@ runway30

There's no way to "ban/regulate" these unfortunate happenings.

Two other things come to mind;
a) About 1200 build and about 250 went down.

b) These long span but short cord wings are very efficient at altitude but not so good for ice.
What was that other aircraft that had the exact same issues with long span and short cord wings constantly icing over? ? The ATR if my mind is not letting me down. Most where finally sold to warmer climates.

If there is something to look into, it is the icing certification.

I may not be up to date with the latest legislation but I thought with cost sharing the pilot had to pay at least 50% and there was a maximum all up weight permitted for such a flight. Perhaps someone will point us to the latest legislation?

Better regulation by the relevant aviation authority but this means more infrastructure and staff = extra money required although I agree it's difficult to police. That said I believe CAA issued a leaflet some years ago about this issue so the passengers were more informed.

Without prejudice to this accident I always say a good yardstick is how you'd feel about next of kin being a passenger on a flight. If my son had called me on the phone and asked for advice about a flight such as this I would strongly warn against and advise him to hotac and go with a well known budget airline to Bristol and get a cab to Cardiff.

Also on this type of flight there is usually the human factor element of the pilot being under pressure to complete the mission. Non aviators often do not understand that flights sometimes have to be cancelled due weather etc. It's best to explain right from the onset that it might not go ahead and ask the passenger(s) what their plan B is. This primes them up if you have to cancel on the day.

Search google for ORS4 No.1274. It won't let me post URLs.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. If you allow part-time pilots to take passengers into unfamiliar territory in unfamiliar conditions in the majority of these older a/c and add the element of time pressure and/or payment, then anyone on this board, PPL or CPL, who flies these genre of aircraft will know exactly what can happen.

If it was a Wingly transaction - quite possible but not confirmed, they have the following on their website:

EU safety regulations only permit cost-shared flights by private individuals, if the direct cost (i.e. cost directly incurred in relation to the flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft) are shared between all parties, including the pilot. Cost-shared flights shall not have an element of profit. If a flight is not a cost-shared flight in accordance with EU safety regulations, the flight will be qualified as a commercial flight and commercial air operation rules will apply.

The cost-shared flight will be conducted under the sole responsibility of the pilot under the applicable regulation for non-commercial flights with light aircraft by private pilots. It is also the pilot’s responsibility to ensure the flight is insured for flights with passengers. See the Insurance page: https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=...page=insurance

Bad weather conditions are a primary reason for accidents in non-commercial General Aviation flights with light aircraft. Weather conditions can change quickly, as a result the pilot may cancel the flight. Therefore, the day before the actual flight, the pilot should inform the passenger of the weather forecast regarding the feasibility of the flight. The presence of the passenger on the day of the flight and their expectations that it will take place, shall not make the pilot reluctant to cancel a flight.

I try to stick to the facts and can see this with an open mind and ask many questions, but we "forumgang" can not be the pilots Judge.
Facts are pretty well known by now. The front was predicted and actual.
Type of aircraft for this type of flight is problematic too. => See point "b" of previous post.
All the rest is paperweight for the courtroom.

Of course Wingly is based on EU oversight and this was an FAA, US-registered aircraft operating in EU airspace

"Carrying responsibility" ¿ Or not ?
 

Which brings me, at least, back to my previous post re Cork accident.

There was an extremely long drawn out and meticulous investigation there.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet borne any legal responsibility whatsoever for a case which involved a regular scheduled flight, flown by an EU carrier (well "sort of") between 2 member states without any of the more obvious elements of danger which have been highlighted here.

Is there any reason, a priori, to think that this case will be different.

Oh my goodness. Was there ever such few words that have run through the minds of a pilot as they wished they were 'down there' rather than 'up here'?

I have a feeling that "cost sharing" on the road in that way might be frowned upon by the authorities.

Spec for aircraft says it had no ADS-B, no suprise for that

The issue of Wingly was covered in an earlier thread under 'Instructors and Examiners'

As Whopity stated:

The following statement is from the CAA's website and authored by Tony Rapson Head of GAD
Quote:
Opportunities for UK private pilots to clock-up more flying time have greatly increased with the emergence over the last few years of online services such as Wingly and Coavmi. For a fee, these companies offer to connect general aviation pilots with passengers who are willing to share the costs of a recreational flight - fuel, landing fees etc. Until recently, pilots could only share those costs with friends or fellow flying club members, who all had to chip in.
I have an email from Dianne Park at the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept in which she states that Wingly is perfectly legal.

Other countries like France have applied a bit more common sense than the UK CAA and specified pilot experience requirements for such flights.

Whopity goes on the state that the contribution from the pilot need only be one pence.

Like Fireflybob, I had originally thought that it was cost sharing equally divided (1/2. 1/3, 1/4) until corrected by Whopity, who seems to be credible source over the years on PPRUNE.

Where did you get the idea that they had no ModeC on this aircraft?

Someone mentioned earlier that he was on an IFR plan.
What height would they allow him down to around there whilst remaining IFR? I was just there yesterday but can't say I looked at that information other than MSA at EGJB was around 1500' in the North and West.
The ILS into EGJB starts at 2000' and he wasn't far from the IAF. Around 15nm or so from EGJB.
Surely he wasn't planning to cross the Channel at MSA?

I think the discussion with ATC about the decent will shed a lot of light on this. The guys are usually really good and would potentially query the choice as it's odd.

If he was VFR.... My law knowledge regarding single engine ops is a bit patchy, but I believe there is no commercial vfr night ops for single engine piston. However, do these rules apply to N registered aircraft?

It's upsetting to think that I was sitting down to enjoy a nice meal, with a brand new light business jet sitting on the apron, while this was all unfolding for him.
A few thousand more £ and he'd be training with his mates in Cardiff right now. Footballers are regular customers of mine.
We were certainly available at the time.

If the agent organised this for him, he needs to be strung up.
​​​​​​

​​​​

And if the Agent does indeed own the aircraft as reported then I suspect that is exactly what happened. A private flight and poor Sala had no idea about the risk he was taking in accepting the "kind" offer from someone he knew.

I should think losing a £15m premiership footballer like this would be concentrating his mind somewhat

That's always the kneejerk response. Something bad happens, jobsworths and armchair experts fall over each other looking for things to ban, regulate, and bury in paperwork.

Situation (we think): Complacent pilot makes bad decisions, drives plane into water. That's his responsibility, and he's had the ultimate punishment for it.
Problem: He had someone innocent with him that did not know the risks.
Solution: Tell people what the risks are.

The fact that this is all over every newspaper and website is a good start! What a lesson. Everyone in the country knows not to take a SEP over the Channel in bad weather in winter. Even the decorator who's painting my walls just now brought it up today.

If there was going to be any regulation, how about this. Any private pilot taking a passenger must email them a list of all the ways this flight is more dangerous than a commercial jet, together with a photo and summary of a related accident.

eg:
This aircraft does not have anti-icing equipment.
This aircraft does not have TAWS. TAWS warns the pilot when the aircraft is too close to the ground.
This aircraft does not have TCAS. TCAS is a collision avoidance system.
Your pilot is not IFR qualified. This means he/she can only fly where they have a clear view ahead and of the ground. Flight through clouds is prohibited.

...etc. And if the passenger still wants to go ahead, that's their risk.

Daily Mail Report

I note that according to this report the pilot is 60. Whilst I have nothing against older pilots per se and notwithstanding that this might have been a "private" flight I believe the maximum age for single crew commercial operations under EASA is 60 years.

Can't post a link but it appears the pilot posted a video on YouTube in 2017 relating to Skydive Jersey. Search on "Dave Ibbotson". Of course, it could be a different Dave Ibbotson but the association with sky diving would be a bit of a coincidence.

If true it may be an indication that he was at least familiar with flying in the CI area.

Edit: as this is my 10th post I can now post the link -

I used to warn my prospective passengers with the adage "time to spare, go by air"

... and a class one medical and ECG every six months!

The worst fright I ever had was in my Arrow 1 into Birmingham. Forecast FL was about 3000ft and I had enjoyed the sunshine in the airway at FL070 for the previous hour before being cleared to descend, entering cloud at about 5000ft. I knew there were no obstacles in the warm air below but I couldn't believe the rate of ice buildup -- the temp probe atop the windscreen became fist-size in less than a minute, prop ice caused so much vibration that I throttled back in case the airframe was shaken to bits, I fancied the controls were getting sloppy. ATC was brilliant, clearing me immediately to 2000ft and warning other aircraft in the TMA. The ice cleared in seconds from 3000ft but when I returned to the aircraft seven hours later there was still a chunk of ice in the air intake. Never again. I can only imagine the terror of those two people in the Malibu that night.
Many years ago there used to be numerous illegal charters to the Isle of Man at TT time. I watched as one PPL dashed out to his Cherokee and took off VFR to retrieve the punters he had taken across earlier that week. Mist/low cloud was covering the south of the island and he flew into rising ground north of Chicken Rock/IOM VOR. Some thought he had mixed up his radials, some thought he had tried to use the offset VOR, I thought thank goodness he killed himself on his way to pick up the passengers rather than on the way there. I fear this Wingly thing is a disaster waiting to happen even without the perils of icing in a piston single -- or even a light twin -- or even a very heavy twin, for I recall a ice-related fatal in the Spanish mountains which claimed one of the finest pilots who ever gave me an aerobatic lesson.

That would be me (yes, I have taught sea survival and sold life insurance, and plenty of other stuff too).

since I have no wish to propagate erroneous information, let me quickly clarify...then hopefully, discussion can return to operational flight safety matters, of which there seem to be plenty!

All other things being equal and normal (I obviously have no idea if this is the case)...

IF the pilot had normal life insurance taken out in the UK, he would have declared his regular flying activity and his premium would have been loaded accordingly.

IF the passenger had normal life insurance taken out in Europe or the UK, he would be covered for this accident, unless there was a clear stipulation in his policy that this type of flying (as an occasional passenger) was specifically excluded. All excluded activities, whatever they are, must be so stipulated in plain English, normal size font, in the policy document (these days an easy to read booklet) which together with the full document chain (quotes, statement of particulars, all questions and answers, Key Facts Illustration, Key Features, Demands and Needs Statement, et al) form the binding contract between Insurer and Insured and are subject to huge oversight and compliance.

Phew...lets move on...especially as none of us know the particulars of all the insurance policies that may or may not be in place and frankly there are somewhat more pertinent flight safety matter to discuss as articulated by several posters previously.

Perhaps, not surprisingly given our backgrounds, ArkRoyal has pretty much summed up where I am at right now. I'm also a Dad, so can only imagine the pain this chaps old man will be going through. It is heartbreaking.

But I have a sense (and this in not going to be popular here) that this event, coupled with a few others in progress just now, here and abroad, are going to a throw a much-needed spotlight into the world of GA.

As many on here know - there are many "interesting" N REG operations in the UK with interesting licensing and indeed interesting maintenance/spares provision. The problem is NO OVERSIGHT therefore more people are doing it.

Jumping in:
Maybe they were flying over 5000ft (I think that the minimum IFR altitude for this route would be 6000ft, correct me if mistaken) and the pilot, noticing a problem, contacted ATC for 2300ft to reach the closest IAF available from Alderney airport (2000ft min requested for these IAFs).

Absolutely disagree.

As far as we know...

Single pilot...single engine piston ...Ice conditions.

It's very clear to me(as far as we know ) that the pilot did not wanted to tell a "soccer star" or his staff a simply "no..we can go in this conditions''
He was a skydiver pilot as i am. One thing is to flight around the airport under VMC conditions other is crusing at night..ice conditions with a important person on board.
Takeoff it's not mandatory..landing it's.

Off course all of this based on guessing.

Developments are getting me, as others here, increasing angry.
This accident is looking less like the unfortunate lining up of holes in the Swiss cheese and more like the deliberate exploitation of loopholes and blurring of interpretation of regulations.
Either way - a thorough investgation in to how this flight was allowed to be conducted must be rigorously scrutinised and the findings acted upon, with appropriate legislation in a most timely manner.

The AAIB has issued this statement today:-"

Quote from The Times.
I'm not getting this.

I thought a CPL and AOC are among the requirements to charter.
I also thought that N reg could not charter here. Surely an N reg can't be on a UK AOC without special dispensation. How do you square that with the CAA's statement above? Where are they coming from?
If this goon had a UK, even a US PPL he had no right being involved in a charter.
He apparently had no IR so even if he had a CPL he'd be illegal on htis route at night and IMC?
He was in an N reg aeroplane in the first place.

How can legal charter come out of this?

Or is the CAA weaselling words to avoid answering the question?