PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Accidents and Close Calls (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls-139/)
-   -   Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/617514-cardiff-city-footballer-feared-missing-after-aircraft-disappeared-near-channel-island.html)

Mike Flynn 3rd Feb 2019 09:10


Originally Posted by rog747 (Post 10378844)
I just don't get it...Apart from the tragedy of it all,

Single-engine (piston, I gather?) day VFR flight plan in deepest winter on a mucky day with a pretty dire forecast setting off at dusk across lots of open sea with a night landing into an International airport.

The PIC has been reported allegedly not to be licensed nor have the training to have operated like this, even flying solo, let alone couple that carrying a very VIP high profile client basically paying someone for a ticket to fly.

A couple of winters ago near me here in the West Country on a completely foul weather day a family of 4 were killed near Dunkeswell in a Malibu N regn.
The weather was so bad and clagged that morning I cannot fathom why the chap took off with his wife and kids from Surrey to attempt the flight across country - even EXT airport was IMC that morning. The pilot was IMC rated

All of these accidents have one thing in common.

The pilot was determined to get to the destination.


rog747 3rd Feb 2019 09:19


Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10378867)


All of these accidents have one thing in common.

The pilot was determined to get to the destination.





Indeed - something perhaps we will never understand what goes on in the mind set to want this.

I live in rural West Dorset, quite high up - the other night at a local village about 10 miles or so West from me down little country lanes and the exposed coast road we have an awesome curry van cooking food to order for take away collection.
Heavy snow was forecast at the very time (early evening) the van was due - did I set off in the car thinking I would get there and back ?
No of course not despite the hunger and attraction of a fabulous dinner waiting that I had pre-ordered.

The next morning Dorset Police reported several RTA's and abandoned cars in snow drifts on the very route I was due to take.

POBJOY 3rd Feb 2019 09:35

WHY AN AOC
 
The whole point of an AOC is that several people are accountable for the safe operation of the travelling public/customer.
That is why they exist. They are expensive to operate and entail much effort to obtain, but at least gives several layers of protection to the public who may not realise that this is needed.
In practice the buck stops with the pilot, but we all know there is always someone who will fly even if it means leaving their comfort zone.
Because this is a high profile case (like the Shoreham accident) I suspect the resultant investigations will reach into many levels of aviation and come back to affect even simple 'club' flying.

jumpseater 3rd Feb 2019 10:27


Originally Posted by Pittsextra (Post 10378737)
and when all said and done, as much as we can spin our wheels for months, just how do you capture that pilot who will push on? An AOC won't do it, good stick and rudder skills won't do it, ATPL, CPL, IR and ratings to the ying yangs won't do it.
(SNIP)
Being wise after the fact isn't very helpful and what is perhaps more helpful are checks, balances and control ahead of time especially as it relates to flights where considerable pressure can be brought to bear. If we can find so many examples within days and weeks of these accidents it should not have been too difficult to find it beforehand. That nothing was done should be the important question as, if nothing else, taking action against a dead man is rather unproductive.

If as you suggest an AOC won’t prevent it, first para, what checks, balances and controls do you suggest? An AOC provides some top cover if adhered to for the operator or crew to cancel a trip. A PPL has none apart from the discipline of operating within the privileges of their license.

Your checks and balances in this event event should have been, licensed, proficiency, aircraft serviceability, airfield & navaid serviceability and weather as the basics. Surely that’s what’s required to make the go/no go decision? Access to all of those were available to the pilot and he decided to fly, why? Playing devils advocate, even if some of those basics listed above weren’t available, and a pilot still decided to fly, why?
What further checks and balances are you suggesting will have a meaningful impact, i.e. a ‘no fly’ decision, and who’s going to administer and pay for them?

established28 3rd Feb 2019 10:40

Get-there-itis
 
That’s right, get-there-itis is a major issue here. The FAA have a few questions regarding that in their ATP syllabus. However DI was flying on an FAA 61.75 licence issued on the basis of a U.K. PPL so is unlikely to have had any FAA flight training.




Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10378867)


All of these accidents have one thing in common.

The pilot was determined to get to the destination.



CBSITCB 3rd Feb 2019 12:06


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10378837)
...basic Mode S only gives you surveillance ID (squawk) and altitude (DF5 and DF4, respectively). So, yes, you can calculate RoD, but the download data contains no velocity information so I don't see how it's possible to derive GS.

Internal signal processing in a radar receiver is very sophisticated. As well as track/position information sent from the aircraft (if any) the receiver can determine (calculate) similar information from analysis of the RF signal itself.

By way of illustration we can look at a couple of the fields in the ASTERIX radar data exchange format. This is the format used for radar data throughout Europe and beyond. Verbatim extracts from the standards document:

Data Item I001/120, Measured Radial Doppler Speed
Radial component of the ground speed as measured by means of Doppler filter banks in radar signal processors.

Data Item I001/200, Calculated Track Velocity in Polar Coordinates
Calculated track velocity expressed in polar coordinates. Two components: CALCULATED GROUNDSPEED and CALCULATED HEADING.


So even with plain vanilla Mode C calculated track information may be available depending on the capabilities of the individual radar equipments.

oggers 3rd Feb 2019 12:06


(2) Dave Ibbotson was offered a weekend away in Nantes with all expenses paid if he flew N264DB there & back ( Having your HOTAC paid isn't renumeration, it is an essential need whilst away from home ) Having food & drink purchased for you isn't renumeration either.
Truthseeker; the word is remuneration. The aircraft being N reg, the FAA rules are strictly pro rata share of direct operating costs; fuel, oil, rental fees and airport fees (and in Europe, ATC fees but they are not a thing for private flights in the US). "Having your HOTAC paid and food and drink purchased" are definitely not allowed by the FAA for a private pilot.

TRUTHSEEKER1 3rd Feb 2019 12:28


Originally Posted by Sir Niall Dementia (Post 10378688)
Thruthseeker;

You are right in a lot of areas.

I was 15 when Neil Williams died, he and my grandfather were well acquainted, Gramps always reckoned Neil was an outstanding pilot and good bloke with a poor grasp of risk. They had both been through ETPS at different times, and from what I saw regularly argued about pushing limits, but even Gramps was very shocked by what happened. As you say, accidents happen, I've had one, fortunately caused by multiple mechanical failures.

Go back through this thread. Look at "common purpose", There was no "common purpose"

This was an N registered aircraft, it should not have been doing what it was doing and DI should not have been flying it on that task or in those conditions. If there was no reward there was no pressure to fly outside his qualifications and ability, because if there was no reward it was being flown for pleasure and experience, therefore no pressure to get to Cardiff that night at all.

And it may not be the paperwork that makes the person, BUT the paperwork can at least help protect the innocent, and the AOC training standards are laid down, you either meet them or you fail.

Two men have died utterly unnecessarily, two families are suffering as a result, but the final decision to fly always rests with the pilot, be he 100 hr ppl or 20 000hr ATPL TRE/IRE, and taking off knowing that the weather is beyond your limits, or you are out of currency, or you are unfamiliar with the aircraft, or you're being pressured because its not a jolly, but a planned, paid charter is not accidental, it is a decision not taken lightly, but usually with due consideration. When that decision is made it is not an accident, it may have been pressured, but it is still the decision of the pilot in command, and his ultimate responsibility. DI will have known the status of his qualifications, and recency, he posted about it on facebook, he will have known how happy he was in the aircraft and how confident he was with it. No matter what threats, cajoling, or promises came from either the McKays or D Henderson he could have said no.

SND

Now, I am worried because I am the same age as you. As a daft 14yr (nearly 15) I had the privilege to fly with Neil Williams a couple of times in a Twin Turboprop & a Biplane. I am only worried that someone my age uses the moniker 'SND'

I am not sure Common Purpose comes into play if DI wasn't being paid? surely it is ' just a jolly ' if someone agrees to fly an aeroplane & a passenger gets onboard?
Now, whilst I agree that if the flight falls into the ' Jolly ' category it should be the pilot in command's decision as to whether he fly's or not? ( in a perfect world that happens, but in the real world other factors come into play. )
I have in my early flying years used the " Do you fancy a weekend in 'XYZ' ? " line myself with the intent on being back by Sunday evening or even stretched it to the early doors on the Monday, if the weather turns out different to what was forecast I have been pressured by having a buddy along who needs to be back for work on the Monday to push it and depart to get them home so they don't get fired by their bosses. ( Get-homeitis has bitten quite a few ).

An AOC is granted to a company so there are strict regulations on the company attached to the AOC, the company has a duty of care to ensure their pilots are of a certain standard, some excel in finding pilots of that calibre & some settle for a lesser standard than is really needed. Yes having an AOC to fall back will be a bonus but it doesn't mean all the pilots are actually safer than the non AOC pilot who has a multitude of hours.

I agree 2 persons have died in a very sad & avoidable accident, I still maintain that DI didn't go into this with a deathwish, he undoubtably went into this under immense pressure to get Sala to Cardiff & I am sure he really did believe both sectors were to be flown within daylight hours, the fatal mistake on his behalf was to accept to fly in worsening conditions at night.

Dave Ibbotson's qualifications at the time of the accident were as below, which does show he was daylight only cleared..... Dave Henderson would I imagine have been aware of this so it would be illegal to ask as the organiser of the flight for a Daytime only pilot to fly at night, I suspect that the Night Flight part was sprung on him while he was in Nantes which then changed the gameplan somewhat !!! Supposition is that DI wouldn't have wanted to fly back at night & probably voiced that opinion to the organisers, I can only surmise that because DI was cashstrapped he was unable to ditch the trip & buy an Air ticket home, I wouldn't be surprised if the organisers said " Your only way home is sitting on the apron at Nantes, get onboard & get our client here "

All supposition but highly likely to be the way things went.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....82e720e7d0.jpg

established28 3rd Feb 2019 12:46

Holding Out
 
The FAA term from memory is ‘Holding Out’ and I recall reading that the FAA won it’s case against a flight sharing website in 2017. This FAA term is unlikely to have been known by a 61.57 issued FAA PPL, who wouldn’t have had any written exams or alternative tuition apart from what was learned for their U.K. PPL

Sark 3rd Feb 2019 12:55

I know it probably wouldn’t have made a difference but the concentrated area of search today is further west and north than that being searched, certainly by sea, in the immediate hours after the accident.

Any thoughts

Mike Flynn 3rd Feb 2019 13:01

In my opinion the autopilot not the pilot was flying up until the icing overcame it and disengaged.

If they find the wreckage I suspect it will display evidence of a classic stall spin accident.

He had a great opportunity to divert in to Guernsey for the night, citing weather problems ,and still get the player back by mid morning the next day.


ATC Watcher 3rd Feb 2019 13:08


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10378837)
I'm still struggling to understand how that can be so. Can you explain further ?

I don't see how it's possible to derive GS.

.

You do not need Mode S to get GS . Any radar can give you GS, if you know the Rotation RPM of the antenna , the distance covered between 2 update and bingo : GS. I a multi radar environment , the GS is very accurate. It is often displayed on the labels of ATC radar displays .
What Mode S gives you is 25ft vertical increments ( i.s.o 100 with mode C ) , with that info you can calculate pretty accurately the ROD , and notice any change . i.e. if decreasing/ increasing or steady . When you lose returns close to the ground (or in our case sea, which is typically around or below 1000ft,) If you put that info with GS you can extrapolate when the line will hit the sea..
.

No doubt that's true, but the estimate of final position could well have come from primary radar (possibly military?), rather than SSR.
Absolutely. I am pretty sure the BEA looked at a few PRI recordings to see if they match . But Primary will not give you any altitude nor Rate of descent info, and the primary returns will also stop at a certain point , generally above 1000 ft due garbling , and where the antenna is located , ( i.e. how far /how close away it is , obstacles, earth curvature , etc.. ) but with PRI you have no idea if the aircraft was descending at 200ft a min or 2000/ft/min or was just leveling off at 1000 ..., Mode S will give you that valuable info.

Good Business Sense 3rd Feb 2019 13:10


Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10379041)
In my opinion the autopilot not the pilot was flying up until the icing overcame it and disengaged.

If they find the wreckage I suspect it will display evidence of a classic stall spin accident.

He had a great opportunity to divert in to Guernsey for the night, citing weather problems ,and still get the player back by mid morning the next day.


In normal circumstances a Pilot with a problem will seek help - I guess when you are breaking laws you press on and keep it to yourself hoping things will improve - seeking help can mean drawing a great deal of attention to yourself perhaps followed by a great deal of paperwork.

Mike Flynn 3rd Feb 2019 13:30

I think that it depends on your mindset.
I doubt anyone would question his reason for diverting and closing the flight plan.

Over more than three decades I have turned back or refused to go many times.

I was once weathered in at New Orleans for a week. Worse places to be stuck.

Which is not a problem if you own the aeroplane and the time.

Others are more self confident.

Hence the saying old pilots and bold pilots.

We can go right back to Buddy Holly on this accident.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Music_Died

The official investigation was carried out by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB, precursor to the NTSB). It emerged that Peterson had over four years of flying experience, of which one was with Dwyer Flying Service, and had accumulated 711 flying hours, of which 128 were on Bonanzas. He had also logged 52 hours of instrument flight training, although he had passed only his written examination, and was not yet qualified to operate in weather that required flying solely by reference to instruments. He and Dwyer Flying Service itself were certified to operate only under visual flight rules, which essentially require that the pilot must be able to see where he is going. However, on the night of the accident, visual flight would have been virtually impossible due to the low clouds, the lack of a visible horizon, and the absence of ground lights over the sparsely populated area.[7] Furthermore, Peterson, who had failed an instrument checkride nine months before the accident, had received his instrument training on airplanes equipped with a conventional artificial horizon as a source of aircraft attitude information, while N3794N was equipped with an older-type Sperry F3 attitude gyroscope. Crucially, the two types of instruments display the same aircraft pitch attitudeinformation in graphically opposite ways.[[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed]citation needed]

The CAB concluded that the accident was due to "the pilot's unwise decision" to embark on a flight that required instrument flying skills he had not proved to have. A contributing factor was Peterson's unfamiliarity with the old-style attitude gyroscope fitted on board the aircraft, which may have caused him to believe that he was climbing when he was in fact descending (an example of spatial disorientation). Another contributing factor was the "seriously inadequate" weather briefing provided to Peterson, which "failed to even mention adverse flying condition which should have been highlighted".[7]
[25]



DaveReidUK 3rd Feb 2019 13:30


Originally Posted by ATC Watcher (Post 10379042)
You do not need Mode S to get GS. Any radar can give you GS, if you know the Rotation RPM of the antenna, the distance covered between 2 update and bingo: GS. In a multi radar environment, the GS is very accurate. It is often displayed on the labels of ATC radar displays.

Ah, I'm with you now. I misinterpreted your post as meaning that it was Mode S that the GS was derived from.

Yes, I understand how GS can be derived from successive radar plots (or of course extracted direct from EHS or ADS-B transmissions from aircraft thus equipped).

Daysleeper 3rd Feb 2019 13:56


Originally Posted by Sark (Post 10379036)
I know it probably wouldn’t have made a difference but the concentrated area of search today is further west and north than that being searched, certainly by sea, in the immediate hours after the accident.

Any thoughts

Looks like it’s international waters...

Sallyann1234 3rd Feb 2019 13:58

Calculation of the impact point is one thing, but there are very strong tides in that area.

If the aircraft broke up on impact the component parts are not going to be found just below the impact point. After several days of tides the wreckage will be spread over a wide area.

EXDAC 3rd Feb 2019 14:15

FAA night qualification
 

Originally Posted by malabo (Post 10378685)
Easy enough to look up Ibbotson's FAA license in the FAA directory. PPL SEL, issued on the basis of his UK license in 2014 (and doesn't say if the UK license was PPL, CPL or ATPL). No ratings, so yes, single-engine day VFR is all he was licensed to do with an "N" registered aircraft on his FAA license.

There is no FAA night rating. Anyone with an unrestricted PPL is qualified to fly at night and, if night current, to carry passengers at night. Night training is required to qualify for issue of an FAA PPL.

I'm not commenting on the legality of the accident flight, only on the expressed belief that the holder of an FAA PPL with no ratings is not qualified to fly at night.

established28 3rd Feb 2019 14:17

FAA 61.75
 
Perhaps there should be greater oversight of FAA 61.75 licences issued on the basis of U.K. PPL’s. They contribute to an apparent lack of knowledge of FAA regulations as no FAA testing is required for their issue. A quick check of FAA regulations and one would know that this flight should have never been undertaken. ‘Holding Out’ has already led to the shutdown of a flight cost sharing website in the US, and yet over here EASA lets it happen

CBSITCB 3rd Feb 2019 14:34


Originally Posted by ATC Watcher (Post 10379042)
But Primary will not give you any altitude nor Rate of descent info, and the primary returns will also stop at a certain point , generally above 1000 ft due garbling , and where the antenna is located.

You talk a lot of sense, but permit me to correct a couple of specific points.

"Garbling" is strictly a secondary radar phenomenon - nothing to do with primary radar. It is where two separate SSR return pulse trains (from different aircraft) overlap at the receiver and hence interfere with one-another.

Also, primary radar base of cover is a lot less than 1,000'. Typically out to 50 or 60 miles it is actually below ground level, hence the ground clutter that is removed by processing (e.g. STC, MTI). See the typical primary radar vertical polar diagram below.

Of course, the actual surface conditions close to the radar will influence this, as you rightly say, but not as much so as to give a 1,000' base of cover.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....96a49459d0.png


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:18.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.