the fact that it was flown at night made it illegal.......
|
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10403813)
I am still amazed you can get an unrestricted night rating with only a few hours training in the local area and then fly over the sea and mountains without having visual reference to the ground. |
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
(Post 10403753)
The real issues that have a causal relationship with this accident are:
- was the pilot trained and current for flying in IMC at night ? - why wasn't a commercial pilot at the controls of that plane, if it is confirmed that the actual conditions of the flight match private carriage operation as defined under FAR 91.501(b)(4). To me, as the flight was organised in the first place, it should have been manned with a CPL (IR) pilot. Single pistons are NOT permitted to carry out commercial air transport at night anyway. So I do not see the logic that "it should have been manned with a CPL because it was organised in the first place". And "if it is confirmed that the actual conditions of the flight match private carriage operation" (unlikely) an appropriately rated private pilot would be completely legitimate. |
Oggers,
I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4) where the operating costs are borne by the operator "for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". That's private carriage operation. Either the operator flies himself the aircraft, possibly with a PPL, or he hires a commercial pilot for flying his plane. I understand that FAR 61.113 forbids any other combination when the plane carries the guests of the operator. Thus, if Mr McKay had rented that plane and, separately, hired a commercial pilot for flying his guest, the flight would have fit FAA Part 91 under FAR 91.501(b)(4). Of course, the pilot must NOT be the person renting the plane. Note: about "was the pilot trained and current for flying in IMC at night ?", I was writing about ability, not legality. |
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
(Post 10403868)
But withe a night rating you are still required to have visual reference with the ground. If there are no lights (ie over the sea) and no horizon or sky references then you can be definition only be flying by sole reference to instruments which specifically requires an IR or IMC rating. Under those conditions your rating to fly VMC at night is negated by there being no VMC present.
|
Originally Posted by deltafox44
(Post 10403956)
When VFR on top you cannot see the ground either.
SND |
Originally Posted by oggers
(Post 10403876)
He was NOT rated to fly an N reg either IMC or at night. Check the FAA airman database yourself. He held an FAA private without Instrument Rating. Even if there turned out to be UK IR(r) or IMC/Night Rating that did not allow him to fly at night outside the UK. |
Originally Posted by Sir Niall Dementia
(Post 10403969)
No such thing in EASA land. You may be VMC on top, but, VFR requires sight of the ground, two very different sets of in-flight conditions.
SND Wrong. Very wrong. The SERA: https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....340147172e.png |
Sir Niall Dementia,
even considering you meant Night VFR, your statement that sight of the ground is mandatory is still wrong. SERA.5005(c)(3) only mandates sight of the ground when the aircraft is below 3000 ft AMSL or 1000 ft above terrain, whichever is higher.
Originally Posted by SERA.5005
c) When so prescribed by the competent authority, VFR flights at night may be permitted under the following conditions:
...(iii)in airspace classes B, C, D, E, F and G, at and below 900 m (3 000 ft) AMSL or 300 m (1 000 ft) above terrain, whichever is the higher, the pilot shall maintain continuous sight of the surface; and’; So you can be VMC at night and have to control your airplane by sole reference to the instruments. A consequence of that is that you must be above 3000 ft AMSL for flying at night in conditions where the sight of the surface is impossible. |
Apologies for that, I was thinking of the old rules. BUT re-read the extract above, a1and b rely on flying at speeds allowing avoidance of other traffic or OBSTACLES, OBSTACLES tend to be terrain based, they are rarely hanging around at FL90. The terminology is poor in 5005, but sight of the surface is implicit in the avoidance of obstacle wording. The UK ANO and JAR were clearer on this, SERA 5005 gives intent in it's wording, but needs clarity.
SND |
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
(Post 10403901)
I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4) where the operating costs are borne by the operator "for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". That's private carriage operation.
|
Sir Niall Dementia,
the requirement of flying higher than 1000 ft above terrain (2000 ft in mountainous areas) when not having sight of the surface is also there to ensure that obstacles are not hanging around at altitude. Grid MORA are there exactly for that purpose. However, personally, I tend to think that NVFR is there for leisure flights performed in calm clear skies, with the moon providing an eerie lighting. And for a journey from A to B, at night, the flight should be IFR. And if an IFR flight can't be made safely under prevailing meteorological conditions, then the flight should be made through an airline. |
Mach Tuck, you lost me.
Whom was Mr Sala the guest of ? And who paid the flight ? I read interviews of the agent where he stated that he bore the whole costs of the flight. And I understand that whoever hired the aircraft (on a dry lease) became the operator. |
Originally Posted by EXDAC
(Post 10403978)
Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL. The argument put forward before was that he could not do so because he had no night rating on his base UK licence. Now you say he couldn't do it even with a UK night rating.
|
The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality? Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really? Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did? Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before? Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it? Wake up! Get real people! Puhleese! There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA. We need to do something about this! |
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
(Post 10404291)
The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality? Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really? Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did? Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before? Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it? Wake up! Get real people! Puhleese! There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA. We need to do something about this! Unfortunately, in this case, the grey area proved to be the undoing of this flight, in more ways than one. Hopefully the conclusions of the investigation into this tragedy will shed some light, provide clarity to all, and prevent all involved in aviation from getting lost in the mist of uncertainty going forward. |
Originally Posted by oggers
(Post 10404150)
Because, as S Works explained, his EASA medical restricted him to daytime. He had a piggyback FAA private certificate based on his UK licence and all restrictions on the base licence apply.
Was the restriction on his UK PPL or on his EASA medical? I believe the distinction is important in terms of limitations/restriction that are rolled over to the FAA PPL. |
BBC reporting that David Ibbotson studied for a CPL at Cranfield but never completed the course. Mr Ibbotson studied for a commercial pilot's licence (CPL) qualification from December 2012 until July 2014 through Cranfield Aviation Training School in Luton, but dropped out of the course without qualifying after failing to complete his theoretical training. Dr Stuart E Smith, head of training for the school, said: "It is common for middle-aged private pilots to undertake the CPL theoretical knowledge course so that they may then complete CPL flight training and be able to earn money as a pilot or flight instructor." He said Mr Ibbotson returned in 2016 with the intention of resuming his training, but never followed it further. He added that he had sent a report to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) soon after Martin Robinson, chief executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, said it was concerned about the use of so-called grey charters, which are unlicensed flights and the use of foreign-registered planes for air taxi work, since the incident. "UK air charter companies pay a lot of money to the government for air operator certificates, without which they can't run commercial air taxi operations," said Mr Robinson. "They know they're being undercut by competitors who in some cases are not fully compliant with the law. "It's the responsibility of the person who organised the flight to have a suitably qualified pilot at the controls and to ensure the pilot had sufficient flying experience for this kind of flight and for the weather conditions that may be encountered. "Mr Sala would have had no knowledge of David Ibbotson's licence but the person organising it should have known about that. "They've let this man down." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47417434 |
Originally Posted by EXDAC
(Post 10404428)
Actually S-Works said "He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY."
His EASA medical had a no night flying restriction on it. |
So why did David Henderson pass him the job to fly Sala home at night? |
Is there a record of the CAA/FAA ever "reconstructing" (parts of) a logbook based on interviews of checking logbooks of planes, landing records to see if there was a pattern of "grey" flights? If so it could show malicious intent rather than a one-off possibly on the part of the pilot(s), plane operators or "agents".
|
Luc Lion Oggers, I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4) Subpart F—Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft |
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
(Post 10404291)
The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality? Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really? Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did? Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before? Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it? Wake up! Get real people! Puhleese! There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA. We need to do something about this! |
Originally Posted by Hipper
(Post 10404723)
I generally agree with the 'rules is rules' concept and that they should be followed as I presume they are designed for safe flying, but I'd like to ask, are there more accidents involving 'grey area' flying then in fully legal flying in relation to small aircraft carrying passengers here in the UK?
|
Originally Posted by vanHorck
(Post 10404574)
Is there a record of the CAA/FAA ever "reconstructing" (parts of) a logbook based on interviews of checking logbooks of planes, landing records to see if there was a pattern of "grey" flights? If so it could show malicious intent rather than a one-off possibly on the part of the pilot(s), plane operators or "agents".
To answer your question it is relatively easy to reconstruct the days and weeks leading up to this accident.. So far no one else has come forward on this thread to admitting to having flown N264DB so perhaps it is safe to surmise the aircraft was rented from the owners on a dry lease by one person. The only pilot linked to that aircraft is David Henderson who refuses to talk and has made efforts to silence press reports to no avail. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a438a9e17.jpeg Given the agents admission that he was their regular pilot it is safe to assume that his log books and those of the aircraft will be scrutinised by the CAA. I imagine they will also want to look at bank transfers between the parties involved. The pilots family will also be questioned on how when and where he flew that aircraft as will ground staff at Gamston. The movements of the N264DB leading up to the accident will also be cross referenced to those who paid for the flights etc. In short it is easy to build a picture of how and when and for who the aircraft was flown for. The AAIB had an opportunity to recover the aircraft but declined so we can assume they know enough to surmise it was not a mechanical fault that caused the accident. It is worth mentioning that this ‘grey area’ of flying extends to the movement of jockeys around racecourses in the UK. There was a recent accident at Haydock Park that just luck on the day prevented fatalities. https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/horse...he-racecourse/ https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9c5198021.jpeg |
A definition of gross negligence manslaughter The test to be applied to determine whether a person has committed gross negligence manslaughter was articulated by Lord Woolf LCJ in R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6, who set out the five elements required:
|
I would be looking at three,four and five on that list. Sadly we no longer have Flying Lawyer on here to offer an opinion since he was elevated to the judiciary a couple of years ago. |
Originally Posted by oggers
(Post 10404560)
S-Works, post 1559:
Quote: His EASA medical had a no night flying restriction on it. What restriction was on his UK PPL and how would it have made the (hypothetical) night rating invalid. |
Originally Posted by EXDAC
(Post 10404793)
Ok, so back to my question which was "Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL. The argument put forward before was that he could not do so because he had no night rating on his base UK licence. Now you say he couldn't do it even with a UK night rating."
What restriction was on his UK PPL and how would it have made the (hypothetical) night rating invalid. In the case of this pilot his eyesight prevented him obtaining a UK night rating because he was colour blind. So he could not fly at night end of story. Other countries such as Australia do not allow their residents fly a home based N reg without changing it to a VH and complying with local licensing requirements.(As I know from importing a PA32 to Perth) The use of N reg aircraft in the UK has mushroomed in recent years because it is a cheaper less regulated and less scrutinised method of flying. |
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10404744)
There was a recent accident at Haydock Park that just luck on the day prevented fatalities.
|
Thank you, Mike, for your answer.
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10404744)
I doubt there was any “malicious intent” on the part of any of those who played a part in this tragedy. |
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10404744)
One has to ask the question how did that PA32 fly in to Haydock with passengers in poor weather to a grass strip which has no published approach plate?
|
Originally Posted by oggers
(Post 10404584)
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
Oggers, I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4)
Luc Lion Well, I am not sure why you are referring to that regulation. The airplane was not a Large or Multi-engine Turbine. Are you saying it was part of a 91-K fractional ownership program?Subpart F—Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft Sorry Oggers ; my mistake. I was looking for the regulation that construes FAR 91 flights organised and paid for by the operator and flown by a hired commercial pilot for the purpose of transporting the operator or his guests free of charge. Actually, FAR 91.501(b)(4) describes that for large aeroplanes while there is no equivalent for small aeroplanes and no need for this equivalent because it is authorised by the constitutional principle "what isn't explicitly forbidden is permissible". FAR 91.501(b)(4) is needed (beyond the constitutional principle) for authorising these operations on large aeroplanes because FAR 125.1 (Certification and Operations of "large" aeroplanes, Applicability) is stated in such a way that it applies by default when no other regulation supersedes it. |
"Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL. |
Originally Posted by runway30
(Post 10404733)
How are you going to establish the number of hours of illegal flying because nobody is going to admit to it? I’m sure we can recall accidents that many on here think were illegal but were never labelled as such. Unless I am oblivious to a heap more then either one must conclude it either doesn't happen or the CAA turn a blind eye? |
Originally Posted by eltonioni
(Post 10404855)
No one doesn't need to ask the question. Haydock is a nice little strip, about 800m from memory, with trees at either end but it's not difficult to get into. That aside, the PA32 was parked and minding its own business until a Beech Baron landed long and fast and skidded into it.
Does this look wet to you? https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5c1bae133.jpeg Anna Lisa Balding, wife of Here Comes When trainer Andrew, was on board the plane as it landed. She said: "Our pilot did an amazing job in really bad weather conditions. I don't know what happened, I am no pilot, But I know I saw my life slip away from me very quickly. But we are all alive, it was a bit scary. "I'm going to try and get home safely. I will be going in the lorry. But when you have a winner you don't mind how you get home." |
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
(Post 10404879)
How many accidents can you recall that would satisfy the terms of illegal "grey flying" which let me push you to suggest that were such flying to be illegal then given the duty of the CAA there would surely follow a prosecution. I can think of just 1, the recently prosecuted PA28 / Manchester pilot.
Unless I am oblivious to a heap more then either one must conclude it either doesn't happen or the CAA turn a blind eye? The difference in this case is the person who paid for the flight has made a very public statement pointing fingers. He is no stranger to litigation and has started to defend himself before even being accused of anything. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.